Page 5 of 7

[ 96 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

It is time to let "5 Aces" go...
The_Real_Chris	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:43 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Here we go. I think at the root of this is the air rules in Epic (as has been outlined above), a consequence of the fact Epic has been designed as large scale 40k (so flak and similar is an add on). See my proposals for how to solve all the air problems in a different thread incidentally. This does make air units tricky to deal with. They do have an increase in effectiveness with air superiority - which is why I think other air units are pricey/fragile. They are priced for that situation (making them of course unattractive). Like Gavin said a combination of factors makes the TS a better plane than the existing options in other lists (bar the Thunderhawk which is just bloody hard, but without the firepower can't be a mainstay). Its cheap. As an activation its a good choice. It further lets you get more of them at less risk to the ground forces strength. It also allows easier multiplication of its strengths. Its hard. Its actually the hardest bomber in the game, the other contenders are transport craft. Indeed fluff wise does it even ever get shot at? Its long ranged. A big multiplier for achieving air superiority and its armour as now fewer shots are going in. Its got a fearsome firepower making it multi-role. The firepower lends itself to exploiting the targeting rules against horde armies. The potential massive flak cover from the ground further eliminates interception weaknesses. In essence the plane is great. It has few flaws and they are mostly covered by the other army options. Tie this into the flawed air rules and it creates a problem. Sure there are ways round it but they result in a massive increase in flak and/or interceptors. Of course this is somewhat realistic, however the existing army lists aren't designed to cope with this. They would need tweaking to their flak and fighters. You then have an issue about is this the kind of game everyone wants to play? Its true a lot of the problem comes from the guns. The long range makes it harder than it otherwise is and allows its own flak to cover it better. The 2 TK attacks make it able to kill anything it comes up against. It allows it to exploit the sniping issue superbly. But but but. The guns are what defines this aircraft. I've heard it oft mentioned its a WE hunter. How could it do that with just MW? Plus MW is fairly common in the list already. The guns should be tailored to the target. I don't think they have been yet. This is in reality how a special weapon breaks down in terms of best returns on firing. That is kills the most in enemy points of troops. MW - Best against units with a single save, the higher the better. TK - Best against units with reinforced armour. TK (D?) - Best against RA units with multiple points of damage. A tigershark with 2 MW attacks is no WE killer. It's a waste, far better to shoot at nobz, ogryns, marines, etc. One with TK can do it, but if with every hit you get a dead leman russ its better than chipping away at a shadowsword. A TK (D?) beast can destroy all of the above but its overkill unless it shoots something with multiple hits. This is how you specialise the thing, and therefore make it less universal. Also makes it worse at sniping. The other aspect of the guns is the range. The longer the range the less the enemy can do to you with flak (can't reach) and fighters (operate under your flak cover). Its a big multiplier for the armies flak assets and the airframes hits and armour. The airframe. Toughest bomber in the game. Tougher than a marauder, tougher than a phoenix. I have little beef with the stats actually. I think all medium bombers should be 2 hit 5+ save. I think the marauder should be as well. Is the Tigershark a medium bomber? Should it actually be more akin to the Phoenix fighter bomber? Well, it seems to be staying a bomber and not becoming a fighter as well which I think makes it a light bomber/transport in its original incarnation, upgraded to a gunship in its more popular configuration. With a shortened range it needs the two hits to stop opportunistic fire downing it (not perhaps realistic but as they will be around in more limited numbers its no fun losing the plane to a lone flakwagon). However I think the save should decrease. Look at the comparison