PDA

View Full Version : Voidravens/Razorwings are aircraft yes?



Hellebore
14-11-2010, 02:03
It's probably pretty obvious to everyone else, but it just occurred to me that these 'aircraft' can be attacked in close combat.:eyebrows:Because they use the skimmer rules and skimmers can be attacked in close combat.

Just the idea of watching grotz superjump 10,000 feet in the air to catch a low flying supersonic jet is hilarious and stupid at the same time. Stupilarious?

Does anyone else have a problem with aircraft being attackable in melee? Or have I been overdosing on the crazy pills?

Hellebore

Mannimarco
14-11-2010, 02:11
Yeah it just doesnt seem right, I thought the same thing when they released the valkyrie.

Cool model yes but doesnt make sense.

daboarder
14-11-2010, 02:13
I wouldnt be suprised if 6th introduced a new unit class "aircraft" or whatever that were only able to be attacked in CC by other flyers or jump infantry.

Hellebore
14-11-2010, 02:14
Yeah it just doesnt seem right, I thought the same thing when they released the valkyrie.

Cool model yes but doesnt make sense.

I could ALMOST accept the valkyrie and stormraven being attacked, as they're transports and land on the ground. Of course, that would only work when they DID land on the ground, rather than flying around. But they'd be flying at a lower altitude than a fighter jet.

Hopefully GW will put some flier rules into 6th ed that do away with this nonsense.

Hellebore

Cry of the Wind
14-11-2010, 02:24
Well I'm hoping that the rumoured flier expansion will have some new rules for us to use. Much like previous expansions (thinking Cities of Death and the trial assault rules) hopefully the new flier rules will take this into account and be brought into 6th Ed.

Inquisitor Engel
14-11-2010, 02:29
I guess we have to envision them throwing things at the aircraft during very, very low passes? :eyebrows:

Culgore
14-11-2010, 02:30
Yeah I think some kind of aircraft rule is in order.I think it would add a new element, currently ig are the only thing with a dedicated anti aircraft.As a side note, I love sending my terminators to punch the **** out of vehicles like wave serpents. I can't wait to start punching fighters and bombers.

Hive Fleet Snackin'
14-11-2010, 11:03
It's quite aggravating, I agree, but with each new codex we're seeing more and more things that look like flying units creep into books... I hope that even the Tyranid harpy gets the glorious flying treatment if they create a new class in an expansion or in 6th.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy pretending like my Voidraven proxy is powered by a pogo stick.

Zweischneid
14-11-2010, 11:35
Does anyone else have a problem with aircraft being attackable in melee? Or have I been overdosing on the crazy pills?

Hellebore

It's not really a new problem would logically apply to skimmers who are just skimmers too. No reason a Landspeeder or Tau Devilfish couldn't skim in heights of 5m, 10m or even 100m. They can fly/skim over buildings and statues, other tanks, etc.., but not above the reach of a Marine and his chainsword?

Similarly, speed and distances are always off in 40K. Just compare the speed (distance moved on table) of any vehicle to weapon reach (distance able to shoot) of pretty much any infantry weapon and than translate both for comparison into a measure of distance/speed. Either 40K vehicles, even tanks and such, zip around the board at supersonic speeds, or most ballistic weapons in 40K have an effective weapon range of just a few dozend meters or so.

As always, abandon all logic who enter 40K. It's a game, not a simulation.

Misfratz
14-11-2010, 12:00
Just the idea of watching grotz superjump 10,000 feet in the air to catch a low flying supersonic jet is hilarious and stupid at the same time. Stupilarious?Well.. case for the defence:
(1) Close Combat is not just physically bashing things with axes - it also involves firing of small arms [albeit at close range].
(2) Small arms fire does sometimes bring down aircraft in "real life" [eg see Afghanistan/Iraq, although admittedly this has most often been helicopters, though I think a Hercules was also lost?]

I'm not sure aircraft rules would help...

Filthy O'Bedlam
14-11-2010, 12:00
Stupilarious has officially entered my everyday lexicon

The problem is in the same realm as lasers having range limits under a couple of miles, and tanks moving only slightly faster than a human on foot; in that it doesn't really make any real world sense but is done for the sake of the game.

