Autumn of Fliers

[Cthell]

Not to mention Whirlwind Hyperioses(plural?), Ork Flak-trucks and Tau skyrays.

At the moment, the only armies that lack Str 7+ AA systems are Necrons (outside apocalypse), Nids, Chaos and Eldar (all kinds).

Of those, there are fluff reasons for DE and Nids not to have any AAA while Eldar have both interceptor aircraft and light AAA (good against old style flyers, currently rubbish against the new uberflyers)

Really, the surprise is the lack of AAA for CSM, even from forgeworld (although they do have a pretty good fighter aircraft)

[Hendarion]

He specified new codicies, and even pointed out how failing the Firestorm is.

He did. But he didn't point out what a crazy huge difference between AV10 and AV12 is. Flyers are nice, but AV10 is just... crap. Especially when you compare the DE-Flyers to a StormRaven or Vendetta.
Anyway, that's not the point of that topic, so lets see what the autumn or 2013 will bring.

[Brother Landrain]

Some conjecture about this flier...

I remember seeing a rumour about a DA flier/vehicle and the comment was about what is missing in the arsenal.

Now a Storm Raven can hold 12 models + a Dread, a dread is usually considered 10 models....

So, a flier of equivalent size, all enclosed could hold 22 models... this is close to the rumoured storm-hawk...

Also, that would be able to hold 11 TDA... which if DA are next marine codex, would hold a full Deathwing squad + IC, which would fill the gap nicely.

It would also potentially explain why other marines would not get Storm Ravens

Does this logic make sense to anyone else?

[GreyishKnight]

Then why would GKs choose the Raven over this new ship? They make more wider use of TDA than anyone. Plus, with the BA's high usage of jump packs the capacity would be useful to them too.

You're right in saying that the idea would fit a niche though.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Really? No other race have flyers that could pull off interceptor duty? No more realeases will come?
No rules for engaging fliers will make it in?

There might be interception rules, but if I need my own interceptor to have any real chance of countering enemy planes and they will otherwise wreck complete havoc on my own forces then I think the rules have failed completely. There is no other unit type in 40k where I need my own version to be able to effectively combat it. If fliers turn out to be such a unit type it's a huge step back and will prove to be quite destabilising.

[Cthell]

As a possible solution to the current crop of panzerflyers, perhaps they could introduce some sort of disadvantage for using the flyer rules?

Something like: "due to the high speeds and low altitude involved in close air support, the distraction from enemy attacks can be as lethal as any actual damage caused. When using the flyer movement rules, all vehicles treat their armour value as 10,10,10. However, due to the difficulty of tracking a fast moving target, they receive a 3+ cover save against shooting from units that are not also using the flyer movement rules"

This would open up tactical considerations for choosing between whether to fly or not, especially if flying units are unable to contest/hold objectives.

[DEADMARSH]

Then why would GKs choose the Raven over this new ship? They make more wider use of TDA than anyone. Plus, with the BA's high usage of jump packs the capacity would be useful to them too.

You're right in saying that the idea would fit a niche though.

I'm not a GK fluff expert, but if they're supposed to be so awesome and specialized and whatnot, maybe the I doesn't want to lose 20 of them at one time because they were all riding in the same car when it crashed, so to speak. Sort of like why you don't want the President and the Vice riding around on Air Force One together at the same time. Rules-wise, could be it's just flat out not available to them. Don't know about the BAs. There's also nothing saying this thing won't be like a Baneblade and they turn up in everybody's army even though they're not a codex entry, fluffy, etc.

There might be interception rules, but if I need my own interceptor to have any real chance of countering enemy planes and they will otherwise wreck complete havoc on my own forces then I think the rules have failed completely. There is no other unit type in 40k where I need my own version to be able to effectively combat it. If fliers turn out to be such a unit type it's a huge step back and will prove to be quite destabilising.

This.

I don't want 40k to turn into a rock, paper, scissors fest where I have to make sure I pack an AA battery/ interceptor plane because I have to, not because I painted one up and it looks really, really cool and I'm just in love with it.

[RedemptionNL]

I don't want 40k to turn into a rock, paper, scissors fest where I have to make sure I pack an AA battery/ interceptor plane because I have to, not because I painted one up and it looks really, really cool and I'm just in love with it.

Of course, you could make the same argument about when vehicles were introduced to 40k, where you have to make sure you pack an anti-vehicle unit because you have to, not because you painted one up and it looks really, really cool and you to have its children.

If the implementation of Flyers in the 'leaked 6th edition' is anything to go by, there seem to be methods for regular squads to take out flying vehicles, such as one unit spotting for another unit so the second units gains a to-hit bonus against the flyer, or anti-flyer strategems you can give to units. We'll have to wait and see how they implemented Flyers in the first place to see if you need specific anti-flyers or if any anti-vehicle will do.

