Dark Eldar Razorwing looks a lot like the Nightwing. In fact, had the Razorwing been painted in craftworld colours I'd totally buy it as an updated Nightwing design.
DE planes are lovely anyway, the best Eldar flyers. I hope we get models for them soon. I was contemplating getting the AI starter box, but I really don't like the Ork planes. I want Imperials versus DE Air Pirates.
I do like the razor wing more than the crimson hunter, though some of the lines are a bit too Dark Eldar-ish for my liking, prefer the cleaner lines. Probably wouldn’t be hard to convert though.
It would be cool to see some Dark Eldar models in AI though.
I must be one of the few people that prefers the clean unpainted look on the bases. Maybe I’ll just spray them black as I usually paint my clear flyer posts black as well.
I think i'd leave the bases bare plastic, they will receive a lot of handling moreso than the models themselves. If anything i'd paint the forward/altitude/speed arrows black (or blue for imperial and red for orks)
Crimson wrote: Painting the cogs inside might be tricky though.
paint before assembling?
Based on the "What’s in the Box?" article, the bases come as one complete thing, there isn't any assembling with them.
That would be a departure from how they usually do things. Even if this is the case, I doubt it would be difficult to pry them open without breaking them. And even if we did break them, who better than us to fix them?
They definitely come as a single piece, it's clear in the unboxing vids. I'm thinking about creating some alternatives myself, but want to check them out up close first.
callidusx3 wrote: Fellow dakkanauts, any word on what the standard point total for a force will be?
It's depend on scenario, but mostly your budget and what you prefer. Some people prefer straight to the point dogfight, while some prefer roll for a random one. In the new edition of AI, scenarios have a minimum and maximum points for your force, with both player agree on a specific limit.
The most standard scenario : Dogfight, in which all you had to do is try to inflict as much damage (to everything) as you can, had a force limit between 25 to 250 points, a game under 100 pts should be nice and quick.
This is a 50 pts battle report using Dogfight scenario
Chopstick wrote: November for only Eavy Bommer? So we had to wait even longer for the Grot Bommer.....
I hope Imperium also get a release, lightning with 1-8 manuever.
I’m gonna guess we’ll see the grot bommer at the same time, but nothing else for a while, simply because the bommer variants are in the campaign book, they weren’t going to release the rules without a model following close behind.
I’m not expecting anything else new until we get another campaign book. Maybe a year or two. GW seem to be doing the slow play with specialist games, I guess hoping people will buy in to multiple of them.
One downside to plastic models is we’re never going to see something like the 90’s epic where we got a pretty broad range of models over a short time.
Chopstick wrote: November for only Eavy Bommer? So we had to wait even longer for the Grot Bommer.....
I hope Imperium also get a release, lightning with 1-8 manuever.
I’m gonna guess we’ll see the grot bommer at the same time, but nothing else for a while, simply because the bommer variants are in the campaign book, they weren’t going to release the rules without a model following close behind.
I’m not expecting anything else new until we get another campaign book. Maybe a year or two. GW seem to be doing the slow play with specialist games, I guess hoping people will buy in to multiple of them.
One downside to plastic models is we’re never going to see something like the 90’s epic where we got a pretty broad range of models over a short time.
Yeah, it’s not going to be a year or two. They’ll probably get something each quarter, like the other specialist games.
nothing but 90 degrees of paint away X 4 if they don't disassemble easy. If the numbers are in white I might put some color (Green/Yellow/Red) for the corresponding value of each plane. The bases for aces will be appropriately decorated to match their ace status.
I'm really looking forward to picking it up and playing with my nephews.
Chopstick wrote: November for only Eavy Bommer? So we had to wait even longer for the Grot Bommer.....
I hope Imperium also get a release, lightning with 1-8 manuever.
I’m gonna guess we’ll see the grot bommer at the same time, but nothing else for a while, simply because the bommer variants are in the campaign book, they weren’t going to release the rules without a model following close behind.
I’m not expecting anything else new until we get another campaign book. Maybe a year or two. GW seem to be doing the slow play with specialist games, I guess hoping people will buy in to multiple of them.
One downside to plastic models is we’re never going to see something like the 90’s epic where we got a pretty broad range of models over a short time.
Yeah, it’s not going to be a year or two. They’ll probably get something each quarter, like the other specialist games.
“Year or two” might have been an exaggeration, lol, maybe a year. Including the upcoming Bommer, AI will have released with 6 different kits (7 if we get the grot bommer) and probably 8 or 9 different sprues. I haven’t closely followed the other specialist games releases, but isn’t that more than most have gotten up front? AT still only has a handful of models and BB got reasonably slow but steady releases but also started off with not much.
I figured given they’ve basically released everything that’s in the campaign book up front which adds up to a lot of individual kits and sprues, it’ll be a while before we see another release. Happy to be proven wrong, I haven’t really followed GW lately so maybe they operate differently to what I have in my mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: nothing but 90 degrees of paint away X 4 if they don't disassemble easy. If the numbers are in white I might put some color (Green/Yellow/Red) for the corresponding value of each plane. The bases for aces will be appropriately decorated to match their ace status.
I'm really looking forward to picking it up and playing with my nephews.
When I played a demo game the wheels were quite stiff, like, stiff enough that it was awkward turning the wheels without picking up the models. So I don’t think you’ll want to be painting the wheels anyway.
Yeah, it’s not going to be a year or two. They’ll probably get something each quarter, like the other specialist games.
“Year or two” might have been an exaggeration, lol, maybe a year. Including the upcoming Bommer, AI will have released with 6 different kits (7 if we get the grot bommer) and probably 8 or 9 different sprues. I haven’t closely followed the other specialist games releases, but isn’t that more than most have gotten up front? AT still only has a handful of models and BB got reasonably slow but steady releases but also started off with not much.
