my biggest struggle with bombers vs ground-arty is that aircraft cant sustain, which compounds the fact that the BP table never goes better than 4+/5+
yes, they have some strengths over groundbased, but they have some weaknesses too. enough, in my mind, to push them fairly solidly over into the "ground-arty is better" column. which is a pity, cause i am hoping to have aircraft be a viable strength of my Bloody Hand list...

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

For an experimental list such as the Bloody Hand, simply price them cheaper as part of the experimental nature of the list.

Playtesting will then let people take the idea for a spin.

I wish there were more heavy/strategic bombers available. The Marauder is technically a medium bomber, comperable to today's F-15E Strike Eagle or a Tornado. A B-52 analogue might make the bomber option more viable.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Rug:- two points well made; I have to agree that TBolts are a "no-brainer" and could therefore be slightly more expensive (175-200), while Marauders could be cheaper - tho 225 might be a bit too far. I would also suggest that two formations of each (rather than three TBolts) would probably provide a good balance of offensive and supprt air-power.

Jaggedtoothgrin: You make the point well that Artillery tend to strike better than bombers; this is why they are not generally as usefull in artillery heavy lists (like IG), and why they complement lists lacking in artillery (like BL). In your list for the Bloody hand, because you proivide reasonably good artillery in the Usurper (Basilisk) detachment, the Helltalon FBs will always struggle to compete and is effectively the TBolt of this army.

Your stats for the Harbinger are a bit OTT and should be toned down in line with the general abilities for air-power. I suspect you have adopted these stats to try to compete with the artillery and make it more desirable - then jacked up the price to justify them. If you want to see more airpower used in your list, like Chroma I would recommend both reducing the power and cost of the Harbinger and removing the Usurper in favour of a 45cm artillery unit.

However, you should note that balancing the air-game in Epic is notoriously difficult, so when in doubt, err on the side of 'weakness'. It is usually reasonably easy to counter or destroy AA capable units and formations, leaving the side with air-superiority with a significant advantage. (SG - this is precisely why strategic bombing formations are not generally available because they cannot be countered, and anyway are more like Spacecraft)

I believe that the stats are standard as per the BL list. If we are looking at the same document and I am correct, the Harbinger is not OTT by any means. For it's points cost and the inability to take objectives, it is a discussion point even at 400 points IMO.

Personally, if you want an strong air game, I would say play an air force battles game - much like titans, there are better rules to represent titan battles.

Air craft rules for Epic are bearable at best. I would not really want to see them strengthened or expanded at all. The recent clarrification to the 'umbrella effect' of aircraft AA was enough of a boost to potentially change our meta game at least.

No-one appears to think Bombers are good until they are used against them. CAP is essentially the issue here. Having all Bombers with extended AA @ 360 degree range could be an answer to the whole CAP vs CAP debate. It would certainly make them more viable against their counterparts.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

yeah, FB is almost right. the harby stats are based pretty directly on what came before from the other lists i pillaged to start(BL/crimson bondsmen/and i think a nurgle list)
the only change i made was giving it an invun save (because between it 5+RA and autodie crit, it was not really living long enough to find out what its bombs where like)
and of course, after a few tests, dropping the price down to a level where i hope it can maybe compete (it started at the current stats, no invun, and 500pt!)

honestly, even now i dont think the stats are OTT (or even particularly good) but i havent really got to put it through its paces. it performed OK during the last test, but i was facing a virtually AA-less opposition and i got lucky. i am also still pretty sure if i'd spent those points on the other options they would have done better.

i still find it pretty much impossible to justify (mechanically atleast) versus either usurpers or even more helltalons, who suffer the same problems but are more diversely capable (2 helltalon formations are better at almost every possible thing than 1 harbinger, except for surviving incoming fire, which the harby comes slightly ahead on.) twice as many templates, 2 activations, more secondary and AA weapons. even at 400 points it seems to be struggling.

part of the problem with a super-bomber is that it compounds the problems of the BP table (you can whack as many BP on it as you want, ground based arty will always outshoot it) but also because it acts sort of like a titan, except that it cant contribute to firefights, cant take objectives (or guard blitzes) and is more vulnerable to dying (and as an aircraft, you simply cannot afford to have it be your BTS) which are basically all titans are for. they rarely ever make their points back in kills, and aircraft cannot do any of the other thing. so it needs to be more killy to make up the difference, which it cant do cleanly, because the BP table wont let it. (and putting MW/TK/Disrupt etc is a whole different kettle of fish)
so that leaves options of "make everything else less good to make a better deal by comparison" thing (ie: bombers are OK in lists where no better arty is available, and not when there is) which isnt really a solution either...

i suspect its going to always be a tricky thing to balance out. it would really be easier if there was a way to sustain with aircraft. to bring both types of firepower into the same ballpark. it'd make the maths and comparisons easier atleast. maybe if you had to move in a direct line, no turns (so an assured +1BM for exiting via an enemy controlled edge) and/or some sort of reverse-jinking option. reduced armour save in exchange for more firepower. making them more vulnerable to interception but better able to compete with ground artillery. alternately, maybe if sustaining with arty allowed you to use indirect fire OR get the +1, not both...

guess i'll need to try out this "umbrella" flak interpretation of the rules, see if that helps (although i still think thats pretty dodgy and not in the right spirit)
or, i could just accept that aircraft will always be a sticky problem, take it because its cool looking, and play Aeronautica Imperialis when i want to bomb stuff ~_~

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

OK. Well that changes things. If you change an item, you really should rename it. Changing things without a discussion is not a good thing.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Jaggedtoothgrin, the draft Net-EA stats do not give the Harbinger RA or INV, and cost it at 450pts; and personally I think a 6BP air weapon to be OTT.
However, as you say, all lists tend to make formations of the HellTalon** and even HellBlade** almost as good as the Harbinger, and it will always struggle to make it's points, not least because it only has one role.