[Voss]

Given the way the 'flyer' models are treated in the recent codex releases, I fully expect 'flyers' to still be treated as fast skimmers with some special rules attached. At least in the core rules. Rewriting segments of the most recent books would just be silly.

[DEADMARSH]

Of course, you could make the same argument about when vehicles were introduced to 40k, where you have to make sure you pack an anti-vehicle unit because you have to, not because you painted one up and it looks really, really cool and you to have its children.

If the implementation of Flyers in the 'leaked 6th edition' is anything to go by, there seem to be methods for regular squads to take out flying vehicles, such as one unit spotting for another unit so the second units gains a to-hit bonus against the flyer, or anti-flyer strategems you can give to units. We'll have to wait and see how they implemented Flyers in the first place to see if you need specific anti-flyers or if any anti-vehicle will do.

I didn't play back then, so I don't know how different the rules were, but I feel that most armies can pretty effectively deal with most armor with the stuff they usually bring to a fight anyway.

I'm not opposed to the idea of flyers, I like my Valkyrie model and came really close to buying a FW Thunderbolt a few years ago. What put me off was not being able to use it in "regular" games. I'd like to have an excuse to buy and build one, don't get me wrong. I just hope the rules for them are cool and people aren't going, "Oh, I lost today because you brought a Thunderbolt and I didn't bring a Hydra because it's not finished." If my post read like I was opposed to the idea of flyers in 40k, that was definitely not my intent.

[Symrivven]

Some speculation, but this would probably then be the moment the Voidraven bomber gets released. Its supposedly done for some time, the initial rumour stated that it was done but needed to be tweaked a bit because of some fragile parts. They'd probably had time enough for that by now, it wasn't in the second and third DE wave so maybe they held it back for this autumn of fliers.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Of course, you could make the same argument about when vehicles were introduced to 40k, where you have to make sure you pack an anti-vehicle unit because you have to, not because you painted one up and it looks really, really cool and you to have its children.

I think the difference is that most of the weapons that are good against vehicles are also good against a large range of other targets. Heavy infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Characters and any other form of hard target you could run into. They are overkill against most infantry but they are still very effective against it. The equivalent would be that I might be quite happy to bring an AA platform to use against a number of different targets, one of them being planes, but even if there are no aircrafts to shoot at I don't feel like it's a waste to bring it. If that's the case then fine. And double so if there are some form of counter available for many options. Many infantry units have krak grenades. They are not really a good counter to vehicles but they give you a chance. As long as including flyers doesn't "force" you to either A) your own interceptor or B) the one AA option you might have in your list, then we might be on the right track. Having dedicated AA would likely make it easier to deal with enemy airpower (it should), but shouldn't be required. Unrealistic sure, but then 40k is hardly a simulator anyway.

[Senbei]

Of course, you could make the same argument about when vehicles were introduced to 40k,

Vehicles have always been in 40k. The Land Raider, Rhino, Land Speeder, Dreadnought, etc, etc, were all in the 1987 first-print rulebook. It does, however, kind of raise the question as to why GW haven't released any -NEW- vehicles for their (vanilla) poster boys since 1992-ish (Vindicators, Predators, Razorback), but now they are releasing all sorts of crazy stuff I cant see this state lasting much longer.

[Konovalev]

I think the difference is that most of the weapons that are good against vehicles are also good against a large range of other targets. Heavy infantry, Monstrous Creatures, Characters and any other form of hard target you could run into. They are overkill against most infantry but they are still very effective against it. The equivalent would be that I might be quite happy to bring an AA platform to use against a number of different targets, one of them being planes, but even if there are no aircrafts to shoot at I don't feel like it's a waste to bring it. If that's the case then fine. And double so if there are some form of counter available for many options. Many infantry units have krak grenades. They are not really a good counter to vehicles but they give you a chance. As long as including flyers doesn't "force" you to either A) your own interceptor or B) the one AA option you might have in your list, then we might be on the right track. Having dedicated AA would likely make it easier to deal with enemy airpower (it should), but shouldn't be required. Unrealistic sure, but then 40k is hardly a simulator anyway.

If I understand correctly this fliers supplement is supposed to coincide with 6thED so maybe AA will see dual purpose by being extra effective vs jump infantry, jet bikes, skimmers, etc. For example if these units gain some rule to represent them being harder to hit, AA might ignore that rule and so on.

Another way they could work AA is to give it function vs off-board things. For example, for every 2 AA units you have you can skip a turn of shooting with them to impose a -1 to enemy reserve rolls to represent the AA suppressing dropships et all.

[75hastings69]

Whilst I'm not going to say there is an "Autumn of Fliers" (as the phrase seems as overused as the wfb equivalent "return of Nagash"!) I will add to this that along with the bits Harry mentioned I'm also aware of a couple more fliers ready to go (and being worked on). I am not sure if they're for drip/splash releases over the next year-18 months or to accompany updated army books in some cases (which you can probably hazard a guess at) but it wouldn't be inconceivable to hold them all in a "holding pattern" and release them alongside some kind of fliers supplement.

