Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

E:A Power creep in air units and formations

 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:20 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6353
Location: Leicester UK
jimmyzimms wrote:
Incidentally, I need some help getting some testing on my new tank, Steve/Kyuss. It's a Land Raider with 12TK(1) attacks. Don't worry though, we'll balance it with the costs and the formation size [sarcasm] :-*

Cheers


good job you used the sarcasm tags..... I was taking it seriously and turning the most brilliant shade of purple.....

@Vaaish

I literally don't have the energy to continue this battle of words with you, it's the weekend, I have beer in the fridge and I think it's time to let go

just a final thing, my point was never about how uber the avenger fighter was, statistically it's probably okay, I have little interest in the skitaari list which is why I hadn't gotten involved or seen the plane, I may be wrong here but I don't expect you're in the loop about every development in every list either, I'm sorry it's taken till now for me to flag it up, but my first introduction to the AMB was via the dark angels list which I do have a passing interest in

my argument in brief is that the air game in particular is tricky to balance, it's also not really intended to be the main focus of E:A (hence the "that'll do" nature of the aircraft in the rulebook lists) the rules in some places are kinda clunky and poorly written and could probably do with a revamp... but that's a different discussion

Aircraft can be very potent in numbers, anyone who has faced the ork 'flying circus' list will know this, as well as being powerful, against many standard list builds, potent (or even not-so-potent) aircraft can be game winning by themselves, and it can be demoralising for an opponent who hasn't stocked up on AA and then is very quickly rendered helpless and gets fed up

I think we need to think very carefully when introducing new weapons to the air game, as it tends to be an area where precedents get set easily and it's very difficult to "put the toothpaste back in the tube" as it were, once a weapon becomes accepted/approved

We all accept (I think) that GW generally increases the power of its units as they are released to make them attractive to their core market, if we keep faithfully translating those new stats into epic, we're going down that same route of power/codex creep, whether it's translating the stats from 40k or accepting the fluff from 40k.... sure the plane has half a vulcan on it but so what? it's the GW "never think anything through" approach and we really don't have to bind ourselves to that, use it as a basis (eg. "it's got a rapid firing anti infantry gun on it, vulcan is a bit much for a fighter, typical silly GW... let's think about how to represent it without pushing it too far")

However as we've been cut adrift by GW, we aren't bound to follow their rules, and we can (and frequently should) throw our hands up in the air and say "hey this is ridiculous! we need to tone it down for epic"

not everyone loves or hates every new unit or model GW releases so there is no firm guidance on what to include and what to leave out, my concern is that having an aircraft weapon with 2xAP3+/AT5+ shots will open the door further in future, the next big thing GW releases may have two or more.... then we get to the point where if we want to balance it through points alone, it ends up costing half the army, and in isolation, it's still super nasty and not particularly fun to face... if we keep going down that route, surely we'll eventually just end up with armies that are just a bunch of very expensive, very powerful units.... basically everything will just be titans.... and I think the game will suffer as a result

I've offered plenty of real world examples and suggestions as how a nerf (or boost depending on the weapon) could be implemented and justified, these have all been ignored and from my POV with no real reason other than 'This is the gospel as written by GW, so shall it ever be'

I don't want to argue about the AC-not-listening-to-the-majority thing because in my personal opinion and experience, taking that level of firm approach is just a way to put playtesters off, and an AC without enthusiastic playtesters is not gonna get a list approved on his own, however hard he pushes

best of luck to you, I think AoC may have seen the light and dumped the AMB so it's a non-issue for me

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:59 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4231
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
I literally don't have the energy to continue this battle of words with you, it's the weekend, I have beer in the fridge and I think it's time to let go


No worries, I'm a bit frustrated and I'm sorry if some of that got taken out on you and others.

There are these constant, vicious petty cycles that happen throughout development and I think they sap the momentum and fun in playing the game. We are all here because we love epic and we are passionate about the game, but we need to be a bit more open to experimentation. Experimental and Developmental lists shouldn't be held to the same standards as Approved lists. They aren't always balanced, nor should they be. These are the lists where we can experiment and try new things to keep Epic fresh. Stop treating them like any experimentation is destroying Epic and let the system work. I don't think anyone here wants the game to be unbalanced and over time OP units will get toned down. Even though it's eminently frustrating, ensuring at least a semblance of balance is why we even have the approval process.