Also, WH40K physics are, well, lets say slightly up for grabs.

Cheers
Filthy

Chaos and Evil
14-11-2010, 12:21
Just another example of the game out-growing its rule system, I guess.

Even if a new "fliers" rule comes in in 6th edition, it'll take another full cycle of Codex releases before everything gets to use those new rules.

Da Reddaneks
14-11-2010, 12:37
it just occurred to me that these 'aircraft' can be attacked in close combat.:eyebrows:Because they use the skimmer rules and skimmers can be attacked in close combat.
It had occured to me as well about how prevelent aircraft are becoming. Which I think is a good thing. "Aircraft" is something that has been a needed addition to the 40k universe for years. I hope they continue the trend. As an ork I would love to see us getting Fightabombers a few years from now!

And to address your post Hellebore, no it doesnt seem logical that aircraft can be attacked in close combat. I really like the flyer models (with one recent exception). From what little we have seen in the Dark Eldar Codex about Voidravens and Razorwings if they make models of those they will be fantastic. I really hope they make those models!

Even if a new "fliers" rule comes in in 6th edition, it'll take another full cycle of Codex releases before everything gets to use those new rules.
What would probably be the most logical thing for them to do is to change the Skimmer rule to allow skimmers to have different "modes" they can operate in. This would be a way to get around having to update all codex's and would be consistent with their USR way of updating rulers sets.

Sir_Turalyon
14-11-2010, 12:48
The Studio attempted to justify the valkyries being skimmers by saying the ones assigned to Guard it have so much extra armour (to survive coming in into the hotzones) that their maneuvrability is lowered to the level of skimmers. Basicaly, the plane is so heavy it can fly only slow and low, A-10 style.

Two flyers later they just introduce supersonics without even pretending it makes sense.

Iracundus
14-11-2010, 13:10
The tricky problem with introducing flyers as a whole new class into 40K scale games (excluding Apocalypse games) is they force the opponent to have AA or be at severe, possibly fatal disadvantage. It then means the opponent's army must have an AA option and will force the taking of this as an insurance. If they were introduced, all the races would need to be granted countermeasures as otherwise they would be at the mercy of fliers until the turning of the Codex cycle gave them AA.

It is comparable to the old Armored Company rules, where the opponent was at a crippling disadvantage if they didn't have high levels of anti-tank firepower, yet the average balanced army wouldn't have such skewed levels of firepower. Another analogy would be the old 2nd edition Virus Outbreak card, which could chain react through and wipe out Ork armies on the 1st turn. It was so potentially deadly it pretty much forced Ork players to take the countermeasure Wargear card, essentially always putting them at a points and wargear disadvantage.

Zweischneid
14-11-2010, 13:20
I guess 40K anti-aircraft looks abit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPxWKr_OD84&feature=related

Iracundus
14-11-2010, 13:34
Most of the races do have some form of AA, in Epic and Apocalypse. However, on the 40K scale, they usually just end up functioning as mediocre anti-infantry platforms taking up a FOC slot if the enemy doesn't have aircraft. In the Necrons' case, their AA is also a general purpose super heavy turret which would be out of place and overpowered on a 40K board.

Hellebore
14-11-2010, 13:38
What would probably be the most logical thing for them to do is to change the Skimmer rule to allow skimmers to have different "modes" they can operate in. This would be a way to get around having to update all codex's and would be consistent with their USR way of updating rulers sets.

In this case they'd really need to ensure there'd be a reason NOT to be at the highest altitude for skimmers, otherwise land speeders and fire prisms would be unassailable.

Basically, downsides for each mode and upsides. Like, High flying makes them immune to melee, but they halve their range and BS when shooting (as well as enemies shooting at them) to represent how far away they are.

However, this could turn skimmers into point denial units, where you simply leave them at max altitude for the whole game where the enemy can't hit them.

Maybe as a downside they couldn't stay at max height for more than one turn.

As for AA fire, perhaps rather than the current 'hit on 6+' mechanic they just went for reducing range whilst AA weaponry doesn't. So everything halves its range or even thirds its range, or just suffers a flat -24" or something to their range (which precludes almost all small arms and leaves the long range anti vehicle weaponry to take them out).

