okay let's call it something else (providing the model, stats and everything else stays the same) how about a sky-turkey?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Do you have any playtesting or game experience that the 1+ is broken, overpowered or in any way detrimental to epic games?

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

No.
But i too have not experienced that without 1+ it is broken, underpowered or in any way detrimental to epic games.

After all with the inital release of EA the aircraft rules seem to work fine. Or the aircraft rules wheren't tested as thoroughly as the other rules in the book.

Apart from this: Current result on the poll shows that the majority doesn't see AA4+ as overpowered.

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

Was that the ruling? I thought the enemy AC needs to END its approach move in an aircraft's AA arc and range in order to be target. Just going through it is doesn't trigger anything.

Also, were their FAQs on this? There's nothing in the master thread and there really should be. The RAW seem to further restrict these attacks to only AC performing a ground attack may shoot at other AC that are intercepting.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I'm gonna go out on a limb here then and say your much vaunted whes is a load of bunk. If it's producing widely unusable and broken results then maybe you need to admit there's no absolute conversion formula for 40k to epicA.

If AA4+ is too good on an intercept capable aircraft, you need to accept that the weapon stat is wrong and needs to change.

+1

There's just so much wrongness on this thread, pretty much every assertion seems to be a fallacy.
+1 intercept wasn't done because of "AA umbrella"
AA4+ on the sky talon isn't broken just because of +1 intercept (hint, it's because the sky talon looks like my grandma could outrun it, and she's dead)
AA values aren't "usually" the same as the AT value (none of the 3 most common interceptors stick to this at all)
The NetERC can't just decide a rule does not exist any more.

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

My last word on this wall-headbuttingly daft topic.

AA4+ is not "too good". Quite frankly that's a blinkered assertion that takes in no account of context.

At 225pts BL's stats for his Stormtalon are blatantly underpowered compared to other aircraft squadrons in its points cost bracket (They kill less, and die much easier than every other squadron type in that points bracket), yet there's this knee-jerk reaction going on that "4+ is too good".

Sure, 4+ when given to a too-cheap aircraft with 45cm range was "too good".
It categorically does not follow that therefore all 4+ rolls are "too good".

Context matters, sheesh.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If +1 to intercept was removed, it would actually favor aircraft with higher hit values.

Currently it's 2.33 vs 2 (2 Storm Talons vs 2 Thunderbolts). Removing the intercept bonus would make it 1.67 vs 1.33 - same absolute difference, higher relative difference (ratio of 7:6 vs 5:4).

So if the change was reverted it would favor Storm Talons, unless it made interceptors in general so useless that no one takes them.

Sure my WhES has its faults. I never claimed that it produces infallible and true stats for Wh40k weapons in EA. But it produces SOME stats as BASIS for discussion instead of pulling EA stats out of thin air. It was never intended to do more than this.

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

And FWIW, my argument about AA4+ weapons in intercept & CAP is based on the existing weaponry for all other Fighters and Fighter-bombers - except the Helltalon - irrespective of whether or not they gain the +1.

If AA4+ is adopted, it paves the way for 'arms creep' as sets a precedent for use on other 'new' aircraft, which ultimately will skew the way the game works, leading to calls for existing units to have their stats revised uprwards.

Another part of the problem lies in people's expectations over how the air-game and indeed E:A as a whole should work. There is a misconception that weapons should have a good chance of destroying the target. In the air-game, adding BMs can effectively prevent an A/c from appearing, thus reducing its usefullness between 33% - 50%. Up to 3x BMs can automatically be added to each air formation by shooting at it in the approach, on disengagement and by interception; actually shooting something down should be regarded more as a bonus!

Hmm on a quick thought i can't imagine a weapon with an AA3+ value. That would be an AP2+ or AP3+/ATx+ weapon.
Even a Twin Reaper Autocannon (AP4+/AT6+) would rather produce 2 x shots than AP3+/AT5+ as a single Reaper Autocannon alreaady is Twin-linked.

And if AA4+ is THAT good then simply increase the price of the aircraft.
The "best Fighter of the game" the formation of three Nightwings still will eat a formation of two Storm Talons for breakfast.

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

Fighters attacking fighters isn't a very relevant comparison, so the relevant comparisons for a Storm Talon starts and ends with the Thunderbolt, really, and performance on intercept/cap mission (so number of hits and resistance to flak).

With the statistics E&C provided here:
viewtopic.php?p=451083#p451083

The two Storm Talons produce 0.33 more hits than two Thunderbolts and need 0.33 more hits to be destroyed completely.

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

Also the Stormtalon gets 1+ initiative the T/bolts are 2+, that's a 16.66% boost per turn.

Thunderbotls cost 175pts. 116,66% are 204.155pts.
I guess with 200pts the cost is quite correct.

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