dont realy solve the issue for thouse of you who allready has lots of table mats, but purhaps this company can offer something?
https://www.deepcutstudio.com/custom-mats/
they say they can add 2 inch hex grid to all their mats.
Deepcut's stuff looks awesome, that would be a pretty good (albeit expensive) solution!
There are Kinkos (in the US) stores that are professional copy/print centers with large format printers, I wonder if those can handle transparent plastic material in addition to paper for creating a hex overlay. There's one down by my GW I'll have to check out.
The deepcut studios mat is kinda eh, it's the titanicus mat with clouds on it. But due to the airborne nature of AI it looks like the planes are flying too close to the ground. They should have shrank the visuals of the mat, really disappointing lack of effort there. The ground should look far away.
Thargrim wrote: The deepcut studios mat is kinda eh, it's the titanicus mat with clouds on it. But due to the airborne nature of AI it looks like the planes are flying too close to the ground. They should have shrank the visuals of the mat, really disappointing lack of effort there. The ground should look far away.
But its great if you wanna portray the action close enough to the ground to make Titans, spires and smokestacks as terrain!
Thargrim wrote: The deepcut studios mat is kinda eh, it's the titanicus mat with clouds on it. But due to the airborne nature of AI it looks like the planes are flying too close to the ground. They should have shrank the visuals of the mat, really disappointing lack of effort there. The ground should look far away.
Right now, i think anything is better then nothing, as GW only offers 3x3 cardboard and we dont even know when or even IF GW will release 6x4.
The city mats could be both bad and good. For high alt fights, yea they look off, but for say bombing missions or transport missions, i think they look decent enugh. If you dont want a city fight, mats like frostgrave dont look too bad either on first look.
As for the price, i dont know if it is whitin "normal" price range for a 6x4; 55 euro for pvc, 60 euro for cloth.
ofc a transparent grid overlay would be prolly better, but so far thouse of us that is searching cant find anyone that does it.
Finally assembled my second Thunderbolt, so my starter set is completely built!
Would've been faster if I had not dabbled in some tech heresy and converted my dakkajets to have different wing shapes, started a Tie fight-ork and Phantom from scrap and slowly turning one of the fighta-bommas from the box my brother gifted me into an A-10 (I just couldn't let that Fury autocannon go to waste, right) . AND running out of super glue, so no gluing stuff onto sculpted areas :I Thinking about turning two more fighta-bommas into a huge twin-fuselage monster to use as a Grot-Bommer or Eavy Bommer. I couldn't find pics on the Internet of Grot-Bommers, though, just the grot bombs.
PS: In part I had to convert the Dakkajets because two of them had their cute Little guns snapped off on the sprue :( I contacted Gw, they said to contact the seller, Wayland hasn't responded for a week after receiving pics, but I guess cut off rockets work well enough as guns :/
think we sadly can more or less expect that AI releases will be in utter snail pace.
only today did we get the first official grot bomber picture, but ofc no release date.......... and that it is a kit that uses the same frame as the eavy bomber....
at this point i am tempted to say; play the original if you got the planes.
Model question. I was building my Eavy Bommers and noticed that there are four kustom big shootas on the sprue but there's no option to "buy" them for the model in the rules. Am I missing some variant that uses them?
Breotan wrote: Model question. I was building my Eavy Bommers and noticed that there are four kustom big shootas on the sprue but there's no option to "buy" them for the model in the rules. Am I missing some variant that uses them?
Any ork aircraft can take them, it’s a 3pt upgrade, they’re one of the upgrades listed prior to the aircraft rules themselves.
Played my first few games this past weekend and absolutely loved it. Gonna order the deep cuts mat asap but all in all that will be about 100$ and with Christmas so close that will most likely be Jan. Got 10 planes done so far with 4 more thunderbolts on the way.
I still have some questions, notably two that came up tonite.
In "bombing run" (mission 6) there is nothing restricting where the defenders ground assets is set-up. In other missions its mentioned that they are set-up within 6 hexes of the defenders edge, think this is the same in mission 6?
The rules for reserves are weird and I can see no reason or advantage whatsoever to keep any aircraft in reserves. They still deploy along the same table edge as the rest of the aircraft, and do so on an unspecified turn, making them unreliable.
Should the insane happen and they havent deployed when the game is over, they count as destroyed.
Can someone please tell me im missing something or what the reason would be to ever keep any aircraft in reserves?
Soulless wrote: I still have some questions, notably two that came up tonite.
In "bombing run" (mission 6) there is nothing restricting where the defenders ground assets is set-up. In other missions its mentioned that they are set-up within 6 hexes of the defenders edge, think this is the same in mission 6?
The rules for reserves are weird and I can see no reason or advantage whatsoever to keep any aircraft in reserves. They still deploy along the same table edge as the rest of the aircraft, and do so on an unspecified turn, making them unreliable.
Should the insane happen and they havent deployed when the game is over, they count as destroyed.
Can someone please tell me im missing something or what the reason would be to ever keep any aircraft in reserves?
On the question of reserves, I could a benefit in a scenario with ground targets and bombers. If you have bombers and the enemy has ground targets, the enemy may well completely ignore your fighters in order to quickly remove the aircraft that can threaten their ground targets. If your bombers are in reserve, the enemy has turns where they either fight the targets that aren't going to be able to destroy the objectives, or just sit there eating shots from your fighters. It may even force the enemy to expend limited weapons like air-to-air missiles.
Then, you can introduce your bombers and try a quick bombing run after the enemy may be damaged, or out of position. You do risk not having enough time to fully utilize your bombers, but the bombers released so far can often release multiple bombs on one run, so often one good bombing run is all you need from a bomber.
Soulless wrote: I still have some questions, notably two that came up tonite.
In "bombing run" (mission 6) there is nothing restricting where the defenders ground assets is set-up. In other missions its mentioned that they are set-up within 6 hexes of the defenders edge, think this is the same in mission 6?
The rules for reserves are weird and I can see no reason or advantage whatsoever to keep any aircraft in reserves. They still deploy along the same table edge as the rest of the aircraft, and do so on an unspecified turn, making them unreliable.
Should the insane happen and they havent deployed when the game is over, they count as destroyed.
Can someone please tell me im missing something or what the reason would be to ever keep any aircraft in reserves?
On the question of reserves, I could a benefit in a scenario with ground targets and bombers. If you have bombers and the enemy has ground targets, the enemy may well completely ignore your fighters in order to quickly remove the aircraft that can threaten their ground targets. If your bombers are in reserve, the enemy has turns where they either fight the targets that aren't going to be able to destroy the objectives, or just sit there eating shots from your fighters. It may even force the enemy to expend limited weapons like air-to-air missiles.
Then, you can introduce your bombers and try a quick bombing run after the enemy may be damaged, or out of position. You do risk not having enough time to fully utilize your bombers, but the bombers released so far can often release multiple bombs on one run, so often one good bombing run is all you need from a bomber.
True, you could potentially find a benefit this way but IMO its VERY unlikely and far to risky.
To begin with your leaving part of your squadron to fight outnumbered and likely overwhelmed. Then, when your bomber(s) eventually arrive its unlikely they will get anywhere within range of the targets without the opposing squadron intercepting them.
Since the defender gets points not only for destroying enemy ships but also for any remaining structure points on the targets, I just dont see any situation where this would feel like a good idea.
It only feels like it would cripple myself.
If the craft arriving from reserve could enter through any edge of the area of engagement (like any typical outflanking in other games) I would see the benefits, but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc
Given bombers are relatively tough, it seems more useful to have them on early so the enemy has more targets to shoot at, and you can muster more shots per turn.
Soulless wrote: ...but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc
I get that feeling with a lot of the game. Bombers, for example, are actually far less efficient at bombing than fighters. Where a bomber is slow and will take a few turns to reach the target, you can equip fighters with a couple of bombs each and their speed means you can hit the targets much earlier. Meanwhile, a bomber, the Destroyer, is one of the most effective aircraft at air to air.
In the old version of the game those effects were balanced by fighters not being able to carry a significant bomb load and weapons like the Destroyer's fixed guns were labelled as "ground attack" so you couldn't shoot down enemy planes with them. They doubled (or more) the bomb load that fighters can carry which has made them more effective bombers than the actual bombers.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Given bombers are relatively tough, it seems more useful to have them on early so the enemy has more targets to shoot at, and you can muster more shots per turn.
Soulless wrote: ...but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc
I get that feeling with a lot of the game. Bombers, for example, are actually far less efficient at bombing than fighters. Where a bomber is slow and will take a few turns to reach the target, you can equip fighters with a couple of bombs each and their speed means you can hit the targets much earlier. Meanwhile, a bomber, the Destroyer, is one of the most effective aircraft at air to air.
In the old version of the game those effects were balanced by fighters not being able to carry a significant bomb load and weapons like the Destroyer's fixed guns were labelled as "ground attack" so you couldn't shoot down enemy planes with them. They doubled (or more) the bomb load that fighters can carry which has made them more effective bombers than the actual bombers.
I hadnt even thought about that, but it agrees with the only bombing run mission ive played where the fightaboomers caused a lot more damage far easier than the eavy bomber could. Contributing to this is how rediculously openended the maneuvers are, very rarely does it feel as If the choice of maneuver mattered much as you can usually get in a good position for any situation no matter what.
I love air and space combat games, and am very much in love with this game. But im unsure if the ruleset in its current form can hold me interested for more than a few games. :/
They really need to get an errata up, and start to talk about competitive play.
I want the xwing of 40k, with all the brilliance of its ruleset and mechanics but without its token orgy and supercombos.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Given bombers are relatively tough, it seems more useful to have them on early so the enemy has more targets to shoot at, and you can muster more shots per turn.
Soulless wrote: ...but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc
I get that feeling with a lot of the game. Bombers, for example, are actually far less efficient at bombing than fighters. Where a bomber is slow and will take a few turns to reach the target, you can equip fighters with a couple of bombs each and their speed means you can hit the targets much earlier. Meanwhile, a bomber, the Destroyer, is one of the most effective aircraft at air to air.
In the old version of the game those effects were balanced by fighters not being able to carry a significant bomb load and weapons like the Destroyer's fixed guns were labelled as "ground attack" so you couldn't shoot down enemy planes with them. They doubled (or more) the bomb load that fighters can carry which has made them more effective bombers than the actual bombers.
I hadnt even thought about that, but it agrees with the only bombing run mission ive played where the fightaboomers caused a lot more damage far easier than the eavy bomber could. Contributing to this is how rediculously openended the maneuvers are, very rarely does it feel as If the choice of maneuver mattered much as you can usually get in a good position for any situation no matter what.
I love air and space combat games, and am very much in love with this game. But im unsure if the ruleset in its current form can hold me interested for more than a few games. :/
They really need to get an errata up, and start to talk about competitive play.
I want the xwing of 40k, with all the brilliance of its ruleset and mechanics but without its token orgy and supercombos.
It sounds like the old version of AI is what you want.
It's unfortunate, but I think most of the changes to AI have been for the worse. At first I liked the idea of a hex board, but in reality it's too restrictive in that you can only turn in increments of 60°. But then on the flip side of being too restrictive, they made the manoeuvre options too open, so it doesn't make enough difference which manoeuvre you pick.
The old manoeuvre system was similar in that in total you had to move 2x your current speed in inches and at some point in that move you had to execute your manoeuvre, but most of the manoeuvres now you to make a 2nd turn at the end of the move where as the old system that was it, once you executed the manoeuvre you just had to move straight forward until you moved up the rest of your speed. The manoeuvres also interacted with your speed and altitude, some you could only do while climbing and you'd lose speed, others fixed you to a certain altitude and so on.
It made the game more about positioning, where as now it just feels like your objective is just to get guns on targets as many turns as possible, which isn't hard to do.
lord_blackfang wrote: We really need to stop being surprised by half-assery from the GW rules team.
Not surprised, just disappointed. They already had a solid game with the FW rules, a direct copy/paste would have worked out better than some of the ill considered changes, and would have required less work from GW.
Blooddragon1981 wrote: Still waiting for GW to release other armies. Orks and Hummies do not ring my bell unfortunately.
This is starting to make me antsy too. I actually love Orks and basic Imperials. Both are in my top-five factions. But… when there's NOTHING else for them to fight, and I can't get my Drukhari in there too, despite Eldar being an obviously great choice for the game, it feels pretty dang lacklustre and unfinished. I can understand leaving out more esoteric sub-factions like Grey Knights or Custodes or whatever, and leaving out armies like Tyranids or AdMech that don't use fast-moving aircraft, but a two-army game with such a limited range of unit choices just isn't very Warhammer to me. At least Titanicus has the excuse of being set in the Heresy, and that only the Imperium has actual titans, and that (maybe paradoxically?) "one faction you can customize a lot of different ways" feels a lot less restrictive than "two factions".
