Spot on Jimmy, Thanks.

Vaaish and LB, The point is that the air-game works well as it is, where AA and many ground attack weapons are limited to 30cm range, and AA5+, AP4+ or AT4+. Increasing the ranges of these weapons significantly reduces the effect of ground AA, which therefore increases the impact of these aircraft to the detriment of the rest of the game. The same is true for increasing the weapon powers to AA4+, AP3+ and AT3+ etc.

The main issue is that it is practically impossible to define an exact point beyond which a weapon / unit / formation is overpowered - this certainly cannot be done within the context of 'playtesting' because of all the variables involved. So rather than doing this, it is *much* better to keep within the current stats and costs.

In this respect, it is not sensible or appropriate to adhere slavishly to strict conversions of the 40K stats. This is why the range and power of pretty much every airborne weapon is significantly reduced from the ground version of the weapon.

in my opinion, the nightwing and phoenix bomber should be held as the absolute pinnacle of fighers and fighter-bombers respectively, if you're statting a craft and it's approaching the power level of either of those planes, you need to tone it down, although the necrons might argue, it's generally well accepted (I think) that the eldar make the best planes by a considerable margin....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Thanks Kyuss. To expand on this a second, among the elements to be considered are the number of hits the formation can generate and the cost of the formation. These can be combined to provide a usefull metric, the cost per hit. Here is a table comparing the cost per hit and cost per dice for the various aircraft.

Unit . . . .Formtn . Formtn . . Formtn . . . Formtn . . . Total
. . . . . . . size . . . AP hits . . .AT hits . . . AA hits . . Grnd hits
Nightwing . 3 . . . . 1.50 . . . . . 1.50 . . . . . 3.00 . . . . 3.00
Phoenix . . .3 . . . . 2.17 . . . . . 3.33 . . . . . 1.50 . . . . 5.50
Tbolt . . . . .2 . . . . 1.67 . . . . . 1.33 . . . . . 2.00 . . . . 2.60
Avenger . . .2 . . . . 2.67 . . . . . 2.00 . . . . . 1.00 . . . . 4.67
Nephilim . . 3 . . . . 5.50 . . . . . 3.00 . . . . . 1.50 . . . . 8.50

Unit . . . .Formtn . Formtn . Cost per . . Cost per . Cost per . Cost per . Cost per . Cost per
. . . . . . . size . . . . cost . . . AP hit . . . . AT hit . . AA hit . . .Grnd hit . Grnd dice . AA dice
Nightwing . 3 . . . . .300 . . . 200.00 . . . 200.00 . . 100.00 . . 100.00 . . . 50.00 . . . 50.00
Phoenix . . .3 . . . . .350 . . . 161.54 . . . 105.50 . . 233.33 . . . 63.64 . . . 29.17 . . .116.67
Tbolt . . . . .2 . . . . .175 . . . 105.00 . . . 131.25 . . . 87.50 . . . 67.31 . . . 29.17 . . . .43.75
Avenger . . .2 . . . . 225 . . . . 84.38 . . . 112.50 . . 225.00 . . . 48.21 . . . 25.00 . . . . 75.00
Nephilim . . 3 . . . . 300 . . . . 54.55 . . . 100.00 . . 200.00 . . . 35.29 . . . 25.00 . . . . 50.00

(Note, the Phoenix bomber stats assume the template covers 2x infantry and a vehicle, though obviously this can vary considerably. They also assume my preferred cost of 350 - see further notes below).

From these metrics the following points can be observed

• The Avenger is kicking out more ground hits per formation than the TBolt and only slightly less than the Phoenix, so IMO this is getting too high.
• The Nephilim formation is kicking out far too many hits. 8.5 is more than twice the Nightwing fighter, and more than 1.5 time the Phoenix.
• The cost per hit for both the Avenger (48) and the Nephilim (35) is far lower than the target of the Eldar formations, indicating that the costs of these formations need to be raised significantly.
  • If the Avenger stats were deemed 'acceptable' the costs should be raised to 350 to bring the metrics back in line.
  • The Nephilim would need to be costed at 550 to bring them back to the level of the Phoenix, and past 700 to get close to the Nightwing - which is obviously a nonsense.
• Interestingly, the TBolt cost per hit is very near that of the Phoenix. Arguably the cost of the formation should be raised to 200, which brings them back to a more acceptable level.
• At he original cost of the Phoenix bombers (400), the cost per hit rises to 73, while at the E-UK cost (325), they drop to 59. This is one of the reasons why I believe the cost should be 350 as this more closely reflects the TBolt

Ginger, you do realize that playtests are the only way to actually get real data on how things interact and perform, right? The current stats you are pointing to as the ideal of balanced air in Epic were developed through the same playtesting that you say is an unreliable means to determine balance due the variables involved.