[Theocracity]

Whilst I'm not going to say there is an "Autumn of Fliers" (as the phrase seems as overused as the wfb equivalent "return of Nagash"!) I will add to this that along with the bits Harry mentioned I'm also aware of a couple more fliers ready to go (and being worked on). I am not sure if they're for drip/splash releases over the next year-18 months or to accompany updated army books in some cases (which you can probably hazard a guess at) but it wouldn't be inconceivable to hold them all in a "holding pattern" and release them alongside some kind of fliers supplement.

Good to hear Hastings!

Out of curiosity, when discussing new 'flyer' kits is it necessarily limited to big centerpiece kits like the Razorwing or Stormraven? Or could they also include smaller kits of units that 'fly,' like Eldar Jetbikes or Ork Deffkoptas?

I mostly ask because a Deffkopta kit could be a nice way to sneak in a dual kit for buggies, something I've had an unreasonable hankering for lately

[Sildani]

Well thanks for that Hastings. Flyers are coming to 40K, ready or not...

It occurred to me that an easy way to shoehorn AA weapons into existing units might be to grant "missile/rocket" launchers the AA rule, representing them being loaded with a SAM instead of frag or krak loads. Lets you hit with your BS, let's say.

[Harry]

Whilst I'm not going to say there is an "Autumn of Fliers" (as the phrase seems as overused as the wfb equivalent "return of Nagash"!) I will add to this that along with the bits Harry mentioned I'm also aware of a couple more fliers ready to go (and being worked on). I am not sure if they're for drip/splash releases over the next year-18 months or to accompany updated army books in some cases (which you can probably hazard a guess at) but it wouldn't be inconceivable to hold them all in a "holding pattern" and release them alongside some kind of fliers supplement.

Hello.
'Tis the other 40K expert.
Also heard a few snippets by accident I fancy.

I will certainly add this to the first post.
Always good when the Jedi master of rumours steps in to add some back up.

I agree there are some more flyers in the pipeline and I am sure we will see some of them alongside there books but I have only heard about these two mentioned alongside a supplement.... as I said earlier I am not expecting them all to be released together ... I only used the phrase "Autumn of fliers" as I was aware of the whole 'summer of flyers' train wreck last year.

GW are going to be releasing more flyers for more armies ... thats a fact ... and they are going to be releasing them alongside codices ... shocker ... but much as it is only a rumour as I said on page 1 ... I have reason for suggesting there will be a specific supplement for flyers ... and I have only suggested two flyers I have heard along side this .... I am not suggesting an 'single shot orgasm'.
As for the season thing ... that was mostly a gentle tip of the hat to stickmonkey ... but I also have reason for suggesting this timescale ... as unlikely as it seems.

[brassangel]

Of course, you could make the same argument about when vehicles were introduced to 40k, where you have to make sure you pack an anti-vehicle unit because you have to, not because you painted one up and it looks really, really cool and you to have its children.

If the implementation of Flyers in the 'leaked 6th edition' is anything to go by, there seem to be methods for regular squads to take out flying vehicles, such as one unit spotting for another unit so the second units gains a to-hit bonus against the flyer, or anti-flyer strategems you can give to units. We'll have to wait and see how they implemented Flyers in the first place to see if you need specific anti-flyers or if any anti-vehicle will do.

That's not entirely accurate. Most armies can deal with vehicles without dedicated anti-vehicle units. Their all-comers lists will often suffice. The same should be true for this whole fliers thing. Every army should be able to deal with them without being forced buy a unit just for that purpose.

Granted, not every army should have the same capabilities, else we would all be playing the same thing anyway.

[Starchild]

Of course, you could make the same argument about when vehicles were introduced to 40k, where you have to make sure you pack an anti-vehicle unit because you have to, not because you painted one up and it looks really, really cool and you to have its children.

If the implementation of Flyers in the 'leaked 6th edition' is anything to go by, there seem to be methods for regular squads to take out flying vehicles, such as one unit spotting for another unit so the second units gains a to-hit bonus against the flyer, or anti-flyer strategems you can give to units. We'll have to wait and see how they implemented Flyers in the first place to see if you need specific anti-flyers or if any anti-vehicle will do.

Technically vehicles were always part of Rogue Trader and any player or GM could create a vehicle using the included rules. However we tended to avoid using the Land Raider because it was downright unfair with its multiple powerfields, etc. (It was more like a Battle Titan than a tank back then.)

If flyers turn out to horribly unbalance the game in any way, I hope 40k players will have enough sense and courtesy to simply avoid using them until adequate countermeasures are provided for the armies lacking such things.