- Imperial Navy
- Orkz
- Adeptus Astartes
- Heretic Astartes
- Craftworld Eldar
- Drukhari
- T'au Empire
- Necrons
Tyranids would be cool in theory, but I just can't see their flyers maneuvering in an airplane / dogfight sort of way, and the rules are 100% built around that. Like a harridan would never stall out trying to gain altitude! Keeping it smaller and focused only on the factions that really do use actual planes would also make it easier to keep the game supported, profitable and balanced.
Edit: It occurs to me they could actually do this simply by adding three expansion boxes, maybe with a campaign for each - Space Marines vs Chaos Marines, Crafworlds vs Drukhari, T'au vs Necrons.
Marines are low on my list, I know they’re the most popular in 40k but in terms of flyers they mostly suck. Out of many flyers the only half decent ones are the FW ones, which from my understanding are mostly 30k era rather than 40k.
I thought it was posted a few months back on a twitch stream with Andy Hoare that GW plan on adding a total of five factions into the game, but only if there is enough interest. Eldar were mentioned.
Marines are low on my list, I know they’re the most popular in 40k but in terms of flyers they mostly suck. Out of many flyers the only half decent ones are the FW ones, which from my understanding are mostly 30k era rather than 40k.
They have the two darts (hell blade and hell talon, one of which is a bomber) and they have the mecha-dragon which is basically a possessed hell talon. All of which are specifically unique creations of the Dark Mechanicus with no imperial “precursor” vehicle. Technically you can add the dropship/super drop pod too, for transportation missions if nothing else. Plus classic Epic had the various Tzeentchi flyers (basically the same airframes but warped into more birdlike forms) and the Silver Towers (Titan scale flying castles, with speed, manoeuvrability, firepower, and transport capacity to match) that could be drawn from if required.
What’s the difference between a mind-wiped servitor and a chaos marine that failed a leadership challenge?
Exactly.
Also the robo dragon is flown by a daemon and no-one questions it being in the heretic Astartes list…
Mr_Rose wrote: What’s the difference between a mind-wiped servitor and a chaos marine that failed a leadership challenge?
Exactly.
Also the robo dragon is flown by a daemon and no-one questions it being in the heretic Astartes list…
I had assumed when Natalie said we should have Chaos Space Marines as a faction that there might actually be Chaos Marine flyers, the same way the Imperials have the Navy flyers separate to the Astartes flyers.
I’d always considered the Hell Blade/Talon and Harbinger the mirror of the Navy rather than the Marines.
As I said previously, I think most the marine flyers are shoehorned junk anyway. I’d like to see the thunderhawk, but will be happy if they skip the chibi-hawk, chibi-talon, dog’s heads, etc. Especially when one of those dogs heads is supposed to represent an air superiority fighter, ergh.
The thing about Space Marines being separate from the IN, is that it’s a distinction that was put in place after the Heresy specifically to limit the power of both.
All the chaos dudes are a) totally anti anything that would restrict their power and b) all about rejecting the imperium’s rules—both of which align nicely with keeping everything in the same chain of command, with the marines right at the top.
Finally some real transports so we don’t have to mess about with the abomination that is marauder destroyers deploying troops. I hope the issue errata. Seriously.
Wow lot's of stuff for the specialist games today, way more exciting than that lvo preview. I'm glad to see the Tau are next, will pick up some of them for sure.
Right now i think the game needs more forces to give us more varied "gameplay".
Yes some of the rules could be better, yes an FAQ/errata is overdue and yes some of the manouvers should be changed, but i feel that atleast the last part wont happend untill the game has seen atleast 1 year on the table.
I do feel sad for the ork players tough, as it seems they will not get new toys in this expansion. (ofc i could be wrong here, but seems solid that it will only be imps and tau this time)
I bet the next campaign book after this one will be orks vs eldar or orks vs chaos. I had a feeling they would go this route for introducing new factions. Orks will simply have to wait till late summer/fall though.
Soulless wrote: Why do they label the new imperial crafts as Adtra Militarum and not Imperial Navy? They are the same faction right?
Not quite, one is the air support of the ground forces; the other is the dedicated airforce. It's also a means by which GW can spread out the copious Imperial releases without having one faction dominate others by having two or three times the variety of units. This not only spreads out the factions, but also means that one faction doesn't end up with no weakness or with units that cover the same basic function and thus outdoing each other.
It's the kind of thing whereby if the game were expanded to the point where multiple factions had a dozen units each and where the game mechanics allowed for more niche functions and speciailst functions the game could well expand to larger airforces. That said I don't expect it to happen - I'd expect a moderate increase and some unique sculpts that might not appear in other scales/games and then a branch sideways into Epic (possibly).
Soulless wrote: Why do they label the new imperial crafts as Adtra Militarum and not Imperial Navy? They are the same faction right?
Not quite, one is the air support of the ground forces; the other is the dedicated airforce. It's also a means by which GW can spread out the copious Imperial releases without having one faction dominate others by having two or three times the variety of units. This not only spreads out the factions, but also means that one faction doesn't end up with no weakness or with units that cover the same basic function and thus outdoing each other.
It's the kind of thing whereby if the game were expanded to the point where multiple factions had a dozen units each and where the game mechanics allowed for more niche functions and speciailst functions the game could well expand to larger airforces. That said I don't expect it to happen - I'd expect a moderate increase and some unique sculpts that might not appear in other scales/games and then a branch sideways into Epic (possibly).
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that out!
But on the subject, the article does say that the new imperial ships will expand an already existing imperial force so that sounds like they ARE usable with the Navy.
Maybe they are implementing some form of squad bonus or such for "pure" lists.
Watched the AI game on warhammerTV in rerun last night and noticed they had several craft on flightstems of various height...anyone know where to order these?
I still think the older barracuda looks better than the redesign. The newer one is flatter, with flared wing tips. The location of the turret drone things on the wings is different too. The newer one has stuff sticking out everywhere, older has more minimalism and curves.
Soulless wrote: Watched the AI game on warhammerTV in rerun last night and noticed they had several craft on flightstems of various height...anyone know where to order these?
so far nowhere.
could be they just modifyed the stems. snip off the ball, snip the stem to desired length, reglue the ball to the stem with a solid glue joint. as it is under the plane i doubt the fogged plastic will show.
I still think the older barracuda looks better than the redesign. The newer one is flatter, with flared wing tips. The location of the turret drone things on the wings is different too. The newer one has stuff sticking out everywhere, older has more minimalism and curves.
I don't know which is which, but the left one looks way more airworthy.
I still think the older barracuda looks better than the redesign. The newer one is flatter, with flared wing tips. The location of the turret drone things on the wings is different too. The newer one has stuff sticking out everywhere, older has more minimalism and curves.
I think they both fit Tau.
Kinda like, the one on the left is the version they used 50 years ago, the one on the right is the current version.
After all, staying at one design for all eternity wont work.
Marines are low on my list, I know they’re the most popular in 40k but in terms of flyers they mostly suck. Out of many flyers the only half decent ones are the FW ones, which from my understanding are mostly 30k era rather than 40k.
They have the two darts (hell blade and hell talon, one of which is a bomber) and they have the mecha-dragon which is basically a possessed hell talon. All of which are specifically unique creations of the Dark Mechanicus with no imperial “precursor” vehicle. Technically you can add the dropship/super drop pod too, for transportation missions if nothing else. Plus classic Epic had the various Tzeentchi flyers (basically the same airframes but warped into more birdlike forms) and the Silver Towers (Titan scale flying castles, with speed, manoeuvrability, firepower, and transport capacity to match) that could be drawn from if required.
Most of the 30k stuff is still around in 40k, just rarer. Fire Raptor, Storm Eagle, Thunderhawk, Stormbird, and Xiphon could easily all show up as CSM units.
I hate resin with a passion but at least its not metal D:
Dunno how I feel about AI so not sure ill jump in on this. I love the idea, and am a big fan of grid/hex based games but theres just so much in AI that feel rushed and not very well thought out. Feels like a second-hand product even from the beginning and thats not convincing :/
For such a simplistic game it feels so clunky to play :/
Amazing models though. Just wish the bases wasnt ugly enough to ruin the entire model XD
That have gone away from the original range a bit here....
and it seems they continue that.
2nd resin forgeworld plane for imp is a noncombat transport plane: Arvus Lighter. transport 3, speed 6, ace 1-6, point cost:10. special rule: when it has depolyed its cargo it may voluntarily disengage as if it was the disengagement turn.
I love the 40k scale version so I guess I gotta buy it. with the vendetta, arvus, and a couple of Titanicus items I might be able to get an actua FWl order that's worthwhile.
The miniatures are the same scale, but the speeds are so different it’s not funny. Think three or four rounds of Aeronautica per turn of AT and you’re getting there, never mind the impracticality of having an arbitrary grid applied over TLoS 3D terrain.
Basically you either have to turn all flyers into helicopters like 40k does or you have to reduce them to strafing runs like Epic Armageddon did.
Merging doesn't work at all, way different systems. You could have two games interacting, like having an AI game where one side goes for bombing runs (drops munitions on the AT table as Strafing Run stratagem or bigger) every turn unless stopped by the other airforce.
The other option is to use the miniatures and play Epic / Apocalypse in 6 mm, where the systems are better adapted to handling such variation in size. AT and AI are both too focused on showing their own thing well that they'd play well alongside others in general.
Help needed. I was wondering how big exactly the difference between the old and new models is exactly. For example: How big is the old Forgeworld resin Thunderbolt compared to its new plastic counterpart?
Do you guys have some pics to show comparing the sizes?
I'm speculating that the new ones are about 25% bigger, is that a correct estimation?
Help needed. I was wondering how big exactly the difference between the old and new models is exactly. For example: How big is the old Forgeworld resin Thunderbolt compared to its new plastic counterpart?
Do you guys have some pics to show comparing the sizes?
I'm speculating that the new ones are about 25% bigger, is that a correct estimation?
Cheers!
its big difference.
old models can ofc be used, but you must use the new bases as the new bases allso are bigger then the old bases, and the game plays on hex grid board.
you prolly have to find some 3rd party seller for the bases as they are not sold seperatly.
old models can ofc be used, but you must use the new bases as the new bases allso are bigger then the old bases, and the game plays on hex grid board.
you prolly have to find some 3rd party seller for the bases as they are not sold seperatly.
And since it plays on a hex grid, the base size is absolutely irrelevant. The info on the dials is the important thing and the old ones contain all that the new ones have. It doesn't matter at all.
Well, that's pretty simple. The current edition altitude dial goes from 1-5, and the speed from 0-9. That's the info for the new edition dials, besides having the firing arcs on them.
Unless I'm mistaken, there were more altitude numbers in the old bases? Means they're still usable, but the current version caps the game into fewer layers of sky.
And it's restricted even more by the planes themselves - Ork aircraft given so far can only fly no higher than level 4, where the Imperial craft can safely fly at 5. Ork craft are generally faster, though.
Sherrypie wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, there were more altitude numbers in the old bases? Means they're still usable, but the current version caps the game into fewer layers of sky.
V1 was 0-9 on the bases. Much more room to maneuver, which took some of the emphasis off firepower.
However, like the current version, not all planes could do all 0-9 levels.
Sherrypie wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, there were more altitude numbers in the old bases? Means they're still usable, but the current version caps the game into fewer layers of sky.
V1 was 0-9 on the bases. Much more room to maneuver, which took some of the emphasis off firepower.
However, like the current version, not all planes could do all 0-9 levels.
So by he sounds of it they've compressed it. Im quite tempted as i had the original, and plastic planes will be far superior
So by he sounds of it they've compressed it. Im quite tempted as i had the original, and plastic planes will be far superior
The models for the new version are generally quite spectacular, and go together very well, with only the odd tiny bit here and there to spoil the fun. You can argue about some of aesthetics, but as just model kits, they are excellent.
WhiteHaven wrote: I've been looking for a company that makes or will make a clear 2 in hex overlay so I can use 6x4 mats I own to expand the play area. Unfortunately so far I haven't found one. The Rynn's World map pack is nice but I would love a 6x4 mat for large battles. Hoping the Imperial Navy gets Lightnings, Avengers, and Valkryies.
Related to Aeronautica 2nd edition:
I pre-ordered the game but have only just recently gotten around to playing. I'm enjoying it quite a bit!
I have played a lot of other tabletop flight games, and it's my favorite genre of tabletop wargame by far. Although I never got to play Aeronautica 1st edition, I have played quite a lot of Wings of War / Wings of Glory and X-Wing 1st edition, so I'm familiar with the card/template maneuver template concept. I do think that Aeronautica's method of allowing an arbitrary amount of movement (up to aircraft speed, of course) between the placement of the templates (1st edition) or pivot hexes (2nd edition) is a really cool innovation in the genre, and allows for a degree of flexibility that's mostly lacking from the other games I've played. I also quite like the way speed and altitude are handled and feel it's a good method of abstracting the interaction between altitude and energy on the tabletop.