I figured given they’ve basically released everything that’s in the campaign book up front which adds up to a lot of individual kits and sprues, it’ll be a while before we see another release. Happy to be proven wrong, I haven’t really followed GW lately so maybe they operate differently to what I have in my mind.
Books aren't hard to made, they can make 2,3 books per year. It's the plastic production that is slow.
I won't be able to watch the twitch stream in the morning, hopefully some folks catch any news. There was supposed to be a preview for this game. Could just be a better look at the heavy bommers though.
Yeah, it’s not going to be a year or two. They’ll probably get something each quarter, like the other specialist games.
“Year or two” might have been an exaggeration, lol, maybe a year. Including the upcoming Bommer, AI will have released with 6 different kits (7 if we get the grot bommer) and probably 8 or 9 different sprues. I haven’t closely followed the other specialist games releases, but isn’t that more than most have gotten up front? AT still only has a handful of models and BB got reasonably slow but steady releases but also started off with not much.
I figured given they’ve basically released everything that’s in the campaign book up front which adds up to a lot of individual kits and sprues, it’ll be a while before we see another release. Happy to be proven wrong, I haven’t really followed GW lately so maybe they operate differently to what I have in my mind.
Books aren't hard to made, they can make 2,3 books per year. It's the plastic production that is slow.
A large part of it is also how they want to leverage the releases to maximise sales. Given they're releasing 7 or 8 kits with 9 or 10 different sprues (forgot to add the ground accessories in my last post) I reckon they're going to want to sit on it for a while to milk the most sales out of what they've got. Maybe not though, maybe we'll see something soon, that's just my guess though, I'm not expecting much new for a while after that Bommers.
A large part of it is also how they want to leverage the releases to maximise sales. Given they're releasing 7 or 8 kits with 9 or 10 different sprues (forgot to add the ground accessories in my last post) I reckon they're going to want to sit on it for a while to milk the most sales out of what they've got. Maybe not though, maybe we'll see something soon, that's just my guess though, I'm not expecting much new for a while after that Bommers.
The production probably had quite a headstart, but I want them to be done with Ork by releasing both bommer and move on to another faction, and not dripping the release to fill in the schedule.
This isn't me complaining, the current pacing is good.
"Scout" seem to be a new type of aircraft in the new book.
Grot bomb this new edition is absolute bonker, completely ignore attitude when they explode, and hit on 2+ Also doesn't seem like you can shoot them down, or they even run out of fuel like last edition.
Xanthos wrote: Grot bombs run out of fuel after two turns, so that at least is something...
Doesn't seem like it can run out of fuel or be targeted, or maybe some words I'm missing here?
What's even better is they no longer give your opponent 6 VP.
I'll have to check when I get home tonight, but I'm fairly sure I read about a 2-turn fuel limit somewhere in the book. I may of course be mistaken. :-)
A comprehensive run through of the Rynn’s world book is up on youtube.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Binabik15 wrote: AI will take a few years before I'm really interested, I'm afraid.
Orks are great. Eldar would be as well. Imperium? Yawn. The only fliers I like from the Navy are Vultures and Vendettas.
When I get the rules this weekend I'll compare them to my original FW AI rules and see how well the old aircraft stats translate to the new game. The original AI had Chaos, Tau and Eldar in addition to the Imperials and the Orks.
If it translates well I might even have a crack at 3D printing some not-Chaos, not-Tau and not-Eldar models in the new scale.
Oh wow, from that video they do look like the Marauder Bomber / Destroyer variants. However, with them being so similar, it's likely an insert being swapped out in the mold, rather than a whole new (and nearly identical) mold, right? For both the Marauder and Eavy Bommer.
That said, I was hoping for a radically different kit with tiny piloted grot bombs, so I'm a bit bummed
Eavy bomber sprue would have plenty of space left for extra rockkit, bombs, big bombs, or even kustom shoota, while Grot Bommer sprue would be filled with bits to make 2-4 grot bomm. (My speculation)
Suspect I’ve missed a nugget of related info Though!
No and Grot Bommer also can't take any ordnance other than more grott bomm, they can however take kustom shoota since it's an upgrade(that actually has modelling option)
Already posted this a few pages back. BOLS rynn world had better view of the bommer.
Spoiler:
Kustom shoota is an upgrade that give extra gun to any ork aircraft. You cannot give grot bomm any upgrade nor they're aircraft like the old edition, they're controllable weapon.
