Ladies and Gents,

After reading through a bunch of discussion on AC again lately and the dreadded AA4+, I was thinking that the issue seems to come about where we develop a aircraft with ground attack in mind, and through application of "consistent" weapon stats we often accidentally make a very good interceptor.

Very quickly the debate rages about OTT AA interceptors and so on but in order to limit it, the original air to ground stats quickly get nerfed or we try to re-invent weapon stats to justify some design intent.

Could this whole saga be avoided if the +1 to hit on CAP and intercept was limited to only those aircraft that are actually fighters, not fighter-bombers?

Fighters are dedicated air-to-air specialist, and as such should probably be limited in their effectiveness against ground units. Bombers are clearly there to lug heavy munitions or troops around. Fighter bombers are that multi-role, jack of all trades/master of none, that cannot hope to match either the dedicated fighter or bomber in their element.

Anyhow I think this is food for thought, as limiting the +1 to hit to only fighters might help bring in the plethora of new AC, often fighter bombers, without accidentally creating the next best interceptor.

I`ve often wondered if we could just reset to the original intent of no +1 to intercept....

I'm happy with the existing +1 for all and don't see a need to change.

If newer aircraft stats are causing problems that's down to them and they be statted more appropriately.

GlynG, mate that comes across as the thought process / attitude that is causing the issues of late.
So please explain what do you mean by appropriately?
I think that could be interpreted a few ways, eg:

Some may say that:
-A new AC in 40k has weapons X,Y & Z,
-Those weapons, following our intent to be consistent in weapons, should have the stats X1, Y1 & Z1,
-That makes the aircraft somewhere close to or better than Aircraft A, so the should cost approx ?? pts.

Others may think along the lines of:
- Great, GW has made another new AC,
- Regardless of weapon stats it shouldn't be better than Aircraft A because that doesn't feel right because of fluff or balance or whatever.
- Therefore regardless of having weapons X, Y & Z, it should have weapon stats X1 & Z2. (so a change to one and ignore one weapon completely)
- Fine for balance but not WYSIWYG

Neither approaches is inherently wrong, my suggestion is simply their to allow a ground attack aircraft to exist with a common weapon stat line without inadvertently creating a fantastic interceptor.

The +1 didn't exist to start with, it was added in because people were upset their fighters sucked on the intercept. Fair enough, but you could also blame that on (or fix) the current way in which flack and defensive flack works in the game. Having all Gnd AA fire simultaneously and then all air AA fire simultaneously would give fighters a better chance to drop enemy AC, though the option to dodge aerial AA fire would probably be lost, it would also allow the CAP a CAP reaction quite easily but... that another topic for another day.

Not really. If the current situation is that existing aircraft work fine with the existing rules and lists, but that newly created units are just too good, then logically the issue lies with the newly created units, and not the existing rules or units.

I mean, that's just about the dictionary definition of power creep, which I hope we can all agree we want to avoid.

Also, exisiting aircraft have been seriously upgunned in 40k since EA was originally designed. The classic example is the Thunderbolt - a stormbolter, a multilaser and a couple rockets turned into, what, six autcannons, four lascannons and a battery of rockets?

Ha! i wish

Close, its 4 Autocannons and 2 Lascannons + under wing weapons. "Appropriately Statted" this could look something like:
Aircraft Ar: 5+ CC: - FF: -
2x TL Autocannons 30cm AP4/AT5/AA5
TL Lascannon 30cm AT4/AA5
Bombs* 15cm BP1
OR
Hellstike Missiles* 30cm AT4

*Pick One
(Improved armour save as current take on the Tbolt is its quite tough)

I'm not advocating OTT flyers, but I get the immense frustration of players who want to add something new to the game and can't because back in the day someone picked a crappy loadout or stats for the tbolt and marauder... Some flyers exist, like the eldar, that are pretty good but they pay for it..

Now the above example of a new style Tbolts is not OTT in ground attack role. Sure I'd probably pay 200+ points for it now given the increased firepower, but its "appropriate", the stats align with current "standards" and the weapon ranges have been reduced 15cm as is also the common practice for many 45cm weapons when included on aircraft.