I've only played a handful of games so far, but am really enjoying it. The miniatures look good, and are fun to put together and paint, and the gameplay is fast and furious, with plenty of typical GW "roll 6s and have fun, roll 1s and cry" shenanigans. Overall, I think there's a lot to recommend the game and I'm hopeful that it will continue to slowly grow with future releases, including the upcoming Tau / Guard starter (which I plan to pick up as well).
Dont worry, you aint doing thread necromancy, there is just nothing realistic to write about for this game in here as there has been no new model release since last year, aka the ork bomber and that should never have been a seperated release.
The hobby thread that is several pages back is allso dead cuz everyone painted their planes in october/november...
(and gw has still not bothered to release a full size battle math....)
The game suffered HARD by a very neutered release plan, cuz unlike AT, this game requires rapid releases, there should bee a new faction release every month untill all factions are represented, and then, new expansion planes on a monthly basis, in addition to terrain, campain books and other usefull stuff.
Right now the game is basicly just like Dreadfleet: overhyped at release, then completely ignored by its maker.
Or, you know, waiting for staff and manufacturing space to be available so they can actually make the next release which had already been previewed before the factory was shut down by a global crisis…
With luck, Taros will be on the May 30th pre-order/June 6th release. Seems likely, and had an unofficial nod to that end by a pal who's a staffer (although of course).
Mr_Rose wrote: Or, you know, waiting for staff and manufacturing space to be available so they can actually make the next release which had already been previewed before the factory was shut down by a global crisis…
It's put Aeronautica in a tough spot among specialist games; one I am not sure it will survive. Lackluster launch, pandemic shutdown, and now being part of the price increases are major hits on this game. Blood Bowl is largely through with major releases, and Titanicus and Necromunda are still moving along after less than stellar starts themselves. They were able to recover with a steady stream of support. And people are still talking about them on the internet and YouTube. Aeronautica, not so much.
I do have a few quick questions for anyone who does play Aeronautica. I've been back-and-forth through the rulebook and can't seem to find an answer, so here goes:
- If you equip two or more pairs of missile / rokkits / bombs to a plane, is there any reason why you can't fire as many as you like in a given turn of shooting (so long as they all fire at the same target)? It *seems* like each pair counts as its own weapon, so I can't imagine why this wouldn't be allowed, but it's a little vague.
- In a similar vein: do all attacks against have to be declared against a target before *any* dice are rolled? Do you have to roll all dice simultaneously, or can you roll them one weapon at a time? There are implications around this for ammo consumption of missiles / rokkits / bombs, and it seems odd the rulebook is seemingly mute on the subject.
- In scenario 6,"Bombing Mission", where does the defender deploy their mandatory ground asset(s)? Per RAW in the early part of the rulebook, "airplanes" refers generically to all models, including ground assets, unless ground assets are specifically called out by name. So RAW, it seems like the defender is supposed to place their ground assets along their table edge, along with the rest of their aircraft models. Is that how others play it?
EDIT: the questions are based on my reading of the Rynn's World campaign book.
totalfailure wrote: It's put Aeronautica in a tough spot among specialist games; one I am not sure it will survive. Lackluster launch, pandemic shutdown, and now being part of the price increases are major hits on this game. Blood Bowl is largely through with major releases, and Titanicus and Necromunda are still moving along after less than stellar starts themselves. They were able to recover with a steady stream of support. And people are still talking about them on the internet and YouTube. Aeronautica, not so much.
It doesn't help that Titanicus, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl had fans from the old days who regard the new version as a worthy successor, while AI has very few fans from 1e (since its uptake was so tiny) and those I've talked to have generally disliked the grid.
Zodgrim Dakathug wrote: I do have a few quick questions for anyone who does play Aeronautica. I've been back-and-forth through the rulebook and can't seem to find an answer, so here goes:
- If you equip two or more pairs of missile / rokkits / bombs to a plane, is there any reason why you can't fire as many as you like in a given turn of shooting (so long as they all fire at the same target)? It *seems* like each pair counts as its own weapon, so I can't imagine why this wouldn't be allowed, but it's a little vague.
- In a similar vein: do all attacks against have to be declared against a target before *any* dice are rolled? Do you have to roll all dice simultaneously, or can you roll them one weapon at a time? There are implications around this for ammo consumption of missiles / rokkits / bombs, and it seems odd the rulebook is seemingly mute on the subject.
- In scenario 6,"Bombing Mission", where does the defender deploy their mandatory ground asset(s)? Per RAW in the early part of the rulebook, "airplanes" refers generically to all models, including ground assets, unless ground assets are specifically called out by name. So RAW, it seems like the defender is supposed to place their ground assets along their table edge, along with the rest of their aircraft models. Is that how others play it?
EDIT: the questions are based on my reading of the Rynn's World campaign book.
Here are some of my thoughts on the subject, in the event anyone cares to chime in:
Regarding 1: I do hope a FAQ addresses this, because it's a little loose with rules as written. Some examples: what about weapons that have Ammo > 1? For example, could I declare I was dropping all 3 bombs with my Bomb Bay weapon, or do I have to "spend" that Ammo over 3 turns? Likewise, if I have 3x pairs of wing bombs - these seem like 3 separate weapons with 1 ammo each, but is that correct, or should it be considered 1 weapon with 3 ammo? It's just a little vague, I think.
Regarding 2 - this is the crux of the dilemma; if you can declare weapons one at a time, then what's to prevent you from parsimoniously doling out your ammo if and only if you have to? I.e. "Well my bomber has X ammo, but I'm going to drop 1 bomb at a time to see if it hits before I potentially waste any on overkill." I hope we get a FAQ to address it.
Regarding my 3rd question - if you haven't already, please take a look at Rynn's World Campaign Book, pg. 9, Ground Defenses heading, Paragraph 3: "The rules refer to 'aircraft' in most cases and this will usually include Scouts, Fighters, Bombers and Ground Defences. Where a distinction is required, the rules will refer to Ground Defences specifically." So, rules as written, my take on scenario 6 is that all of the defender's models - including the mandatory Ground Defence model - must be deployed on their table edge: "The defender's aircraft are setup up behind the ground targets in hexes touching their edge of the Area of Engagement."
AnomanderRake wrote: It doesn't help that Titanicus, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl had fans from the old days who regard the new version as a worthy successor, while AI has very few fans from 1e (since its uptake was so tiny) and those I've talked to have generally disliked the grid.
I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica. As you say, there may be fans of the first version that don’t like it, but they are so few in number to not really be a factor in the game’s current problems. Also, all of the other specialist games have gotten at least some White Dwarf coverage; has Aeronautica had any at all? Even less likely to get much with two issues lost to the pandemic at what seems to be a critical time for the game, and a new 40K edition imminent. Sad to say, it seems likely that we’ll end up with some lovely models for a game no one plays.
There have been a few articles in the recent ones, battle reports too. The problem with the pandemic is that White Dwarf is going to miss an issue or two this year and when people feel every day is an eternity, it feels like there hasn't been much coverage.
Sherrypie wrote: There have been a few articles in the recent ones, battle reports too. The problem with the pandemic is that White Dwarf is going to miss an issue or two this year and when people feel every day is an eternity, it feels like there hasn't been much coverage.
I freely admit I don’t buy every issue. Unless there is a major article that catches my eye, I usually skip it these days.
totalfailure wrote: ...I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica...
It's interesting to know that you do like the grid system. Everyone I know who's tried playing new-grid-AI finds the grid makes it so trivial to get arc on everything every turn there's almost no point in playing.
Been thinking about the grids, maybe it is all just a test?
It is wierd they make a grid system but dont make or sell any gameboards but the tiny paper one that is in the starter....
Why place the medium sized cardboard and the ground assets on a time limited offer.......
totalfailure wrote: ...I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica...
It's interesting to know that you do like the grid system. Everyone I know who's tried playing new-grid-AI finds the grid makes it so trivial to get arc on everything every turn there's almost no point in playing.
I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:
They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.
AnomanderRake wrote: It doesn't help that Titanicus, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl had fans from the old days who regard the new version as a worthy successor, while AI has very few fans from 1e (since its uptake was so tiny) and those I've talked to have generally disliked the grid.
I find the grid one of the better factors of this compared to some of the competition, like X-Wing. There’s no arguing about arcs and ranges in Aeronautica. As you say, there may be fans of the first version that don’t like it, but they are so few in number to not really be a factor in the game’s current problems. Also, all of the other specialist games have gotten at least some White Dwarf coverage; has Aeronautica had any at all? Even less likely to get much with two issues lost to the pandemic at what seems to be a critical time for the game, and a new 40K edition imminent. Sad to say, it seems likely that we’ll end up with some lovely models for a game no one plays.
I like hexes and grids but to be fair the xwing system is solid enough that ive never had any arguments about firing arcs or los. I dont play torunaments though but cant imagine it being a huge deal. Its worse for completely free games with arcs such as Dropfleet or i guess old fantasy
It's pretty easy to make it more restrictive by adding "left" or "right" clauses to the maneuvers in the selection phase if the players feel the basic set is too lenient, either by marking some of the counters or just crafting your own set from cardboard.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Been thinking about the grids, maybe it is all just a test?
It is wierd they make a grid system but dont make or sell any gameboards but the tiny paper one that is in the starter....
Why place the medium sized cardboard and the ground assets on a time limited offer.......
Most likely a case of underordering stuff, as opposed to some grand conspiracy. As with many game companies these days, GW does not want to be storing excess stock and paying for it. They'd rather leave a few sales on the table than store, and pay for, stuff indefinitely. If they order 5000 of something and sell out, great. They can make a judgment call on whether to make any more. If they order 10000 and sell only 5200, they have 4800 pieces they have to still pay for and store, and that may never sell. The competition is so fierce in 2020 even the big dogs like GW do not want to over order.
And in the case of printed goods, a lot of it comes/came from China. So there's never a quick turnaround on getting more, even if you did want it.
I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:
They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.
I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
Arguably the defining characteristic of Aeronautica Imperialis - and which has been part of the game since 1st edition in 2007 - is the open-endedness of the maneuvers. You've always been able to choose whether to play them to the left or to the right, and you've always been able to play the turning portion of the maneuver wherever you like within the distance traveled, which itself is determined by the Speed at which your plane is flying... which you can (and have always been able) to adjust when you activate the plane. In the 2019 version, this plays out on a grid, but the core idea of open-ended maneuvering is the same as in the original game, just transposed to an arguably much more user-friendly grid format.
This is a big departure from how maneuvers are handled in virtually all other tabletop flight games, and to be clear: I think that's a good thing, and something that makes Aeronautica special and unique.
I've played literally hundreds of games of Wings of Glory (WWI & WWII), X-Wing 1st edition, Sails of Glory, Battlestar Galactica Starship Battles, Axis & Allies Air Force Miniatures, Aerodrome, and probably a few others I'm forgetting now. I've also read the rules for a number of other tabletop flight games like Check Your Six, Blue Max / Canvas Eagles, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts (among others). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm a very big fan of the genre, and it's coming from that background that I said: I really appreciate that Aeronautica is doing something different in this space.
Now, I understand that the maneuvers in Aeronautica 2019, especially things like the Stoop, allow a huge amount of angles to be covered. But one thing that I suspect a lot of newer Aeronautica players don't make full advantage of - and to be sure, I'm very much coming to grips with this myself - is the way you can use altitude to both create and deny firing solutions. In fact, I'd argue that in the 2019 version, if you aren't very carefully managing your altitude and making sure to be actively adjusting it in response to changing tactical situations, you're going to have a bad time, precisely because of how easy it is to cover lots of angles.
I'm still very much in the process of adapting to this new challenge, but rather than seeing it as something that invalidates or trivializes maneuver choice, I see that flexibility - combined with the freedom to easily adjust altitude - to be part and parcel of what sets Aeronautica apart. An experienced player can no longer easily anticipate their opponent's moves, based on a thorough knowledge of both their own and their opponent's maneuver deck. Instead, similar to a real pilots, they have to look at the tactical situation, anticipate what their opponent will do - knowing they can do almost anything - and try to plan the best they can, making sure to adjust their altitude to either create or deny firing solutions.
Failing to exploit altitude can make it feel like a big dice rolling exercise, but I believe that with more active and aggressive use of altitude, the tactical freedom of the maneuver mechanics really comes into their own. You have a degree of control over your flight path which is unmatched in any other game, and you can and must use this to your advantage.
Anyways, that's my take on it. I am just now really diving into the game, and I'm learning with every match, and enjoying it greatly. I hope others give it a chance too - while making sure to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered.
