PDA

View Full Version : Are fliers necessary?



Commissar von Toussaint
06-07-2006, 23:14
The thread on dragons got me thinking: Are fliers that necessary?

Part of the complaints about dragons is that they leap-frog over the army. If dragons simply could move 20 inches in a line (but not leave the ground) I doubt they would cause so much trouble.

Other flying units are more there for harassment and annoyance. They basically fill the same purpose as skirmishers and fast cavalry.

So, speaking both from a rules and a fluff perspective, how attached to fliers are you? T

der_lex
06-07-2006, 23:29
Very. I play Chaos, and since we don't have shooting of any kind, flyers are basically our only way of taking war machines out quickly. They make excellent mage hunters too, which is something skirmishers and fast cav aren't capable of doing. Also, the floating disc my Tzeentch characters ride is a fantastic way of getting them into optimal spell range and keeping them out of harm's way.

I guess I basically don't agree with you when you say that they're only an 'annoyance' unit. I mainly use flyers as tactical strike teams that take long range threats out as quickly as they can. Fast cav and skirmishers can't really do that quite as well, since they can't bypass other units to get to their targets by flying over them.

As far as the fluff is concerned, I think a fantasy setting like Warhammer needs to have big scary dragons, gallant knights on pegasi and winged daemons that swoop down on the enemy. They are fantasy icons, and the setting would be a lot less fun without them.

Neknoh
06-07-2006, 23:40
See my sig and then guess what I voted :p Lex pretty much covered what I was going to say

samw
07-07-2006, 02:07
Fantastic things, you will take my peg knights from my cold dead hands.

Commissar von Toussaint
07-07-2006, 02:14
I'm not advocating either way. I simply was curious as to how attached people are to fliers.

A lot of the gripes about dragons seemed to center on their flying aspect. And of course the Bretonnian air cavalry gets a high amount of abuse.

Nell2ThaIzzay
07-07-2006, 06:39
I think because we're playing a fantasy game here, that fliers have a very legitamate place in this game (just as I argue that magic does as well).

I also believe that the rules for fliers are perfect.

Morph
07-07-2006, 09:04
Difficult poll to answer really, since as you say there are different types of flyer. Dragons are a completely different kettle of fish to furies, carrion, terradons etc. I don't think that the light harrasment units need to be downgraded (if anything, some need to be made a little better) as armies need things to take out warmachines and so on.

Dragons - maybe they're a problem, but in many ways I would be disapointed to lose Dragons from my fantasy game (not that I use them). Perhaps they should just cost more points?

Danger Rat
07-07-2006, 09:10
Couldn't do with out them in my VC army very useful for taking out gun crews and being a nuisance to my opponent. I think the rules for flyers are fine as they are lets see if 7th ed brings any changes.

Inquisitor_Pink
07-07-2006, 11:09
I always take at least one Gyrocopter in my dwarf army two if I can. They are phenominally useful in dwarf armies. They are pretty much the only thing that can get to the otherside of the board (Bar miners but with a 6inch march it is rarely worth it I find) and harry warmachine crews and magic weilders.

I say yes they should be availible but not in vast quantities, especially if they are big flyers (dragons, knightmares etc) but as wfb only allows you to take them as mounts for characters and they are massive point sinks I think it works fine.

Scythe
07-07-2006, 12:07
What would a fantasy game be without big/ strange creatures with wings? Their influence in the game is about alright, tough there are some exceptions (the brettonian air cavalry perhaps. Pegasus knights are cool, a whole army of them isn't...)

Sir_Turalyon
07-07-2006, 12:25
THey bring variation ito the game. After they have been toned down in 6th ed, I see no problems with them.

Not that I use them a lot, but I think limiting their use should be left to personal preference.

Doomclaw
07-07-2006, 13:44
I really like my flyers, they serve some tactical purposes and some have splendid models, and not to forget the fuff, what would a fantasy world be without flying monsters?

Zarast38
07-07-2006, 14:02
Flyer are well as they are now. Its a fantasy setting, and we need fantasy stuff. Your shiny knight need its vile deamon to save the princess !!! ;)

Well if dragon need toning down, I believe its not the dragon we should nerf, but the rider...or make the dragon a character choice entirelly !