to the Phoenix if you would. The Phoenix is a cap ship bomber. Against heavy amounts of flak (here two hits) it has a 3/36 chance of surviving. Against one hit it lives 15/36. Maker the TS 2 damage points, 6+ save and what do you have? Against heavy flak (2 hits) you have a 6/36 chance of surviving. A bit better, but you can't intercept enemy stuff like the phoenix making you less suited to action in space. However against likely lower levels of ground flak (compared to jumping capital ships) you live 31/36 of the time, far better than the phoenix, and I think this is fine. Of course at the higher save (5+) I reckon the Tau should make it their main space asset! The cost. Of course it should reflect the ability, but the cheap it is the more unbalancing due tot he air rules that factor itself can be. Here it has to go up somehow, the trick is to do it in a way that doesn't make it only worthwhile in number. Linked to this as a factor is squadron size. Now 2 plane squadrons are regarded as a no no, as you can then fiddle about with how you take hits and make the individual plane more survivable. To counter this it becomes single plane squadrons but now you have an activation advantage (very good with planes, you become more surivable), so the cost goes up. But then how to make it attractive in a low point game where it needs it force multiplier? If the plane is less tough the squadron becomes less overpowering. So less points increase as its still a squadron not giving the same activation boost. As a result it means you don't have a prohibitive cost on the things in smaller games. In essence I would recommend trying it for its role in one of two ways. Smallest tweak. 30cm (removing the hardness multiplier) 3+ TK (D3) (more damge to WE now, but less damage to regular units - Going from 1 damage point to a WE to an average of 1 1/3 and to a regular unit 1 hit to 2/3's of a hit, so increasing specialisation). Oh and in general drop the air-to-air missiles from the airframe, giving attacking fighters more angles of attack, maybe away from Tau flak. I still think though this would leave some underlying problems in place and if then to counter this the price went up it would make the plane overall unattractive unless you were playing very big games (is this acceptable though?). Or the 0-1 limit would appear. More daring tweak (and the one I'd favour). You address the points cost, the activation increase, the weaponry and the enemies ability to get you. In fact the plane comes down in cost slightly with the following stats, but with less squadron survivability should go to being two strong making it a viable option for smaller games. Tigershark squadron - 2 Tigersharks - 250 points Warengine, Bomber Save 6+ Damage Capacity 2, critical hit, it dies. Twin Linked Burst cannons, 15cm AP4+/AA6+ Missile Bays (Or whatever they are called), 45cm, MW6+, Guided missiles Twin Linked Ion Cannon, 45cm, AP2+, AT3+, AA5+ Transport 4 heavy/normal drones (Pointed as transport then as ground infantry support, limited firepower but 45cm range means highly persistent turn to turn.) (Oh, I hope an army of 4 squadrons plus 8 drone squadrons and ground friends wouldn't be too good ) Tigershark Varient Squadron - 2 Tigersharks - 325 points Warengine, Bomber Save 6+ Damage Capacity 2, critical hit, it dies. Twin Linked Burst cannons, 15cm AP4+/AA6+ Missile Bays (Or whatever they are called), 45cm, MW6+, Guided missiles Twin Linked Railcannon, 30cm, MW3+, TK(D3) (Pointed to be able to kill a 3 hit WE in one turn if it is markerlit.) Even though it lets you now get 6 planes at 3000 points I think with the firepower down against regular troops and more vulnerable, you wouldn't be onto a winner. Of course a WE/Titan army is dead dead dead. Which is I think how it should be. I agree that in an ideal world we can fix it without a limit on numbers. If that proves impossible I'd prefer to tie it into getting barracudas than a simply 0-1 limit. Even with a limit though the main weapon would have to be tweaked to stop it being a 1 choice not 0-1. In essence I would like to see it be a viable choice in whatever size of game, but no be a paradigm shift in the metagame aspect of Epic - at least until the air rules are fixed. I think the above stats do that, encouraging 1-2 squadrons to be taken, putting the plane into the category of damn useful support. Okay, not that short after all! _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