Yes, altitude is critical in V1 and V2, but it is very easy to ignore it. I have had dogfights last a very long time as we jockey around in height/speed and therefore avoid fire arcs.
I personally prefer Gridless, as then it removes one less extra "accessory" I need to play that doesn't add that much. It avoids me needing specialty terrain/play mats.
I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:
They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.
I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
Arguably the defining characteristic of Aeronautica Imperialis - and which has been part of the game since 1st edition in 2007 - is the open-endedness of the maneuvers. You've always been able to choose whether to play them to the left or to the right, and you've always been able to play the turning portion of the maneuver wherever you like within the distance traveled, which itself is determined by the Speed at which your plane is flying... which you can (and have always been able) to adjust when you activate the plane. In the 2019 version, this plays out on a grid, but the core idea of open-ended maneuvering is the same as in the original game, just transposed to an arguably much more user-friendly grid format.
This is a big departure from how maneuvers are handled in virtually all other tabletop flight games, and to be clear: I think that's a good thing, and something that makes Aeronautica special and unique.
I've played literally hundreds of games of Wings of Glory (WWI & WWII), X-Wing 1st edition, Sails of Glory, Battlestar Galactica Starship Battles, Axis & Allies Air Force Miniatures, Aerodrome, and probably a few others I'm forgetting now. I've also read the rules for a number of other tabletop flight games like Check Your Six, Blue Max / Canvas Eagles, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts (among others). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm a very big fan of the genre, and it's coming from that background that I said: I really appreciate that Aeronautica is doing something different in this space.
Now, I understand that the maneuvers in Aeronautica 2019, especially things like the Stoop, allow a huge amount of angles to be covered. But one thing that I suspect a lot of newer Aeronautica players don't make full advantage of - and to be sure, I'm very much coming to grips with this myself - is the way you can use altitude to both create and deny firing solutions. In fact, I'd argue that in the 2019 version, if you aren't very carefully managing your altitude and making sure to be actively adjusting it in response to changing tactical situations, you're going to have a bad time, precisely because of how easy it is to cover lots of angles.
I'm still very much in the process of adapting to this new challenge, but rather than seeing it as something that invalidates or trivializes maneuver choice, I see that flexibility - combined with the freedom to easily adjust altitude - to be part and parcel of what sets Aeronautica apart. An experienced player can no longer easily anticipate their opponent's moves, based on a thorough knowledge of both their own and their opponent's maneuver deck. Instead, similar to a real pilots, they have to look at the tactical situation, anticipate what their opponent will do - knowing they can do almost anything - and try to plan the best they can, making sure to adjust their altitude to either create or deny firing solutions.
Failing to exploit altitude can make it feel like a big dice rolling exercise, but I believe that with more active and aggressive use of altitude, the tactical freedom of the maneuver mechanics really comes into their own. You have a degree of control over your flight path which is unmatched in any other game, and you can and must use this to your advantage.
Anyways, that's my take on it. I am just now really diving into the game, and I'm learning with every match, and enjoying it greatly. I hope others give it a chance too - while making sure to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered.
Reading your reply just makes me wanna go play the game immediately Very insightful and a joy to read. My experience with the game is limited and the lack of interest locally have left me far short of any such insight since Ive only had a few "real" games aside from all the solo mucking about
Easy E wrote: Yes, altitude is critical in V1 and V2, but it is very easy to ignore it. I have had dogfights last a very long time as we jockey around in height/speed and therefore avoid fire arcs.
One interesting change in Aeronautica 2019 is the compression of altitude bands - there are now only Altitudes 0 - 5 (and aircraft have to fly at Altitude 1 or higher).
This allows altitude to be exploited, but it doesn't lead to the sorts of interminable hide-and-seek games that I completely understand you talking about.
Because planes can fire at targets either at their own altitude or one altitude higher or lower, and they can (if at Speed 5 or above) adjust altitude by 1 or 2 levels (though only 1 level if at Speed 4 or below), there aren't quite as many "safe" places to hide your planes to put them out of reach in the 2019 edition of the rules as there were in the original edition. And games last at most 12 turns (this is a hard limit in the rules) so players can't necessarily spend the whole game hiding if they're hoping to win.
At the same time, because of the same rules, it makes it very difficult for one player to "cover all the angles" in the way that can make maneuvering feel irrelevant, at least assuming their opponent is maneuvering in the vertical as well as horizontal dimensions. I'd argue that the only way that maneuvering feels irrelevant is if you *do not* make full use of this 3 dimensionality - because you then leave yourself a sitting duck, so to speak.
For me, this gives the game a good deal of tactical challenge, but happily without the sometimes fiddly elements of other systems (I'm looking at your, Wings of Glory climb counters). It's an easy and fast system to play that will really force you to stretch your "brain muscles" without having a lot of complicated mechanical stuff getting in the way. And personally, I really like that!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soulless wrote: Reading your reply just makes me wanna go play the game immediately Very insightful and a joy to read. My experience with the game is limited and the lack of interest locally have left me far short of any such insight since Ive only had a few "real" games aside from all the solo mucking about
Thanks, it's very gratifying to have a positive reaction like yours. I appreciate it!
I'm sorry I missed getting a chance to play the 2007 edition of the game, but I'm really having a great time with the 2019 version. I hope others give it a chance and find similar happiness!
The models are really great, too, and fun to paint!
Yes, the old rules also had a hard stop, but I can not recall if it was the 12th or 16th turn? So eventually, you had to try and do something. However, most missions were not just straight dogfights and had objectives you had to try and achieve to make contact much more likely.
My shortest game ever was 3 turns with the 3rd being the Disengagement Turn!
I too like the grid but the maneuvers is the big issue...they are so openended and offers so much choice that its almost impossible to choose a bad maneuver. One way or another there is usually no problem getting your arcs as you want them:
They made choosing maneuvers a key element of the game, yet made that choice meaningless enough to not really matter most of the times.
I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
Arguably the defining characteristic of Aeronautica Imperialis - and which has been part of the game since 1st edition in 2007 - is the open-endedness of the maneuvers. You've always been able to choose whether to play them to the left or to the right, and you've always been able to play the turning portion of the maneuver wherever you like within the distance traveled, which itself is determined by the Speed at which your plane is flying... which you can (and have always been able) to adjust when you activate the plane. In the 2019 version, this plays out on a grid, but the core idea of open-ended maneuvering is the same as in the original game, just transposed to an arguably much more user-friendly grid format.
This is a big departure from how maneuvers are handled in virtually all other tabletop flight games, and to be clear: I think that's a good thing, and something that makes Aeronautica special and unique.
I've played literally hundreds of games of Wings of Glory (WWI & WWII), X-Wing 1st edition, Sails of Glory, Battlestar Galactica Starship Battles, Axis & Allies Air Force Miniatures, Aerodrome, and probably a few others I'm forgetting now. I've also read the rules for a number of other tabletop flight games like Check Your Six, Blue Max / Canvas Eagles, and Mustangs & Messerschmitts (among others). I won't pretend to be an expert, but I'm a very big fan of the genre, and it's coming from that background that I said: I really appreciate that Aeronautica is doing something different in this space.
Now, I understand that the maneuvers in Aeronautica 2019, especially things like the Stoop, allow a huge amount of angles to be covered. But one thing that I suspect a lot of newer Aeronautica players don't make full advantage of - and to be sure, I'm very much coming to grips with this myself - is the way you can use altitude to both create and deny firing solutions. In fact, I'd argue that in the 2019 version, if you aren't very carefully managing your altitude and making sure to be actively adjusting it in response to changing tactical situations, you're going to have a bad time, precisely because of how easy it is to cover lots of angles.
I'm still very much in the process of adapting to this new challenge, but rather than seeing it as something that invalidates or trivializes maneuver choice, I see that flexibility - combined with the freedom to easily adjust altitude - to be part and parcel of what sets Aeronautica apart. An experienced player can no longer easily anticipate their opponent's moves, based on a thorough knowledge of both their own and their opponent's maneuver deck. Instead, similar to a real pilots, they have to look at the tactical situation, anticipate what their opponent will do - knowing they can do almost anything - and try to plan the best they can, making sure to adjust their altitude to either create or deny firing solutions.
Failing to exploit altitude can make it feel like a big dice rolling exercise, but I believe that with more active and aggressive use of altitude, the tactical freedom of the maneuver mechanics really comes into their own. You have a degree of control over your flight path which is unmatched in any other game, and you can and must use this to your advantage.
Anyways, that's my take on it. I am just now really diving into the game, and I'm learning with every match, and enjoying it greatly. I hope others give it a chance too - while making sure to take full advantage of all the possibilities offered.
Reading your reply just makes me wanna go play the game immediately Very insightful and a joy to read. My experience with the game is limited and the lack of interest locally have left me far short of any such insight since Ive only had a few "real" games aside from all the solo mucking about
I love the new version of AI and every game I've played of it really had a variety of action in it.
The only thing I think the game can benefit from is more factions/diversity.
Just a heads up for anyone that, like me, have completely missed it but Aeronautica Imperialis: Flight Command is now released on steam.
So far ive only gotten through the tutorials but its a neat little game, could definitely use some more content but hopefully it can do well enough to give the devs room for additions and improvements.
Only $20 right now so worth it for a few hours of fun
Soulless wrote: Just a heads up for anyone that, like me, have completely missed it but Aeronautica Imperialis: Flight plan is now released on steam.
So far ive only gotten through the tutorials but its a neat little game, could definitely use some more content but hopefully it can do well enough to give the devs room for additions and improvements.
Only $20 right now so worth it for a few hours of fun
Is AI:Flight Plan different from AI:Flight Command? I've been playing a bit of Flight Command and am amused at how it seems much closer to the old rules than the new rules (10 altitude steps, more detailed speed/altitude trade-offs, much stricter turning radii...).
Soulless wrote: Just a heads up for anyone that, like me, have completely missed it but Aeronautica Imperialis: Flight plan is now released on steam.
So far ive only gotten through the tutorials but its a neat little game, could definitely use some more content but hopefully it can do well enough to give the devs room for additions and improvements.
Only $20 right now so worth it for a few hours of fun
Is AI:Flight Plan different from AI:Flight Command? I've been playing a bit of Flight Command and am amused at how it seems much closer to the old rules than the new rules (10 altitude steps, more detailed speed/altitude trade-offs, much stricter turning radii...).
Soulless wrote: Just a heads up for anyone that, like me, have completely missed it but Aeronautica Imperialis: Flight plan is now released on steam.
So far ive only gotten through the tutorials but its a neat little game, could definitely use some more content but hopefully it can do well enough to give the devs room for additions and improvements.
Only $20 right now so worth it for a few hours of fun
Is AI:Flight Plan different from AI:Flight Command? I've been playing a bit of Flight Command and am amused at how it seems much closer to the old rules than the new rules (10 altitude steps, more detailed speed/altitude trade-offs, much stricter turning radii...).
AI:FC is actually very closely based on the original v1 rules, in most instances, down to the letter.
Where it differs is in the "WEGO" format - everyone plans their maneuvers for all of their planes, and then they all move/shoot at the same time.
It actually works out really well on the balance, and I've been enjoying it quite a lot.
Seems the Vulture can be a usefull universal toolbox, having the ability to hoover(minimum speed 0) and capable of doing all ace manoeuvres.
(only shame is that it is resin model, so FW product)
Jump Troops Special rule for Valkyries and Vendettas(plus minimum speed 0)
I think these can be a valid addition for the imp hangar.
Jump troops isn’t a new rule though?
That said, being at speed zero to do it is a great advantage, unlike the Marauder which nearly has to land - bad odds otherwise.
Mr_Rose wrote: Jump troops isn’t a new rule though?
That said, being at speed zero to do it is a great advantage, unlike the Marauder which nearly has to land - bad odds otherwise.
i assumed it is, me and my buddy just uses the rulebooklet in the 2p box, as we dident see the point getting the book that had the same rules but with i guess more fluff, so im just going by what the article says.
(yes we are holding off the investments untill the game gets more meat on the bone)
I got a pack of 6 barracuda, these go together real quick. Maybe quicker than any of the other aeronautica planes i've built so far. Only thing is i'm really not sure how to arm them. I was going to build 2 of each primary weapon type. But where i'm really unsure is which of the two drone weapons to use in conjunction with the primary gun. So far i've built one with the rotary cannon and two miniguns under the wing, basically honing in on that medium range dice potential. But not very flexible on either side of that range.
Fact that they dont sell the bases seperate says alot...
edit.
small heads up on the lightning fighter models, seems they only comes with 2 lascannons on the sprue, so GW wants you to assemble them as strike fighters as there is 6 multi-lasers on the sprue.
prolly not an issue for anyone at all, but if some of you have a bit higer fokus on details then the rest of us, then you can only make 1 lightning per sprue.
if you have not recived the rules yet, the lightning is default 19 points and the strike fighter is a +4p upgrade.
