PDA

View Full Version : Error in Phoenix



Iracundus
16-01-2007, 19:51
In all previous Forgeworld products and in the description in AI of the Phoenix it is described as having a ventrally mounted pulse laser. However in the lists, the Phoenix statline has it with the same brightlance setup as the Nightwing instead of a pulse laser. This is more than cosmetic as if you look at the Vampire Raider's pulse lasers, they have different stats compared to brightlances.

The question then is what do people work with?

Baaltharus
16-01-2007, 20:39
Its an annoyance but I think you'd be forced to use the brightlance stat as the weapon stats for the vampire includes 2 sets of twin linked pulse lasers rather than a single weapon.

Unfortunate as I'd rather have the pulse laser.

Al.

CyberShadow
16-01-2007, 21:15
I noticed this too, and I think that there are other examples. In general, I would guess that it is difficult to keep the weapon stats and the craft use in line. For example, if you stat up a certain weapon on one craft, then that weapon appears on another weapon where it would be less appropriate, you either change the established use of the craft, or re-stat the craft itself. For example, you declare a certain weapon on a bomber as 'ground attack' and then find that it appears on a fighter, what do you do? Change the definition of the weapon to remove the ground attack on the bomber, or do a quick weapon swap?

I would guess that the official line would be that there are various weapons fits, and the AI stats represent one of them. In reality, changing the weapons in order to keep the craft in line with common usage seems reasonable.

I would certainly use the stats in the AI book, as if there is a change then it is likely that it has been made for a specific reason.

Athmos
17-01-2007, 10:22
The stat box for the marines hyperios is also missing : their statline is listed in the reference sheet, but the detailed version (where vehicules and planes get that nice picture and details of weapon loadout and such things) is missing. should be after the thunderhawks, but it isn't there.

Athmos

Spacker
17-01-2007, 10:38
The stat box for the marines hyperios is also missing : their statline is listed in the reference sheet, but the detailed version (where vehicules and planes get that nice picture and details of weapon loadout and such things) is missing. should be after the thunderhawks, but it isn't there.

Athmos

Same with the Tau Skyray. Looking at the datasheet layouts it appears that FW tried to keep each race into whole pages, so those two might have been left out to save 4 pages (2 pages for the data sheets along with pics to fill them out, plus 2 pages because the binding process uses large sheets that make up 4 pages at a time) which makes sense from a cost perspective. I guess 2 pages could have been dropped elsewhere (maybe the TBolt pilot pages as the others are all for aircraft in the game), but I'm not that bothered that the data sheets are missing as all the info needed is elsewhere in the rules anyway.

CyberShadow
17-01-2007, 11:07
These two probably got chosen as they also appeared in IA3 and IA2.

Spacker
17-01-2007, 13:35
These two probably got chosen as they also appeared in IA3 and IA2.

What has that got to do with the datasheets? It's not the background info that's "missing", it's the datasheets for them for use in AI.

Izza
18-01-2007, 03:15
Yeah I saw the Skyray and Hyperious were missing and thought that it looked like a formatting issue rather than a "whopps, forgot to put that in" mistake.

I also spotted the Phoenix fluf as having a pulse laser but the rules having a Bright Lance.
But then that aint the only mistake. A couple of Eldar flyers are stated as belonging to Iyanden, when you can clearly see the Alaitoc symbol on them (pg 126, 132).

Anyone know what the 40k rules for the Phoenix say it is equiped with?

Iracundus
18-01-2007, 07:38
Read what I wrote in the original post. I wrote quite clearly there that in all previous FW products (which are all 40K scale) that the Phoenix is listed as being equipped with a pulse laser.

If I had to take a stab at returning it to matching its 40K weaponry I'd look at the pulse lasers on the Vampire Raider. Those represent 2 sets of twin linked pulse lasers and are 2-2-2 2+ 4 Extra Damage 5+. Halving that to represent a single pair might be 1-1-1 2+ 4 Extra Damage 5+. The tricky bit would be how to represent a single pulse laser. To avoid making it into just a total lascannon clone I might try 1-1-1 3+ 4 Extra Damage 5+

Baaltharus
18-01-2007, 12:19
The stats for the pulse laser don't make that much sense as its a rapid firing weapon. If anything the Pulse lasers on the vampire should be 4-4-4 while the single format should be 2-2-2. Extra damage should be excluded as it has less penetrative power than a brightlance and would help to balance the gun.

Al.