Forcing development to stay within current stats is a surefire way to stagnate the game. Development must be allowed a free hand to accurately define units and then appropriately cost them to allow for balanced play. Just because something is different doesn't make it over the top. Nor do the to hit numbers from core lists define a hard line in the sand for all future units.

For example, the Thunderbolt Multi-laser has the same stats as the multi-laser found on the Chimera and Sentinel. The Twin Lascannon on the Marauder also has the same stats twin lascannon on the Land Raider or Predator. I can probably find others, but the pattern should be clear by now that aircraft weapons usually have the same to hit numbers as ground based versions. The difference comes in range which is typically limited to 15-30cm although there are exceptions. The point being, the 4+ and 5+ you are setting up as the limits of aircraft weapons likely have little to do with them being on aircraft and more due to having uniform stats for a weapon regardless of where it is mounted.

In the case of the Avenger particularly, the stats for its weapons are appropriate and fall within the parameters for air mounted versions of ground weapons. Even if we take Eldar aircraft as the absolute best any aircraft can be in epic, the Avenger is in line statistically while being far less resilient to unit attrition. Cost and balance are not based solely on the statistical probability of weapons.

What we CAN glean from the existing range of aircraft in the lists in the printed rulesbooks (IG, Marines, Eldar, Orks) is this:

1. Aircraft weapons retain the same to-hit numbers as the same weapon on a ground unit.
2. Aircraft weapons will usually be limited to a maximum of 30cm.
2a. Aircraft classified as Bombers will usually have one 45cm or better weapon.
3. Weapons with AA will have +1 to hit over regular to-hit values.
4. Aircraft with AP and AT shots are classified as FB or Bombers.
4a. Eldar Aircraft with AP and AT shots are one classification better than other aircraft.

_________________
-Vaaish

The point is *not* that playtesting does not work - it patently does.

However,

• IMO it is impossible to define the *exact* point where the air-game becomes overpowered - and certainly not by 'playtesting', not least because of the dice thrown.
• By introducing ever-more powerefull air weapons, aircraft, air formations etc, the air-game slowly ends up dominating the ground game - consider the recent report from the DA which includes the following quote
  "Thoughts
  As expected the planes were stupidly good, breaking lots of formations and killing loads.... Kev was pretty fed up with them by the end.... as was I..... much much too good".
  
• While I am not saying that the Avenger is as bad as the Nephilim, it *is* better than the Eldar formations. Even if that increase is small, it is an increase which is the thin end of the wedge because it becomes a precedent, the weapons are re-used in an inappropriate way, the formation sizes or costs 'improved' etc.
• One of the results is that ground formations are also 'improved' in reaction to the power-creep - as in the 'Heavy Hydra', sparking off further changes throughout.

I do hope that forcing people to stay within current stats *will* stagnate the air-game, but that does not mean stifling imaginative design. In the case of the Avenger cannon, I do like the principle behind your suggestion and have presented stats for the weapon that are an improvement on existing stats while still fitting within the E:A air-game 'parameters'.

Anyhow, are you seriously suggesting that we should re-visit all the existing aircraft stats and weaponry to make the entire lot more 'realistic', because that is what you seem to be implying - and that way lies madness.

To avoid continually revisiting and 'improving' the stuff, I am stating that IMO it is far more preferable to stay within the current parameters, even if that means that there is not a direct correlation to the 40K stats etc.

Fallacious argument Vaaish. There's no ground unit with an avenger cannon therefore we're free to play as we need for balance. Yes it's a single barreled smaller version of the AMB fitted for aircraft. It also in no way possible would have the direct fire time to shoot nor ammunition supply that would be close to a ground based version thus providing any justifications needed to reduce effectiveness (again for example,GAU-8 has about 28 seconds of firing time before they're empty on an A10 and the M61 is a whooping 6 seconds on an F18).

If you're going to just categorically state, "I'm the AC therefore that's it" I'm fine with that. As long as it's balanced in the ADMECH lists relative to the the whole thing I'm fine provided it's confirmed with playtesting which is your stance as well (I love that you stick to your guns with testing). I feel confident that it's going to be found OTT but we should put our money where our mouths are and prove it. You're likely forcing this plane to not show up in any other lists where they might but but to be fair, that's not your direct problem. [shrugs]



The only way we can take a new set of 40k unit stats is to compare them relative to a known unit's ability at that time in 40k and then proportionally apply that to the established unit. Case in point: A Thunderbolt, at the time the Nephilim was added had 4 (was it 6?) rockets, 2 las cannons and 4 autocannons. Calculating a starting point for a plane from that should give relative abilities (a ball park estimate at least). Taking that and then "changing the origin", so to speak, based on the EA Thunderbolt would give you the relative starting point for the new flyer in EA. The only other option, which is mishigas as Ginger notes, is to re-base every flyer in the game every time a new codex/update comes out. the air game WOULD be balanced that way Ginger, but it'd change the nature of the game to be focused on air power, not the armies themselves. If I want to play 40k air force, I can play AI already.