Thus, AA would be a help rather than a necessity. The other option is to just arbitrarily allow any vehicle/unit heavy weapon to take an AA upgrade for Xpts to allow them to keep pace.

Hellebore

Ace Rimmer
14-11-2010, 14:04
I just assumed like most ground attack craft (including the Jaguar, Tornado, Warthog to name a few) they tend to fly low to a)avoid detection b)to reduce the range over which bombs/rockets can scatter c)to make it harder for AA weapons to hit them because they would have only a few seconds at most to locate, target and fire at their target, the downside is that it does leave them vulnerable to small arms fire.

Hellebore
14-11-2010, 14:15
Small arms fire really doesn't include witchblades, powerfists, thunder hammers or chainfists though. If it's to be small arms fire then they should be firing their basic weapons at them, perhaps 1 shot per model at the rear armour.

Hellebore

Zweischneid
14-11-2010, 14:28
Small arms fire really doesn't include witchblades, powerfists, thunder hammers or chainfists though. If it's to be small arms fire then they should be firing their basic weapons at them, perhaps 1 shot per model at the rear armour.

Hellebore

I think you're missing the point.

Small arms fire to the rear armour of low-flying planes brings up associations of current military actions in Afghanistan or some such. I'd play FoW or some such game for that.

Skyjumping gene-enhanced half-cyborgs in self-propelled, helmet-free power armour bullet-time-punching sleek-black supersonic jets steered by gothic-punk-Legolas pilots with their energy-glow-enveloped fists the size of a small car brings up associations of 40K!!!

Sir_Turalyon
14-11-2010, 16:00
*Checks codex:SW* Thunder hammers are thrown weapons now. Probably the same can apply to witchblades. Not sure about power- and chainfists, through - maybe they can be used to throw bolt shells at escape velocities, with chain helping acceleration like transmition belt :angel: ?

DDogwood
14-11-2010, 16:23
*Checks codex:SW* Thunder hammers are thrown weapons now. Probably the same can apply to witchblades. Not sure about power- and chainfists, through - maybe they can be used to throw bolt shells at escape velocities, with chain helping acceleration like transmition belt :angel: ?

I can imagine a rocket-propelled powerfist shooting from a Space Marine's arm and punching the back of a fighter jet. The only reason they aren't normally shooting weapons is because shooting them at infantry just isn't awesome enough.

Gorbad Ironclaw
14-11-2010, 17:53
Skyjumping gene-enhanced half-cyborgs in self-propelled, helmet-free power armour bullet-time-punching sleek-black supersonic jets steered by gothic-punk-Legolas pilots with their energy-glow-enveloped fists the size of a small car brings up associations of 40K!!!

It does? To me that doesn't sound the least bit 40k, more some sort of weird mistaken anime inspired sci-fi cartoon.

Like so many other things in 40k there just isn't a logical explanation for it. Being able to attack a supersonic aircraft in close combat is stupid, there isn't any other word for it, but it's just an artefact of the rules that haven't really kept up with the models. Like so many other things (in fact most of 40k) you are just going to have to suspend your disbelief and probably just pretend it doesn't really happen.

But then having models of jet fighters and bombers move around the table top and actually stay there doesn't make any sense anyway so...

Hendarion
14-11-2010, 18:06
Hopefully GW will put some flier rules into 6th ed that do away with this nonsense.
It would be really pimp to have flyer-rules in the core rule book, although some are better than others. But a skimming bomber is just... meh.


Most of the races do have some form of AA, in Epic and Apocalypse. However, on the 40K scale, they usually just end up functioning as mediocre anti-infantry platforms taking up a FOC slot if the enemy doesn't have aircraft. In the Necrons' case, their AA is also a general purpose super heavy turret which would be out of place and overpowered on a 40K board.
Well, in case 6th edition would put up a new flyer unit type, AA would probably be just another weapon special rule in the core rule book and would be handed out like candy just like all the other special rules are handed out at the moment. I guess we'd see more AA than flyers or as it would make sense while flyers themselves (except Marine Flyers ofc) would all be AV10 or at max 11.

massey
14-11-2010, 19:01
I guess 40K anti-aircraft looks abit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPxWKr_OD84&feature=related

You beat me to it.

solkan
14-11-2010, 19:02
The "aircraft" rules aren't realistic because realistic aircraft rules would require realistic air support, anti-aircraft and artillery support rules. In a realistic situation, where does an army put it's support units? A few miles back at the nearest support base, or essentially off of the table.