Viskrit
07-07-2006, 19:12
As others have said: Flyers are necessary.

If they are perfectly balanced or not, I won't discuss that. Depends on which flying unit we are talking of.

Nell2ThaIzzay
07-07-2006, 21:04
or make the dragon a character choice entirelly !

I'm not sure about other armies, but dragons are character choices for Vampire Counts.

Bloodknight
08-07-2006, 01:15
What he meant is: Dragons should be able to fielded as lone characters without riders.
As for the poll: I don´t like more than one unit of flyers in any given army, especially if they´re good fighters. IMO all flyers should be 0-1.

sigur
08-07-2006, 02:03
I think that they are okay as they are, just don't (and I mean never) make flying core choices, the same as I think that there shouldn't be skirmishing core choices at all.

Trunks
08-07-2006, 03:48
I don't think there is a problem with Flyers being present. The problems with Flying units are usually due to them having "Ability X" in combination with their flying, not the flying itself.

Oh, and wings look cool . . .

metro_gnome
08-07-2006, 03:53
they do...

7th ed tho seems lik it may overpower flyers...
with skirmishers being march blocked... and the new "flee into me and die" rule...
i voted for toned down a little...

Bingo the Fun Monkey
08-07-2006, 08:18
I think flyers are a part of the game people have to learn to accept. No, my army doesn't have flyers (except a wyvern I never use). They are a unit type in the game. Not every army has cavalry, or heavy infantry, or unbreakable units...but they are in the game, as are flyers. I think we're forgetting the days of emperor dragon mounted super characters here, guys...

mageith
08-07-2006, 16:52
Necessary? No.

Reasonable? Oh Yes. Lex did a good job stating the case. We play a fantasy game and flyers are part of many fantasies. It would be a major oversight not to include them in a fantasy game.

I think the level as in number of flyers is about right.

I think some the general rules for flyers suck and don't make me much think they are flying or act like flyers. Pretty much jumping and hopping doesn't cut it for me.

I think some of the specific rules in the armybooks are much better. Hit and runs, fly overs and dropping things are much more 'realistic' and enjoyable.

Mage Ith

mageith
08-07-2006, 16:56
What he meant is: Dragons should be able to fielded as lone characters without riders.
As for the poll: I don´t like more than one unit of flyers in any given army, especially if they´re good fighters. IMO all flyers should be 0-1.
I've long imagined an army of flyers.

However, before that happens, the designers would have to study the evolution of flight very carefully. In order to fly, birds, for example, surrender lots of other benefits. Hands for example. Hollow bones for example. Weight for example.

If those trade offs were reflected in the stats, an all flying army would be possible.

Chalking it all up to magic, like we do for dragons and Pegasus knights, wouldn't be a good solution.

Mage Ith

Commissar von Toussaint
08-07-2006, 20:12
It seems to me that fliers fall into two categories:

1. Big ones that can kill things;
2. Skirmishers with wings.

While I can appreciate the fluff aspect of flying monsters, I'm not sure I like the way fliers are used in the game. A lot of people have said that they consider them essential to killing warmachines and their crews.

This seems to me to be basically a cop-out, a shortcut to dealing with artillery with tactics rather than a special rule.

Scythe
09-07-2006, 10:09
Alright, but how do you think flyers should work in the game then?

mageith
09-07-2006, 15:37
Alright, but how do you think flyers should work in the game then?

Me? I wrote this awhile back, over a year ago maybe more. I also like the Hit and Run rules from the Wood Elves. I'd limit it to US 1 Skirmisher unit of Flyers which I'd call Flocks. It's pretty complicated.

FLIGHTS OF FANTASY.

