I suddenly feel very exposed.....

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

In a bad touch sort of way? Do i need to call for an adult?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

As a few have said, I think any stats that make it a better interceptor than a Night Wing (or a Thunderbolt for that matter) are a problem.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

It isn't
Nightwing intercepts with 2 x 4+ at 30cm

The Storm Talon intercepts with 1 x 4+ at 30cm. It only gets the additional 1 x 3+ if it is within 15cm of the target aircraft. If it wants to use its 3+ AA value usually it has to enter the AA umbrella of the target aircraft. The wider fire arc doesn't help much.

Edit: And the Nightwing has a better Save.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Some target aircraft. A minority, actually, so I think to say "usually" is inaccurate. Most have front fire arcs or >= 30cm range, the major exceptions being marine and ork aircraft. It's missing the point slightly anyway, but OK, fair enough, let's leave the Night Wing aside for now. It is I believe the best interceptor in the game after all (and Lance does help with some targets too).

So, is there a reason why it is not better than a Thunderbolt, a Hellblade, a Lightning, a Doomwing, a Lysander and a Barracuda? I just can't help but look at the thing and expect it to be the worst interceptor in the game. So it's a big stretch for me if it is up there with the best. Do others think it should be better than all these? It'd be OK I think if EA had a system for maneuverability (a bit like Epic 40K), but it doesn't.

I assume the assault cannon is specifically mentioned as being an AA weapon?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

While an interesting debate, there is a significant danger of 'power creep' here. The issue stems from trying to make things sufficiently different, while also pandering to perceptions on particular capabilities.

Like others I am far from convinced that this is needed; E:A is an abstraction after all, and thus the stats for the Talon and TBolt will inevitably look very similar. However if it is deemed vital to include the Talon

1. It would probably be better to make it a 'collectors model'.
2. To make it a 'better' figther than the TBolt, give it 2x weapons with AA5+ at 30cm, but also reduced AP and AT capability.
3. Give it 5+ armour and declare it a 'Fighter' to reflect better manoeuverability.

NOTE - AA4+ is plain wrong at any range, no A/c should have this - including the Hell Talon!

Only with the infamous +1 on Intercept rule....

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Do I think a dedicated Space marine carrier launched interceptor should be better than the equivalent Imperial navy one, considering Marines would make far superior pilots and marine chapters normally get issued better, more advanced equipment than the navy or Guard? yes.

Do I think the Storm talon as depicted should be a better interceptor than a thunderbolt? God no. It's a Close Air Support helicopter analogue: an Apache



not a Tomcat

Apparently a number of other interceptors and the like have been mentioned in the background recently. Forgeworld may cough something out soon...

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Where did you hear that? I would have expected FW to have included it in their new 40k Aeronautica supplement if so, but the contents page shows the only new unit (apart from a Flak Battlefortress which may or may not be new, but looks kitbashed) is the IN Avenger:

Folks, you need to stop focussing on the fact it looks wrong and start taking it for what it's intended. We can argue forever about whether it's a gunship or fighter aircraft (in fact we have already and it's getting old) but that is how GW has designed it. So please, stop the debate about its look and get on with working out how to stat it and slot it in any particular lists.

Cheers

Add it to Dark Angels and/or Black Templars, use as a Thunderbolt proxy in lists that are already done.

Apparently a Fire Raptor or something was mentioned in IA10.

EDIT:

Also, regarding what it looks like - it does matter somewhat, especially in light of the fact that you can justify things being treated differently in 40K and Epic. For example, on the scale of a 40K board, the Storm Talon may be an excellent interceptor. Over a larger battlefield, maybe not.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Perhaps true, but given the abstraction of Epic I think what it looks like is a distant second to its effect on the tabletop.

Given that many designs across the game are "daft" (can anyone say Squat Gyrocopter or Thunderhawk?) I think we've been tied up in this debate far too long. It's time to move along.

I concur. Let us return to BL's suggested stats and take it from there. Last we left it we were debating removal of Close Air support pattern for the "purer" air role, no?

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!