However, use this aircraft in the intercept role and it will generate an avg of 1.5 AA hits out to 30cm, which will raise a few eyebrows... and is OTT. This is not the fault of the flyer, its the result of a rules tweak a number of years ago.
The thuderbolt is a flying tank, its not an agile air-to-air combatant, but if its gunning for you it does have a lot of sting in its nose such that it can cause damage through weight of fire. Hence the suggestion that only those agile, dedicated fighters get the benefit of the +1.

Anyhow, just wanted to try and make that a little clearer.

I agree with this 100%

there is nothing stopping anyone from adding new flyers to lists, but I think there is a need to be prepared to compromise on the weapon loadout and an expectation that weapons may be dropped or reduced in firepower to fall in line with established stats rather than directly porting the 40k loadout in.... what's so bad about doing that?

my imperial guard don't have an autocannon on every other stand, my tactical marines don't have a missile launcher on every stand, my marine scouts aren't carrying heavy bolters.... there is already plenty of abstraction and non-WYSIWYG in the game, personally I don't see a burning need to represent every gun a model has at the expense of the balance of the game

my opinions of course

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

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

The air system in Epic is probably the most awkward part of the game. Modeling how aircraft work is quite tricky, even more so when we want to play with models and match them to a ground battle taking place at a different pace... Then you have the problem of reconciling what GW/FW have stuck on the model. The idea of one weapon, one stat breaks down on aircraft. Take a Tornado GR4 today, one of its missile roles is anti tank - in this role it flies vaguely near the enemy, fires its six brimstone missiles then turns tail and sprints for home. In Epic terms that is what, one appearance for the whole game? Aircraft that are incepted and have to fight also often have to turn back, having jettisoned bombs and used up to much fuel.
Ultimately this bit of the game is the biggest abstraction and you should stat stuff to fit in with the envisaged role, with the proviso that the Eldar are the best and are therefore the upper limit.

Hmm.. This looks to be going the same way as any new AC discussion so I'll ask the question in a different way.

Why do fighters need the +1 to hit on intercept and Cap, when surely they were statted appropriately in the first place? Also why is AA4+ bad on an AC but fine on a ground unit?

This rule amendment, and to some extent the awkward aerospace rules, are forcing us into more complex issues with unit design.

How often do people get upset over AT4+, because that might mean AT3+ on a sustain action? Can't say I hear that to often.

I get your example TRC, and with the modern wonders of technology such acts are common but as we seem to be constantly reminded, this is more like WW2 in space so AC do tend to loiter a bit more and conduct a series of strafing runs... Regardless of how each of us want to think about it, consider the RAW currently and consider if they actually represent or simulate that vision in our heads.

My suggestion, a compromise between the old and current rules, actually opens up the field a little more and allows eldar fighters to still be the top dogs in air-to-air but imperial and other ground attack craft to still be good at air to ground without upsetting balance or fluff or forcing us to invent non standard weapons and configurations. Yes, not everything in the game is WYSIWYG but the vast majority of vehicles in the game have all major weapons accounted for on their stat line.

I think that the current aircraft system works (mostly) okay, I'm just wary of messing with that (which is an official rules amendment after all) so we can add more realistically statted aircraft to the game.... I just don't see a burning need to accurately model all the new aircraft GW release....

I think the +1 on intercept/CAP could be explained that the aircraft are going in with a target in mind, they've got clear goals and are ready, they don't get the bonus when firing at targets of opportunity who happen to pass nearby or surprise them

Fighter-bombers already tend to be hamstrung as they can't turn as tightly on approach and are less able to avoid ground flak, it's also very rare that they don't have to get within 15cm of the target and risk exposing themselves to defensive fire if they want to fire at full effect

I see nothing wrong with the original idea, and if the game were being re-written from scratch, maybe something like that could be implemented, but I don't think the game is crying out for it as it stands

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

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Remember that FxF mounted weapons keep their normal range. It's not that "the weapon ranges have been reduced 15cm", it's an actual rule that not FxF mounted weapons reduce range in 15cm.

