can you please link me to your playtests? interested to see how you used the planes

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I think i've posted 1 or 2 battlereports using the Avengers...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Ha, therein lies the rub Vaaish old chum - when we present a bat-rep and say that XYZ is overpowered, by what percentage is it overpowered - how is this measured? At best this is a very subjective judgement.

The problem is that when most people say that XYZ 'felt' overpowered (or more usually didn't feel overpowered), there are a lot of other factors that will have affected the results of the game, from the number of formations and counter-formations, to the strategy and tactics, terrain coverage and of course the dice. Consequently our bat-reps are usually very subjective, and even hard facts like the number of enemy units killed or their value are really only pointers under the particular circumstances of that game. Even long-term data gathering like the E-UK tournament Championship results are skewed by the skill and experience of the different people playing, so at best these only give an indicator of how the list is playing against other armies.

Moreover, my concern is to keep the air-game at a level where it has limited impact on the E:A game as a whole while the various lists are constantly evolving. The point is that even minor changes to aircraft or formations can result in a major impact in E:A. Currently E:A game is great fun. Yes there are certain strategies and tactics adopted by different armies that are stronger than others and the air-game is part of this mix, but it does not dominate E:A as a whole. I am very keen to avoid the situations where two players set up their armies, and the game is effectively decided by the dice throw to see who goes first. This can and does happen very occasionally now (eg. Rug's tournament game that lasted 15mins, which was a direct result of the air-game) - but these situations are rare.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing 'playtesting'. It is a very important part of the process, but IMO it can only serve to confirm whether a list matches the design intentions. Basically, like the lobster in a pot of cold water on a cooker, we cannot tell when things are going wrong until it is too late, so IMO we need to work to agreed limitations rather than trying to ‘push the envelope’ until things break . The other issue here is that it is a whole lot harder to decrease the power / increase the cost of a unit or formation than to boost it in some way. Consequently all designs should start off weaker so that there is room for improvement, which is why I respectfully request the Avenger (and other A/c) be toned down.

That said, I agree that the AMB is not far off in power, but IMO it would be better to start at 2x AP4+ / AT6+ with the formation of two A/c for 225. If you want the AMB to be 2x AP3+ / AT5+, then the cost probably ought to be 300 per formation of two aircraft. A final deciding factor here might be the availability of these formations and their impact (in the ‘fluff’).

also, one of the points that may have been missed or not covered is that a unit may be perfectly balanced and usable, however it sets precedent for units which aren't.... it's why AA4+ on interceptors is avoided by consensus, even though a plane with a single AA4+ shot would be okay as an interceptor, when someone comes up with stats for a plane with two such shots, when anyone complains about balancing the unit, they just say 'oh but the stormchaffinch has an AA4+ shot' it then becomes much harder to argue a reduction in shooting power and we end up with similar to the situation we're experiencing currently with the nephilim right now where the AC is insisting we use certain stats because of reasons, and it just ends up in circular arguments, such as 'these are the stats prove me wrong'

the avenger may be perfectly fine, but legitimising it legitimises the avenger bolt cannon for other aircraft with more pimped out weapons then when people complain we get the sort of arguments used by Vaaish earlier that 'we dont want lists with the same plane with a few tweaks' but that is what we get because people consistently try to push the boundaries with stats for aircraft and if you aren't willing to be reasonable about altering the stats for the main weapon AND want to add fluffy weapons, you ARE adding power creep to the game.... do all the fluff and fancy weapon stats and special rules for the ground stuff and leave the planes as an abstract addition to the game, in the same way as spaceships, they are not a core part of the game which is meant to be huge ground battles

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Quoting:





I agree on the general point. But weapons already have correct stats, those shouldn't be changed, so all lists have the same stats for the same weapon (we certainly agree on this ).

Solution: different (and weaker) weapons loads, i.e. multilaser instead of lascannon. Or, even better, less guns, like in the Thunderbolt case: missing twin-linked, etc.



They have 45cm range, when they mount a 45cm ranged weapon on a FxF arc, otherwise range of weapons in reduced by 15cm. 360º AA weapon reduces range by 15cm. This "rule" is all over EA.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

Thanks guys, we are getting there!

In summary, we already know that the air-game is currently balanced with respect to E:A as a whole, but that very minor changes can significantly affect this balance. So we need to ensure that

• *ALL* airborne weapons must not exceed AP4+ or AT4+, and very limited (air dropped) weaponry may have a range of 45cm (most will be 30cm or less).
• *ALL* Fighter or Fighter-bomber AA must be limited to AA5+ or AA6+ (because of the +1 gained for Intercept and CAP), and have a maximum range of 30cm (to force engagements within most ground AA bubbles of 45cm or less).
• As Lord Bruno says, it is an accepted principle "all over E:A" that airborne versions of ground weapons have reduced ranges and power to reflect the difficulties of using airborne weaponry on a high speed and unstable platform.
• In principle the Eldar have the best planes, so other air formations should have worse metrics in general (even if they exceed the Eldar in some limited respect). This means having a maximum of 2x AA shots per aircraft and limiting the number of ground attack weapons and dice per aircraft to appropriate levels according to the aircraft type.