So if you want "realistic" aircraft rules, now you're introducing a need for realistic essentially mandatory "invisible" units to be included in every army. And they're mandatory in the sense that they'd have to be a "If you don't take this, and you're opponent takes bombers, you lose" sense, so every army would need to have access to some generic form of it.

The end result would be that you have an 1800 point game which would probably have 1500 points of actual models, and 300 points worth of paper "off the board" support units. And all those extra 300 points of support units would end up doing is essentially making it suicidal for any aircraft units to use any of the newly created aircraft options.

So there's your reason. The aircraft rules aren't realistic because of the mandatory invisible anti-aircraft units.

massey
14-11-2010, 19:08
The "aircraft" rules aren't realistic because realistic aircraft rules would require realistic air support, anti-aircraft and artillery support rules. In a realistic situation, where does an army put it's support units? A few miles back at the nearest support base, or essentially off of the table.

So if you want "realistic" aircraft rules, now you're introducing a need for realistic essentially mandatory "invisible" units to be included in every army. And they're mandatory in the sense that they'd have to be a "If you don't take this, and you're opponent takes bombers, you lose" sense, so every army would need to have access to some generic form of it.

The end result would be that you have an 1800 point game which would probably have 1500 points of actual models, and 300 points worth of paper "off the board" support units. And all those extra 300 points of support units would end up doing is essentially making it suicidal for any aircraft units to use any of the newly created aircraft options.

So there's your reason. The aircraft rules aren't realistic because of the mandatory invisible anti-aircraft units.

This is a good point. Perhaps the aircraft have to fly in low because otherwise they'll be shot down by off-board support elements. This means they operate as effectively skimmers. Pilots have a choice to make in the 40K universe: either fly high and get shot down by off-board AA fire, or fly low and risk some jackass with a Thunder Hammer jumping out of a building and whacking you in the wing.

Xandros
14-11-2010, 19:12
Or maybe just don't change the rules at all. Why would you encourage a plane to fly straight over a group of armed enemies?

Vaktathi
14-11-2010, 19:16
The idea of low flying aircraft, even in 40k, being vulnerable to assaults is rather silly. That said, it's a byproduct of the game mechanics and the designers not wanting to include Flyer rules in the core rules. Although I find it odd that Rogue Trader not only had rules for aircraft, but air-to-air combat as well!

40k is a band-aid game in terms of rules, most units need a special rule to function these days as the core rules are so simple that they just don't cover everything well.

Being able to assault flying aircraft (as opposed to "skimmers" which hover at a couple feet off the ground) even if flying "low" at a dozen or so meters, is incredibly silly from a realistic or thematic standpoint, however in terms of game mechanics and balance the units in question seem to work pretty well, so we can suspend disbelief to some extent. That said, the DE flyers really break that if assaulted as they are actual jet-fighters, not low flying over-armored close support transports in VTOL mode.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
14-11-2010, 19:56
That said, the DE flyers really break that if assaulted as they are actual jet-fighters, not low flying over-armored close support transports in VTOL mode.

I think this encapsulates the current problems well. Existing fliers like the Valkyrie or stormraven are the 40k equivalent of transport/attack military helicopters. It's reasonable to assume that they could be present in a "defecation hits the oscillation" frontline engagement. If landing troops it's even possible that Joe-super-left-hand could rip a huge chunk out of the craft in a surprise attack. It still requires suspension of disbelief and doesn't really fit the "skimmer" classification made for anti-grav tanks, but in a perverse way it kind of works. Honest to goodness fighter jets though? We've left the realm of unlikely and entered the ridiculous.

Grimtuff
14-11-2010, 19:57
*Checks codex:SW* Thunder hammers are thrown weapons now.

No. ONE special Thunderhammer on a SC is a thrown weapon, because Arjac is Thor.

