Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Lets talk airplanes.

 Post subject: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:52 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Indeed let's talk airplanes. I've been happy seeing that there's been a lot of movement, discussion and interest in the necrons in general lately and in the Sautekh list in particular.

When I first published the list after initial discussion between me, Ulrik and Lord Aaron, then I asked in particular for feedback on the planes. I didn't get any answers. Several people have now started to test and comment on the planes. I would therefore like to ask again for your feedback and thoughts.


First of all. A goal of a new list, as has been discussed in the Sautekh thread a lot, is to make an army that's more fun to play against. But I would also like for the necron player themselves to have more available strategies to make the list more fun to play as well. I feel raiders can be somewhat limited in that regard. I see the airplanes as a means to this end. Now we need to iron out their stats.

Below are stats I'd like to suggest for the next version of the list, the 0.4. Please give me your thoughts and feedback.



Scythes
Basically this airplane comes in two shapes in 40k. Either armed with a very potent gun or a "portal-light" with the possibility to transport 10 inf.

Armour. From the 40k stats and comparing them to other epic planes puts them at 5+ in my opinion. This is what they have in Sautekh 0.3. But they also have living metal in 40k, which could be used to argue for a 4+ save.

I want to push them to 4+ in the next version. see discussion below on the night scythe for reasons.

I propose no changes as of now to the
Twin Tesla Destructor.

Night Scythes
The current version (0.3) was given a portal I think was a bad design. It's more powerful than most armies air assaults for several reasons and goes into the realm of necrons ignore all your counters territory. (for reason outlined here)

I would therefore like for us to try transport on them instead. 2 planes with transport (3) inf each or 3 planes with transport (2) inf each.

This is the main reason why I want to up the save from 5+ to 4+. I think they will be a poor choice as a transport with only 5+ and would need a better save.

Suggested new stats:
Night Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF 6+, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
notes: may tranport any 3 none mounted infantry units.

150pts for 2. More?



Doom Scythes
This airplanes has an attack, the Death Ray, that can hit several targets along a line. This attack is very powerful with maximum strength and lowest possible AP value in 40k.

I didn't want the gun to have multiple attacks in epic even though it can hit several units in 40k, so opted for a good to hit value (3+) instead. I'd like to lower it to a MW attack to limit the amount of TK in the list and to keep the price of the plane down. Other suggestions

Suggested new stats:
Doom Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF -, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
Death Ray, 15cm, 3+ MW, FFA

225 pts for 2?



Night Shroud Bomber.

I want to tweak it a bit. From a fluff point of view and 40k rules they should really have a MW barrage for the Death spheres (see page 3, 4 and 5 of the sautekh thread for my expanded reasoning), but I also know many will have a hard time with accepting that in epic. Suggestions for alternatives? I will lower this to 2BP per plane as several have suggested.

Looking through imperial armour aeronautica I realized this plane has the same armour as a thunderhawk and on top of that also living metal. The thunderhawk has 4 structure points which roughly equates to 12 hull points, compared to 4 hull points of the night shroud. The hunderhawk has a 4+ Reinforced save and DC 2 in epic. With this in mind and to separate them from the scythes I want move them to 5+ reinforced armour. This is actually a very small boost as almost no AA attacks are MW. 5+ RA will save 55,5% of regular AA attacks. An increase of only 5,5% compared to the current 4+ save.

Suggested new stats:
Night Shroud, Bomber, 5+, CC -, FF -, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
Death Spheres, 15cm, 2BP, MW, disrupt
notes: Reinforced armour

375 pts for 2?



Please give me your feedback on these suggested stats.


EDIT: Amended typo.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: UK
Can non WE fighters actually land? That aside, I do think standard transport is more reasonable.

I did have an idea about the portal lite though - could it maybe be a way to bring reinforcements to a formation on the ground - similar to the reanimate mechanism?


On the flyers generally, it's a bit off that all three are good interceptors, even the "bomber". If these end up in groups of three they would need to be really quite expensive, being close to the best interceptors in the game before even factoring in their other capabilities. It may be necessary to limit them to one or the other by artificially amending their weapons. Perhaps decide what additional strategies you would like the player to have available and base them on that?

The first two are fighter class despite carrying very powerful weapons / transport capability - they can turn 90 even when ground attacking. The stats look like fighter bombers to me (ie nimble when intercepting but normal when attacking ground targets), with the third a bomber.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:13 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1473
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Kyrt wrote:
Can non WE fighters actually land? That aside, I do think standard transport is more reasonable.