GENERAL RULES FOR ALL FLYERS:
FLYOVER: They can over fly units and Attack them on the fly but only one attack per component (rider or flyer). Flyers and riders are -1 to be hit on the flyover due to movement. Models on ground also only get one attack at a model.
RUNWAY: This is the distance a unit must move straight ahead before it can turn, pivot or wheel. Things that hover (Gyrocopter and Discs of Tzeentch) do not need a runway.
RIDERS: Cannot use shields or weapons requiring two hands. May not use lances.
AIRBORNE: Models and units are assumed to be airborne (in the air) if they were not engaged in combat in the previous combat phase. That means they do not require a runway after the first turn unless they have landed to fight or indicated they landed at the end of their movement phase.
Airborne models are always in Line of Sight and have Line of Sight per their Model Type. Airborne units are close enough to the ground, however, that any unit may charge and attack them. However, Friendly and Enemy Units may also move through airborne units but may not remain underneath them.

MAN-SIZED FLYERS AND SMALLER:
EXAMPLES: Harpies, Fell bats, Screamers and flying swarms. (Either on infantry bases or US = 1)
CHARACTERISTICS: Flying movement 24. The will have toughness 3 and no armor save. They will always be -1 to be hit in movement due to movement in addition to being skirmishers.
RUNWAY: None
COMBAT: The can charge while flying but have on Str 3. No armor save. No weapons allowed. Have two attacks with hands and/or claws.
RIDERS: none


CAVALRY TYPE FLYERS:
EXAMPLES: Warhawks, Terradons

CHARACTERISTICS: Flying movment 20. Toughness 3. Skirmishers but not -1 to be hit as flyers. US=1 Wounds = 1. Unit size: 3-10. Cost about 30 points plus special rules.
RUNWAY: 2 inches to both land and take off.
RIDERS*: Generally riders can only have light armor (due to weight) but no shield or barding (they have to hold on).
COMBAT: Generally no weapon that requires two hands either for shooting or close combat. Shields OK but lances are too heavy and too long for adequate balance.

OGRE SIZE FLYERS:
EXAMPLES: Pegasus, Great Eagle, Pegasus Knights.
CHARACTERISTICS: Generally have flying movement 20, Toughness 4, not Skirmishers, US=2, Wounds =2-3 due to hollow bones. Unit size 1. Cost about 45 points.
RUNWAY: 3 inches to both land and take off.
RIDERS*: Generally riders can only have light or heavy armor (due to weight) but no shield or barding (They have to hold on).
COMBAT: Generally no weapon that requires two hands either for shooting or close combat. Lances are too heavy and long for adequate balance.

LARGE FLYERS:
EXAMPLES: Dragons, winged nightmares.
CHARACTERISTICS: Flying movement 16. Toughness 5**. Not Skirmishers US=3**. Wounds variable, not less than 3. Unit size = 1. Cost about 100 points plus special rules (Terror, breath, increased stats, ward saves, impaling, etc.) Composition: Rare often 0-1 and/or restricted to Lord.
RUNWAY: Same as above except they will need a runway of 8 inches.
RIDERS*: Same as above but may wear heavy armor.**
COMBAT: 5+ natural Armor save. **

samw
09-07-2006, 18:55
I'm afraid I disagree with that particular rules set. Flyers become firstly too uniform, and secondly to my mind become far more of an annoyance to be seen off with a fireball than an actual threat. That's ok for some flyers but I don't want all of them to be like that.

I also see no reason why a guy on a pegasus can't have a shield. He's essentially riding a horse, that horse just happens to be flying. Also it's entirely feasible that a guy on a big dragon would tie himself into the saddle, allowing him to swing Big Axe o' Doom (tm).

I also don't understand this runway idea. Flyers are moved in a straight line anyway the vast majority of the time. They'll just turn on the ground, which is free whether skirmishers or monsters, and then take off along the line they intended.

The rules look fine for some units, but I like my hammer flyers aswell thank you very much. Variety is the spice of life.

starlight
09-07-2006, 19:37
My only concern is that flyers seem to have become too common. In the same manner as Lords - Flyers shouldn't be showing up to every little skirmish. As long as this is kept in mind, I'm happy. Once you get to a certain size, most armies have *some* way of dealing with them, so it balances out.

mageith
09-07-2006, 19:47
I'm afraid I disagree with that particular rules set. Flyers become firstly too uniform, and secondly to my mind become far more of an annoyance to be seen off with a fireball than an actual threat. That's ok for some flyers but I don't want all of them to be like that.