Chem-Dog
14-11-2010, 20:01
The Studio attempted to justify the valkyries being skimmers by saying the ones assigned to Guard it have so much extra armour (to survive coming in into the hotzones) that their maneuvrability is lowered to the level of skimmers.

Really? I had always understood that the Valk was a transport designed to drop units into combat and that it's skimmer mode was the craft in "Hover mode", evidenced by the fact GW offered no additional rules for making Valks flyers in Apoc other than just saying "they can count as flyers in apoc". Don't forget the Valkyrie is 40K's answer to the UH-1.


The tricky problem with introducing flyers as a whole new class into 40K scale games (excluding Apocalypse games) is they force the opponent to have AA or be at severe, possibly fatal disadvantage. It then means the opponent's army must have an AA option and will force the taking of this as an insurance. If they were introduced, all the races would need to be granted countermeasures as otherwise they would be at the mercy of fliers until the turning of the Codex cycle gave them AA.

Unless GW created it as a subgame (a'la Planetfall, Cities of Death) and featured AA countermeasures for all races within that ruleset. Personally I don't think this is the way to go.


Another analogy would be the old 2nd edition Virus Outbreak card, which could chain react through and wipe out Ork armies on the 1st turn. It was so potentially deadly it pretty much forced Ork players to take the countermeasure Wargear card, essentially always putting them at a points and wargear disadvantage.
Not really, it was a Vaccine squig that cost a pittance and took up one Wargear Card slot. Most players removed Virus outbreak from the deck as soon as they realised how bad it was and Andy Chambers went as far as appologising in WD and urging all players to tear the Card up....
More significant in this regard would have been the fact that a player could buy a Virus grenade, which then reverts the game to an even standing as a player who's bought the grenade has wasted the points/wargear slot too.
Also there is the fact that the IG could only immunise one model (usually their most senior officer) against Virus grenades/outbreaks, 5 points to make one guy stand there and watch his entire command die from alien flu....:eyebrows:


Most of the races do have some form of AA, in Epic and Apocalypse. However, on the 40K scale, they usually just end up functioning as mediocre anti-infantry platforms taking up a FOC slot if the enemy doesn't have aircraft.

This is a key problem IMHO, you can spend a huge amount of points just to find there's no reason to have. in normal 40K situations it's not uncommon, load out on Lascannons to find your enemy hasn't got tanks or MC's, fill up with lots of anti infantry units to find you're against an all mech list ect ect.
It seems that this is fine, the threat of having your flashy expensive flyer shot down as soon as it shows up on the table thanks to an automated AA turret will be enough to discourage some people.


In the Necrons' case, their AA is also a general purpose super heavy turret which would be out of place and overpowered on a 40K board.

I'll worry about the Necron's coping capacity when I've seen their new Codex ;)




Small arms fire really doesn't include witchblades, powerfists, thunder hammers or chainfists though. If it's to be small arms fire then they should be firing their basic weapons at them, perhaps 1 shot per model at the rear armour.

Hellebore

But these flyers (especially the DEldar ones) are making deliberately low passes at a relatively low speed, the DEldar flyers wanna witness the pain they're causing. It's more about a lucky strike in a crucial place in most cases hits against flyers will usually need 6's to hit anyway, unless you're prone to parking your air-plane 4 foot over the battlefield.
And you really don't want assault vs flyers reduced to 1 shot per model on the rear when the Stormravens start appearing.



Skyjumping gene-enhanced half-cyborgs in self-propelled, helmet-free power armour bullet-time-punching sleek-black supersonic jets steered by gothic-punk-Legolas pilots with their energy-glow-enveloped fists the size of a small car brings up associations of 40K!!!

Quoted for the Luls


It does? To me that doesn't sound the least bit 40k, more some sort of weird mistaken anime inspired sci-fi cartoon.

Like so many other things in 40k there just isn't a logical explanation for it.

Exactly ;)


Being able to attack a supersonic aircraft in close combat is stupid, there isn't any other word for it

The point is these craft, although capable of supersonic flight, are travelling at much slower speeds. Admittedly in RL they'd still be travelling way faster than anything I'd like to try to swing at with a big metal glove on, but that's by the by.