* The basic set was designed to allow you to do a basic dogfight
* Designed as a short-play or demo capable set
* The bases are new design for AI - does basically the same thing as the old bases
* Rynn's world book has basic rules; adds background story; more scenarios; and campaign rules
* Campaign rules are fairly simple - meant to link a few games
* 5 factions in development (including the two in the basic game)
* New factions should come pretty fast
* After that will depend on how the games does
* Designed Marauder so it can have variants - Pathfinder and Colossus are possible new variants beyond the two we have now
* Ground assets have anti-air and objectives
* Aces rules were designed to stay simple and balanced
* They want the rules to be precise and balanced for competitive play
* Ork models are designed so bits are interchangeable - to 2 should be alike
* Ork Eavy Bomma is to carry LOTS of ordnance
* Grot Bomz are designed to be fun
* Battle of Calth - will be a new AT book
* Basic map is only designed for small battles
* 2 Rynn's World map sets can be combined to make an even bigger board
* AI and AT are 1/4 scale of Warhammer 40K - the scale is consistent - Space Marine is 8mm and normal human is 6mm
* Bases could be taken apart, but weren't designed for it. CAN be done if you're very careful
* They will be doing resin aircraft upgrade parts
* The current plan is for maps to be in thick card
* The game is ideal for tourneys - they plan to do a matched play supplement in the future
schoon wrote: From the 4pm BST Twitch Stream with Andy Hoare:
* The basic set was designed to allow you to do a basic dogfight
* Designed as a short-play or demo capable set
* The bases are new design for AI - does basically the same thing as the old bases
* Rynn's world book has basic rules; adds background story; more scenarios; and campaign rules
* Campaign rules are fairly simple - meant to link a few games
* 5 factions in development (including the two in the basic game)
* New factions should come pretty fast
* After that will depend on how the games does
* Designed Marauder so it can have variants - Pathfinder and Colossus are possible new variants beyond the two we have now
* Ground assets have anti-air and objectives
* Aces rules were designed to stay simple and balanced
* They want the rules to be precise and balanced for competitive play
* Ork models are designed so bits are interchangeable - to 2 should be alike
* Ork Eavy Bomma is to carry LOTS of ordnance
* Grot Bomz are designed to be fun
* Battle of Calth - will be a new AT book
* Basic map is only designed for small battles
* 2 Rynn's World map sets can be combined to make an even bigger board
* AI and AT are 1/4 scale of Warhammer 40K - the scale is consistent - Space Marine is 8mm and normal human is 6mm
* Bases could be taken apart, but weren't designed for it. CAN be done if you're very careful
* They will be doing resin aircraft upgrade parts
* The current plan is for maps to be in thick card
* The game is ideal for tourneys - they plan to do a matched play supplement in the future
While they didn’t say they wouldn’t be doing resin aircraft upgrades, they specifically said they would be doing resin aircraft.
schoon wrote: From the 4pm BST Twitch Stream with Andy Hoare:
* Battle of Calth - will be a new AT book
AT or AI book?
If AI, quick glance at Lexicanum for the significance of Calth suggests that the next two factions are going to be Chaos and Space Marines. Though, it could easily be an AT book as well.
That makes me sad as those are the two AI factions I least want to play.
At the same time, after all these decades, players will finally get the long rumoured plastic Thunderhawk,
Xanthos wrote: Grot bombs run out of fuel after two turns, so that at least is something...
Doesn't seem like it can run out of fuel or be targeted, or maybe some words I'm missing here?
What's even better is they no longer give your opponent 6 VP.
I'll have to check when I get home tonight, but I'm fairly sure I read about a 2-turn fuel limit somewhere in the book. I may of course be mistaken. :-)
It is as if I have been given orthopedic shoes, for I stand corrected. ;-) I can find no mention of the "fuel 2" limitation. I could've sworn it was there, but to be honest I only had a quick skim of the book so far.
Adeptus Titanicus - they referenced it while talking about background events applicable to different games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One thing to add - as they've now revealed that there are 5 factions currently "in play" in the development of the game, This Article pretty much reveals what they have to be:
Occulum Mistwar - Eldar vs. Orks
Liberation of Enothis - Imperium vs. Chaos
Armageddon - Imperium vs. Orks
...and in the second Twitch feed, they said they would be surprised if one of them was not Space Marines.
Honestly, that's not bad - although the lack of Tau, given their previous AI presence, is a little surprising. I found their FW airships a little too "samey" anyway, though.
Good thing is space marines might sell enough to help keep the game afloat. Especially if a mini plastic thunderhawk is there. I admit I do like Tau craft though, especially the barracuda.
Nice! Very stoked to see what they have in store for the Eldar. And very, very stoked to see how AT and AI and..... Eeeepic? might all work together? I really like this scale.
schoon wrote: From the 4pm BST Twitch Stream with Andy Hoare:
* Battle of Calth - will be a new AT book
AT or AI book?
If AI, quick glance at Lexicanum for the significance of Calth suggests that the next two factions are going to be Chaos and Space Marines. Though, it could easily be an AT book as well.
That makes me sad as those are the two AI factions I least want to play.
At the same time, after all these decades, players will finally get the long rumoured plastic Thunderhawk,
It all sounds encouraging. I’m glad they’ll do resin as it means they will be able to get more variety released faster, though hopefully decent quality resin as either brittle or saggy wings will be a annoying.
Space marines, eh, the faction I’d be least interested in, hopefully they aren’t too over the top powerful. But if it makes the game more popular that’s good. I much prefer the older fluff where the space marines didn’t maintain airforces to somewhat limit them.
Darnok wrote: 5 factions and one of them Marines? That would rule out either Tau or Eldar, since I can't believe them not doing Chaos. Weird.
Just to be clear, reading the tea leaves of their background article and the "hint" from the Twitch feed, I'd expect the three remaining factions under development to be:
Eldar
Chaos
Space Marines
Of course, if sales support further development after those, the sky's the limit.
Chaos would be neat, especially if we get both the Heldrake and the various bats (Hell Blade, Hell Talon and Harbinger) done by FW.
But still sticking with Tau as most likely to get their own stuff sooner or later. They've got a nice assortment of models that will make for a nice fleshed out release. Maybe even a return of the Orca?
If they do Space Marines there will obviously be a plastic Thunderhawk, GW will make a post about finally doing one after many years of being asked to do so and the internet will most likely tear itself apart over this one way or the other.
Chopstick wrote: Space marine would be an interesting choice, they were boring in the old game due to lack of unit choice.
Space marines in the old game (as is consistent with the fluff) were supposed to be used in conjunction with the Navy rather than by themselves.
It’s only recently GW released the interceptor variant of the Chibi-hawk.
In general GW’s aircraft I haven’t found to be overly aesthetically pleasing, especially for Marine aircraft. Forge world do a much better of translating what a 40k aircraft looks like in my brain to an actual model. I wonder if the FW design team has generally had folks who had a historic modelling background.
Chopstick wrote: Space marine would be an interesting choice, they were boring in the old game due to lack of unit choice.
Space marines in the old game (as is consistent with the fluff) were supposed to be used in conjunction with the Navy rather than by themselves.