But obviously the weapons load must be reduced (stats kept), 3 lascannons or 4 autocannons are a bit too much.

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

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

They got it because with the exception of thunderbolts and fighta bombers being used for ground attack they weren't doing much intercepting. Think it was one of the last changes Jervis approved. Was to be a boost vs stuff like thunderhawks.

AA4+ is fine - but I think the limit of 1 hit with all weapons firing on average should be the top end for an interceptor.



Not really... planes like a Hurricane of a junkers would make its attack, perhaps followed up with a second strafe/bombing run and head for home. Likewise a dogfight, knock out one enemy, turn for home. Then you woud be out of it for an hour or two. Reminds me of something else gun wise - an epic unit has roughly 15minutes of fire and movement for a turn, an airplane has a few seconds. They don't deliver the same number of rounds on target over their attack as a ground unit would with the same gun.

So back to what is the effect this aircraft should have, then picking numbers to suit. So say the Dark Angels flier has the ability to stay outside the range of defensive AA like an eldar plane and hammer the enemy bomber, while a thunderbolt has to brave the AA fire to deliver all its attacks. Is this isn't the effect you want, the stats aren't fitting what you envisage.



Taking the +1 away from the thunderbolts and ork fightas just puts intercepts back to how they were, which is to say not very attractive or effective.

We need to keep the a/c statistics and rule discussions separate. The air rules are very abstracted, but generally provide the desired 'interdiction' aspect within the essentially ground based game of E:A. As TRC pointed out, aircraft work in a completely different timescale; if you want a more realistic air-game, concentrate on that game to the exclusion of E:A.

IMO the +1 rule is a very good way of abstracting the attackers 'bouncing' their enemy. As such, it is nothing to do with the aircraft statistics.

Now for the contentious bit . . . .
IMO the 'air-game' is a mixture of attack and defense, and a *very* limited amount of power escalation, where one element triumphs and is then eclipsed by the other. To that extent, I would much prefer it if air weapons were limited to close-range (15cm), long-range (30cm) and a few extreme range missiles (45cm); while ground AA is "hand held" (15cm), close range (30cm), long-range (45cm) and a few extreme range weapons (60cm). Weapon Power is also hard to work with - ideally 4+ should be the average, with only a very few 3+ weapons. Given the +1 rule for 'bouncing' the enemy, I maintain that no Fighter or Fighter-bomber offensive AA should be 4+ or higher. This in turn abstracts all such weapons to be "stronger" 5+, or "weaker" 6+.

The huge problem is that GW keep introducing more powerfull units for commercial reasons. In the context of the E:A rules and the above abstraction, there is essentially no leeway for modelling this increased power.

• Increasing a weapon's power makes it much more potent *if* it gets to be used, putting more emphasis on defensive AA, which tends to make the result very binary - either the AA shoots the aircraft down, or the aircraft destroys the target.
• Increasing weapon ranges exacerbates things; potentially stopping aircraft being deployed or worse, allowing them to fire unopposed.

Given the way that the air-game is currently fairly well balanced and that increases in statistical power will tend to be unbalancing, IMO we really need to adopt a simple style of conversion, abstracting aircraft to a limited set of roles with effectively predefined stats, and adopting similar conversion mechanics for Ground AA.

Now I appreciate that this won't appeal to those who want to model / match the capability of weapons and units, and I do sympathise with that desire. However, the alternative to this approach is to effectively allow GW to wreck E:A as we know it through the power-creep they continually introduce.

I agree with your AC range bands, though the ground ones could be a bit longer, especially noting everyone's concerns over AC domination.

The air rules are reasonable for the game, I'm not proposing a while new game within a game.

The blanket +1 doesn't differentiate between AC's intended roles so it is somewhat flawed but so is the fact that defensive flak works out before the interceptors fire but it is what it is for now.

I'm just currently of the opinion that under performing interceptors should have been addressed through individual review rather than a blanket rule.

Edit.. Sorry a final thought would be to replace with an additional weapon special rule, say air-to-air, those weapons get +1 to hit on the intercept but those without don't , that way you can selectively control what is meant for AA use and what is not.

Ok is late, chat later.