It would be really pimp to have flyer-rules in the core rule book, although some are better than others.

With speeds expressed in yards rather than inches...TBH 40k would be changed far too much to make that a realistic proposition, GW would have to rent out warehouses just so we could play games.
Air superiority happens above and beyond of any regular 40K game.


This is a good point. Perhaps the aircraft have to fly in low because otherwise they'll be shot down by off-board support elements. This means they operate as effectively skimmers.

It's more of a case that these flying craft have slowed down from their high flying activities or specifically tasked to lend support to nearby ground forces.


Air combat shouldn't become a staple in 40K, it's fine if flyers want to slow down and bring some support to the fight or drop off some re-enforcements but as they would normally be flying distances of multiple battlefields in a single game turn their normal activities are best left to Apoc or be boiled down to a set of abstract dice rolls for strafing runs which, of course, doesn't require models.

Hendarion
14-11-2010, 20:13
The "aircraft" rules aren't realistic because realistic aircraft rules would require realistic air support, anti-aircraft and artillery support rules. In a realistic situation, where does an army put it's support units? A few miles back at the nearest support base, or essentially off of the table. (...)
Nobody needs realistic rules whatsoever, no rule in 40k is realistic anyway.
Still adding flyers to the game would be nice. Yea, you would need anti-aircraft-stuff, but
a) I believe AA will be handed out to various already existing units
b) it will extend the game as close combat does. Yea, it changes the game entirely, but is that bad? I don't think so. It just adds diversity. So instead of 2 CC units and 2 heavy-weapon-teams, you'll chose only 1 CC, 2 heavy and 1 AA or 2 CC, 1 AA and 1 heavy. So? Doesn't sound that bad to me.

MEcorp
14-11-2010, 20:50
It also makes no sense that DE flier's can stop and hover.

Gimp
14-11-2010, 21:06
Sigh I really dont like the inclusion of aircraft in 40K. Thats what Apoc is for.

Vendetta is at least explainable but not the Dark Eldar aircraft

solkan
14-11-2010, 22:09
Nobody needs realistic rules whatsoever, no rule in 40k is realistic anyway.
Still adding flyers to the game would be nice.

If you don't care about realism, then you shouldn't have any problems with a guy with a power fist punching a flier into the ground when he assaults it. ;)

If you don't think that makes sense, then you're asking for "realism". And I've already explained that "realism" ends up with 100 point invisible ("off the board") units shooting down $50 flier models before they get to do anything.

Logan_uc
14-11-2010, 22:31
I use the Matt Ward, theorem to explain it.

The laws of logic and plausibility decrease exponentially the closer they are to Matt while obnoxiousness and baldly thought ideas increase (the eye of terror was based on him :D)

Now without kidding, it's a case of doing thing just because they are "cool" and don't really see that it can take away from game experience.

If you want a explanation, troops have high tech grappling hooks, and the "flyers" are more used as low flying helicopters in a normal 40k battles.

Wishing
14-11-2010, 22:32
It is kinda amusing that 40k has ended up in a situation where it has skimmer vehicles that look like aircraft. But that's the way it makes sense to me to look at it - ignore whatever background says that these models are supposed to be proper aircraft, and treat them like what they are; skimmers no different than a Falcon or Land Speeder, just decoratively streamlined.

Hellebore
14-11-2010, 22:40
But these flyers (especially the DEldar ones) are making deliberately low passes at a relatively low speed, the DEldar flyers wanna witness the pain they're causing. It's more about a lucky strike in a crucial place in most cases hits against flyers will usually need 6's to hit anyway, unless you're prone to parking your air-plane 4 foot over the battlefield.
And you really don't want assault vs flyers reduced to 1 shot per model on the rear when the Stormravens start appearing.


A low pass for an aircraft is 100 feet off the ground. For an aircraft to perform a low enough pass so that gretchin can assault it, it needs to be 1.5 metres off the ground... :p

Hellebore

Stonerhino
14-11-2010, 23:16
Well all you can really do is force flyers into a game that they don't fit into. By limiting them to something that's actually aready in the rules. In this case they made them skimmers. As skimmer they are limited by what skimmers can do.