2nd edit.
my 2p box arrived whitout assembly instructions for the tigersharks........... very funny.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Fact that they dont sell the bases seperate says alot...
edit.
small heads up on the lightning fighter models, seems they only comes with 2 lascannons on the sprue, so GW wants you to assemble them as strike fighters as there is 6 multi-lasers on the sprue.
prolly not an issue for anyone at all, but if some of you have a bit higer fokus on details then the rest of us, then you can only make 1 lightning per sprue.
if you have not recived the rules yet, the lightning is default 19 points and the strike fighter is a +4p upgrade.
2nd edit.
my 2p box arrived whitout assembly instructions for the tigersharks........... very funny.
Saw that on their page. Wish you could build 3 and 3 but tbh I was probably going to build 4 of the strike fighters. Does the multi laser have good hitting power?
Love the Lightnings and Valkyries/Vendettas models. Got the cards to and I can't wait to buy the Vultures and Avengers. Waiting on the book from the FLGS.
Well, vult/ave are FW models so expect a few months before they are released.
I am allso expecting the Remora drone to be sold by FW, even though that has not been officialy commented on yet. (but it makes sence since it is a small model)
"The aircraft of the T’au are the perfect symbol of the weak-willed and compromising “ethics” of this degenerate species. Each craft has been designed to work with gravity and aerodynamics, rather than expressing dominance over them, as our craft do. What they accomplish with “design”, we accomplish with THRUST."
Dissapointed in the community page now, just repeated info from winter. They should have just done like june, drop it alltogeather.
Like here is 2 imp planes that will be sold from FW but we wont say when..... yea we know, you said that in februar.......
Could have instead told us who is going to be selling the remora drone, but i have a strong feeling that will be FW too...
Feel like this is the least supported and worked on boxed game section from GW, like, they dont know if they want to invest in the game or not cuz it prolly aint selling that good, yet why would someone buy a game system whit extremly limited support...
FrozenDwarf wrote: Dissapointed in the community page now, just repeated info from winter. They should have just done like june, drop it alltogeather.
Like here is 2 imp planes that will be sold from FW but we wont say when..... yea we know, you said that in februar.......
Could have instead told us who is going to be selling the remora drone, but i have a strong feeling that will be FW too...
Feel like this is the least supported and worked on boxed game section from GW, like, they dont know if they want to invest in the game or not cuz it prolly aint selling that good, yet why would someone buy a game system whit extremly limited support...
Hope it is soon, I want to paint them with my Valkyries and Lightnings. Need my Vultures, gonna pass on the lighters though. Look like the Avengers will be later too.
Just a reality. It is hard to escape the circumstantial evidence AI is struggling. Of three stores I have access to that all carry GW, one never carried AI at all, another still does, and the largest store dropped it and put it on the clearance table before Taros came out. Not a good trend.
Its clear even from the first rulebook that they didnt put a lot of effort into the game. The models perhaps but not the game.
But if they put out one book and starter box each year, with new factions and whatnot, I consider that pretty good support for such a small niche game.
I would like to see some accessories though.
Even for resin those prices are crazy, it's not worth double the cost of a plastic equivalent. I've got one of every AI release so far but with those prices my collection shall have to be incomplete. Shame as the Vulture does look good.
Grabed the Vulture on preorder but I'll pass on the Arvus. Price is steep but the Vulture sounds awesome in game. Gotta have those punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: Arvus has "Troop Transport" keyword. So at this point can we speculate that Epic is on the horizon?
Troop transport is used to take objectives in AI. The Arvus seems particularly good at that. Pop in, drop troops/pick up troops, and jet off the board. Epic is possible but the troop transport ability is in AI.
WhiteHaven wrote: Grabed the Vulture on preorder but I'll pass on the Arvus. Price is steep but the Vulture sounds awesome in game. Gotta have those punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: Arvus has "Troop Transport" keyword. So at this point can we speculate that Epic is on the horizon?
Troop transport is used to take objectives in AI. The Arvus seems particularly good at that. Pop in, drop troops/pick up troops, and jet off the board. Epic is possible but the troop transport ability is in AI.
it is the only thing it can do, it has no basic weapons (dunno if you can give it missiles)..
Kinda like a backdoor snatch and grab objectives model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here is the stat card for the vulture for thouse that are thinking about it
WhiteHaven wrote: Grabed the Vulture on preorder but I'll pass on the Arvus. Price is steep but the Vulture sounds awesome in game. Gotta have those punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: Arvus has "Troop Transport" keyword. So at this point can we speculate that Epic is on the horizon?
Troop transport is used to take objectives in AI. The Arvus seems particularly good at that. Pop in, drop troops/pick up troops, and jet off the board. Epic is possible but the troop transport ability is in AI.
it is the only thing it can do, it has no basic weapons (dunno if you can give it missiles)..
Kinda like a backdoor snatch and grab objectives model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here is the stat card for the vulture for thouse that are thinking about it
It is the ability to do all the manoeuvres including 8 and the Jink rule that sold it for me. It can also take cradles of missiles, rockets, and bombs but I think you lose the punishers to do that. I wonder if there will be bits for those.
Skinners – Hurk Heavy Bomber And Transport Plane - £28.00
The Hurk is one of the heaviest of the Skinners aircraft encountered to date, commonly seen in two variants. The strategic heavy bomber variant has twin bomb bays for heavy ordinance deployment as well as being able to drop lighter bombs from the rear drop down ramp position, the wings can also mount bombs or rockets as required. The transport variant replaces the bomb bay with troop benches and sports heavy machine guns for self defence, alternatively the troop benches can be removed in order to make space for logistics operations.
Fixed armaments include two forward facing twin medium cannon on the fuselage, a rotating twin machine gun turret in the dorsal position and remotely operated rear facing twin machine guns on the tail, other armaments have also been observed.
This is a multipart resin and metal kit with modelling options.
Resin parts:
1 x Fuselage, 1 x Nose section, 2 x Wings (port and starboard), 1 x Vertical stabiliser fin, 1 x Horizontal stabiliser wing, 1 x Bomb bay module, 1 x Transport bay module, 4 x Engine intakes, 4 x Engine thrusters, 4 x Hull fixing dowels.
Metal parts:
I x Skinner Bombardier, 1 x Bomb bay ramp open, 1 x Closed ramp, 2 x Fuselage cannon, 1 x Dorsal turret, 6 x Machine gun barrels.
Model dimensions: Length 115mm, Wing span 140mm
Games Workshop Ork fighter (used without permission) shown for scale purposes only and is not included in this set.
Anyone played any games with the new rules and models? I haven't, but it seems whoever is writing the AI rules values speed and manoeuvrability more than is appropriate. Structure points and firepower seem a lot more critical in the few games I've played, as all the planes are manoeuvrable enough to get a shot off most turns.
I'm also a bit annoyed they got rid of the "ground attack" rules from the first game where certain weapons could only be fired at ground targets, I don't think Vultures and Valkyries should be powerful dog fighters like the current rules seem to suggest.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Anyone played any games with the new rules and models? I haven't, but it seems whoever is writing the AI rules values speed and manoeuvrability more than is appropriate. Structure points and firepower seem a lot more critical in the few games I've played, as all the planes are manoeuvrable enough to get a shot off most turns.
I'm also a bit annoyed they got rid of the "ground attack" rules from the first game where certain weapons could only be fired at ground targets, I don't think Vultures and Valkyries should be powerful dog fighters like the current rules seem to suggest.
Waiting on my Vultures, I have the others primed and ready for paint and decals but I want to work on them together. 2 others in our group got the Tau so I hope to play soon. The Vultures and Vendettas/Valkyries do look very dangerous as dog fighters. Lore-wise that isn't the case but it would be lie if I said I wasn't looking forward to 6 lascannons or punishers in the air lol!
I'm also a bit annoyed they got rid of the "ground attack" rules from the first game where certain weapons could only be fired at ground targets, I don't think Vultures and Valkyries should be powerful dog fighters like the current rules seem to suggest.
Huh?
you refering to the strafing run change??
i dont see how valk platform are dogfighers, they are fighter class yes, but no dogfighters, they are gun platforms.
I'm also a bit annoyed they got rid of the "ground attack" rules from the first game where certain weapons could only be fired at ground targets, I don't think Vultures and Valkyries should be powerful dog fighters like the current rules seem to suggest.
Huh?
you refering to the strafing run change??
In the old rules (the ones from Forge World a decade ago) had a special rule called "Ground Attack" the same way the current rules have "Aerial Attack" that meant the weapon could only be used to attack ground targets. So most weapons on Valkyries and Vultures were labelled as "ground attack" that meant you couldn't use them to shoot down other aircraft.
It meant the old rules had much better defined roles, with certain aircraft mainly only being useful for ground support and others being more dedicated fighters.
i dont see how valk platform are dogfighers, they are fighter class yes, but no dogfighters, they are gun platforms.
In terms of how they actually perform on the table there's no distinction between a gun platform and a fighter, the former will typically be good at the latter. They should be like helicopters, which struggle to engage with actual fighters, but on the table you can get a Valkyrie with 6 Lascannon shots for only 21pts, that's going to make it a more effective fighter than, say, a Lightning, which has less firepower and only 2 structure points for a similar points cost. The added speed and manoeuvrability of the Lightning is, IMO, not really worth losing a structure point and having a lot less firepower.
I have a few gripes with the new AI, but I think one of the big ones is aircraft roles don't really make sense. The Marauder Destroyer, Vulture and Valkyrie all make for effective fighter planes when they should be close ground support. Meanwhile, the fighter planes can carry so many bombs that they are in most circumstances better bombers than the actual bomber class aircraft.
Yea on that i agree, should be more class roles. Valky is not a fighter, it is a transport.....
I never got around to play FW AI.
Lightning, doh, i struggle to justify its inclusion based on the stats alone. Valk/Vend is better, thunderbolt is better, upcoming Avenger is better.
What is this thing supposed to be good at??
Its like, the only 2 fighters you need is thunderbolt and valk/vend, thouse 2 planes has sutch a big multirole capasity that it aint fun.....
Atleast with Tau, each plane has a use(alltough i personly dont find any use for the plasma weapons)
After opening the Vultures I have noticed the models don't have the missile cradles that are in the pictures and description for the listing on FW. Sent them an email about it.
WhiteHaven wrote: After opening the Vultures I have noticed the models don't have the missile cradles that are in the pictures and description for the listing on FW. Sent them an email about it.
Racerguy180 wrote:better defined role and some restrictions on what can shoot what. a penalty to hit would go along way to "fixing" it.
Yeah, I've thought a to hit modifier might be a good way of dealing with it all, they could divide aircraft into 3 levels in terms of their ability to dogfight, and have a table like this:
But it would require reworking the points values and maybe even structure points, and turrets would have to be exempt from the modifiers. I imagine aircraft like the Lightning being "Very High", then the +1 to hit modifier would offset their relatively low firepower. If we start getting aircraft that are both manoeuvrable and good firepower it may become hard to balance though.
But it would kind of represent the fact that a bomber may find itself with a fighter aircraft in its firing arc, but in reality because the fighter is agile and small, the bomber can't effectively bring its fixed guns to bear against it.
I really think GW need to work on the rules. The game just isn't that fun at the moment, I'm mainly buying stuff because I like the models and reminisce about how the game used to play back when Forge World released rules for it. The only positive is that the hexes do make the game faster to play compared to the old system of using cards, but the few small changes made to the rules from the FW version has really changed how the game plays, and not in a good way.
FrozenDwarf wrote:maybe, lot of new stuff on that sat prev, could be 2 weeks time before the planes.
But since they are plastic it gives me high hopes that the remora drones allso will be.
Easy E wrote:Now that they are fleshing out the range, I am tempted to pick some of these new models up but use the old FW AI rules.
Curse you GW!
They are really nice models. I like the old resin models also, they were very detailed for their smaller scale, but the plastic models are nice.
I'm hoping we start getting some more factions, Imperials now have 3 different fighter aircraft plus the Valkyries, Vultures, Arvus, Marauder and Marauder destroyer, would be good to see some effort go into the other factions. Can't complain too much though, at least we have the Tau now, which seem to have a slightly different play style.
WhiteHaven wrote:After opening the Vultures I have noticed the models don't have the missile cradles that are in the pictures and description for the listing on FW. Sent them an email about it.
That sucks. From the Skies of Fire, some of my Tiger Shark bits were broken and missing in the box, it's such a tiny part, but maybe I should still contact GW as they're still bloody expensive and I don't like spending hours of time on a kit that was broken before I even started.
Racerguy180 wrote:better defined role and some restrictions on what can shoot what. a penalty to hit would go along way to "fixing" it.