I thought they couldn't. When I read the rules (4.2.5) though they don't actually mention anything about a transport aircraft having to be a WE, so the basic rules can be used. It just that all other aircraft transports in the game (to my knowledge) are actually WEs.

WE are mentioned ones in the text
GW wrote:
"Note that the limitations that apply to units disembarking from a war engine transport vehicle also apply to units disembarking from an aircraft (i.e., they can’t take an action on the turn they disembark but can shoot with the aircraft – see 3.1.3)."

So they behave like WE transport, but doesn't have to be WE.

Kyrt wrote:
I did have an idea about the portal lite though - could it maybe be a way to bring reinforcements to a formation on the ground - similar to the reanimate mechanism?
Please share? :)


Kyrt wrote:
On the flyers generally, it's a bit off that all three are good interceptors, even the "bomber". If these end up in groups of three they would need to be really quite expensive, being close to the best interceptors in the game before even factoring in their other capabilities. It may be necessary to limit them to one or the other by artificially amending their weapons. Perhaps decide what additional strategies you would like the player to have available and base them on that?

The first two are fighter class despite carrying very powerful weapons / transport capability - they can turn 90 even when ground attacking. The stats look like fighter bombers to me (ie nimble when intercepting but normal when attacking ground targets), with the third a bomber.

Ops typo, the bomber should be a bomber in my suggestion. Forgot to change that apparently. :{[] I didn't want it to be able to intercept or CAP. It probably doesn't really matter though. I'd be happy for my opponent to put a 375 points air formation with a BP attack on CAP... :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:07 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto
It's kinda scary using a 4+ non-RA, non-war engine transport flier. Also something to think about if you are mounting infantry in fliers then they are dedicated to that scythe group and can't be dropped on the field via portals. players making a competitive list would not mount their infantry in the very vulnerable fliers over the traditional portaling through monoliths. It just makes so much more strategic sense to portal your infantry.

Using flier portals is not with out its risks or costs either. Normal flier transports yes they get treated as one unit but deploy and assault/shoot with one activation. Using the portal takes two. If the player fails the retain then the scythes are sitting ducks. I mean the player can still do a move action with their hold and move though the portal, but even then the whole group is subject to being shot.

I am opposed to the fliers portal changing to transport for one glaring reason:

__ If one of the 2/3 fliers does get shot down from AA fire you've already declared the unit as assaulting (generally) or maybe shooting. The unit coming on the board will be short 1/2 or 1/3 of the infantry with 4-5 blast markers. This means that on one hit 50% of the time the unit will either be broken when it lands from all the blast markers, or if not destroyed outright from the resulting engagement.

That being said I would have no problem using them in my list, 4+ armour fighters with ok weapons at 150 points would be nice! I'd never put anything in them though.

I'd you are reducing the BP value of the bombers from 3 to 2, do they still warrent the 375 point cost?

The weapon range on the AA shots all being 15, even in groups of three they would be a far cry from the best fighter firepower wise, Eldar fighters are considerably better. Though with 4+ armour I couldn't complain.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:38 pm
Posts: 100
Location: Toronto, Canada
Borka,
Much as I enjoy playing against the Sautekh list and what some of the proposed new units bring to the table. I feel like the Night Scythe is becoming to full of special rules and undercosted. That being said I think it is really cool in it's current incarnation in the Sautekh list and would like it to stay in some form.

For a point of comparison:

Night Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF 6+, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
notes: may tranport any 3 none mounted infantry units.
150pts for 2.

Hell Blades, fighter, 6+, CC-., FF-, 2× Reaper Autocannon, 15cm AP4+/AT6+/AA5+, FxF
200pts for 3

I would say the NIght Scythe's are undercosted not even factoring in the transport capability (armor 4+vs 6+, AT5+vs6+)

From a comparison approach, 600pts
4 activations, 8 Night Scyths, Armor 4+, 16x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA
3 activations, 9 Hell Blades, Armor 6+, 18x AP4+/AT6+/AA5+, FxF

I would take the Night Scyths every time due to the extra activation, better armor and better AT, over the Hell Blades with there 1 extra unit and 2 extra shots for the same point cost. That is not even factoring in the transport capacity (which will create all kinds of exceptions to several rules for aircrafts and transports).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 8:46 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Minneapolis, MN
From my perspective I'd like to see the portal stay. It is reliant on maintaining the intiative and does create an aircraft with transport capacity without being a W/E. I do think they might be a little undercosted though. I'd suggest keeping them 5+ armor, keeping the portal, and maybe bumping points 25-50.

As for the bombers if it's not a macro-weapon does a BP4 unit need to cost 375? Seems high.