When and if GW actualy includes flyers into the game in a balanced way. Then we can argue about it then. For now Flyers are just skimmers. Is assulting them stupid??? Hell yes, but without that stupidness those bomber/fighter would not even be a playable units.

Korraz
14-11-2010, 23:25
Flyers weren't there before. That doesn't mean that they don't fit into the game.

I, for one, embrace the introduction of flyers to 40k. It adds finally a real third dimension to the game and brings a factor with it, that can't be simply eliminate by bashing it with a slugga or shooting it with Leman Russ-Shell. If done correctly, it will force the players to a balancing act between Anti-Air, Anti-Tank and Anti-Infantry. Which is good, in my opinion.

If the flyers bring a major overhaul of 40k with them, I will be a very, very happy man.

Stonerhino
14-11-2010, 23:43
If the flyers bring a major overhaul of 40k with them, I will be a very, very happy man.It would have to because they don't fit the game now. Even in apok where they have to move 36 inches min each turn is still retardedly slow for an aircraft. If you look at how some other game do aircraft you will see that having a flying model stick around on such a small battlefield is silly.

In Battletech for example an aircraft arrives every sixth turn and then it's gone again. This type of mechanic to include aircraft just does not work in such a short turn based game.

The other option would be to have an aircraft have an effect. Such as a straffing run, drop bombs ect. This would be a way to include flyer but you really don't need models for it. The same as you don't need a model of the DH orbital bombardment.

To include full fledged aircraft into 40k means that they are not going to be reallistic at all. This can mean stupid things like being able to assult them. But it is a trade off for them being included in a game that they plainly don't fit into.

Havock
15-11-2010, 02:13
Actually the FW flyer rules are fairly decent if you add the rule that you can never reroll their 'return to the fight on a 2+ roll' or something.

Hellebore
15-11-2010, 02:42
You could have a reverse 'Reserves' roll, where you bring the aircraft on from reserve in any turn and then roll each subsequent turn to see if it can return in time, starting at 6+.

So it comes on in turn 2, in turn 3 it'll return on a 6+, turn 4 a 5+, turn 5 a 4+ and so on.

Hellebore

Havock
15-11-2010, 02:56
Nah, a 2+/3+ is fine.

Hellebore
15-11-2010, 03:05
I was referring to Stonerhino's example where the aircraft take a long time to come back (as they're banking around for another go).

Another idea is that when they come in, they come in from a random part of a random table edge, determined by rolling the scatter die (a hit allows you to choose where). Thus their strafing runs are not always on the optimum path due to off table interference.

Hellebore

Col. Tartleton
15-11-2010, 03:49
I guess 40K anti-aircraft looks abit like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPxWKr_OD84&feature=related

[Another Thread Derailed]
Dying Eldar: "What the hell are you Mon'keigh?"

Bruce Willis: *smiling* "I'm Bruce Willis! Yippie Ki Yay Mother--"

Space Marine: *Pushes Willis Aside and shoves a 52 inch combat knife in the dying Eldar* "CROMMMMMMM!"


[/Another Thread Derailed]

Da Reddaneks
15-11-2010, 03:51
I like the way you are thinking hellebore. Good creativity.

I am not going to even think about how they should do it because I am pretty confident they wont be asking my opinion. But I do hope they include more aircraft/flyers, in one form or the other, in the future. It adds an element that, if done well, we would all enjoy.

Geep
15-11-2010, 07:01
I like the way the Dark Eldar flyers fill the Heavy Support roll like a battletank, but remain in the 'sleek and speedy' theme.

It does cause all sorts of weirdness though. As well as the close combat example, there's also no stated minimum for the aircraft to move- Hovering planes? For the Valkyerie I'll accept it, but for the DE ones- that won't look right. On top of that they can only move 12" if they want to fire anything. 12" is a tiny distance for an aircraft (but then again, so is there 36" maximum).

I hope they don't go overboard and introduce a heap of lyers into regular books. As an expansion it may work, but in regular scale games- no. It just makes no sense, unless each aircraft purchase is like a Grey Knight's Orbital Strike.

