it´s a general behavior that new units must be better than existant ones. We see that at 40k and it seems to be natural because it happens also here. No offence but chaos und TAU are good examples for that. New units have to be different.....

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

with such easy stats as aircraft you can really run the numbers....there are not as complex situations as in ground fights.

compare them is much éasier.....

only my opinion

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy

According to fluff (thats the novel "Double Eagle "and what i know about AI rules/stats and more completely from IA) the Hellblade is faster and more manouverable than a Thunderbolt. But the Thunderbolt is heavier and carries more weapons.
All Fighters in AI have two points of Damage Capacity, the Hellblade has only one.
The Hellblade is a dedicated Interceptor. It has only two Twin Autocannons (no Reaper Autocannons!)
But the Thunderbolt has them too PLUS Twin Lascannons and the option to carry 4 Hellstrike missiles or 4 Bombs. The optional loadout makes the Thunderbolt a Strike Fighter (Fighter-Bomber) instead of a pure Interceptor.
In Imperial Armour hte Thunderbolt's main use is describet as that of an air superiority fighter but its versatility in armamend makes it good for ground attacks too.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Ask the people that designed the stats for the Imperial aircraft. Ask the people that designed the weapon load for ithe Chaos aircraft.

I didn't do either of these things so why are you asking me?

We follow the 40K stats unless there is good reason not to do so and in spite of all the theoryhammer that people are playing the actual test games have been mixed.

I really do fail to see what the problem is with playing a few test games even if you don't like the stats. Its not as if people haven't tested armies/units/formations before that might have had issues.

Test it or don't but maybe it would be better to not waste people's time if you didn't actually want to test?

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

The good reason not to follow 40K stats is that the rulebook aircraft don't.

I really do fail to see what the problem is with playing a few test games even if you don't like the stats. Its not as if people haven't tested armies/units/formations before that might have had issues.

_________________
Tyranid air marshal

I want to playtest but i'm the only Epic player in a 200km radius i know of.

But else what ragnarok said above.

And for those who didn't realised it.
The rulebook aircrafts follow method a). Swordwind follows b)halfways and turned to a).
All other aircrafts developed since then follow b).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Rather than replying to specific points here, I do in general agree that with two 30cm 5+ AA attacks it does seem somewhat too good in relation to other aircraft.

Personally, I do agree that there has been an "aircraft creep" and I think the ideal solution would be to look at all aircraft and AA and review simultaneously. Thunderhawks, for example, could have 30cm ranges on all of the heavy bolters, in which case the 30cm range on the interceptors wouldn't be such an issue.

That said, we're not doing a whole-system review of aircraft. So, with regard to making the 'blade a fast, maneuverable but less heavily armed than the thunderbolt, here are some options for the quad autocannon stats:

1a) Twin reaper autocannon Range: 30cm Firepower: AP3+/AT5+/AA4+ Notes: Fixed Forward
1b) Twin reaper autocannon Range: 15cm Firepower: AP3+/AT5+/AA4+ Notes: Foward Arc
2) 2x reaper autocannon Range: 15cm Firepower: AP4+/AT6+/AA5+ Notes: Forward Arc

Now, to be really conservative, the 15cm ranges could be given Fixed arcs. I think I prefer 1b, and although the effective 3+ attack is fairly powerful, it isn't quite as good as either the thunderbolt's 2x4+ at 15cm or the Nightwing's 2x4+ at 30cm, but it does have a wider Forward Arc to represent its greater maneuverability, although not quite as wide as the Ork fighta's 360-arc 4+ attack.

So how do people feel about playtesting with 1b?

Not much anyone can say to that is there. If you don't want to follow them then don't but that doesn't meant that other people won't

However I prefer to work on the stats first and come to something that looks reasonable than tst something that doesn't fit the system

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Is anyone testing any of the stats?

Seems as if there is a lot of talk and no action so it seems rather premature to do changes based on nothing other than people's theories.

Especially since there were people who actually tested these aircraft stats and didn't seem to have the problems being raised here.

I'm not averse to changes being made but when one of the three people raising the complaint doesn't even have an army to test with it seems a bit ridiculous to change the aircraft when it seems contrary to actual game experience.

If any of this were as serious as Chris, Rag and Hena make it to be then why wasn't it raised months and months ago when these stats were posted and tested initially?

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Come on PG nearly every time it comes up we have the helltalon discussion, its hardly new. Both here and on the SG forum. After a while though it becomes tiresome repeating the same line. Yes you can balance those stats at 225/250 for 3, but the sticking point has always been what should their relative power level be. Epic air does not translate from 40k using the same mechanics, it just looks like it does, because air is a separate system almost.

Now you say the Helltalon is supposed to be a superior plane to the Imperials. So yes it does fit that. I've always thought it was an light fighter - not that much weapons, armour etc, but very cheap reflected by its cost in Epic. But apparently its not, so 2x30cm AP4+/AT6+/AA5+ 225/250 for three is fine.

_________________
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

So you can imagine my glee at once again having to have more discussion about it?

Yes you can balance those stats at 225/250 for 3, but the sticking point has always been what should their relative power level be.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

You must writhe in ecstasy

Power level is relative to the army it in and what it goes up against. The former is for army list creation and trying to ensure all the armies units being a valid choice, and the latter is to put them in a hierarchy of power as it were with other races. Actually costing it comes after that, with any necessary stat changes if it proves too hard to balance (good example is high firepower low survivability units, epitomised by the deathstrike). Yes we could have an Eldar fighter with just one 6+ attack and point it accurately, likewise we could have Imperial Guard with 4+ armour saves and balance them within their own list and point them fairly. But Eldar fighters are the best plane for plane, so get the abilities and firepower to show that. Guardsmen wear trenchcoats and carry flashlights and get beaten by space marines, so the stats show that. The points then follow to try and mitigate the advantages and disadvantages and provide a level playing field.

Why talk? Because people got sick and tired of just testing stuff for epic a long time back, and most thought it a waste of time ultimately. Especially through stuff being in lists that was so obviously broken (which is a different issue to this, no one is saying the air superiority Helltalon isn't balanced). I'm down to what 4? people I can easily get to or that play against each other and are willing to test stuff, thats down from about 2 dozen. So the stronger the unit on paper, the more 'right' it looks (and this judgement is always made in comparison to other armies units as well as its own) the more chance I can actually get people to play with/against test armies. For Epic I've always been of the what has the model got, what's its ability level relative to its peers both in and out of its list and finally once thats sorted whats the starting points level for playtesting?

But all this is moot. The planes better than the Imperial stuff, not better than the Eldar, has the stats to match that intended power level and those have indeed received a fair bit of testing, just have to try vs some marine air drop or other air reliant armies to see if they should be 225 or 250.

_________________
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