Lord Bruno, we agree on most things but I disagree that *all* weapons have the correct stats - some are overpowered relative to these principles. The issue is that GW keep pushing the W40 stats to the point where they come into conflict with the above principles. Where this happens these E:A principles *must* override the converted W40K stats, otherwise power-creep sets in. Consequently, we need to apply these principles retrospectively to those aircraft and weapons that have already overstepped the mark including

• The Helltalon and Lightning (both mentioned above)
• The AMB (should be AP4+ / AT6+) used by the Avenger and Nephilim.

I've been a bit busy and haven't had a chance to respond, but I do not agree with your first "rule". There's absolutely nothing in Epic that supports the conclusion that airborne weapons are limited to AP4+/AT4+. A look through all of the aircraft in the printed rules shows that the weapons match the AP/AT values of ground based weapons.

Secondly, 45cm weapons are based on aircraft class, not whether they are "air dropped" take for instance the Thunderhawk. Air dropped has no game meaning or special effect in Epic. 45cm weapons only show up on bombers and then only as a single weapon.

_________________
-Vaaish

With great respect Vaaish, this is why power-creep sets in. We know that W40k stats are constantly being boosted to increase the sales of the latest model. GW know that people are not going to buy models that are weaker than their opponents (even though this is the usual reality in the real world!!) Continually porting these increased stats into E:A is detrimental to the game as a whole.

While I agree that your stats for the Avenger are close to acceptable, the Nephilim design 'borrowed' the AMB weapon and put it in a different context that was well OTT. If we accept the AMB stats as they are now, some other design will come along and quote this as an 'accepted precedence' and the whole miserable process will repeat.

We all want to reflect the relevant weaponry in an acceptable way, but in order to stop power-creep ruining the game, we have to call a halt somewhere - and AP4+ / AT4+ is it (together with the other parameters discussed above).

I realise that the design tolerances are very slim, but this is caused by the power creep in W40K bumping into the E:A principles outlined, and with great respect, this is where we need to ignore the overpowered W40K stats in favour of something that keeps E:A the amazing game that it is.

The Thunderhawk has indeed a range of 75cm, no problem with that (FxF airborne Battle Cannon keeps the range of the ground Battle Cannon).

Phoenix bombers have 2xAT4+ 45cm shots and they seem fine, the Vampire Raider has four of those, no problem. Similar with the Marauder.

I don't have much idea on how are the stats in 40K as I don't play or know the system. But as I read on this thread, it seems the Thunderbolt and its variants in 40k are way more powerful than in EA. In EA it is reduced to "only" AT4+ Rockets, a Multilaser, and Stormbolters.

The same can be done with the rest of the "new" aircraft. Example: if the new "SuperBolt" has 6 twin-linked autocannons and 4 twin-linked lascannons (OTT I know), in Epic it would "only" have 2 not-twin-linked autcannons and maybe one not-twin-linked lascannon: it's not that powerful but it keeps the fluffy payload, and it keeps the stats and range of the weapons.

Lighting Fighter case: if in the fluff it has a Long-barrel Autocannon, mounted on a FxF, it has to have 45cm range (it is actually 60cm because it's long-barrel but well...) , there is no way around that, the only solution is completely dropping that gun. BUT there is one big error: that gun should have (by the EA "non written rules" stated above) AA6+, not AA5+ (that's only for twin-linked like the ones on the Hydra or the Sabre). If I had to choose, I would keep 45cm range but only AA6+, totally consistent with EA "rules".

And yet another inconsistency: Marauder Destroyer FxF Autocannons have only a range 30cm, when the above Lighting is correctly and clearly 45cm.

Hell Talon case: turn the lascannon into normal instead of twin-linked. But why is it AA anyway??, the one on the Marauder isn't (it could make sense, as it is a bomber, not a fighter-bomber), but the Pulsars on the Phoenix bomber (F/B class) are not AA, just ground attack -> drop AA from the weapon.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

I think it's not helping to try to define this using explicit rules like "AP4+/AT4+ only". At best they are arbitrary (let's be honest, if we were defining such rules objectively and a priori, loads of existing units would have different stats). At worst it makes you sound like you have a God complex when you represent your suggestions as "rules" . I know you're trying to create a consistent framework within which we can be objective, but I just don't see it as workable. We're imperfect, us humans.