Now that being said...

The Avenger and the Nephilim are completely separate discussions here folks. They don't share the same weapon (the stats are not the same-FACT). Perhaps they should, but they don't match. In addition, the issue is easily handled via the naming convention of "[insert unit name] [insert weapon name]" that already exists in EA.

Ginger/Vaaish, it's important to note you're not that far apart in your guidelines above. Ginger, I'd suggest you focus your energies not on wide generalized arguments but instead on focused play-testing specific unit/lists.

_________________
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!

Vaaish, I agree with Jimmy that the Avenger is only a little OTT (as I said earlier), so am suggesting trying it with slightly weaker stats, that is all. We can always beef it up if absolutely necessary.

Everyone, who can help out reducing the stats of the other aircraft; The Helltalon, Lightning, Nephilim and Lysander?

I disagree with that statement... The Avenger isn't better than the Eldar stuff, it's just different.



Stagnate as in remain balanced is good. The stagnation I'm talking about is when every Imperial AC is really just a thunderbolt named something differed armed with weapons that are just reskinned underwing rockets or multi-lasers. The second kind is really bad since it doesn't give you incentive to create new units.

[/quote]

I'm a bit unsure where you drew this conclusion from. My intent was that as we develop a new unit we can stat it appropriately to the fluff and 40k references and not feel our hands are tied to a set of cookie cutter stats all epic aircraft must follow. It has nothing to do with the current aircraft stats or weapons and certainly isn't advocating making things more "realistic".

_________________
-Vaaish

The problem Vaaish is that the stats are ported from 40k without adjustment to the fact that older flyers have not been compensated proportionally. Your stats are spot on for current 40k to EA. Honestly, they are perfect. The problem is that Thunderbolts, Thunderbirds, Marauders, etc are all based on earlier 40k power levels (or dreampt up out of the blue before they existed in 40k) and have been buff'd in 40k now, yet EA is "stuck in time".

The choices are clear:
A. We rejigger everything to current 40k stats
B. Relative to the power ratio/abilities they have now, adjust against a known metric.

Really I don't care as both are balanced in the end. Epic flyers are radically under powered but work as is relative to the larger game so I favor B.

Honestly I don't care that much if new flyers largely resemble existing ones as the air game is not the intended focus for EA. However faction wide, having an air superiority fighter, a Close Air Support attack craft, and a generalist themed flyer work well. There's some play with in that fine with adjusting AA range+to hit and AP/AT abilities and occasionally breaking the rules to create a unique themed offering with an appropriate nerf.

Specifically on the Avenger, it's uniqueness should be a fighter bomber with a 15cm rear arc AA shot. Make it a deadly ground attack flyer without any good offensive AA. That's themed and not boring and gives me thought about how to best use it.

_________________
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!

Sorry I should have explained that better. You are correct there is no ground version of the ABC, but that does NOT free us to do whatever we want with the stats.

We know the 40k versions share the same AP and Strength stats; by extension so should the epic versions. Since we've already got stats for the VMB, we use that as a starting point. We also know that the ABC doesn't have the same rate of fire as the VMB (approximately 1/2 in 40k) so we reduce the number of shots the ABC has by 1/2. This gives us the current ABC epic stats of 2x AP3+/AT5+. Add to that the 15cm range reduction most aircraft weapons have, and you have the 30cm range.

That's what we KNOW directly from the stats on both systems. Ammo use and storage is speculation and is frankly outside the scope here for determining the stats. However, lets entertain that for a moment and compare the FW VMB to the Avenger. It's pretty clear that the VMB ammo storage on the titan weapon is only on the arm with no internal feed system to a larger magazine. I can't find any pictures directly comparing the scale of the Avenger and Warhound, but I'd wager that there is plenty of internal space for the Avenger to mount a magazine similar in size to the Warhound arm.


EDIT TO ADD THIS:



Jimmy, I've said this at least three times, the stats aren't ported from 40k directly. The only pieces I'm taking from 40k are these:

1. ABC is based on the VMB
2. ABC has half the rate of fire of the VMB.
3. ABC fires the same size shell as the VMB.

everything else is based on the PREEXISTING epic stats for the VMB which have been around for years.

