Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now back in 6th, there was a debate as to whether the quad gun, icarus and quad icarus were worth their points. You still saw them now and again across the table/in lists made but it was a debatable point.
The change to interceptor made these guns ineffective against the majority of units but no more effective against flyers, yet their cost remained the same. They are almost universally now considered overcosted by a large margin.

So I propose the following points for each:
Icarus lascannon - 20pts
Quad gun - 40pts (even then you are still paying 20pts per tl autocannon that loses is effectiveness againstnon air/skimmer targets). Maybe 35pts?
Icarus quad lascannon - 50pts.

Firestorm redoubt therefore needs reducing to 150pts (I still doubt we will see it). Whilst the Fortress of Redemption needs reducing to 200pts. A Vengence weapon battery with icarus quad lascannon needs to be 65pts.

ALL factions have access to these so no external balance issues (Apart from maybe slightly nerfs pentflyrant - even then, it's only giving the opponent a few more points to play with)..

What's your thoughts?

Only flyers that are "Strong" are flyrants. Making such changes hurts the flyers that already never see the table.

Flyers pay a premium for the invulnerability they have versus most armies.

Most flyers don't pay heavily and still have jink if they need it. With the complete lack of effectiveness taken away with interceptor, it is almost unanimous the agreement that these weapons are overcosted. They are ineffective against 90% of units so shouldn't pay extra compared to their normal versions (which they are even with my points suggestions) to be effective against the other 10%. They already pay for their specialization by being awful against anything else, without the 3x points cost on top of that.

I disagree that they are "Awful" against anything else. They shoot full BS at skimmers.

Most games I play someone uses at least 1 flyer or skimmer.

Real surface to air missiles launchers@30pts gun emplacement. Must be attached to fortification. Can not be carried by troops. Possibly adaptable to vehicles.

48" s7 ap4 heavy 3, skyfire twin linked

can upgrade missiles
Incendiary Armor piercing-improve ap4 to ap3@5ppm
Heat Seeking Homing tracker- ignores jink saves@5ppm
Long Range fuel capacity-increase 48" to 72" @5ppm

 Lord Commissar wrote:
I disagree that they are "Awful" against anything else. They shoot full BS at skimmers.

Most games I play someone uses at least 1 flyer or skimmer.

So you think they are at an appropriate points cost? If not, what would you do if not reducing the points cost?

Hardly anyone I have come across believes 2 twinlinked autocannons that shoot at bs1 against the vast majority of targets is anywhere near worth 50pts, put into perspective - 5% of an armies points cost in a 1000pt battle. If the 50pts was actually reliable against air targets then it would be a different story, but we all know that 2 autocannons is not reliable AT. So we pay 50pts to be able to shoot at a flyer (or skimmer) at full bs with a subpar weapon anyway, that can hardly shoot straight at anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Filch wrote:
Real surface to air missiles launchers@30pts gun emplacement. Must be attached to fortification. Can not be carried by troops. Possibly adaptable to vehicles.

48" s7 ap4 heavy 3, skyfire twin linked

can upgrade missiles
Incendiary Armor piercing-improve ap4 to ap3@5ppm
Heat Seeking Homing tracker- ignores jink saves@5ppm
Long Range fuel capacity-increase 48" to 72" @5ppm

I like it. I would take this over any of the currently priced options.

tgank you but do you think it is under costed?

Not at all. Rather the others are overcosted.