Hendarion
15-11-2010, 07:36
If you don't think that makes sense, then you're asking for "realism". And I've already explained that "realism" ends up with 100 point invisible ("off the board") units shooting down $50 flier models before they get to do anything.
Nop, I'm not asking for realism, I am asking for a new type of unit that can not be assaulted and is called "flyer", just to see more of these adorable aircraft models that Forgeworld is producing (and soon GW in plastic).


Flyers weren't there before. That doesn't mean that they don't fit into the game.
(...)
If the flyers bring a major overhaul of 40k with them, I will be a very, very happy man.
Exactly my thoughts. A new category you have to play and calculate with.


It would have to because they don't fit the game now. Even in apok where they have to move 36 inches min each turn is still retardedly slow for an aircraft. If you look at how some other game do aircraft you will see that having a flying model stick around on such a small battlefield is silly.
Not more silly than any other rules that 40k has, but surely offers the use of a great range of cool models with different rules. After all 40k is entirely silly in everything it has, starting at movement over rapid fire weapons to assault moves, grenade rules, explosive weapon shooting rules, close combat initiative order of all attacks, etc, etc. Nothing of that is anything else than silly. But all things together form a neat game that allows us nerds to toss around our little metal and plastic soldiers. I bet Revell must be jealous for that.


You could have a reverse 'Reserves' roll, where you bring the aircraft on from reserve in any turn and then roll each subsequent turn to see if it can return in time, starting at 6+.
That would mean we'd see flyers once or twice on the table which would make them damn useless and damn cheap. It's a "realistic" set of rules that isn't required if you ask me. Balance comes from point-cost regarding a given set of rules and not from rules themselves. I personally dislike the idea.


It does cause all sorts of weirdness though. As well as the close combat example, there's also no stated minimum for the aircraft to move- Hovering planes?
That's why it would be great to have a different set of rules to reflect flyers a bit better.

Admiral Koppenflak
15-11-2010, 08:10
I know it's not a perfect solution, chaps - nor am I suggesting it should be considered ideal, but for those who DO fuss themselves over this kind of 'realism' really do need to consider Forgeworld

Imperial Armour has provisions for aircraft in standard games of 40k, how to treat them, and how to shoot them. A reasonable gaming group should have no issue using these rules. Indeed, the Armoured Battlegroup list of IA1 includes the force option for Imperial Navy aircraft - and they are plainly listed as Aircraft, not skimmers.

Perhaps until 6th edition... it may be a solution to those who direly loathe the status quo?

Hendarion
15-11-2010, 08:14
Perhaps until 6th edition... it may be a solution to those who direly loathe the status quo?
Well, using the Forgeworld/Apoc flyer rules with the current DE Codex flyers would make them seriously under-costed, boost them in survivability, in speed and in number of shots that can be output.

Dunklezahn
15-11-2010, 08:55
Well each turn is only meant to be a couple of seconds of combat right? So that to me assumes that since they are considered skimmers they are operating in a hovering VTOL type capacity, slower and lower.

Yeah it's still a bit of a stretch to have a powerfist go through the cockpit but in my 40k the Bruce Willis bit is everyday, you wouldn't even get mention in the combat report, as are genstealers flesh hooking up and clambering all over them, maybe the marines use their uber genetics to throw krak grenades in vents and stuff, using powerfist stats for ease of faffing?

Die Hard 4.0 does seem to be the key, after all that movie even explains how Vehicles can tank shock flyers...

Yeah it's silly, yeah it's abstract but thats 40k, leave them as skimmers, suspend your disbelieve and avoid any faffing with "does this unless enemy is this then it does this" rules. Otherwise you end up with stupid rules that don't make sense because new models or weapons don't work that way because of their own/new edition rules. GW are good enough at producing them already.

Wishing
15-11-2010, 10:25
It does cause all sorts of weirdness though. As well as the close combat example, there's also no stated minimum for the aircraft to move- Hovering planes?

Just pretend you're playing starcraft. :) You can't ground assault flyers in that game, but the planes are very happy just hovering in place.

I personally also enjoy the forgeworld flyer rules, and would prefer it if they were used for standard 40k. However, I can understand why GW prefers rules that let the planes actually move around the table like a normal model, rather than just being placed somewhere on the table and then taken off again each turn.