Dobbsy	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:08 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia	CS- At 200 each will they be single or by pair? I'll be glad to have a decision either way
Top

Honda	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:28 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm Posts: 1891 Location: Katy, Republic of Texas	@TRC I would not be in favor of Option #1, but I think the second has promise. I would be willing to accept the +6 save and what that would do to the stats, but I want to see the Lt. Rail cannon variant at 45 cms. How would you cost that? Also, am I understanding your costs correctly? As posted, 325 for a two ship element? _________________ Honda "Remember Taros? We do" - 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top

Dobbsy	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:33 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia	6+ save? sheesh lets just call it a paper bag and throw wet spitballs at it. This is becoming too much for me now. I'm not going to comment anymore.
Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:10 am

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London

Yes, 325 for 2. A net reduction in the cost, largely due to what I think is the increased vulnerability of the airframe, implications of range etc. As you aren't as tough a 2 ship squadron should be less of an issue and the points reduction is to make the ship viable as a 1 squadron presence. The 'specialisation' of the firepower means the plane ain't as good on mass and is less of a 'sniper'. So by all means have 6 planes (3 squadrons) at 3000 points, you simply can't kill as much if you aren't facing a WE army, and you would have similar activations to the enemy. When you achieve air superiority your choosen target type (WE) is dust but so should your ground units as they are on their own against everyone else. Oh and the other plane gets a bigger discount as I think its just not that attractive currently as the AX10 and the transport role normally entails being over the enemy, not shooting at them from under your own flak cover. Ergo any decrease in survivability affects them more. 6+ save? sheesh lets just call it a paper bag and throw wet spitballs at it. 6+ save. 2 damage points. The problem with it? So whats tougher - a Marauder Bomber, any fighter, a phoenix bomber or a Tigershark with 2 hits and a 6+ save? You know the answer is a Tigershark. You also know you can dive into formations and live against intergral flak nearly all the time (5/72 chance of losing a plane to a hunter, bit more verses a Hydra). Not to mention if you take a hit during the approach shift that plane to the back and lead with the other one. It remains the most in your face bomber. I take it you never take bombers with other races - or fighter bombers for that matter - as they have merely one hit point and 4-6+ saves? I reguarily take Thunderbolts, in fact I always take Thunderbolts if I'm not playtesting something wierd or using somebody elses toys. And with these 1 hit 6+ save wonders I always get their points back (at least) and have never ever had them all shot down at the end of a game. Thats since Epic became version 1, the tourneys I've played in and what must be a 100+ games by now. You can imagine my delight when I saw the Tigershark (and there followed a number of annoying bat reps). _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:20 am

Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia

Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 09 Feb. 2006 (02:10)) I reguarily take Thunderbolts, in fact I always take Thunderbolts if I'm not playtesting something wierd or using somebody elses toys. And with these 1 hit 6+ save wonders I always get their points back (at least) and have never ever had them all shot down at the end of a game. Well I guess you're the luckiest guy on the boards here then. I don't take Thunderbolts because they ARE wet paper bags. I wonder, did your opponent actually take any CAP or AA when you used them? Anyway, what am I saying? I'm not going to comment anymore Can you see my arms? They're thrown up in the air.

Top

Tactica	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:02 am
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	@Dobbsy, I'm with you. I see where this is going. I've already witnessed this plane get so neutered from core design that my hands/arms are with you. Looks like the squeeky wheel will get his oil. ...horay.   _________________ Rob
Top

The_Real_Chris	Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:22 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Quote (Dobbsy @ 09 Feb. 2006 (03:20)) Well I guess you're the luckiest guy on the boards here then. I don't take Thunderbolts because they ARE wet paper bags. I wonder, did your opponent actually take any CAP or AA when you used them? Yep, faced a lot of cap and flak, especially against the min maxed forces in tourneys (record being a bunch of fighter bombers and 20 or so flak wagonz). Admittably I lost that game, but only one thunderbolt died Rather than the luckyist I suspect I am someone who uses and gets more out of airpower than most here and thats with races who lack good armour and range on their aircraft (well, thats everyone bar Tau isn't it? Even marines have to rely on thunderbolts). Why do you think that only the transports tend to have good armour? You must have been quite dissapointed with the eldar fliers and they are supposed to be the best in the game. Of course the comment on thunderbolts sits at odds with some peoples recomendations to take fighters as TS counters. If they are that poor surely thats a highway to nowhere? [QUOTE=Tactica]I've already witnessed this plane get so neutered from core design that my hands/arms are with you.[/QUOTE] Could you incidentally outline for me at least what the core design was originally? As far as I understand from glancing in the forgeworld books it is a fighter bomber with the same armour and speed as a barracuda but twice the damage capacity and far bigger guns, designed for WE hunting. (I'll ignore the forgeworld comparison tot he maruader as out epic one sucks.) Appart from the fighter bomber bit and removing some of the weaponry (replacing it with the markerlight missiles on the basic one and simply droping the missiles on the varient) is the above not a pretty good match? _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