It’s only recently GW released the interceptor variant of the Chibi-hawk.
In general GW’s aircraft I haven’t found to be overly aesthetically pleasing, especially for Marine aircraft. Forge world do a much better of translating what a 40k aircraft looks like in my brain to an actual model. I wonder if the FW design team has generally had folks who had a historic modelling background.
The Xiphon look fine, also much less bit compare to the Stormhawk.
Still wondering whether I should wait for the Eldar kits or just bite the bullet and go for Wings of Vengeance. Is it worth it just to get in on the game?
Concerning Marines, by now they have from GW: Stormtalon Gunship, Stormhawk Interceptor, Stormraven Gunship, Nephilim Jetfighter (DA), Dark Talon (DA), Stormwolf (SW), Stormfang Gunship (SW), Corvus Blackstar (DW). FW adds the Xiphon Pattern Interceptor, Storm Eagle and Thunderhawk in two versions. Even without the chapater specific flyers that is quite some choice, and some of these can be easily done by combined kits with variant builds.
Tyranid Horde wrote: Still wondering whether I should wait for the Eldar kits or just bite the bullet and go for Wings of Vengeance. Is it worth it just to get in on the game?
Depends on what you want. The box is a solid way to start, and gives you everything you need for small games. However, if you have no particular interest in Imperium or Orks, or want to have the full rules (including ground attacks, scenarios and aces), or want to play bigger games anyway, you will certainly invest in the Rynn's World book and board - making a good part of the box obsolete or not worth it anymore.
Thunderhawks are about twice as long as Marauders though, only just shorter than a Manta.
I think with Stormravens standing in as a similar looking transport, the Thunderhawks might not make it into the first wave of marine releases. But I could be wrong.
Tastyfish wrote: Thunderhawks are about twice as long as Marauders though, only just shorter than a Manta.
I think with Stormravens standing in as a similar looking transport, the Thunderhawks might not make it into the first wave of marine releases. But I could be wrong.
And a Marauder box give you 2, so a Thunderhawk box give you 1.
Thunderhawks are so iconic for marines that if/when marines appear I'm sure the Thunderhawk will be in the launch wave. Of all the aircraft in the entire game they are the most well known and famous.
Oh that's interesting. Are they going to be released as supplements or something? I'm guessing the 3 extra factions are going to be Eldar, Tau and Marines. I thought Marines were already in there, but yeah, its Imperial Navy alright.
I hope Tau are one of the releases. They already have 3D sculpts for the Barracuda and Tiger Shark seeing as they got new sculpts fairly recently, which might be a tick in their favour.
ImAGeek wrote: I hope Tau are one of the releases. They already have 3D sculpts for the Barracuda and Tiger Shark seeing as they got new sculpts fairly recently, which might be a tick in their favour.
And the Manta (along with the Thunderhawk) is the equivalent to the Warlord in AT; the awesome centrepiece model that you could never justify buying in 28mm. Even if I wasn’t getting into AI I would be tempted to buy a Manta, just as a showpiece (also, figure it’s going to be about the size of a Valkyrie!)
1st edition AI was Imperium (Navy and Marines in one list), Orks, Eldar, Chaos, Tau.
Now that the Space Marine air wing has expanded so much, combining the two no longer makes sense but they could still do it and fudge “five” factions keeping the others if they wanted.
Seems obvious that it'll be the four from the campaigns they've previewed (the two out now + Eldar & Chaos), plus the basically confirmed on stream Marines.
Chopstick wrote: Space marine would be an interesting choice, they were boring in the old game due to lack of unit choice.
Space marines in the old game (as is consistent with the fluff) were supposed to be used in conjunction with the Navy rather than by themselves.
It’s only recently GW released the interceptor variant of the Chibi-hawk.
In general GW’s aircraft I haven’t found to be overly aesthetically pleasing, especially for Marine aircraft. Forge world do a much better of translating what a 40k aircraft looks like in my brain to an actual model. I wonder if the FW design team has generally had folks who had a historic modelling background.
The Xiphon look fine, also much less bit compare to the Stormhawk.
Spoiler:
Xiphon looks okay, though I can't look at it without seeing what is basically an uglier rip off of the BSG Viper.
Also isn't it a 30k aircraft rather than 40k?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darnok wrote: Concerning Marines, by now they have from GW: Stormtalon Gunship, Stormhawk Interceptor, Stormraven Gunship, Nephilim Jetfighter (DA), Dark Talon (DA), Stormwolf (SW), Stormfang Gunship (SW), Corvus Blackstar (DW).
Argh, you're just reminding me how god awful GW are at coming up with Space Marine flyers, most of those are terrible and are the reason I'm not interested in Space Marines in AI. Where do we start, the Chibi-flyers or the shipping crate mixed with a Fox Terrier head? The Corvus is the only one that looks half decent. But still, if it gets the kids interested and keeps the game on the shelf, that's what we'll have to put up with.
Ignoring the chapter specific options, there's only 1 fighter/interceptor on the list and it's that hideous Chibi-hawk thingo. It's going to look out of scale compared to the beefy and decently realistic sized fighters other races use.
Most the Space Marine options are just ground support vehicles, which is essentially how Space Marines operated in the first AI game as well (Thunderhawks supported by Navy fighters).
But we'll see what GW do with it, I'm happy if Space Marines just stay as a ground support force, I preferred the old fluff where Space Marines weren't all encompassing military forces in their own right but rather relied on the rest of the Imperium.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Argh, you're just reminding me how god awful GW are at coming up with Space Marine flyers, most of those are terrible and are the reason I'm not interested in Space Marines in AI. The Corvus is the only one that looks half decent. But still, if it gets the kids interested and keeps the game on the shelf, that's what we'll have to put up with.