Yeah, I've thought a to hit modifier might be a good way of dealing with it all, they could divide aircraft into 3 levels in terms of their ability to dogfight, and have a table like this:
But it would require reworking the points values and maybe even structure points, and turrets would have to be exempt from the modifiers. I imagine aircraft like the Lightning being "Very High", then the +1 to hit modifier would offset their relatively low firepower. If we start getting aircraft that are both manoeuvrable and good firepower it may become hard to balance though.
But it would kind of represent the fact that a bomber may find itself with a fighter aircraft in its firing arc, but in reality because the fighter is agile and small, the bomber can't effectively bring its fixed guns to bear against it.
I really think GW need to work on the rules. The game just isn't that fun at the moment, I'm mainly buying stuff because I like the models and reminisce about how the game used to play back when Forge World released rules for it. The only positive is that the hexes do make the game faster to play compared to the old system of using cards, but the few small changes made to the rules from the FW version has really changed how the game plays, and not in a good way.
FrozenDwarf wrote:maybe, lot of new stuff on that sat prev, could be 2 weeks time before the planes.
But since they are plastic it gives me high hopes that the remora drones allso will be.
Easy E wrote:Now that they are fleshing out the range, I am tempted to pick some of these new models up but use the old FW AI rules.
Curse you GW!
They are really nice models. I like the old resin models also, they were very detailed for their smaller scale, but the plastic models are nice.
I'm hoping we start getting some more factions, Imperials now have 3 different fighter aircraft plus the Valkyries, Vultures, Arvus, Marauder and Marauder destroyer, would be good to see some effort go into the other factions. Can't complain too much though, at least we have the Tau now, which seem to have a slightly different play style.
WhiteHaven wrote:After opening the Vultures I have noticed the models don't have the missile cradles that are in the pictures and description for the listing on FW. Sent them an email about it.
That sucks. From the Skies of Fire, some of my Tiger Shark bits were broken and missing in the box, it's such a tiny part, but maybe I should still contact GW as they're still bloody expensive and I don't like spending hours of time on a kit that was broken before I even started.
GW has alway been awesome in the customer service dept for me, I would definitely contact them. They might just send you a whole new sprue or box of them! The resin Vultures are beautiful and have amazing detail as usual. Love the models but I would like the weapons as well lol.
Could allways send them a mail for rules feedback, if noone does it, they may think the game is fine and dandy.
Tau has taken up the multi choise role when it comes to faction identity. they have a wepon choise for all 3 ranges (rails for long range, ions for avrage all ranges with fokus on mid range, and burstcannons for the more effective ion but at a mutch higer cost.
A barracuda whit rails and drones are in the low 20p, same plane whit burstcannons tosses you over 30p and that is before pilot/equipment upgrades. a tiger shark with burstcannons and drones will hit you in the mid 40ps.
all 3 weapon options are included in the kits.
So you can have an elite and very deadly wing whit few planes or cheap long range fokused large wing.
Kinda why remora drones are a must include, 16p scouts with jinx and short range weapons.
According to FW the missles and rockets for the Vulture are not included (don't think the cradles even were made) and are pictured for reference. I happen to also be missing a set of punisher cannons. GW is sending the cannons which is nice but not actually having the cradle weapons especially for their price is rather annoying to put it mildly.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Kinda not supprised.
They prolly banked on that we players would have spare bits from other planes.
Lol I would agree specifically if the bits used in the pictures were the same ones but they had special weapon cradles holding 3 each. Pity they look nice but I honestly can't say I'm surprised like you said. Annoyed though lol.
I was looking at the stats over Avenger vs Thunderbolt, i cant see any valid reason to select avenger over thunderbolt. Might have a bit more frontfacing firepower when upgraded, but if you want that, just get a valkyrie..
The Avenger can slow down to 1 speed and has 1pt better handling which would be useful in low altitude scenarios. Whether that’s enough to offset the disadvantages even in that very specific role, I don’t think so. The thunderbolt has better firepower and 1 additional structure point with an extra point of throttle thrown in for good measure.
I haven’t played any games with the new models, but from my experience with Dakkajets, firepower and structure points are the most important stats, but the AI rule writers don’t seem to agree. For example, in the end a Barracuda and a Tiger Shark are very similar, the barracuda more agile but the Tiger Shark has 3 extra structure For only 3pts more, so I think on the table you’d almost always take the Tiger Shark over the cuda.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Kinda not supprised.
They prolly banked on that we players would have spare bits from other planes.
The odd thing is that bits from other imperial planes don't even fit on the vulture. The design of the connecting points is different and I've have to cut them off to make my double rocket pod vulture.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Avenger can slow down to 1 speed and has 1pt better handling which would be useful in low altitude scenarios. Whether that’s enough to offset the disadvantages even in that very specific role, I don’t think so. The thunderbolt has better firepower and 1 additional structure point with an extra point of throttle thrown in for good measure.
I haven’t played any games with the new models, but from my experience with Dakkajets, firepower and structure points are the most important stats, but the AI rule writers don’t seem to agree. For example, in the end a Barracuda and a Tiger Shark are very similar, the barracuda more agile but the Tiger Shark has 3 extra structure For only 3pts more, so I think on the table you’d almost always take the Tiger Shark over the cuda.
Yea, kinda the samereasoning i came up with, that 1 hullpoint would be more important then the tiny difference in handling, and with just one numbervalue in difference between the damage of the weps like i said i saw no reasons for the Avenger.
Its sad realy, both of the new fighters are great visual models, just made usless by the existence of the Thunderbolt.
As for the tau, we realy need the Remora drones asap. You can dump a huge amount of points in the cudas and sharks making them to a point worth their points difference, but nothing to protect that investment with!
Simply too early to play them.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Avenger can slow down to 1 speed and has 1pt better handling which would be useful in low altitude scenarios. Whether that’s enough to offset the disadvantages even in that very specific role, I don’t think so. The thunderbolt has better firepower and 1 additional structure point with an extra point of throttle thrown in for good measure.
I haven’t played any games with the new models, but from my experience with Dakkajets, firepower and structure points are the most important stats, but the AI rule writers don’t seem to agree. For example, in the end a Barracuda and a Tiger Shark are very similar, the barracuda more agile but the Tiger Shark has 3 extra structure For only 3pts more, so I think on the table you’d almost always take the Tiger Shark over the cuda.
Yea, kinda the samereasoning i came up with, that 1 hullpoint would be more important then the tiny difference in handling, and with just one numbervalue in difference between the damage of the weps like i said i saw no reasons for the Avenger.
Its sad realy, both of the new fighters are great visual models, just made usless by the existence of the Thunderbolt.
As for the tau, we realy need the Remora drones asap. You can dump a huge amount of points in the cudas and sharks making them to a point worth their points difference, but nothing to protect that investment with!
Simply too early to play them.
I dunno about Remoras, I'm looking forward to some models simply because I think they'll be cool models, but I'm not sure they're worth it. They're roughly half the points of a Tiger Shark, with roughly half the capacity to deal damage, but only 1 structure point while the Tiger Shark has 5.
For the Tau, it really seems like Tiger Sharks are going to be the backbone, basically similar to how Fighter Bombers became the backbone of many Ork squadrons due to the Dakkajet being too easy to swat out of the sky.
But if you look too hard at the balance of different aircraft a few things look wonky. Anything with 2 structure points looks pretty weedy next to anything with 3+ structure points like Thunderbolts, Valkyries and Tiger Sharks, especially with the low firepower of some of those 2 structure point aircraft.
Look at the Lightning next to the Thunderbolt Fury, on average the Lightning needs 5 full turns of shooting to down a Fury, but the Fury only needs 1 turn (on average) to down the Lightning. The Lightning is more manvoeuvrable, but that big of a discrepancy is pretty hard to overcome with the couple of extra manoeuvre options.
EDIT: Maybe if we get a Manta in the future the Remoras and Barracudas will become more useful, since the Manta will likely have a big slab of structure points making it more viable to take low-structure support aircraft. Similar to how I think taking an Eavy Bomber makes Dakkajets more viable.
Well you cant expect a scout class to be too strong now can you?
They fill the part that is missing from tau currently; cheap short range fokused aircraft. I intend to use my drones as either escorts for the sharks, or as distraction. That they have jinx might help things too.
I guess my point is they need to be a lot cheaper. At roughly half the firepower but one fifth the structure points of a Tiger Shark, they in turn need to be a lot less than half the points cost of a Tiger Shark to make them worth taking. Otherwise you're just getting the same damage-per-points at a lot less endurance-per-points. Rather than taking them as escorts for Tiger Sharks, you'd be better off just taking more Tiger Sharks, the only disadvantage I can see is having less models and the person with more models gets an advantage in letting their important aircraft move after their opponent has moved theirs.
The games I've played were about maximising structure points and firepower. Damned near everything else was secondary.
What's the problem with a bigger plane? It costs about as much two or three smaller ones, which alone isn't too bad, and it still only takes a single hex. I doubt it's warping the game to be about air whales, as it will still be hammered to bits by a flock of nimbler gunboats.
I don't think there's any problem with it being structure 10, at first glance it doesn't look to have a lot of firepower given its high points cost. It has lots of individual guns but all the 1-1-0-5+ guns are so puny I think people will forget to even shoot them, the 2-1-0-4+ guns are a bit better bit still pretty unlikely to do any damage. The flak cannon is the only thing with a bit of punch.
I think if anything it's going to end up acting like a focal point for scenarios. Like doing a canyon run where that's the target.
I'm glad they made it speed 5... though unfortunately the Eavy Bomber is speed 4 so any epic bomber formations will be broken up. Hopefully they errata the Eavy Bomber to be speed 5 because I always felt that was just a little bit too slow.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just had a dig through the old Aeronautica rules (Forge World ones) and the Manta was 14 structure points and 96pts, the Chaos Harbinger was 12 structure points and 64pts. Back then structure points weren't given out as freely as they are now (all fighters were 2 structure pts, even the Thunderbolt and Fighta Bommer, and the Marauders only had 4pts).
Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.
Not to mention that they don't even give you all the weapon options they show for the Vulture.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.
I thought specialist games basically was a FW operation which was given some plastic casting resources to make it more mainstream.
But yeah, given 2 puny Vultures cost as much as they did, the Mega Bommer I'm sure will hit the wallet hard. If it's not completely insane I'll get one, but I have my limits, I've spent close to $1000AUD on this version of AI and now I'm starting to get a bit more cautious with what I buy (skipped the Avengers, Grot Bommers and Vultures).
FrozenDwarf wrote: Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.
I thought specialist games basically was a FW operation which was given some plastic casting resources to make it more mainstream.
But yeah, given 2 puny Vultures cost as much as they did, the Mega Bommer I'm sure will hit the wallet hard. If it's not completely insane I'll get one, but I have my limits, I've spent close to $1000AUD on this version of AI and now I'm starting to get a bit more cautious with what I buy (skipped the Avengers, Grot Bommers and Vultures).
Vultures are too much of what I like for me to have passed on them. Funny though when I got them they were missing a set of punisher cannons. FW sent me another full set rather than just the guns. So all in all I paid nearly the same for 4 as I would for any fighter.
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
IMO, the game is...decent. Not much more or less. Personally Im disappointed as I had expected much more but that is probably a mistake on my end.
Id say its a rather dull game with huge potential.
The best part of the game is building and painting the models, they are nothing short of amazing!
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
I have a group of 4 people I play with and I love the game personally. 2 orks players, 1 tau (maybe a second 1 ork player was thinking of picking them up), and 1 Imperial player (me). Never played the original. I bought a 6x4 mat from game mat eu I think and that helped with bigger games for sure.
It's a quickfire alternating actions dog fighting game where players try to keep track of where and how fast both sides' planes are going while maneuvering to keep in optimal ranges, denying their opponent the chance to do the same. Hitting is hard but planes usually can't take too many hits either. As with historical war, the best scenarios are those where you're trying to do something else than simply beating the snot out of the other guy: transporting troops, conducting bombing runs, chasing important targets, busting dams and what not as the defenders desperately scramble to intercept.
In comparison to older AI, X-Wing and such it is pretty forgiving (you can decide which direction you turn after already commiting to a maneuver, as an example) which rubs some folks the wrong way, but that's easy to homerule if more challenge is desired.
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
It plays okay but not great.
Games are fast to play and you can get through a few in an afternoon, but I find it lacks depth and too easily turns into a clusterfeck in the middle of the board.
GW are pushing it more as a scenario driven game, which is kinda good on the one hand, but on the other hand the way the game plays often the best way to win a scenario is just to try and wipe out the opposition regardless of what the actual objective might be.
Unfortunately as someone who played the original AI game from FW, this one feels like a downgrade. Compared to the original AI, GW made what looks to be some minor changes but fundamentally altered how the game plays, where the original game required you to think several turns in advance and over the course of a game you would only shoot down a small portion of the enemy aircraft which forced you to focus on objectives, the new rules mean you're usually only thinking as far as the next shooting phase and wiping the opponent off the table is a realistic strategy whilst ignoring objectives.