Deathray I agree with removing the TK. It was a bit over the top for the deathray and the deathray in 40k isn't really any better than a melta gun and they don't get TK.

_________________
Current EA Armies:
Steel Legion (6k+)
Orks (6k+)
Iron Warriors (Currently Building)
Daemons

My Commission Website: http://hulksmashstudios.webs.com
My Languishing Blog that will soon host some Epic stuff: http://hulksmash-homeplace.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8560
Location: Manalapan, FL
Just for the record, over in marine land we've got non WE flyer transports. I don't think you need to worry about that here. Like was quoted above, there is no requirement for it in the rules we determined.

However I do think keeping the portal is super interesting. And for what it worth Borka, what's going on with this list is enough that my forever banished to the display case necrons are starting to have appeal again. Keep up the great work here guys, I never thought necrons would ever be played again around here.

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 8:46 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Forgot about some of the SM stuff people are using now (I assume it's the Storm Eagle & Caestus).

I'll agree with these necrons looking interesting. I have zero desire to play the raiders list but necrons are on my short list thanks to this list. And part of what I really like about it is the portal flyers.

_________________
Current EA Armies:
Steel Legion (6k+)
Orks (6k+)
Iron Warriors (Currently Building)
Daemons

My Commission Website: http://hulksmashstudios.webs.com
My Languishing Blog that will soon host some Epic stuff: http://hulksmash-homeplace.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 8560
Location: Manalapan, FL
Hulksmash wins a perfect SAT score :)
Exactly the two transports used.

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36399
Location: Ohio - USA
I like the stats ... any update ? Suggested new stats:
Night Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF 6+, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
notes: may tranport any 3 none mounted infantry units.

150pts for 2. More?

Suggested new stats:
Doom Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF -, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
Death Ray, 15cm, 3+ MW, FFA

225 pts for 2?

Suggested new stats:
Night Shroud, Bomber, 5+, CC -, FF -, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
Death Spheres, 15cm, 2BP, MW, disrupt
notes: Reinforced armour

375 pts for 2?

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:02 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto
Legion 4 wrote:
I like the stats ... any update ? Suggested new stats:
Night Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF 6+, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
notes: may tranport any 3 none mounted infantry units.

150pts for 2. More?

Suggested new stats:
Doom Scythe, fighter, 4+, CC -, FF -, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
Death Ray, 15cm, 3+ MW, FFA

225 pts for 2?

Suggested new stats:
Night Shroud, Bomber, 5+, CC -, FF -, twin tessla destructor, 15cm, 2x AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFA,
Death Spheres, 15cm, 2BP, MW, disrupt
notes: Reinforced armour

375 pts for 2?


Night scythes are currently those exact stats but they just have portal not transport and are still 175pts. Transport made them very restrictive with the unit size. Increase the transport capacity to 4 or more made them much to vulnerable to losing a large investment of troops. Keeping the transport capacity lower and increasing the number of night scythes in the formation made them too powerful as an air craft unit. In my opinion if the general consensus was to make them transports and not have portals like monoliths then I would make them skimmers rather than aircraft.

The doom scythes are already exactly those stats at that exact price.

The bombers were prohibitively expensive when trying to balance them with a BP MW attack. So I removed the MW and replaced it with IC instead and costed them at 275pts.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: UK
Would say doom scythe should be a fighter bomber. Lining up a death ray would limit your agility a tad i should think. I think maybe that's already been mentioned though.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:21 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Toronto
Kyrt wrote:
Would say doom scythe should be a fighter bomber. Lining up a death ray would limit your agility a tad i should think. I think maybe that's already been mentioned though.


I've kept them as just a fighter for fluff reasons. They are supposed to be incredibly agile and exceptional dog fighters. Was considering making the MW attack also AA but I'm sure that would get a large backlash. Though it wouldn't be that bad either as the list seriously lacks AA ability other than pylons.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lets talk airplanes.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:23 am
Posts: 700
atension wrote:


The bombers were prohibitively expensive when trying to balance them with a BP MW attack. So I removed the MW and replaced it with IC instead and costed them at 275pts.


They're still extremely potent.
The 2x AP4/AT5/AA5 weapon is good, but 6 BP per formation with Disrupt and Ignore Cover is very strong since it's placing 2 BP just by firing and then adding more with disrupt.

This might make it the strongest bomber for this price in the game, which always makes a new unit very hard to balance.

You could make it much easier by deliberately balancing it against an approved unit like the Astartes Marauder; take away the IC and Disrupt special rules, drop the formation cost by 25pts and voila; a slightly better armoured bomber (5+RA > 4+) which is a lot better vs infantry, a bit better vs tanks, and less good vs fighters.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net