Elric
18-01-2007, 22:00
The epic scale nightwings have two bright lances underslung and have a rating of 1-1-0 2+ exta damage 6.
The pulse laser has identical stats. In 40k the actual difference between a pulse laser and two bright lances in 40k against armour 12 or less in minimal.
There are two twin linked pulse lasers on a vampire. Presumably that relates to the extra range and the bonus to additional damage.
I think its completely reasonable that two bright lances have the same stats as pulse laser.
Elric

Edit: I hadn't noticed that the pheonix stats actually have the word brightlance in there. (If you treat this as a misprint it makes a whole lot more sense)

Iracundus
19-01-2007, 05:31
In 40K the pulse laser outranges the brightlance hence why the different AI range bands

Spacker
19-01-2007, 09:23
Edit: I hadn't noticed that the pheonix stats actually have the word brightlance in there. (If you treat this as a misprint it makes a whole lot more sense)


Makes even more sense if you look at the Phoenix info pages (p124) and see it says "ventral-mounted pulse laser" there, so the brightlance in the stats is likely a copy-and-paste from the Nightwing and then not renamed.

Baaltharus
19-01-2007, 10:20
Well lets look at the differences 40k wise. Pulse laser has more 100% more shots and greater range while the bright lance has greater amour piercing ability VS heavy targets.

Now consider a set of two twin linked autocannons, these are significantly less powerful than a pulse laser yet have far more shots despite only producing the same rate of fire. Surely two sets of twin linked pulsars should have greaterfirepower than 2-2-2.

Then again it might be argued that the spacing of the wings would only allow a single pulse laser to be brought to bare at any one time. Games balance wise the Vampire might become to effective at dog fighting to be sensable.

To me common sense would dictate that the pulse laser should have more shots but perhaps no extra damage due to the fact it has less penetrative power than the brightlance. Of course common sense would also dictate that a nighthawk should be armed with a rapid firing pulse laser rather than a anti tank brightlance.

Iracundus
19-01-2007, 11:51
Going by 40K scale rules, nothing in AI (with just maybe the Manta) qualifies as having "heavy armor". Structure points yes in some craft but not heavy armor. This again is by the existing FW rules for such craft.

There is some fuzziness in translating weapons across. The Vampire isn't meant to be a dogfighter so to give it too many shots would make it too good. Yet again the pulse laser outranges and has higher rate of fire than the bright lance. The 2-2-2 extra damage 5+ is some attempt to give it a distinguishing feature over the bright lance. Perhaps the 5+ is also to reflect the twin linking of the paired lasers such that if a "hit" is scored it is representing a twin linked pair hitting, and then the extra damage 5+ to represent the multiple shots from that hitting pair.

Baaltharus
19-01-2007, 12:19
Some decent points Iracundus about the pulse lasers on the vampire but I think you'll find your wrong regarding the heavy armour comment. Ground vehicles like a Leman Russ or a battle wagon still remain heavy armour even if they are all 2 hit targets in every case.

If people were wanting some house rules to change the bright lance to a pulse laser on the phoenix I might suggest keeping the 2-2-2, 2+ but remove the extra damage. I'd also suggesting adding about 4pts onto the phoenix as it becomes a bit better at dogfighting.

Al.

Iracundus
20-01-2007, 02:12
I am making the distinction between heavy armor and structural toughness. None of the aircraft that have FW rules have armor anywhere near 14, which is what the Leman Russ has and I think we all agree the Leman Russ tank qualifies as "heavy armor". Bigger craft like the Marauder have structure points to show their durability but they remain relatively thin skinned compared to the tanks.

That is why the Pulse Laser is potentially more threatening to aircraft than a Brightlance. The extra penetrative power of a Brightlance in 40K against aircraft whose armor is so thin that the Lance rule doesn't apply doesn't help compared to the higher rate of fire of the Pulse Laser . The "Extra Damage" rule I think is simply applied in AI to weapons above a certain strength (I think Strength 8) like Lascannons and Brightlances in order to make them competitive compared to the multiple shot weapons like autocannons.

Baaltharus
20-01-2007, 07:58
I totally agree, the number of hits is going someway to represent size, durability as well as armour. The reason the likes of Heavy tanks only have two hits as well would seem to be because of their overall vunerability to aircraft. I'm not disagreeing the pulse laser should be more threatening to aircraft, I was just stating that it should be more threatening not from the potential to do extra damage but from its overall increased rate of fire while the brightlance should have its extra damage due to the extra 'bite' provided by its anti tank capabilities.

Al.