I'd be okay with that myself, although having said this the thawk has 30cm range on the front arc HB...... so it's not without precedence...

for me the decrease in range to the sides represents the way accuracy falls off when firing orthoganally to your direction of travel quite well, as this HB is FxF it's not burdened by that issue

if you drop the range, you'd need to drop the cost as to use them at full effect you need to get within harms way of defensive AA, and to my mind that is a big deal.... I wouldn't sink 225 points into a 6+ save craft which stands a more than outside chance of being shot down by a thunderhawk or landa...

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

This kind of 'Flak' goes up whenever anyone even hints at a *Fighter* with AA4+ on it, irrespective of its other stats. So, without repeating the details I agree with the others that the AA4+ really must go.

As to your other stats, I strongly suggest the following - again echoing others in various respects

• 300 points cost is too cheap for three Marine a/c irrespective of their stats because of the +1 initiative. I strongly recommend starting at 350, which can be reduced as necessary - it is a lot easier to cut costs than to increase them.
  
  225 for 2x a/c is about right, more because it reduces the impact of spamming than anything else.
  
  
• Twin Heavy Bolter elsewhere in the lists is 15cm, so why make it 30cm here (and in this the E-UK stats are also wrong . . . only *2x* Twin Heavy bolter on the THawk gets the 30cm range ). I agree with the others that this should be reduced. ***
  
  
• As to the other weapons, you are keeping two weapons and swapping the third, but IMHO that is not creating a sufficient distinction between an "Air superiority" aircraft and a "Ground-attack" aircraft.
  
  If you want to make this distinction, keep one weapon (Twin Heavy Bolters) and swap the other two. Indeed, you might just go one step further and make the Ground attack variant a "Fighter-Bomber" to reflect the heavier weapon load-out.
  
  Alternatively, dispense with this complication and just have a single aircraft, allowing the mission (declared activation) to determine the relevant weapons in use.

*** FWIW in EA, air weapons adopt the following convention when used in multiples; "Twin" weapon X gains +1 on the stats of a singleton, while "2x Twin" weapon X gains +1 on the stats and increased range.

Also when compared with the ground mounted variant, *all* air weapons have their range reduced significantly (usually to 15cm - 30cm) and often have reduced stats as well. This is because of reasons cited earlier that significantly reduce a weapon'ss accuracy and effectiveness when mounted on an aircraft (and to avoid the air-game becoming too over-powered)

how will ATSKNF make any difference? it doesn't affect the thunderhawk.... each blast marker gives a -1 activation penalty regardless of ATSKNF..... no need to stipulate anything as the other factors (suppression, hackdowns etc) do not apply to aircraft that aren't landed

As I said, 15cm range weapons are a huge difference as they mean the aircraft is taking a not insignificant risk by getting in close.... TBH I think a specified interceptor/fighter should be able to shoot back from a distance, whereas a fighter/bomber should need to get in closer.....

given the small marine formation sizes I think a formation of two is preferable to three, with three you then boost the formation against ground flak quite considerably, especially as sometimes all you need is one plane to make it through to place a BM....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Ah - of course on the ASKNF - my bad. Post edited to remove that line.

Otherwise we are in agreement on the need for range reduction on the Twin Heavy Bolters and the impact of making this change.

I also tend to agree on the reduced numbers because it would make the formation more cost-effective and more brittle, though AoC seems to prefer the larger formation hence my replies based on that premise.

If the save was kept at a 5+, matching the Storm Talon, then the 15cm range (also matching the Storm Talon's Assault Cannons) wouldn't be nearly so horrible a fate. Plus, with the three-weapon loadout that people seem to want the fighter certainly doesn't have to close to 15cm, so giving the secondary weapons a reduction allows for the formation to be available at a price that shouldn't seem too far out of the range of other fighters.

What about making the bolter mount a variable weapon? 15cm AA5+ *OR* 30cm AP5+?

I think I agree about keeping squadron size at two, even if only because of Navy formation sizes and the desire to not have these be head, shoulders and belly button above other flyers.

LoL, I would agree to Armour 5+ on the Ground Assault variant while also making it a Fighter-Bomber to reflect the better armour needed for CAS, which adds weight thus making it less manoeuverable. However, doing this starts to make the whole thing a completely different a/c rather than a one of several variants . . .

