i have a nice spherical d6...

funny, i'd have thought that CAPing a CAP pretty much is needed to allow a single big formation to have any chance of clearing enemy fighters out.
for instance, last game i played with harakoni vs minervans.
I started with a 4 lightning CAP via the V-CAP rule
his first action was to put a thunderbolt formation on CAP.
now, if i send out a bomber, he can CAP it, and without the ability to Cap A Cap, my formation of lightnings is stuck there unable to attack the thunderbolts at all (ok no, it could activate and intercept it if needed)
but no matter what happens, putting thunderbolts on CAP would make them immune to anything of mine also on CAP. meaning a 4 strong lightning formation on CAP results in his fighters all also going on CAP and he maintains an advantage (unless i had no other aircraft, which in an air dependant list like elysians or harakoni, is pretty much never going to happen.

(with the CAPACAP rule in use, he then CAPed his second thunderbolt formation, i attacked with a bomber, he CAPed it with thunderbolts1, I CAPed the thunderbolts with my lightnings, he CAPed my lightnings with his other thunderbolts. it turned into a swirling dogfight, which i think was appropriate if a little bloody. without the rule, we'd both have simply stood down basically all our aircraft, and i would have been screwed (well more screwed, i was pretty much boned from the get go))

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

I don't tend to bring too much aircraft other than landers... In the games I've played, I think it ends up coming down to if my opponent/s can get aircraft on CAP before I can activate a lot of times, but even then, I do tend to get through most of the time. I think the strategy rating of 3 has helped the Elysians a lot, but it's still a crap shoot (literally). Oftentimes, the opponents plan hinges on getting first activation, and that's even more true with Elysians and their grav-chutes.

I'm thinking that the auto-CAP would probably be beneficial to the list, but I'm worried about something that has such broad-reaching implications... Again, if "they" can have it, why can't "we".

Maybe something like "free CAP with one formation of fighters before the game begins", but limit it to just that... rather than allowing fighters to go on CAP automatically before every turn.

That's what I thought it was. The suggestion being batted around was that, in a GT scenario, one air formation could be placed on CAP in lieu of a garrisoned formation being placed on overwatch.

Can you clarify what a 'lander' is?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

The reason I never use CAPACAP is the fact that a thunderhawk against Nightwings on CAP is a big risk, but a Thunderhawk with a couple of t-bolts on CAPACAP is pretty safe. I feel it changes the balance of the lists too much.

@Jaggedtoothgrin

Without the rule I'd think you'd be more likely to intercept with the lightnings, leaving your bombers to weather CAP on their own. Given the lack of ground AA that's probably not the best option either, sacrificing the bombers your trying to protect so you can gain air superiority is like putting the cart before the ox.

Either way you play it though I think two formations of 2 are more versatile than one formation of 4.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I think that the suggestion that one formation could be placed on CAP in lieu of one garrisoned unit being on overwatch would balance things out.

When i say lander, I'm referring to a Tau Orca, Thunderhawk, Ork Landa, etc...

don't forget that the CAPACAPACAPACAPACAPACAP (if playing against Dave and his thunderbolt armada) is now even more complicated by the NetERC ruling on defensive AA, where already activated aircraft can project an AA umbrella. I think it blows goats personally, but thems the rules.

CAPACAP favours small cheap aircraft formations over large expensive ones - so Dark Eldar whatsits are more effective than Eldar Nightwings, Thunderbolts are more effective than Lightnings and so on. More formations trumps more planes in a formation every time.

CAPACAP isn't a EA rule, never has been and doesn't seem likely to become a rule so I really don't understand why it would be used for testing lists or in discussions over lists.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Is that writ in stone now? I had thought there was still debate (as with "within 5cm", what counts as being "in terrain" and a few more).

We gave aircraft AA shots against enemy formations that weren't intercepting/CAPing them at NEAT, but only if the enemy finished its approach move in their bubble. It wasn't that big of deal a (even with my 8th airforce of Thunderbolts) but then you have to deal with people like Bill trying to pull some Blue Angel's maneuvers to cover all angles of attack...

But I digress.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Agreed. You can't take house rules into account when writing tournament scenario lists.

Agreed - we must try to play the E:A rules not house rules, so
- ignore CAPing CAP.
- allow 'flying' AA where the enemy A/c ends up in the 'bubble' (both arc and range)
- try slightly different tactics:-

Send the lightenings out on a ground attack mission against the target you want to destroy (or at least to cover where you want to put your bombers).
Then fly on the bombers. This means you can put them in a position where the Lightenings provide some AA cover against CAP.

GUAG is correct about the proposed 'special rule' allowing the Elysians to place one formation on CAP in lieu of a garrison.

However, the other thought here is that the Elysians seem to be an 'attrition' army to some extent - the intention is to provide so many threats that at least some can get through despite enemy intervention. So in this case perhaps they need to go 'air-heavy' and have four Marauders and the Lightenings on the principle that "the bomber will always get through".

i dunno about the tactics involved - but that sounds like an epic set piece.

yep, carved deep with a sharp chisel, as Ginger kindly reminded me:

Q: The rules state "Note that aircraft carrying out a ground
attack mission that are armed
with AA weapons may shoot at enemy interceptors that fall
within the AA weapon’s fire arc." This sounds as if only
aircraft on ground attack missions may use their flak attacks.
Also, it seems to imply that the ground attack formation can
only fire at interceptors targeting that formation. Can aircraft
on ground attack missions fire at interceptors other than
those attacking it? For example, if Bomber Flight 1 ends in
the AA arc of Bomber Flight 2 and is intercepted by enemy
fighters, can Bomber Flight 2 fire, even though it is not the
target of the interdeptors? Can aircraft on missions other
than ground attack make flak attacks at all?
A: Yes to all the questions. If aircraft end their approach
move within range and fire arc of AA weapons, the enemy
get flak attacks regardless of the missions of any of the
aircraft.
The definitive statement of how flak attacks work is in the
first sentence, "[flak attacks may] shoot immediately after an
enemy aircraft formation makes an approach move but
before it makes its attack." The sentence quoted is
explanatory, intended to point out a particular situation that
might not be immediately obvious (that's why it begins with
"Note..."). It is not intended to create an additional restrictions
on the basic flak attack mechanic.
As a side note, this has been a common point of contention.
This is the NetEA answer and it is the ruling used by the Epic
UK tournament organizers. Some groups house rule aircraft
versus aircraft flak attacks differently.

because some people play it that way and this is open development with free discussion? Might be worth remembering that.

this isn't a list solely for use in tournaments though and tournament use isn't the sole crucible for testing whether or not a list is balanced. Clearly, widely and commonly used non-tournament rules shouldn't be used to drive the development of the list, but given that a large percentage of non-UK games are played outside of tournaments, they should at least be considered.

Either way, the CAPACAP issue is a red herring. The real issue is a 300pt air formation in a list which needs high activation counts to survive and has no ground based AA. That is what needs to be addressed.