|
This was gone over ad infinitum with the Tau aircraft discussions, but balancing aircraft is about a lot more than price v ability. Aircraft occupy a unique position in EA. In particular, very powerful aircraft tend to either work very well or fail spectacularly. Assuming for the sake of argument that the point cost is exactly perfect for what the aircraft can do over the long term, that randomness still causes problems. It emphasizes the metagame of list-building. Facing potentially devastating aircraft means that you end up with a rock-paper-scissors effect of massive AA versus the chance of the aircraft showing up. A single lucky critical, potentially from a single AA shot, means massive loss of capacity.
===
I also object not just on terms of game balance, but because it was made up by fans, and doesn't exist outside of a single fan-written BFG fleet list, IIRC.
I understand this concern but the ThAn seems to be accepted by the studio or, perhaps more accurately, that it's in a nebulous "not official but not problematic" holding pattern. It was included in the list by Jervis. BT were originally intended to be the first variant SM list (canceled for various reasons). My sense was that the list had been at least given a cursory conceptual review and it was okay.
===
That said... 45cm, MW2+, TKd3 is a problem on any aircraft. If the BT need a TK Thawk, it should be no more than TK1 and the possibility of reducing the range should be considered.
But is it really needed? There seems to be a general misconception that TK or at least MW is required for taking down large WEs. Massed AT fire works and is more multipurpose. The turbolaser Thawk version, the CAS configuration from Hena's Scions list, could be a workable substitute and would obviously mate up with FW's future production plans as E&C pointed out.
I don't think that there should be any Thawk that is a fighter-bomber. Maybe it's just me but the idea of a Thawk chasing down enemy fighters seems a bit silly. Unfortunately, that leaves a substantial hole with respect to AA options. I don't know how much a theoretical formation of Hunters would cost, but that doesn't seem like it would be very effective to me. You would have one 60cm circle where no one would dare send aircraft, but everything else would be wide open and Hunters just don't have enough ground-oriented fire to be worth it in that respect.
The list already has substantial holes for style reasons. I don't think it's okay to simply write this off as well. However, it might be possible to semi-patch this, and semi-patch another and come out okay.
If there is any chapter that would make extensive use of the Thawk versatility, I think Black Templars is it. The list is weak on AA and doesn't have arty because the ground troops want to be in the thick of it. So, what if they used the Saturation Bombing Thawk (stats already available in the Scions list) to cover the arty/barrage angle and we bumped the availability of Hunters? That could make the changes something like:
Thawk Annihilator - Either reduce ability or replace with CAS configuration.
Thawk Bomber - Helps cover lack of arty.
Hunters - 1-2 per upgrade, and make them available to the Sword Bretheren as well as the other armor formations. After all, they should be encouraged to use LRCs and Hunters would go well with vehicle-mounted termies.
_________________
Neal
|