As you rightly point out, increasing the BPs of a formation tends to spread the attack rather than increasing it's power. Also, although the Tau AX-0-1-0 Tigershark uses MW/TK weaponry, people have generally voiced the same disappointment over it's expected performance, which is even more niche orientated.

Ultimately, as I said earlier, balancing the air-game in Epic is notoriously difficult, especially with respect to people's expectations, because of the tendency towards binary results (which can be spectacularly good or more usually spectacularly bad) rather than consistently average, and this is usually due to the amount of AA in the game and how it is used or countered. Even if we were able to create the best air rules, unopposed air-superiority can significantly unbalance the game very easily, and thus IMHO E:A is better where the air-game is limited to the point where it influences the game rather than dominating it***. Unfortunately that tends to preclude the use of the 'super-bomber' or strategic bombing because it tends to make the game too one-sided.

**Note there are discrepancies between the draft NET-EA and the UK lists in the costs of the two formations

***An example of this is the notorious '5 aces' where the Tau were able to field 5x AX-0-1-0 formations for 875pts.
Turn #1 they invariably broke/destroyed all ground AA formations. Turns #2 and #3 with unopposed air-power, the Tau were then able to concentrate the five ground-assaults to best effect, using other ground formations to mop up any survivors.

This was due to very good, long-ranged firepower and 4+ armour (which might even have been RA) on sub 200pts formations that provided the number of formations.

Trying to fit true strategic bombing into what is a game of maneuver warfare is probably not a good idea in reality. Fit it into your campaign rules if you like, but not the core game.

*shrug*

I'd be happy to be the only person to bring Marauders to a few tournaments next year and "demonstrate" how they need a boost or a points drop... but then, I did that with Hellhounds and Griffons one year, and noone cared about that then either.

From chatting with Mephiston at the GT, he thinks that "they're crap and that's okay", to paraphrase him, so I'm unconvinced of my ability to convince at least one of the EUK committee about the need for change.

And outside of tourneys, I can use the NetEA stats, or the War Engine stats (which are actually very decent because you get 1 plane with a 5+ save, 2DC, with 3BP for 150pts).


Kinda true, except that range isn't unlimited because the bombers have to be 15cm from the target.

That puts them at huge risk from enemy AA almost every time they activate, unlike most artillery, and it only takes 2 AA hits to get your first statistical kill, meaning that you'll then be activating the following turn on a 4+ at best (Realistically, 5+), again unlike artillery which can't be modified by more than -1 for BM's...

...and if you do activate, you're down to 2BP, which is quite poor (You'll get around 1 hit per attack run from your barrage because you'll hit vehicles on 6's and infantry on 5's (Really 6's because who doesn't put infantry in cover?) ).

They're also at great risk from fighters, and since everyone takes fighters, Marauders will generally die after their first attack run unless massively screened by your own AA.
That also means that again you can't use them like artillery and hit your opponent's backfield, as they'll be out of your "bubble", where they will quickly die.

Also, as to being the cheapest 4BP in the game, Ulani can get 3BP for 100pts with Griffons, which is just great by comparison (Crap as an upgrade, of course, but great as a formation).


If all you want to do is lay a BM, there are much easier ways to do it that don't involve wasting 90% of a shooting-type formation's firepower potential...


So you do agree that the EpicUK ones aren't worth 250pts after all, ho ho.

Then I guess we agree, one way or another?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And it's worth mentioning how in the Marine list, Marauders compare very poorly with Thunderhawks, which for less cost can lay down pretty equivilent AP firepower (5x 4+ attacks), lay BM's at 75cm instead of 45cm, and take 4 hits to do 1 pip of damage instead of 2 hits. Oh and they activate on a 1+ too, and that's not even getting into their transport capacity or firefight ability... Marauders are downright shoddy compared to that, which is why the War Engine Marauder worked out pretty balanced at 150pts...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It should have a AR5+ with RA. If it does not then I believe that is an error.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Note with the Epic UK Air Cavalry list, you can occasionally protect your bombers (and let's face it, the Destroyers are an asset worth protecting) by using a pre-bombing Lightning run. The Lightnings have forward arc AA fire out to 45cm, so you can arrange the Marauders to fall within this protective umbrella. Careful use of the table edges can also restrict enemy fighter access from one side, whilst extending protection on the other side. When faced with an enemy cap formation, if the lightnings ground attack first, an enemy will often defer activating the cap to wait for the bombers. When the bombers arrive, the cap suddenly realises they're going to have to dodge the Lightning flak before getting a shot at their primary target.

Skullric

Um... as far as I read the rules (EpicA UK revised rules this is), aircraft AA weapons aren't passive like ground AA units. So this won't work. (also, if the plane jinked would it lose it's passive AA?).

Bombers having fixed arc AA weapons is another thing that makes them die more easily.
The idea of a single WE bomber might have been a very different path to go down, but oh well.


I think the problem was summed up best as the fact that bombers (and to some degree, aircraft in general) are too binary, so for competitive play (returning to the original theme of this thread) they're just too unreliable (unknown opponent, AA cover, air strength) compared to other options in the army lists. Which is a shame.