_________________
-Vaaish

Yes as I said above, your port is perfect provided the Thunderbolt reflected current stats AS WELL. Well, they don't so demonstrably the Avenger is OTT now relative to all existing flyers. (Or to put it another way, you're flying 7th edition, you're forcing everyone else to play 5th )

And for the record FW has stated the Macharius Vulcan is able to carry only twenty seconds worth of ammo. The Avenger is without a doubt smaller and carries less than both Warhounds and Machs.

Any attempt to argue the above isn't true is starting to smack of this=>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd5x3zp1QL0&t=0m30s

edit: correction due. I said they adjusted the TBolt to 4 autocannons. It was two twin-linked autocannons so only double the shots and +1 to what it has now

_________________
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!

Again, I believe you're missing the point Jimmy. We aren't discussing the loadout of the craft being identical between epic and 40k. What I'm arguing is that regardless of where it's found, epic stats weapons consistently. A lascannon on an airplane has the same stats as a lascannon on the ground. If the Avenger mounted a VMB I'd expect the stats to be the same as the VMB on a warhound. Obviously it doesn't, but the weapon it does mount is identical in 40k save for number of shots and range. That should be a very strong indication of how the weapons relate in Epic.

You and Ginger say the Avenger is OTT, but I challenge you to prove it. Play with it, see how it performs and then come back here and show that my playtests are an anomaly.

@ginger: The only thing I'd be willing to do with the Avenger is drop the AA shots on the Lascannons. The Skitarii list has a fair number of options for ground AA and removing most of the Avenger AA sets it up more for CAS near the ground AA bubbles which seems fitting. However, I challenge you to provide playtests using the Avenger. See if putting it on the table sways your mind.

_________________
-Vaaish

We're debating different things here. I don't care if the AdMech list is unbalanced for the flyer stats. I don't need to batrep that because I'M NOT STATING that. I can balance just about anything through formations, restrictions, and points. Vaaish's a smart guy, so can he and will balance the list (Hell, he amazingly balanced and approved the AMTL list-he can split the red sea after that ).

I'm taking exception that you took direct 40k stats without applying the same nerf every other flyer in the game took. I can demonstrably show that with the the following tbolt port using the same process you did:

Thunderbolt F/B 5+
2x twin linked autocannon 30cm AP4+/AT5+/AA4+
Twin Linked Lascannon 30cm AT4+
Rockets AT4+

I think we can agree that the TBolt doesn't look anything like that in EA. I can do this all night with the rest of the flyers in the FW books. This is NOT theory. That's following the standard algorithm and then using grade school logic to see they're different.

I find that unfair and unsportman like to not apply the same type of nerfs uniformly that the other flyers took.

What I'm failing to get across isn't that I think the stats shouldn't match across the game, mate. I'm saying "pull a thunderbolt" and give it a different weapon proportionally to the above planes. Call it "Super Duper Awesome Gatling Gun" and drop it to a single shot and then there's nothing to worry about the VMB OR I'd ask to dump the lascannons (like we did on the TBolt) and keep the kick ass 1/2 VMB as you've got it. A plane focused entirely on ground attack and worthless on CAP is interesting.

_________________
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!

actually I think people need to stop hiding behind the 'batreps are the only legit source of truth' it's clearly not true, it's a combination, and also people need to correctly stress test things.... I tried to do this with the nephilim recently and showed (at least partially) how potent it is by going up against a force light on AA (and there are plenty of people who play AA-light armies so this needs to be taken into account) with 3 formations, and specifically targeted formations where it would be most effective..... it utterly dominated the game from the get-go

taking a formation like the nephilim or avenger and then spending the game ground-attacking a warlord titan is not going to return stellar results in terms of playtesting

also this 'weapons must have the same stats on all vehicles' sensibility has been comprehensively debunked... and the argument using a real-world example, remains unanswered

in the case of the avenger cannon, it may be a half fire-rate VMB, but while the VMB is mounted on a titan, giving it a hugely stable platform, massive ammo stocks, repair servitors, cooling systems, increased amounts of power, and the ability to make fine targeting adjustments while firing, the avenger cannon is mounted on a plane, and seemingly not a VTOL so you're not hovering, true lies style, and concentrating fire, you're making a series of short, strafing runs across the target, your gun is fixed to the fuselage so you're way less able to make fine adjustments in targeting, and if you miss, you have to come around for another pass.... you're only carrying a few thousand rounds which have to be re-armed often.... damn straight it should have less than half the firepower of the vulcan, which let's remind ourselves here is a titan grade weapon

I'll batrep the avenger at some point soon and see if it's as breakable as the nephilim

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator