Oh, I should also mention that the Colossus suffered a single hit from a Flak Wagon on the disengage, failed it's save, was Criticaled, and fell out of the sky.

_________________
SG

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

This is now just using the pie-plate for the sake of it, just to be different.

It's supposed to be a big bomb, so what's wrong with just using a higher BP and the normal template, like everything else does?

Something like:

15cm 8BP Fixed Forward

It would still be a huge threat, but playing within the rules.

Because it s a large, single warhead weapon, and there is no reason to believe it would have a non-spherical area of effect.

An 8BP barrage would have the effect of carpet bombing, not a daisy-cutter/MOAB style weapon. If you think that 3BP, IC is more of a appropriate, there's certainly room to do so, upping the cost to 300 points if neccessary. Moving to a large, traditional barrage would destroy the feel of a single warhead.

_________________
SG

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

I too would rather see it as a high BP attack, or a 3BP attack with several special rules like Disrupt, MW and IC, rather than inventing a new special rule to give it the large blast template.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It's a sensible abstraction.

Also, as E&C says, 3BP MW with the small template would be fine too. That's still a huge explosion from a single bomb.

By the way, just moving to IC from MW just has the effect of making it awesome against certain armies, and worse against others (in other words actually harder to balance). IC is better than MW against guard for example.

Erm. It's the same size as the explosion from a single Griffon round, but with a better probability of a kill, particularly against armored targets. The dasiy cutter has a lethality radius between 100 and 300 meters.

_________________
SG

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

Epic is a game of clarity and abstractions, and if something can be done within with core ruleset it should be.

Personally I've always wished we could use AT-43's variable-sized template, but hey ho.

Two points here. I'd say whether using the larger template already used by spacecraft is 'outside the core ruleset' is up for debate. The template hasn't been applied in non-spacecraft before, but I'm not using the 10" Apocalype template or anything, nor am I changing the way the BP rules work.

Second, according to IA:1 a Marauder is 19.2m long. Without a physical model to measure off of, that means the Colossus Bomb is approximately 8-9m in length. It's a bomb the size of a school bus. I don't think there is a good way to represent the feel of a weapon that size using the small blast template.

_________________
SG

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

And you think that'll cause an explosion as big as an orbital bombardment?

Honestly, given the options I have, yes. I can go for the small template, which is too small. or I can go for a large template which is after all at AP5+/AT6+, IC.

This is where the bomb will stay barring serious balance concerns backed by playtesting. As I mentioned to my opponent last night, the psychological perception of a weapon's balance is not equal to the actual balance. Use the unit a few times and get back to me with any remaining concerns.

_________________
SG

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

I'm going to leave this thread now. You're obviously not interested in anything other than playtests, and I'm not interested in playtesting this list as is.

What are the stats of the Colossus bomb in Aeronautica Imperialis?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

You know, I don't have Tactica, so I din't know. I'll try to find out later.

Zombo, I value your input, and I do listen to your concerns. However, I feel frustrated by the fact that you asked for specific changes to the way the Colossus Bomb worked. I made those changes. Subsequent to this, the first response I got from you was to ask for the weapon to be changed again, and in a completely different direction to your previous request. It also happens to be in a direction that removes the 'feel' of a very large single warhead bomb, which is important to the unit. If I wanted several regular blast templates, I'd invent some sort of B-52 style heavy bomber to complement the B-26 style Marauder.

Why do you not want to try the list as it stands, aside from the Colossus issues? If it is a list that you want to have a real hand in developing, at some point you need to stop theoryhammering and throwing out opinions as statements of absolute fact and see how it operates as a whole. There is no way to do this without putting minis on the table, against real opponents.

Otherwise I'd still be working on assebling my Vanaheim list, which I was really looking forward to and had already invested a fair amount in, instead of putting it on hold and trying to figure out how to scrape together enough to make a whole new army.

Another note: Go through a few games and show me a problem exists instead of telling me, and I'll have very little room to stand on when you ask for changes.

_________________
SG

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

SG: It's not a matter of whether a balance problem exists for me (I'm certain it's possible to balance a unit with a large template attack), it's a matter of whether a special rule is required to justify its abilities.

Since taking over this list, you've added a special rule to one unit (Leviathan fighting platform), and added two more units with special rules (Stormlord fighting platform and Marauder Bomb).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Gah, and I promised myself I wouldn't respond.



I originally objected to having a large template and MW, and particularly a combination of the two. If you look back at my posts you'll see that I felt that the large template was more of a problem than the MW, and to me you fixed it in the wrong direction.

I didn't ask for specific changes, I just told you that in it's (then) current incarnation it was broken, which you immediately agreed with upon a single playtest. Actually you changed it before the playtest, at a guess because your opponent also felt it was overpowered?



The underpriced leviathan is a big one for me too.



How exactly will a playtest show you the problem I have with the use of the large template? The problem isn't about balance or feel, which can be shown by a series of playtests, but about the use of unnecessary special rules. It's that sort of "playtests are all that matter" attitude that led to lists like the Tyranids being swamped under by unnecessary special rules, just because they couldn't be shown to be unneeded with playtests.

At the end of the day, it's not the biggest issue, but special-rule creep is a perfect way of turning a good list into a mess.

When it comes to ANY new special rules, my ethos is to first try out solutions that don't need new special rules, and only use them if it feels wrong ingame.