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.
The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.
The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?
no, not offical GW, but you can get a 3rd party ork plane inspired by the AC-130. If you go 1 page back you can see it.
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.
The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?
no, not offical GW, but you can get a 3rd party ork plane inspired by the AC-130. If you go 1 page back you can see it.
I wonder if they'll expand the aircraft then with this game?
Oh also, I got to play it with a friend tonight. I found it to be rather enjoyable, not perfect but a fun little game.
Togusa wrote: So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.
These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."
So.
How...how does the game play?
Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.
The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?
no, not offical GW, but you can get a 3rd party ork plane inspired by the AC-130. If you go 1 page back you can see it.
I wonder if they'll expand the aircraft then with this game?
Oh also, I got to play it with a friend tonight. I found it to be rather enjoyable, not perfect but a fun little game.
Yeah, it’s a fun little diversion but it does lack the tactical depth of the original. Literally; there used to be nine altitudes. Though the hex grid does remove most of the arguing about position, I miss the freedom of the 1st edition.
I wonder if there’s a market for replacement dials marked 0-9…
Honestly, i think this edition is just ment to be a casual mini side game.
Part experiment from GW(perhaps in model prep for revival of epic), part revival of the original FW game.
Mr_Rose wrote: Yeah, it’s a fun little diversion but it does lack the tactical depth of the original. Literally; there used to be nine altitudes. Though the hex grid does remove most of the arguing about position, I miss the freedom of the 1st edition.
I wonder if there’s a market for replacement dials marked 0-9…
I've actually been trying to come up with other ways to represent altitude than the dials, because from across the board I can't really see what altitude aircraft are at on the new bases.
For me, the biggest change from the first game is the general increase in manoeuvrability. It gives too much flexibility and makes even sluggish aircraft too agile. The least agile aircraft currently is the Eavy Bommer, but it can still do a complete 180° in a single turn. More manoeuvrable aircraft have way too much flexibility in where they'll end up, as they effectively make 3 turns meaning choosing a manoeuvre doesn't limit much what you end up pointing at (before they move they change heading, then mid move they change heading again, then at the end of the move change heading again, each time getting to choose from a couple of options and also choose how far you go before making the middle turn).
The old AI wasn't perfect, from memory it had 3 levels of manoeuvrability, low, high and very high, it probably needed a third "medium" or a numeric system like the current version, but it was still just restrictive enough to force you to think a couple of turns in advance.
It also added some nice flavour the way that in old AI the choice of manoeuvre could also affect your speed and altitude, it kinda mimicked the real world concept of "energy" in a dogfight, trading speed for altitude and tight turns causing you to burn off energy.
Also the ammo system in the old game made you think twice about each shot you took, you potentially wouldn't waste the ammo if you weren't in optimum range.
Could ask the same thing about the boards, they both have been limited run without any info about it, leaving late comers to only use the 2p box paper mat.
Soulless wrote: GW no longer sells the cards for orks and navy...Where are people supposed to find the stats for their planes?
Are all Navy cards present in the joint cardpack for Astra Militarum?
They’re in the campaign books. The Rynns World Air War book has all the orks and the first wave Imperium stuff, the Taros Air War book has all the Tau and 2nd wave Imperium stuff.
The full rules are also in the campaign books as the starter set rule book is a cut down version (with Taros having updated rules).
So if you want the rules for all the Imperium aircraft, you need both campaign books, the orks you can get away with only the first campaign book but then you’ll have the older set of rules, and if you only want to play Tau you could get only the newer campaign book.
It’s all a bit anti-consumer if you ask me, the way they’ve released stuff it’s hard to really get into the game without spending a lot of money.
Could ask the same thing about the boards, they both have been limited run without any info about it, leaving late comers to only use the 2p box paper mat.
Yeah, and the paper mat from the starter set is really too small. I was hoping FW would release a mouse mat style board, but nothing yet. I’m not a fan of those cardboard fold out maps.
Soulless wrote: GW no longer sells the cards for orks and navy...Where are people supposed to find the stats for their planes?
Are all Navy cards present in the joint cardpack for Astra Militarum?
They’re in the campaign books. The Rynns World Air War book has all the orks and the first wave Imperium stuff, the Taros Air War book has all the Tau and 2nd wave Imperium stuff.
The full rules are also in the campaign books as the starter set rule book is a cut down version (with Taros having updated rules).
So if you want the rules for all the Imperium aircraft, you need both campaign books, the orks you can get away with only the first campaign book but then you’ll have the older set of rules, and if you only want to play Tau you could get only the newer campaign book.
It’s all a bit anti-consumer if you ask me, the way they’ve released stuff it’s hard to really get into the game without spending a lot of money.
Could ask the same thing about the boards, they both have been limited run without any info about it, leaving late comers to only use the 2p box paper mat.
Yeah, and the paper mat from the starter set is really too small. I was hoping FW would release a mouse mat style board, but nothing yet. I’m not a fan of those cardboard fold out maps.
Soulless wrote: GW no longer sells the cards for orks and navy...Where are people supposed to find the stats for their planes?
Are all Navy cards present in the joint cardpack for Astra Militarum?
They’re in the campaign books. The Rynns World Air War book has all the orks and the first wave Imperium stuff, the Taros Air War book has all the Tau and 2nd wave Imperium stuff.
The full rules are also in the campaign books as the starter set rule book is a cut down version (with Taros having updated rules).
So if you want the rules for all the Imperium aircraft, you need both campaign books, the orks you can get away with only the first campaign book but then you’ll have the older set of rules, and if you only want to play Tau you could get only the newer campaign book.
It’s all a bit anti-consumer if you ask me, the way they’ve released stuff it’s hard to really get into the game without spending a lot of money.
Could ask the same thing about the boards, they both have been limited run without any info about it, leaving late comers to only use the 2p box paper mat.
Yeah, and the paper mat from the starter set is really too small. I was hoping FW would release a mouse mat style board, but nothing yet. I’m not a fan of those cardboard fold out maps.
Rynns World book is only available as e-book now.
Really? That sucks. I dunno what game GW are playing at, but it's not encouraging. Maybe they intend to release a more complete rulebook in future?
Soulless wrote: GW no longer sells the cards for orks and navy...Where are people supposed to find the stats for their planes?
Are all Navy cards present in the joint cardpack for Astra Militarum?
They’re in the campaign books. The Rynns World Air War book has all the orks and the first wave Imperium stuff, the Taros Air War book has all the Tau and 2nd wave Imperium stuff.
The full rules are also in the campaign books as the starter set rule book is a cut down version (with Taros having updated rules).
So if you want the rules for all the Imperium aircraft, you need both campaign books, the orks you can get away with only the first campaign book but then you’ll have the older set of rules, and if you only want to play Tau you could get only the newer campaign book.
It’s all a bit anti-consumer if you ask me, the way they’ve released stuff it’s hard to really get into the game without spending a lot of money.
Could ask the same thing about the boards, they both have been limited run without any info about it, leaving late comers to only use the 2p box paper mat.
Yeah, and the paper mat from the starter set is really too small. I was hoping FW would release a mouse mat style board, but nothing yet. I’m not a fan of those cardboard fold out maps.
Rynns World book is only available as e-book now.
Really? That sucks. I dunno what game GW are playing at, but it's not encouraging. Maybe they intend to release a more complete rulebook in future?
no, it is moust likely everything but the planes has a very limited production run of 1, and the low popularity of the game dont justify further production runs.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Honestly, i think this edition is just ment to be a casual mini side game.
Part experiment from GW(perhaps in model prep for revival of epic), part revival of the original FW game.
I really want to see epic make a comeback.
Honestly, we set up our titans and the new AT terrain kits with our AI planes and they all just look like they fit together, so well.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Honestly, i think this edition is just ment to be a casual mini side game.
Part experiment from GW(perhaps in model prep for revival of epic), part revival of the original FW game.
I really want to see epic make a comeback.
Honestly, we set up our titans and the new AT terrain kits with our AI planes and they all just look like they fit together, so well.
They are in the same scale, so yeah. All of those models work nicely with various Epics already, as well as with the new Apocalypse system.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Honestly, i think this edition is just ment to be a casual mini side game.
Part experiment from GW(perhaps in model prep for revival of epic), part revival of the original FW game.
I really want to see epic make a comeback.
Honestly, we set up our titans and the new AT terrain kits with our AI planes and they all just look like they fit together, so well.
They are in the same scale, so yeah. All of those models work nicely with various Epics already, as well as with the new Apocalypse system.
There is something so cool about seeing those thunderbolts and ork bombers zipping through the skyscrapers from AT.
Easy E wrote: Not a patch on AI 1 from Forgeworld and Warwick Kinrade. That is one of the better games I have played.
You actually have to think about how you maneuver, and where your enemy is likely to maneuver.
The funny thing is, the rules as written are so close to each other, it's just some really subtle changes that completely changed how the game plays.
Just swap in the manoeuvre cards from the first game, give ammo limits to weapons, reduce the bomb loads of the fighters, and give ground strafing type aircraft the ground attack rule and it'll play much the same as the original AI.
Soulless wrote: Too much for such a bloated model lacking even an ounce of imagination...
What were you hoping for?
It's pretty much what I expected a big Orc plane to look like.
I actually like it more having seen the unpainted version. GW really shot themselves in the foot with the way they do the red on their Ork aircraft, it is far too retina-burning for a display model.
Still don't love it.
To me, it just seems like a model which you can build scenarios around. It doesn't seem terribly good for its points cost. It has a big bomb, but GW haven't released rules for any ground targets that have more than 2 structure points, so it's just a waste unless you write a scenario which has some super tough ground target that needs to be destroyed.
And the model just look stupid being that big on the hexgrid.
That was always my gripe for them going to a bigger scale (8mm) compared to the original game (6mm). When you start getting bigger aircraft, 8mm is just too big.
The nice thing about 8mm is that infantry can look nicer in 8mm than 6mm, at 6mm it turns into a bit of a blob... but they haven't released any 8mm infantry models yet and without infantry I'd much rather have AT and AI at 6mm.
Soulless wrote: Too much for such a bloated model lacking even an ounce of imagination...
What were you hoping for?
It's pretty much what I expected a big Orc plane to look like.
I actually like it more having seen the unpainted version. GW really shot themselves in the foot with the way they do the red on their Ork aircraft, it is far too retina-burning for a display model.
Still don't love it.
To me, it just seems like a model which you can build scenarios around. It doesn't seem terribly good for its points cost. It has a big bomb, but GW haven't released rules for any ground targets that have more than 2 structure points, so it's just a waste unless you write a scenario which has some super tough ground target that needs to be destroyed.
And the model just look stupid being that big on the hexgrid.
That was always my gripe for them going to a bigger scale (8mm) compared to the original game (6mm). When you start getting bigger aircraft, 8mm is just too big.
The nice thing about 8mm is that infantry can look nicer in 8mm than 6mm, at 6mm it turns into a bit of a blob... but they haven't released any 8mm infantry models yet and without infantry I'd much rather have AT and AI at 6mm.
I wasnt hoping for anything, and it IS pretty much what I was expecting as well.
But the scale and hexgride just dont mix well IMO.
It looks way oversized and on that little base and short flightstem it looks plain stupid. Ive tried telling myself, just as with BFG that the plane is actually just a dot in the center and the model just a fancy representation, but in this case that doesnt work. I wouldnt mind the size as a showpiece, though in this case I think its unimaginative and boring, but wouldnt wanna play at a table with it.
Just my opinion and I wouldnt wanna take anything away from anyone else, but im mostely done with the game overall so maybe I shouldnt be posting at all :/
Easy E wrote: I have definitely played scenarios where the "Big Bomb" would be useful. of course, that was V1 AI.
Kinda why i dont understand why they roll out the plane now, there is nothing in the game that cant be bombed and destoyed by a fighter.
And why this before the Remora drones.......... Are they going to be like the Tau AA, aka no models will be made just imagine they are there.......
I can only assume GW are making this game for collectors rather than gamers. Which is a shame, there's no reason it can't be for collectors AND gamers.
rofl, and today they prev the ground defence models, half a year after the book was released..........
well atleast they will be out in about a months time, limited run as usual, whitout any info that they are.
Lets see,if this trick works again, i want a new exenos race! (watches this post 6 months from now)
FrozenDwarf wrote: rofl, and today they prev the ground defence models, half a year after the book was released..........
well atleast they will be out in about a months time, limited run as usual, whitout any info that they are.
Lets see,if this trick works again, i want a new exenos race! (watches this post 6 months from now)
And aren't they just the prettiest. I want a pile of those things and I don't currently even play Guard in Epic for those Earthshakers
Gea, i dident get the first imp ground weps cuz i dident know they where limited. By the time i was planning to grab them they where gone from my dealer.
