Silly rabbit, don't you know the chance of consensus is inversely proportional to the number of pages in the thread!

Actually I think everyone slinked off into their own corners to grumble and then we all generally got caught up in the Grandma Wendy v. Friendly Water Mammal drama. Officially I am bumping the thread to spark some forward movement. Dumb as Shit looking model or not, I'd like to see some stats to chew on in friendly play.

Last we left Ginger was advocating
Space Marine Storm Talon Gunship
Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight
Aircraft Fighter 5+n/a n/a

Weapon Range Firepower Notes
2x (insert weapon name) 15cm AP6+/AA5+ Fixed Forward Arc
(insert weapon name) 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+ Forward Arc

Formation of 2 for 200pts.

editorial note: so we don't lose sight of the goal here, not worrying about the name of the weapon vs the stats and reverse naming it once consensus was reached was deemed a good idea. We were getting very caught up in tangential arguments around names.

_________________
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!

Those AA stats would be more powerful than the stats that BL originally proposed (which made everybody recoil in deepest horror).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As this is primarily supposed to be a Fighter, it ought to have pretty good AA stats but not to be so good at attacking ground targets. However, I did also propose some slightly weaker stats 3 posts later which would produce less AA hits (2.6 or 2.0 on CAP/intercept). The point is that there are a number of ways of acheiving the desired 'air superiority' style statistics without resorting to 'arms creep' using AA4+ (or 45cm range on AA).

I would also recommend Jimmy's excellent suggestion of using "OR" to distinguish weapon capabilities at ground targets from those against air targets eg

(insert weapon name) 30cm AA6+ Forward
. . . . . . . . . . . . . OR 45cm AP5+/AT6+ Forward arc

Separating the air and ground capabilities in this way will allow us better control over the effects of the relevant stats, and possibly even give it more of a 'fighter' feeling (note different arcs of fire).

3x 4+ AA attacks is 1.5 hits per plane.
2x 3+ AA attacks is 1.33 hits per plane.

Yet the former is getting preferred because it has less "arms creep".

That makes not a lick of sense to me.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

No sense at all if you refer only to the statistical results - but this entirely misses the point E&C, and you ought to know that after so many pages

It demonstrates that AA4+ is not needed at all, and I repeat that it should not be used because of the precedence it sets - there are many, many other ways of sorting out the AA stats for this aircraft as I have pointed out, which may give lesser or greater statistical results depending on what is deemed appropriate.

That's the only result that actually matters.

The "psychological effect result" is utterly irrelevant and should be ignored by anyone who can do basic maths.



This fear of the 3+ to hit came completely out of a reaction to the Hellblade Fighter-Bomber being given a 3+ to hit stat, and then later being found to be overpowered.

That it was also the worst hitting interceptor aircraft squadron in the entire game of Epic*** got ignored in the terror as people reacted against... the wrong stat. They should have been clamouring for a downgrade in its 45cm range, which does of course break the air game.

This latent fear of the 3 dots appearing on a dice following that is nothing but mis-placed, irrational, fear, spawned from an emotionally-based reaction that wasn't founded on logic in the first place.


Here's a logical analysis of the Hellblade fighter, that should have happened when problems were being reported:
Hellblade is being reported as being too good > look at AA3+ to hit stat > hmm, is that too good? let's look at the numbers > no, it's clearly not too good, it's actually the worst performing fighter squadron in the game as regards number of hits, let's look at its other stats > oh look it has a longer range than any other plane in the game, and due to the way the air & ground flak rules work that gives it an enormous advantage because enemy AA is highly unlikely to ever hit it, that's clearly the problem!

Here's what actually happened:
Hellblade is being reported as being too good > look at AA3+ to hit stat > HOLY JUMPING YIKES IT HITS ON A 3+ IT'S TOO GOOD! NOTHING MUST EVER HAVE AA3+ EVER AGAIN!




I'd rather avoid the precedent of making up new weapons with *insert weapon name here* in the statline, as a reaction against an issue that doesn't logically exist.





***Quite literally nothing shoots worse. Ork Squadrons shoot better. Thunderbolts shoot better. Even Mossinian PDF fighter squadrons score more hits when they shoot and they were designed to be crap!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Ok so it's clear is that the to hit vs number of hits possible is being advocated by Ginger. Ben is mathmatically correct that it is more powerful than a single 4+ and it is recognized. Really it is simply a different set of victory conditions around the term arms creep.
So if people want to give us more hits then let's let um. Let's try her out to price and play test.

_________________
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!

I think it's also worth mentioning that adding more low score shots to aviod high score shots increases the absolute maximum number of hits a unit can make, actually increasing the power of the unit.

_________________
SG

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

There are some rumours for next years SM relase:

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

Is there anything in Horus Heresy vol 1 now that it is out?

_________________
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!

They do mention a Hawkwind?? aircraft in the HH novel "Fear to Tread" that sounds like a fighter.

Oh I missed that. Too many Storm-Hawk-Claw-Thunder variations. Going to be as bad as super heavies I expect.

Was more asking about our new warhammer 30k game

_________________
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!

Very much in agreement with this. It gets aggravating when trying to talk about Imperial super heavy tanks now
and Space marine vehicles are rapidly getting the same way.

So then a good reason to curtail too many (unnecessary) variants and keep the 40K creep out, I would argue....

So by that logic we would have Baneblades and Shadowswords and called it a day

But you are right, just because there's a shiny 40k toy doesn't mean every (or any) lists need to add it, just because.
Official Stats != List Incorporation

One of the ideas in exercises like this is for that very fact. If there's somewhat sane stats here it really helps provide a safety valve, so to speak, on pushing for every toy that comes along. People want stuff for friendly play more than in tourny lists. "Hey bob, I'm going to swap my TBolts for those new fangled Storm Talons to give them a whirl. How about you count your Baneblades as Banehammers this time around for kicks?"
Or am I horribly deluded? (which could be the case, admittedly ).

_________________
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!