The time for caution is when we push a list forward for approval. That's when anything not thoroughly tested needs to come under scrutiny. For lists in development, hold your peace and let things get tried out. You might find out that it's not nearly as bad as you think, and even if it is you'll have test results to point back to.

I'm not unwilling to make concessions or change things if it's needed, just look at the changelog for the AdMech and Skitarii lists. I just grow tired of these endless debates where nobody bothers to even play a game if things don't go "their" way and STILL don't bother playing even if what they want changed goes through. It's exhausting. Play the game, have fun, stop bickering.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Ok, guys this is getting a tad heated and personal without finding an acceptable way forward.

Kyuss - a bit long, but spot on analysis of the problem, thanks.
In summary, GW continually boost the power of weapons and units for commercial purposes. 'Slavishly' following their lead will result in ever more powerfull units and formations that will eventually wreck E:A (this is especially true of the air-game).Therefore we need find ways to curb these excesses when developing E:A lists.

There are actually two issues; apart from resolving the newer units, we also need to correct the Helltalon and Lightning to remove the precedence set by these units. Who are the people that need to make these corrections?

Additionally we also need to codify some principles and parameters for the guidance of list design in the future. What should these be, how should they be documented and where located?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Vaaish, I do agree that this is a game and we need to take a breath, step back and have fun

However I also contend that list design would probably be less frustrating by starting from a generally accepted (albeit underpowered) set of stats and increasing the power as appropriate through the development process, rather than relying on the approval process to 'vet' the list, running the risk of rejection and a lot of wasted effort through poor initial design.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:06 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4231
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
However I also contend that list design would probably be less frustrating by starting from a generally accepted (albeit underpowered) set of stats and increasing the power as appropriate through the development process, rather than relying on the approval process to 'vet' the list, running the risk of rejection and a lot of wasted effort through poor initial design.


Difference in philosophy. My experience has been that underpowered units rarely get boosted to appropriate stats and are often ignored entirely. If they are changed, the discussions usually center on reducing the points cost or increasing the formations size rather than boosting weapons. While I like to hope that when I put together stats based on the discussions the unit is close to balanced, I prefer not to purposefully underpower a unit so as not to open a can of worms if weapons stats do come up again.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:47 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
The Helltalon twin lascannons have been 30cm for some time now.
The AA4+ on the Helltalon is actually quite acceptable for the reasons outlined here:
mspaetauf wrote:
Hi!

I haven't read all this. I just wanted to comment on the Hell Talon.
I play Chaos on a regular basis, and lately have tried the Hell Talon. I have to say it reads better than it actually is IMO.
First off all, the AA 4+ shot is very good indeed, but since it is also a Bomber you always have to choose which role to fulfill with the Aircraft. So if you Intercept, you forgoe your bombs, and vice versa. Also it is quite fragile (as are most aircraft).

Also, I feel that Chaos is very low on AA - they have the Obliterator, but it only hits on a 6 and isn't the most mobile thing around (also it is damn expensive).

Hellblades were already increased in points costs, so overall I think Chaos air support is within acceptable levels.

cheers

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Umm, I was taking the "45cm" stats from the 2014 Compendium, where there are many Chaos armies all using the Helltalon. Furthermore, IIRC there have been suggestions for other Chaos ground AA units/ formations precisely to boost the weak AA.

While 30cm is better it does provide yet another set of stats for the same weapon. And more importantly, AA4+ is a precedent that IMO needs to be revised for all the reason discussed above. If we do not revise this to AA5+, at least we need to recognise that this is an exception to the general principle that *all* Fighter and FB AA must be AA5+ or AA6+.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:00 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Ginger wrote:
Umm, I was taking the "45cm" stats from the 2014 Compendium, where there are many Chaos armies all using the Helltalon.
...
If we do not revise this to AA5+, at least we need to recognise that this is an exception to the general principle that *all* Fighter and FB AA must be AA5+ or AA6+.
Please check HERE for the latest stats for all armies (details in THIS thread).