I really think the only way to resolve these is via a negotiation on an individual basis. If you think the AMB needs to be toned down for power creep reasons, that's fine, but I think it's harming your argument by citing your "rules" as a basis. Just say you think 2x AP3+/AT5+ is too good because it can be too easily used later on a different aircraft, and use the nephilim as an example for this. It's the kind of stat that would be fine on a bomber, but not on a 3-strong formation of fighters that can turn 90 degrees even on ground attack, have all-30cm weapons and also good AA capabilities.

If there are to be any guidelines, I would suggest that they be more general. For example there seems to be broad agreement that we do not need to slavishly copy the weapon loadouts from 40K, or the ranges from ground units. There is less agreement that we can alter the AP/AT values of ground weapons. We can probably also agree that a unit should not excel at both ground attack and interception - i.e. that it can be one or the other, or average at both. Perhaps also we can agree that if an aircraft has good ground shooting stats it should not be classed as a fighter. That AA capability should not be both good at to hit and have lots of shots in the formation. Etc etc.

Inevitably there are conflicts when a weapon is statted with one unit in mind, and then transferred to another unit. But I just don't see how you can legislate for this, you can only try to figure it out once it happens like we are doing now with the Nephilim. Either we use a different weapon on the nephilim, or we try to get Vaaish to concede on the stats for the AMB. Good will on both sides is needed, but framing it as "hey Vaaish, you're not following these rules I just made up" seems unlikely to go down well (apologies for speaking on behalf of Vaaish here).

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

Good points Kyrt. They shouldn't be called rules and semantics DO matter. I think they're good starting guidelines in general (open for some general agreement if they need to get moved around or clarified) but the Rules Police are not going to lock us up if we're not following them They're a starting point to work from, not holy scripture.

I possibly cannot agree with you any more than when you state that we should be designing planes around being good at A and crap at B, the inverse, or being only OK at both. Being good at everything is 1-upman-ship of the worse sort. Spot on.

I think Lord Bruno makes a good point that if you want to increase the range bands that's OK but that it comes up with a decrease in ability and arc. Taking an example on the lightning that could possibly be something of a general guideline of "+15cm == -1 to hit and FFd arcs". I don't think that's really a bad concept in general, and like all things, open to negotiation and nerfs/buffs based on the list as a gestalt whole.

_________________
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!

Jimmy, thanks for clarifying things. You are correct that these are guidelines for starting a design and the "thought police" will not lock us up if we adjust the principles as appropriate.

That said, the point about the 45cm range is that it allows the aircraft to 'snipe' units while staying outside any ground AA cover, even where those AA units are part of the formation being attacked. In Bombers (and the THawk) this is just about acceptable, but less so for FBs and really not for Fighters. Being able to attack units at 45cm range can severely distort the ground game, either because ground units can be attacked with impunity, or because the points spent on airpower are shot out of the sky without come-back. This is why the cap on 45cm needs to be stated and adhered to, despite the 40K stats and their equivalent translation in E:A.

Kyrt, you are absolutely correct that keeping to AP4+ / AT4+ is a somewhat arbitrary. AFAIK there are no 3+ air stats at the moment other than the AP3+ on the ABM, and I suggest that we ought to try to keep it that way for all the reasons on precedent you stated earlier.

Jimmy, I am less sure about trying to use arcs (or worse special rules) to 'nerf' weapons at long range. Again, it is more about the precedent, originally set by the Helltallon and copied in the Lightning, that we need to address.

I might add that we already play to 'elastic ranges' that really have little in common with 40K. At 45cm range the 'long-barrelled cannon' is accurately firing shells at another aircraft several miles distant, which is obviously a nonsense in reality (a very loose term in the 40K universe ).

An AA 6+ only 45cm FFw weapon would give me far less heart ache while retaining some general flexibility on the unit design that's going to be import to some people. Basically Ginger, I'm saying give something to gain something in order to achieve broad consensus. I'd prefer to design away from those situation personally but having a guideline would be intrinsically beneficial I hope.

For a game filled with giant spaceships that can destroy planets but people choose to run at each other with chainsaws I'm willing to let the realism factor to fudge a bit Also to be fair, many of the things that are on the surface a ballistic type weapon are actually small rockets (self targeting shells) according to fluff. I'm willing to say they're equipped with handwavium devices

_________________
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!

It turns out that that precedent is wrong: Helltalon shouldn't have AA on its twin-lascannon, and Autocannon AA shot is just AA6+ (AA5+ for twin-linked like Sabre or Hydra). Problem fixed??



Agreed, sniping with an 45cm AA6+ (5+ intercepting or CAPing) doesn't seem game breaking. And there are more than Hunters out there: Skyrays, Thunderfires, Heavy AA Platforms, etc.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941