Having a split EITHER / OR weapon line is also an elegant way of resolving some of the conundrums around ranges and other details on a single weapon, and is very usefull where the model tends to show a limited number of weapons.

That said, the stats for the Twin Heavy Bolter are used extensively elsewhere and all are 15cm AP4+ / AA5+ at best, so the same stats should be used here (and in the E-UK list).

May i suggest this? Changes in italics.

Ravenwing Nephilim Jetfighter
Type Speed Armour CC FF
Aircraft Fighter-bomber 6+ n/a n/a

Avenger Mega-Bolter: 30cm AP4+/AT6+/AA5+ FxF
Twin Heavy Bolter: 30cm AP4+/AA5+ FxF
Blacksword Missiles: 30cm AT5+ FxF

Perhabs with Reinforced Armour as the Nephilim is better armoured than a Thunderbolt.
Fighter-bomber because i guess if it is only loaded with missiles it is quite lumbering. Also note that the fluff states that Blacksword Missiles are used against aicrafts AND light armoured vehicles.
Stats wise the Avenger Mega-bolter is half a Vulcan Mega-bolter. The above stats are even more toned down.

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

Here's what the Avenger bolt canon is stated with in existing list(s).
Avenger Bolt Cannon 30cm 2x Ap3+ / At5+, Fixed Forward

Since AMTL is about to go approved, we really should try to stick with it as this weapon is already worked out to be. I'd dump the heavy bolters instead if you need to cut back on firepower. Again, our need to slavishly duplicate 40k is secondary to balance.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Or if you decide to keep the Twin Heavy Bolters, keep their range at 15cm as per the existing stats.

Indeed, these 'discussions' about known weapons and stats crop up regularly, and I am as guilty as the next man of misquoting tham. Is there an all-inclusive list somewhere other than the Compendium?

So reading through the last 2 pages from this week, are we now looking at something like:

Save: 5+, Type: Fighter Bomber?
TL Heavy Bolters 15cm AP4+/AA5+
Blacksword Missiles 30cm AT6/AA6+
AND
TL Lascannon 30cm AT4+/AA5+
OR
Avenger Mega Bolter 30cm AP3+/AT5+

I think the blacksword missiles could even go to AA5+, given the fluff, though in the interest of balance I think the above AA6+ is reasonable. I'd recommend keeping the missiles with AA of some value and not making them just AT, that's not their primary purpose.

I'd like to try the above at 2 for 225 or 250. Perhaps with a further limit of 0-1 formation per Ravenwing attack formation.

Ditch one or other of the variants IMO, don't see the point of having two just to represent both the guns that come in the box. It's not like we represent every combination of every unit. It's bad enough with land raider variants all over the place.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Don't think we're at that point yet Ortron. AA on the missiles seems not to be favoured for a start. Besides, this won't happen unless we get 3 DA BatReps up first

3xAA shots on one interceptor is not a good avenue to be going down IMO.... for the same slippery slope reasoning as AA4+

My 2 cents

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Yeah I agree with Kyuss. 3x attacks is not a good option. I also don't think you should/need to represent all the different 40k weapon options in epic scale. Go with one type.

My preference would be the Avenger mega bolter without AA on it (so two times AA per planes from the oterh weapons).

I think these are nice
TL Heavy Bolters 15cm AP4+/AA5+
Blacksword Missiles 30cm AT6/AA5+

If you go with 30 cm on the heavy bolter then only AA6+ on the missiles.

I also agree. Having three AA shots starts to dabble with the probability of shooting other air-formations by increasing the variance (using more dice) of hits. Throwing 6 dice means that a formation of 2x a/c will hit more consistently and possibly get up to 6x hits rather than the maximum of 4x hits currently for a/c pairs. (Unlikely for common mortals, but for those like Dptdexys blessed with special powers . . . . )

And even if you reduce the relative power of the various shots, the power of shooting is still increased because of the +1 for CAP and Intercept. For example having one weapon at AA5+ and two at AA6+ would result in a 7/6 chance of a hit per aircraft, 2.3x hits on average for the pair, which is better than the average of 2.0x hits from the pair of A/c each with two AA5+ weapons.

All in all, *really* best to stick with just two AA shots