I do not agree with an arbitrary principle that all fighters must be this or that.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:41 pm
Posts: 486
Location: Austria
Ginger wrote:
Umm, I was taking the "45cm" stats from the 2014 Compendium, where there are many Chaos armies all using the Helltalon. Furthermore, IIRC there have been suggestions for other Chaos ground AA units/ formations precisely to boost the weak AA.

While 30cm is better it does provide yet another set of stats for the same weapon. And more importantly, AA4+ is a precedent that IMO needs to be revised for all the reason discussed above. If we do not revise this to AA5+, at least we need to recognise that this is an exception to the general principle that *all* Fighter and FB AA must be AA5+ or AA6+.



well initially the unit was designed by Jervis himself, right? Maybe it was an oversight on his part, but where does it say AA can only be 5+ or 6+?

I could also argue the Eldar Nightwings have Armour 4+, which is pretty good for a "simple" fighter...

but yeah, I mean if the Hell Talon is constantly taken by Chaos players in your group, it might be a sign that it needs slight teaking :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
TBH Lascannons need to be looked at for AA. The Marauder has AA4+ 45cm as well (in the tournament pack, at least), while the Nightwing has a Brightlance (the Eldar version of the lascannon, which in Epic is AT5+ just as the lascannon) but at AA5+ (for a twinlinked weapon). That's an inconsistency that we could do something about .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:14 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Galicia, Spain
Onyx wrote:
The Helltalon twin lascannons have been 30cm for some time now.
The AA4+ on the Helltalon is actually quite acceptable for the reasons outlined here:


So instead of dropping twin-linked, or the AA firepower (AA4+ -> AA5+ ), an EA rule is just broken making a FxF Lascannon have a 30cm range (when it is 45cm)??

Ulrik wrote:
TBH Lascannons need to be looked at for AA. The Marauder has AA4+ 45cm as well (in the tournament pack, at least), while the Nightwing has a Brightlance (the Eldar version of the lascannon, which in Epic is AT5+ just as the lascannon) but at AA5+ (for a twinlinked weapon). That's an inconsistency that we could do something about .


Totally agreed. First of all: don't break stats consistency in EA.

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Why twin lascannons should be 30cm AT4+/AA5+:
- 45cm lets you snipe units which should be protected by their own organic flak
- a lascannon should not have better AA than the Eldar equivalent - Eldar are the kings of the sky, the Imperium shouldn't beat them at their own game
- 30cm AT4+/AA5+ is a decent weapon on an aircraft. 45cm AT4+/AA4+ is an amazing weapon that has already created several balance problems and workarounds/patches (Lightning, Hell Talon, Nephilim)

_________________
- Ulrik


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:14 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Galicia, Spain
Ulrik wrote:
Why twin lascannons should be 30cm AT4+/AA5+:
- 45cm lets you snipe units which should be protected by their own organic flak
- a lascannon should not have better AA than the Eldar equivalent - Eldar are the kings of the sky, the Imperium shouldn't beat them at their own game
- 30cm AT4+/AA5+ is a decent weapon on an aircraft. 45cm AT4+/AA4+ is an amazing weapon that has already created several balance problems and workarounds/patches (Lightning, Hell Talon, Nephilim)


So I guess weapons rules, coherence in stats, and fluff doesn't matter for you, just balance (which can be adjusted in other ways, like points and firepower, or dropping twin-linked like I said many times already).

Because FxF lascannon having 45cm range is a rule. Same as all heavy bolters having AP5+ firepower, or Volcano cannons having 90cm range. All FxF lascannons (Marauder, Phoenix and Vampire Pulsars, etc) have 45cm range in Epic.

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:18 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 611
Balance should indeed trump "fluff" and "coherence". Glad we all agree here!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: E:A Power creep in air units and formations
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
MikeT wrote:
Balance should indeed trump "fluff" and "coherence". Glad we all agree here!


Yes, isn't harmony nice :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net