FrozenDwarf wrote: rofl, and today they prev the ground defence models, half a year after the book was released..........
well atleast they will be out in about a months time, limited run as usual, whitout any info that they are.
Lets see,if this trick works again, i want a new exenos race! (watches this post 6 months from now)
In the news and rumours thread people have said they're going to be resin, so maybe not limited.
The old set that was limited was one of the made-in-china sets, which is probably why they made it limited (which sucks, but it's probably cheaper for them that way).
Vanguard Miniatures tends to produce stuff in true scale 6mm, which is a lot closer to the 1/4 scale GW is currently using for Adeptus Titanicus and Aeronautica Imperialis than the old Epic 6mm scale (which was basically anything between 2mm and 6mm scale).
They are objectives, size realy dont matter in an airplane game when it comes to ground models.
And tbh with anti air ground weps for this game, the smaller the better imo.
They are objectives, size realy dont matter in an airplane game when it comes to ground models.
And tbh with anti air ground weps for this game, the smaller the better imo.
It's also not the wrong scale, since there is no 8 mm scale to begin with but hey ho. Vanguard stuff, AT and AI are perfectly compatible with each other.
They are objectives, size realy dont matter in an airplane game when it comes to ground models.
And tbh with anti air ground weps for this game, the smaller the better imo.
It's also not the wrong scale, since there is no 8 mm scale to begin with but hey ho. Vanguard stuff, AT and AI are perfectly compatible with each other.
New AI is definitely 8mm scale, just as old AI was definitely 6mm. FW used to give full scale dimensions you could use for comparison. Old GW epic was random scale, with infantry between 4 and 7mm and vehicles generally being on the small side.
But I’d be curious to see a side by side with those to see how close they are in scale.
They are objectives, size realy dont matter in an airplane game when it comes to ground models.
And tbh with anti air ground weps for this game, the smaller the better imo.
It's also not the wrong scale, since there is no 8 mm scale to begin with but hey ho. Vanguard stuff, AT and AI are perfectly compatible with each other.
New AI is definitely 8mm scale, just as old AI was definitely 6mm. FW used to give full scale dimensions you could use for comparison. Old GW epic was random scale, with infantry between 4 and 7mm and vehicles generally being on the small side.
But I’d be curious to see a side by side with those to see how close they are in scale.
Riiiight, here's the thing: FW still gives canonical measurements, the AT rulebook as an example gives titan heights to a cm. With those, we have multiple times counted the scale human of 180 cm to be about 6,5 mm tall. That's heroic 6 mm on the nose. AI and AT are done in the same scale. Vanguard Miniatures' extensive 6 mm ranges have been pictured multiple times alongside new AI models and look good. The older planes weren't 6 mm, just as most vehicles in Epics of varying ages were in whatever scale from 2-3 mm titans onwards. The new planes are closer to true 6 mm than the older ones. Planes are big things.
And please, can the whole 8 mm thing just die already, it's a misunderstanding originated from the WarCom media guys not understanding how measurements work with no basis on the minis themselves.
I don't have any AT miniatures, my understanding is the "canonical" measurements for titans aren't terribly consistent (for example, using the Titan measurements, what would 40k scale be?).
For AI, the aircraft are in the 1/200 to 1/225 range, which is puts it in the range for 8mm.
I don't have my older AI models on hand, but I've measured them in the past and they fell in that 1/285 to 1/300 range as would be appropriate for 6mm scale. They were massive compared to the old Epic planes which I agree were somewhere in the 2-4mm range (I'd call them "3mm comical", because they had absurd proportions).
As far as I'm aware, the only infantry model we have to measure is the Grots that man the Eavy Bomber guns, and they are a bit over 5mm tall in a seated position. Grots have pretty varied sizes in 40k scale models so not sure you can draw much conclusion from that.
In the end, they just "feel" right for 8mm scale. Planes are big, they're not THAT big, if you look at the FW fluff dimensions for their aircraft, they're proportioned like WW2 or early jets, but in terms of overall size they're between early jets and modern jets. If you put 6mm infantry next to them, the AI planes look too big, the canopy/cockpit areas just don't suit models of that size. I own a lot of historic models in the 1/144 to 1/300 range and while I know 40k doesn't scale well with real life and 40k has funky proportions, I think they fit well in the 8-ish mm range.
I think the problem is AI and AT isn't actually scaled to "real life", it's scaled to 40k, and we know 40k has stupid dimensions. That's why I asked earlier in this post, what scale do you get for 40k if you scale it off the titans and what FW says the titan size is?
If you scale 40k by the 40k Thunderbolt (11" wingspan) you get 1/57 scale, which is in the ballpark of true 32mm scale to the top of the head.
If we accept 40k is ~32mm scale, that makes AI ~8mm scale.
Scales are always a bit flexible though. Even in historics if you get 1/72 scale infantry models from different manufacturers you'll get a wide range of model sizes. I'm quite happy calling AI 8mm scale based on the balance of evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sherrypie wrote: Vanguard Miniatures' extensive 6 mm ranges have been pictured multiple times alongside new AI models and look good.
Linko? I tried googling and didn't find much. Unless you mean the pictures of infantry standing next to the Warlord Titan's hatch-of-indeterminate-size, haha.
I cut my teeth on forums, then MSN messenger, then reluctantly FB, and at some point I stopped trying When the kids talk about discord it makes me feel ancient, haha.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I cut my teeth on forums, then MSN messenger, then reluctantly FB, and at some point I stopped trying When the kids talk about discord it makes me feel ancient, haha.
I started briefly with IRC chat, then briefly with msn before fulltime on TS, skype, ventrillo, mumble(anyone remember that little hype train) before discord took over everything. I feel discord is the natural evolusion of IRC, msn, skype and TS, all in one package. It is everything exepct a discussion plaform like forums are.
You should try and get into it, i doubt it will go away in this decade.
Only thing is, it works bad as a multi topic discussion platform, for that there is only forums.
Easy E wrote: Discord..... didn't that fall out of fashion in the early 80's?
Not sure if you have it mixed with a different company, since Discord as a messaging platform was started in 2015.
Hello friend who clearly gets jokes. I think it was a play on how Discord sounds like the word Disco, which was a style of music that did in fact fall out of fashion in the early 80's.
It was also a play on how I am old and out of touch with what the youngsters are up too! Two jokes in one!
A joke explained is a joke enjoyed.
**************************************
On a more serious note, I have heard of people playing some "gird" based wargames via Discord and similar video sharing systems. Has anyone here tried it? Example games include Battletech and To The Strongest.
Anyone try AI, and is it possible due to the grid?
FrozenDwarf wrote:So, rules for looted imps in orks and tau to imps as converted human auxiliaries, in the last white dawrf magazine this year.
Deseperate move to fill a giant hole in the faction release lineup, or a smart move to promote more "uinque" air wings? idk man..............
A little from column a, a little from column b... This article was supposed to be much earlier this yeah, though. I for one was raging when it got pulled, but at the same time gave me a reason to buy avengers - 2 for my imps, 1 for tau (that'll double for ghost), and 1 for da ladz
And ofc, an imp big bomb carrying plane........
How about some ground targets that wing mounted fighter bombs cant damage GW, before you add pointless large bombs....
They said there would be a future look into AI in mid januar, but i suspect that will only showcase a new expansion, or the super long overdue Remora drones.
Now the Dec White Dwarf 459 is out, or close to it around the world, what are peoples thoughts on the Looted and For the Greater Good rules?
So Orks can only loot Thunderbolts and Marauders. Honestly I was hoping for a couple more options really, it might have been nice to use a 'stolen' imperial plane to fill a gap in the ork line, like say an Avenger for its agility in one of those low flying at speed missions. Oh well, new rules are better than none and at least people can have options if they like. Conversions could be a little wacky.
I think the Tau have done alright with their human auxiliary options. Does get me thinking about a small combined fleet with Tau and Imperial craft. Just feel like part of the big picture is missing with not knowing when or if those Remora Drones are coming, or if more Tau craft are planned for either.
Orks and Tau can both only take 1 Imperial plane for every 5 from their own list.
So about these rules...
Worthwhile addition? Just a token gesture to fill us over till expansions next year? Or just maybe a bit of Xmas fun?
Either way I'm pleased we got something to play around with over Xmas.
Yea dont have access to the magazine either, so have to hope it will be in the community download section at some point.
For orks i see this more as a hobby move then gameplay move.
Not sure if screenshots of the rules are allowable or not? But I can type the main parts
Orks only get looted Thunderbolts (not Fury versions) & the Marauder (Bomber not Destroyer). They are the same as Imperial versions but any additional weaponry - rokkits, wing bombs or big bombs are bought from the Ork list.
Orks can include 1 Imperial aircraft for every 5 Ork aircraft in the force.
The Tau get to use several Imperial aircraft but with maximum limits on each: Thunderbolt Fighters & Marauder Bombers 0-2 ea, Lightning Strikes & Avengers 0-3 ea, Valkyries & Vendettas 0-4 ea. They are the same as Imperial versions with any upgrades and additional weapons chosen from the Imperial list. Tau upgrades or weapons are not allowed on any Imperial aircraft.
Tau can include 1 Imperial aircraft for every 5 Tau aircraft in the force.
Essentially the Tau Human Auxiliary are like Allies.
Personally I'm not sure right now if I'll be buying kits especially to use as Looted or Human Auxiliaries but I could see splitting a box with a friend as an option, so we both get some use out of it. A bit of variety is always nice. Narrative based missions about human helper traitors might be good for a laugh too.
With sutch an open selection for the tau then that is a simple emergency move to add models that tau lacks( dedicated transports and normal bombers mainly) and prolly wont get for a very, very long time, if ever.
For the orks the thunderbolt will provide a nice medium range option that they dont have.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Right, now that we have SM and a micro release of Eldar and future Necron, might dig up this thread again as i have two SM questions.
What is the weapon ranges for the SM planes in the 2p box, and in general how is SM different from IG in playstyle?
Both the Xiphon and Storm Eagle have quad lascannons, so medium range (0-4-2). The Xiphon also has a rotary missile launcher which is short and medium range (2-2-1), while the storm eagle has similar but more shots from its missile pods (3-3-1) and twin heavy bolters (short ranged).
I haven't played any games with them yet, but the Xiphon looks very similar to a Thunderbolt. Very similar stats, favours medium ranged weapons, but one higher manoeuvre stat and one lower handling than the Thunderbolt.
As for playstyle, again, haven't played a game yet, but they seem decent all rounders with medium to short weapon ranges. They have reasonably high number of structure relative to their points cost, not as good as Tau Tiger Sharks who are by far the kings of structure vs points, but still reasonably good. Xiphons are 3x structure for 24pts, Storm Eagles 4x for 29pts, Thunderhawks are 8x for 44pts.
that did not make my job easier, im trying to find out what i should do with my fire raptors as they comes with 3 different wep profile options for the side turrets........
I either want them to follow the general theme of SM ( midrange) or go shortrange.
FrozenDwarf wrote: that did not make my job easier, im trying to find out what i should do with my fire raptors as they comes with 3 different wep profile options for the side turrets........
I either want them to follow the general theme of SM ( midrange) or go shortrange.
Seems they give you enough bits in the kit to magnetise them, if you can find some 4mm steel balls to put inside the turret and put a 6x3mm magnet in the fuselage.
Well, perhaps not mag them, but yes, they do give you 6 fronts to the turrets and 2 of each weapon.
I`m just going to blutack them in place, they have so little weight to them.
Hey guys - without getting into 6mm vs 8mm, how does the AI stuff scale against Vanguard Miniatures infantry and vehicles? (NOT old GW Epic miniatures/infantry, as I know those are several mm smaller).
I wanted to get hold of the Valkyrie kit for use in an airport diorama/terrain piece. And unfortunately it looks like Vanguard have now stopped selling their Valkyrie proxy miniature.
Pacific wrote: Hey guys - without getting into 6mm vs 8mm, how does the AI stuff scale against Vanguard Miniatures infantry and vehicles? (NOT old GW Epic miniatures/infantry, as I know those are several mm smaller).
I wanted to get hold of the Valkyrie kit for use in an airport diorama/terrain piece. And unfortunately it looks like Vanguard have now stopped selling their Valkyrie proxy miniature.
I don't own any Vanguard models, but these guys have some pictures of them alongside AI aircraft, one of which is specifically a Valkyrie. To my eye, the Valkyrie looks a touch too big, but it's in the right ballpark.
That's absolutely perfect, EXACTLY the photo I had been trying (and failing) to find. Many thanks AllSeeingSkink!
Yes like you say I think it is perhaps a mite on the large size, but hopefully with astartes, which are a mm or two larger, it should look close enough (and as they say, beggars cannot be choosers!)
of course).