Note that this is a GENERAL rule and GENERAL rules are uniform. I'm not suggesting all flyers only have these characteristics.




I also see no reason why a guy on a pegasus can't have a shield. He's essentially riding a horse, that horse just happens to be flying. Also it's entirely feasible that a guy on a big dragon would tie himself into the saddle, allowing him to swing Big Axe o' Doom (tm).

Ugh. They aren't described that way or modeled that way. Anything's possible, of course.

IMO an axe of doom on a regular horse is probably physically impossible due to inertia. On a flying horse with wings it would be suicidal. It's one thing to kill your own horse on the ground. From a 100 feet in the air, it wouldn't even do a cat any good if it landed on its feet. :)

Part of the idea of these rules is mentioned in the other thread. My flying rules are NOT assuming MAGICAL flight. So a flying horse is a light horse, with hollow bones, a large wingspan. It would be hardpressed to even carry a man. Same is true for Giant Eagles and Giant Hawks. If the armybook rules for Pegasi want to assume magical flight, then that's another story. Perhaps I shouldn't have use the term Pegasus in the general rules but 'Flying Horses'.



I also don't understand this runway idea. Flyers are moved in a straight line anyway the vast majority of the time. They'll just turn on the ground, which is free whether skirmishers or monsters, and then take off along the line they intended.

Most of the time is the point. I'm basing this on slow motion films of larger creatures taking off. Again, not assuming magical flight.

Specifically I was thinking of a crowded battlefield and the helicoptor type flight patterns assumed in our simplified game.



The rules look fine for some units, but I like my hammer flyers aswell thank you very much. Variety is the spice of life.
Actually I didn't expect very many folks to like it. Nevertheless I think it more closely follows real flight in an alternate universe where even Pigs could fly.

Commissar von Toussaint
10-07-2006, 01:27
Alright, but how do you think flyers should work in the game then?

Before I answer, it is important to understand what role I think fliers should play.

Thinking over various fantasy settings, it seems to me that fliers aren't really much of a threat to people on the ground in terms of combat power.

As Mageith pointed out, flying creatures have very light frames. The notion that they have high toughness is ludicrous.

Furthermore, fliers would realistically be a target for anyone with a missile weapon on the battlefield. As soon as they went up, the rules should permit opposing missile troops to take shots at them.

What flying creatures really do is spy on people. Other than that, they pick off stragglers after the battle or some such thing.

The exception to this is of course the gigundo massive fliers like dragons that are really armies unto themselves.

So the way I would handle fliers would be to simply give them high movement rates and leave it at that. No special rules needed.

Honestly, that's all fliers really are about anyway: mobility. In terms of combat power, they can't stand toe to toe with line units.

Scythe
10-07-2006, 08:45
But then: aren't flyers a lot like that currently anyway? If we look at the average flying unit (well, there are exceptions like pegasus knights), they have no chance at all against some decent combat units. Moreover, if they get into sight of a missle support unit, they'll probably be shot down.

What (units of) flyers excel in is just picking those few poor sods behind the battle line; war machine crews, lone mages etc, and run down some fleeing troops.

Commissar von Toussaint
10-07-2006, 23:18
But then: aren't flyers a lot like that currently anyway?

Somewhat, but they seem to be a cheap and easy way to take down war machines, which I think is basically a band-aid for poor tactics.

One of the things I really dislike is the use of special rules to solve challenging tactical situations and fliers are basically the ultimate way to deal with artillery.

Historically armies didn't have crutches like that; they figured out ways to deal with the problem.

Skirmishers and fast cavalry are similar, but both are bound by far more restrictive rules of movement and, in any case, represent effective historically accurate (as far as it goes ;) ) ways to deal with these problems.

Basically, since I don't have a huge amount of fluff investment in fliers (I don't see Stuka-like pterydactyls as integral parts of a fantasy universe, for example) I can do without them.

Scythe
11-07-2006, 08:45
So your real gripe is that flyers function a lot like skirmishers, but only better then. So, would it help then if the flying move would get reduced to, say, 15"? (like in Lustria)