HecklerMD

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:41 am

Brood Brother Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am Posts: 201

Smallest tweak. 30cm (removing the hardness multiplier) 3+ TK (D3) (more damge to WE now, but less damage to regular units {...} Oh and in general drop the air-to-air missiles from the airframe, giving attacking fighters more angles of attack, maybe away from Tau flak {...} Or the 0-1 limit would appear. These are agreeable to me except for the drop to 30cm.  Its hard to justify how a Ion Cannon loses 25% of its range when rigged to an aircraft, but a railgun loses 60% Also one must take into the account the mindset: "Well, if I gotta fly within 30cm of that Warband to hit it, and I'm gonna get shot at anyway, I might as well barge in and snipe the Nobz!"  45cm provides an option over this (universally agreed?) cheezy tactic. Though I was proposing the opposite order: 0-1 Limit 1 MW3+ TK D3 Dropping the AA Missile. ...we could do them all at the same time, then test the living hell out of it!  Only after actually thoroughly testing it can we decide on points adjustments and/or further stats adjustments. This puts the unit most firmly in line with the fluff:  Limited (or rare), powerful vs. light titans, vulnerable to cap and needing air superority. I dont see why this version cant have the 60 days of our attention that "5 (cheezy) Aces" had.  We should do this.

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: It is time to let "5 Aces" go... Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:06 am

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London

General points on aircraft ranges. (I'm sure ginger could say more on this.) Its a different platform for the weapon. You are either very high up and so shooting at a longer range, or very low down, in which case you have a very short period to aquire. You are moving very quickly and jinking further reducing your lock on time. Look at footage of attacks on british ships in the falklands war, these fighter bombers fly as low as possible, flash into view for a second, release the bombs and fire the cannon, and then are gone. All of course to limit exposure to flak. Compare something like an MG, on land you have an effective range of up to a mile with some models and calibers, mount 4-8 on a fighter and it is closing to 1-200 yards to fire in an aerial combat. Quote (HecklerMD @ 09 Feb. 2006 (04:41)) These are agreeable to me except for the drop to 30cm.  Its hard to justify how a Ion Cannon loses 25% of its range when rigged to an aircraft, but a railgun loses 60% You can justify anything in 40k How about it overloads the craft (it is experimental I understand) cutting into its manoverability and thrust, so a lot of time is spent trying to get airspeed up and jink as its an easier target? Etc. Also one must take into the account the mindset: "Well, if I gotta fly within 30cm of that Warband to hit it, and I'm gonna get shot at anyway, I might as well barge in and snipe the Nobz!"  45cm provides an option over this (universally agreed?) cheezy tactic. I have to ask So it should be able to be immune to flak to ensure people aren't tempted to abuse it? This puts the unit most firmly in line with the fluff:  Limited (or rare), powerful vs. light titans, vulnerable to cap and needing air superority.

True, it would be rarer, true it would be better verses WE, however it is only slightly more vulnerable to CAP (head on attacks more likely to be out of your own flak coverage) but you still don't need air superiority as most fighter squadrons will take a fair while to bring you down and you still outrange most ground flak (if it is still alive).

I am very wary of making its 'big weakness' tm fighters.
The orks need about 9 planes (450 points) to bring one down, and they get shot in return. The Imperials can't do it as they can only ever cap with two fighters at a time. Course they can attack after the event but if they wise to avoid return fire it will take another 4 squadrons. If they close they will only need on average 3 squadrons (450 points) to do it - but all squadrons will take hits. The eldar with their elite fighters (300 points) get a 4/9 chance of getting you, so you are going to need to throw another squadron in.
All this of course is trying to get one in one turn. You could keep trying with 2-3 planes but its going to take 2-4 turns depending on what you've got.

Finally general note on the gun - the 45cm is what attracts the powergamer in me and always has. It means I can attack outside the range of most flak. This is a big mulyiplier for the plane (its survivability) and lots of planes (I can knock off the flak the ground forces leave with the planes themselves).
Really i would take it if it were an engine and pilot strapped to the gun as the long ranged TK shot can be done in such a way that it very rarely faces flak. If I can do it with thunderbolts doing it witht he 2 hit 5+ save bomber is childs play.