PM me

AoC, I think that the best place to start with this unit is go with the EUK stats as a base. It's had use in the EUK DA list so perhaps start with what's already been tried to ease the pain of having to adjust things too much.

9 AA shots from a formation which can CAP is way overpowered IMO, especially with AA4+ which has been discussed to death and generally considered to be a slippery slope

I'd remove the AA shot from the lascannon, as JZ says, the only aircraft with lascannon AA are bombers (better power source, heavier weapon mounts, ability to have turrets)

I'll also suggest starting with the EUK stats and tweaking from there, but as a person resident in the UK, I'm showing an obvious bias and my opinion should be discounted

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I agree with the above statement.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

+1 from me as well regarding the AA.

That said, the E-UK stats are not far off your own (though IMHO they are also a tad OTT or slightly undercosted ) :-


Given the above stats I would suggest the formation should actually be 2x a/c for 225, or if you prefer to retain your formation size then 3x a/c for 350 would be a good starting point (on the premise that this can be reduced if necessary).

Like I've mentioned previosuly, I think the Heavy Bolter could also be reduced to 15cm like the Thunderhawk's to help tone down the firepower at 30cm. I also think we should stick with 2 aircraft.

Agreed Dobbsy on the bolter range - if only to halt the evident power creep.

Using the E-UK stats and this reduction in range, it may be worth trying out formations of 3x fighters for 350 as that is the equivalent cost of two TBolt formations, whilst being slightly less powerfull and less flexible. That said, you can do a lot with 350 points which would make this formation rare, falling in line with what others have suggested is in the 'fluff' about the rarity of DA air-power.

However, I am equally happy with 2x A/c for 225.

(Edited to remove the confusion caused by cross-reference to the E-UK stats)

I think if you're going to give it 3 shots, you should not also be putting them in formations of 3. The more dice you roll, the larger the "upper end" of possible numbers of hits and also the tighter the average. They become more reliable at killing transports.

Overall, as statted, they average 4.5 hits on intercept/CAP, which more often than not will kill a vampire raider outright. Compare that to an average of 2 hits for a Tbolt formation which has to be quite lucky to do it (~25%). The formation is also better than Night Wings at taking down these transports (whether Eldar, Ork or SM), even after factoring in the specialised anti-RA-transport Lance shots.

AA weapons are much less strict in their stats, with less uniformity between units, so you have a lot of latitude with the stats of a TL lascannon IMO. No way it needs to be AA4+.

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

Starting with the E-UK stats, the proposed reduction to 15 cm on the Bolters would bring the fighters into range of A/c defensive AA, and thus makes them slightly less powerfull. It also makes them slightly less powerfull than Eldar Nightwings in that respect.

**With these stats** 3x A/c just might be OK.

(At 4+ per shot including the +1 for CAP / intercept, they would dish out an average of 3x hits more reliably, and against a Vampire this results in an average of 15/9 damage, or just shy of the two damage needed to kill the transport outright.)

The stats currently proposed by AoC give 3x shots of 3+, 4+ and 5+ (including the +1 for CAP etc). This gives the proposed formation of 2x A/c an average of 3 hits which is also more flexible given the 30cm range and so definitely OTT already. Consequently a formation of 3x A/c would be a nightmare - though this was not quite what I was proposing as I was already discounting the 3x AA

(I have amended the offending post)

Yes the stats in the OP is what I was replying to.

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

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

Hence the "make them similar to a Thunderbolt" path that's been mentioned.... but, ce la vie

I would still reduce them to two aircraft for reasons mentioned previously. 3xAA3+ & 3x AA4+ on intercept...? If you want to hamper their use, tie them to a "if you buy a Ravenwing formation...." situation. They are Ravenwing units aren't they?

Still way too powerfull... Best interceptors in the game now.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

AA4+ on an interceptor is just not cricket.... ESPECIALLY at 30cm range, this has been discussed over and over before and the general consensus is that if we start giving AA4+ to interceptors it becomes normal and more and more flyers get them and we have to deal with power creep

if nightwings don't get AA4+, and in the background they are meant to be peerless fighters, orders of magnitude more potent than anything 'lesser races' can come up with, then nobody should

I suggest the following stats:

Twin Lascannon 30cm AT4+ FxF
Twin Heavy Bolter 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF
Blacksword Missiles 30cm AT5+/AA5+ FxF

2 for 225 pts

makes it a solid interceptor and pretty potent ground attack craft, coupled with being int1+

I'd definitely use them with those stats, much more and you're overpowering it for the sake of fluff, as I said earlier, GW massively overguns their models, especially newer releases, which leads to problems when translating them into epic



think of it thusly, the fighter can carry twin lascannons, intended as tankbusters/whatever, it has a power source which can charge them for a big blast every few seconds, making it good at ground attack where the targets are relatively static, but less suitable in dogfights/air battles.... a bomber with them would likely be able to carry a heavier power supply meaning increased rate of fire and therefore effectiveness as an AA weapon, it can also mount the weapon in a turret with wider movement, independent of the trajectory of the aircraft AND carry a dedicated gunner, freeing the pilot up to concentrate on flying....

the point has been made repeatedly, by several people, that the same weapon, mounted on different vehicles, will behave differently:

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I think I'd be tempted to lower the Heavy Bolters to 15cm range, in line with the Thunderhawk turret armament. Puts a bit of a quandary into the hands of the interceptors too, one at 30cm or two shots at 15cm, which is something I rather like. If they had a 15cm range heavy bolter, would a 3-squad then still be too much?

Otherwise, I like the justification for not including the Lascannon in the AA profile. As often illogical as it is to equate sense with fluff, it is a rational argument.