It is such a shame that Corvus is DW only, it is easily the best of GW's plastic marine flyer designs.
But this game is set to 40K era, rather than HH like AT, right? Which would mean that we could see the Overlord flyer for marines. That would be interesting.
Malika2 wrote: I was kinda hoping the new Vigilant will have a radar like this:
Spoiler:
I think something like that is probable, since on the diagram most of the changes are on the bottom of the aircraft where it's all but impossible to see from a normal playing position.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I can’t even remember, was the Vigilant in the original AI and what purpose did it serve in the game?
Re roll reserve and initiative, and in campaign play, there's Target Recon mission in which one of your (secret) craft need to spend 8 turn on the table to win. In which the Vigilant only need to spend 6, while also being pretty obvious or some kind of mind game distraction to your opponent on which aircraft to take down.
And Colossus only carry a single bomb, you dropped it and you're done, it's now a flying brick just like the Vigilant
The marauder belly and turret on the back are separate pieces. Would be easy to have replacements for those two parts on an extra sprue to make other variants.
Just picked up my starter set. Plenty of empty space where they could have put more stuff in the box, lol, I think this is the first GW set I've bought that actually had bubble sheets to take up space so the contents didn't rattle round. If you want to buy 2 sets and are worried about the shelf space it's going to take up in your home, don't worry, you can easily squeeze the contents of 2 sets in to one box.
It's interesting that several of the sprues are mirrored versions of themselves. I thought it was the cost and time of making the mould that was high, but mirrored sprues seem to contradict that.
There is a fluff blurb in the rulebook that hints at necrons. In the same paragraph it also basically mentions imperium, orks, chaos, and tau. There is a curious indication that Necrons might actually make it into this edition instead of eldar. I'm not sure if anyone should read into it too much. But considering it more or less brings up five different factions I find it interesting.
It's interesting that several of the sprues are mirrored versions of themselves. I thought it was the cost and time of making the mould that was high, but mirrored sprues seem to contradict that.
They're in one piece, mean they're from the same mold, mirroing only cut down designing and mold making time on CAD program, The CNC still has to mill those part to make the mold, which is the most expensive part.
They can cut cost if they only make a single half sprue, but it will double their production time.
It's interesting that several of the sprues are mirrored versions of themselves. I thought it was the cost and time of making the mould that was high, but mirrored sprues seem to contradict that.
They're in one piece, mean they're from the same mold, mirroing only cut down designing and mold making time on CAD program, The CNC still has to mill those part to make the mold, which is the most expensive part.
Yeah that's what I mean, if the most expensive part is the machining then why did they do mirrored sprues. Why not make better use of the machining time to make unique parts instead of just mirroring the same parts?
Maybe the cost to GW of creating a plastic mould these days isn't as bad as it used to be.
The marauder belly and turret on the back are separate pieces. Would be easy to have replacements for those two parts on an extra sprue to make other variants.
That’s what I’m saying. Replace the turret with a big radar and the bomb doors with the cameras from the current canon variant.
It’s sort of unfortunate that the top deck/turret ring is on the main sprue but then the Vigilant does need something more to distinguish it than the ventral sensor array.
Yeah that's what I mean, if the most expensive part is the machining then why did they do mirrored sprues. Why not make better use of the machining time to make unique parts instead of just mirroring the same parts?
Maybe the cost to GW of creating a plastic mould these days isn't as bad as it used to be.
As far as all thing Imperium (and other civilized race) goes, these are all mass produced from the military, they should look identical, mirroring or not, mirroring save designing time, and cut down production time (and probably the electric bill too).
I think your idea is that Imperium is some kind of Ork/Chaos race where everything suppose to look unique? Ork aircrafts do have quite a few different piece, some pieces still look identical because they're matching pair or lazy designer.
And by chaos I mean the heavily mutated one, both Chaos and Orks can mass product stuffs to look indentical, it's just Ork-nature that they like to "personalized" them more, that made them unique amongs the race and is a joy to convert/kitbash
It's interesting that several of the sprues are mirrored versions of themselves. I thought it was the cost and time of making the mould that was high, but mirrored sprues seem to contradict that.
They're in one piece, mean they're from the same mold, mirroing only cut down designing and mold making time on CAD program, The CNC still has to mill those part to make the mold, which is the most expensive part.
Yeah that's what I mean, if the most expensive part is the machining then why did they do mirrored sprues. Why not make better use of the machining time to make unique parts instead of just mirroring the same parts?
Maybe the cost to GW of creating a plastic mould these days isn't as bad as it used to be.
I mean, aircraft are generally pretty symmetrical and identical.
Yeah that's what I mean, if the most expensive part is the machining then why did they do mirrored sprues. Why not make better use of the machining time to make unique parts instead of just mirroring the same parts?
Maybe the cost to GW of creating a plastic mould these days isn't as bad as it used to be.
As far as all thing Imperium (and other civilized race) goes, these are all mass produced from the military, they should look identical, mirroring or not, mirroring save designing time, and cut down production time (and probably the electric bill too).
I think you want Imperium to be some kind of Ork/Chaos race? Because Ork do have quite a few different piece, some pieces still look identical because they're matching pair or lazy designer.
It was really just an observation, I didn't say I want one thing or another thing or anything, just noting that if they're willing to mirror sprues then it probably doesn't cost them a hell of a lot to actually make the sprues.
The ground support stuff is also one big mirrored sprue (twice the size of an aircraft sprue, but mirrored).
IF, I mean IF, it actually cost them a lot to machine a sprue I'd rather they make a dual kit of Lightning and Thunderbolt dual kit, and sell 2x Lightnings and 2x Thunderbolts in a kit. But if the cost of machining the sprue is negligible, the way they did it is fine... it just surprises me that it would be negligible.
Yeah that's what I mean, if the most expensive part is the machining then why did they do mirrored sprues. Why not make better use of the machining time to make unique parts instead of just mirroring the same parts?
Maybe the cost to GW of creating a plastic mould these days isn't as bad as it used to be.
As far as all thing Imperium (and other civilized race) goes, these are all mass produced from the military, they should look identical, mirroring or not, mirroring save designing time, and cut down production time (and probably the electric bill too).
I think you want Imperium to be some kind of Ork/Chaos race? Because Ork do have quite a few different piece, some pieces still look identical because they're matching pair or lazy designer.
It was really just an observation, I didn't say I want one thing or another thing or anything, just noting that if they're willing to mirror sprues then it probably doesn't cost them a hell of a lot to actually make the sprues.
The ground support stuff is also one big mirrored sprue (twice the size of an aircraft sprue, but mirrored).
IF, I mean IF, it actually cost them a lot to machine a sprue I'd rather they make a dual kit of Lightning and Thunderbolt dual kit, and sell 2x Lightnings and 2x Thunderbolts in a kit. But if the cost of machining the sprue is negligible, the way they did it is fine... it just surprises me that it would be negligible.
They have a fixed set of sprue sizes they use (starting with the single-character mini sprues and doubling with each iteration). If a model won’t fit onto a single smaller sprue, they can’t just make a slightly bigger one, it has to be the next size up. So they find extra stuff to fill the space. In this case that was an extra copy of the aircraft because tessellation is weird like that.
Also, as someone else mentioned, two small sprues take twice as long to get to stock as one big one because a big machine takes the same amount of time to inject a big die as a little machine takes for a little die, but the little one has to do it twice as many times to get the same volume done. Unless they cut two dies to fit a big machine with packing but by then you might as well cut one big die.
Mr_Rose wrote: They have a fixed set of sprue sizes they use (starting with the single-character mini sprues and doubling with each iteration). If a model won’t fit onto a single smaller sprue, they can’t just make a slightly bigger one, it has to be the next size up. So they find extra stuff to fill the space. In this case that was an extra copy of the aircraft because tessellation is weird like that.
Also, as someone else mentioned, two small sprues take twice as long to get to stock as one big one because a big machine takes the same amount of time to inject a big die as a little machine takes for a little die, but the little one has to do it twice as many times to get the same volume done. Unless they cut two dies to fit a big machine with packing but by then you might as well cut one big die.
Yeah I'm well aware of the balance of factors that might lead to a decision to make sprues that are mirrored.
I still just found it interesting because in the past the high cost of cutting a mould has been raised as a point that drives release cycles and choices that GW make, but it seems if they're willing to recut the same pieces on the 2nd half of a mould rather than using the real estate for something unique, maybe the cost of cutting the moulds isn't significant to GW these days.
The ground support sprue is a large one and they still decided to mirror it rather than making 2 duplicate aircraft sized sprues.
Mr_Rose wrote: They have a fixed set of sprue sizes they use (starting with the single-character mini sprues and doubling with each iteration). If a model won’t fit onto a single smaller sprue, they can’t just make a slightly bigger one, it has to be the next size up. So they find extra stuff to fill the space. In this case that was an extra copy of the aircraft because tessellation is weird like that.
Also, as someone else mentioned, two small sprues take twice as long to get to stock as one big one because a big machine takes the same amount of time to inject a big die as a little machine takes for a little die, but the little one has to do it twice as many times to get the same volume done. Unless they cut two dies to fit a big machine with packing but by then you might as well cut one big die.
Yeah I'm well aware of the balance of factors that might lead to a decision to make sprues that are mirrored.
I still just found it interesting because in the past the high cost of cutting a mould has been raised as a point that drives release cycles and choices that GW make, but it seems if they're willing to recut the same pieces on the 2nd half of a mould rather than using the real estate for something unique, maybe the cost of cutting the moulds isn't significant to GW these days.
I imagine the price is still significant. But these are aircraft, which are generally symmetrical and manufactured to pretty tight standards, there’s not much need to change components for the sake of it.
ImAGeek wrote: I imagine the price is still significant. But these are aircraft, which are generally symmetrical and manufactured to pretty tight standards, there’s not much need to change components for the sake of it.
Well if the price was significant they could rearrange the sprues (and I'm not saying I want them to do this, just saying if the sprue price was significant I imagine they would have done something like this).
1 x sprue, single Lightning and single Thunderbolt (kit comes with 2 of each).
1 x sprue, two Dakkajets and 1 x Fighta Bommer (kit comes with 4 and 2).
1 x sprue, Marauder, inclusive of parts needed to make either Destroyer or Bomber variants (two sprues in a kit)
1 x sprue with only 1 half of what's on the current ground support sprue (two sprues in a kit).
Not saying that's a desirable outcome for us gamers, but it'd reduce the mould machining time by a factor of two or more and you'd end up with much the same models on the shelf.
Again, it was just a casual observation that if mould machining costs are significant, GW did a very poor job of laying out the sprues to reduce their costs... my conclusion is mould machining cost probably isn't all that significant as I had previously thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, all that crap aside. Are folks trying to paint Thunderbolts before assembling them? The way the engines are hidden I'm mildly concerned about gluing them together before painting them.
ImAGeek wrote: I imagine the price is still significant. But these are aircraft, which are generally symmetrical and manufactured to pretty tight standards, there’s not much need to change components for the sake of it.
Well if the price was significant they could rearrange the sprues (and I'm not saying I want them to do this, just saying if the sprue price was significant I imagine they would have done something like this).
1 x sprue, single Lightning and single Thunderbolt (kit comes with 2 of each). 1 x sprue, two Dakkajets and 1 x Fighta Bommer (kit comes with 4 and 2). 1 x sprue, Marauder, inclusive of parts needed to make either Destroyer or Bomber variants (two sprues in a kit) 1 x sprue with only 1 half of what's on the current ground support sprue (two sprues in a kit).
Not saying that's a desirable outcome for us gamers, but it'd reduce the mould machining time by a factor of two or more and you'd end up with much the same models on the shelf.
Again, it was just a casual observation that if mould machining costs are significant, GW did a very poor job of laying out the sprues to reduce their costs... my conclusion is mould machining cost probably isn't all that significant as I had previously thought.
Tthe marauder could've been the same kit (since you have 0 ordnance in the destroyer one) but for the other GW almost never did 2 type of completely different unit in the same kits. And for good reason, not everyone will like both of those unit, so for you it's a great deal, but for someone else they're getting 2 lightning which they don't like and had no plan to use them.
For Ork it get even less ideal, the Ork aircraftt have different style for multiple components, redude it to 2 jet + fighta bommer, will turn the fighta bommer into mass produced fighta bommer and 1 less variant of dakka jets. Making the kit way worse than the current one.
Started work on the kits that came in the starter, built one of each plane so far. Quite enjoyable builds, only real complaint is a severe lack of extra big shootas to bolt onto all Ork aircraft. Not that we're going to be playing strictly WYSIWYG concerning the stuff mounted underneath the wings, but still.. pity.
BrookM wrote: Started work on the kits that came in the starter, built one of each plane so far. Quite enjoyable builds, only real complaint is a severe lack of extra big shootas to bolt onto all Ork aircraft. Not that we're going to be playing strictly WYSIWYG concerning the stuff mounted underneath the wings, but still.. pity.
Shoota from Flak cannon ground asset could be handy. I haven't got my hand on any of the kit to try. Probably next week, shipping to my country is usually very slow.
I also had something else in mind, Questoris heavy stubber.
I also bummed because all the wing shoota was designed to look like a snake charmer flute, might scarp off that weird screw when I got my hand on it.
Hopefully we got more extra shoota in the eavy bommer kit.
Chopstick wrote: The marauder could've been the same kit (since you have 0 ordnance in the destroyer one) but for the other GW almost never did 2 type of completely different unit in the same kits.
The original Epic had multiple unit types on a sprue, so you'd buy a box of tanks and get a couple of land raiders, a couple of rhinos, etc etc all in the one box. This would just be the same, you buy a box of "Imperial Fighters" and get both Lightnings and Thunderbolts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: Started work on the kits that came in the starter, built one of each plane so far. Quite enjoyable builds, only real complaint is a severe lack of extra big shootas to bolt onto all Ork aircraft. Not that we're going to be playing strictly WYSIWYG concerning the stuff mounted underneath the wings, but still.. pity.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone can come up with a good way of swapping out weapon options.
In previous AI I never bothered with weapon options, just put some homemade counters next to the plane to indicate if it had extra missiles / bombs / etc.
Chopstick wrote: The marauder could've been the same kit (since you have 0 ordnance in the destroyer one) but for the other GW almost never did 2 type of completely different unit in the same kits.
The original Epic had multiple unit types on a sprue, so you'd buy a box of tanks and get a couple of land raiders, a couple of rhinos, etc etc all in the one box. This would just be the same, you buy a box of "Imperial Fighters" and get both Lightnings and Thunderbolts.
The original Epic is 20 years ago friend, they also teach you how to paper(plasticard) craft a baneblade back then.
Chopstick wrote: The marauder could've been the same kit (since you have 0 ordnance in the destroyer one) but for the other GW almost never did 2 type of completely different unit in the same kits.
The original Epic had multiple unit types on a sprue, so you'd buy a box of tanks and get a couple of land raiders, a couple of rhinos, etc etc all in the one box. This would just be the same, you buy a box of "Imperial Fighters" and get both Lightnings and Thunderbolts.
The original Epic is 20 years ago friend, they also teach you how to paper(plasticard) craft a baneblade back then.
It doesn’t really matter how long ago it was, GW haven’t done plastic models smaller than 28mm scale since the 90’s so there’s no real recent equivalent to draw from. It was done to have a bigger variety for less sprues. I’m not really sure what or why you seem to be arguing, I was only pointing out that it’s interesting GW didn’t try and optimise their mould machining, the natural conclusion to which is mould machining probably isn’t a large investment for them.
greyknight12 wrote: Probably a dumb question, but can you take duplicate weapons of the upgrades? For example, 2 pairs of skystrikes on a thunderbolt?
Sure, can't see why not. They're additional weaponry, not upgrade.
Not sure about weapon upgrade like Kustom Big Shoota though, but I assumed with the Rynn World rule (not the one from the starter) you can take as many kustom big shoota as you can.
greyknight12 wrote: Probably a dumb question, but can you take duplicate weapons of the upgrades? For example, 2 pairs of skystrikes on a thunderbolt?
Sure, can't see why not. They're additional weaponry, not upgrade.
Not sure about weapon upgrade like Kustom Big Shoota though, but I assumed with the Rynn World rule (not the one from the starter) you can take as many kustom big shoota as you can.
It depends whether you can take aircraft upgrades more than once. If you can’t, then you can only take 1 lot of Kustom Big Shootas.
Not sure if it specifies elsewhere in the rules if you can take upgrades multiple times or just once.
Just found page 27 of the starter set rule book says the same thing, that you can’t take two of the same upgrade.
Kustom Big Shootas seem a bit overpriced to me anyway, only 2 extra firepower at 5+ to damage for 3pts. I guess in this version of AI you’ll probably spend more turns shooting at something than the old AI where even the Shootas only had 5 ammo so you’d be more likely to wait for a good opening to shoot.
Old Kustom Shoota is an additional 8-4 guns that replace the aircraft loadout but add much better offensive power than any loadout, since most extra loadout are bombs and not full-on rokkit.
Nothing miscast on my end either, though I will say that the Marauder lascannons and the tail section require extra care when removing from the sprue, they are a bit brittle.
It may just be one or two third party suppliers affected in the end, if no-one else is seeing anything.
Did you guys get individual boxes or the WoV starter set?
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: If the report is on a non-gw store account it could even be an excuse from a 3rd party that didn't get enough to fulfil their orders
(either because GW shorted them or because they didn't actually order enough for whatever reason)
sorry folks we got a batch with miscasts bits, we'll send your order later might sound better than we didn't get the things
Third parties are likely hesitant to tell customers they got shorted by GW these days, since if you then go into a GW store and mention what happened the manager will forcefully claim the third party store is lying. The fact that people who couldn't get it from a third party store can almost always walk into a GW and pick one off the shelf and GW's history of shorting third parties aside - a casual customer may not know about the latter or care enough to draw the obvious conclusion from the former - that could turn customers against the third party and see their potential repeat custom lost.
Easier just to give an excuse that makes it nobody's fault.
Built a Marauder, two Lightnings and a Fighta Bomma.
Only truly fiddly bit as noted earlier are on the Lightnings, and that’s the thruster/exhaust/whatevs on the end of the engine bits.
Really, really nice kits, and I can’t wait to see what comes next. With the prices being as they are, I’m thinking I can comfortably have multiple air wings for different races.
There is also that missing “C” sprue for the Marauder airframe to wonder about too… hope it’s the Colossus. I’ve been to Brooklands, I’ve seen a Grand Slam up close…
Saw a couple of how to play videos... the planes seem too damn big for the hexes?
I mean, they look cool and all but, I couldn't help but notice how much they all seemed to extend over their own hex, and how cumbersome it felt when there were planes in adjacent hexes...
Hmm by the Way do you think they make a Canyon Map and rerelease the Mini Game "Bombers over da Sulvur River" ?...I think they already have the parts for this Scenario (Hydra Flak Anti Air, the Fighter Planes and the Bunkers)and only need the Canyon Trench Map for this Scenario ;-)
Sulphur River is mentioned in the Rynn's World air war book, but I think they'll stick to just the Rynn's World area of engagement maps for this release.
Albertorius wrote: Saw a couple of how to play videos... the planes seem too damn big for the hexes?
I mean, they look cool and all but, I couldn't help but notice how much they all seemed to extend over their own hex, and how cumbersome it felt when there were planes in adjacent hexes...
Well, except for the dakkajet.
The fighters (dakkajet and thunderbolt) aren't too bad, the marauder and fighta bommer are pretty huge.
The models are really nice on the one hand, but on the other hand I wish they hadn't increased the scale from the old AI.
I wonder if we'll see Mantas and Harbingers down the track because they're going to be absolutely massive at this scale. I imagine the Thunderhawk is going to be pretty big (or more so long) as well.
BrookM wrote: Sulphur River is mentioned in the Rynn's World air war book, but I think they'll stick to just the Rynn's World area of engagement maps for this release.
You can just line the two halves of the Jadeberry Hill side of the card map along their short edges rather than their long edges to get a play area 7 x 30 hexes rather than 15 x 15.
Personally I’d do a custom map with cliff walls along both sides so planes need to be at higher altitudes to fly down the flanks.
These cards are only available while stocks last, and this is the only way to get them in print – digital versions can be downloaded from Warhammer-Community.com from Saturday 7th September. Order early to avoid disappointment!
BrookM wrote: Sulphur River is mentioned in the Rynn's World air war book, but I think they'll stick to just the Rynn's World area of engagement maps for this release.
You can just line the two halves of the Jadeberry Hill side of the card map along their short edges rather than their long edges to get a play area 7 x 30 hexes rather than 15 x 15.
Personally I’d do a custom map with cliff walls along both sides so planes need to be at higher altitudes to fly down the flanks.
I've been thinking of using a 7 x 30 area of engagement for the Straggler mission, but that may be a bit too sadistic for the defending player, even with a boost in maximum speed for the bomber. It would also make for a great Bombing Run map.
These cards are only available while stocks last, and this is the only way to get them in print – digital versions can be downloaded from Warhammer-Community.com from Saturday 7th September. Order early to avoid disappointment!
I just called customer services and asked. He said he’d have to go and talk to the web team to find out.
Flicking through the rule book I noticed they say a 3’x3’ board would be a small engagement (and that’s the size of the Rynns World board) with an “average” game using a 4’x4’ board and a large game an 8x4 board.
Makes me wonder if some larger boards are in the pipeline?
Or maybe the decision to go for a hex table came later in the design process.
Playing on the 2.5x2.5 board definitely felt cramped even with only a few planes on each side.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Flicking through the rule book I noticed they say a 3’x3’ board would be a small engagement (and that’s the size of the Rynns World board) with an “average” game using a 4’x4’ board and a large game an 8x4 board.
Makes me wonder if some larger boards are in the pipeline?
Or maybe the decision to go for a hex table came later in the design process.
Playing on the 2.5x2.5 board definitely felt cramped even with only a few planes on each side.
They said in the stream that the hex board was one of the first things they did - the original game was planned to be a hex board anyway but they didn’t have the resources to do boards at the time or something.
Albertorius wrote: Saw a couple of how to play videos... the planes seem too damn big for the hexes?
I mean, they look cool and all but, I couldn't help but notice how much they all seemed to extend over their own hex, and how cumbersome it felt when there were planes in adjacent hexes...
Well, except for the dakkajet.
If the planes end up too cramped they can be tilted on the stand to angle away. If you think that looks cramped imagine the Tau manta on the table, not sure if it caused any problems in the previous edition.
The more I think about this game the more I hope we see Tau as a faction, with the barracudas, sky shark, stealth drones, plastic models of this stuff would be a dream come true for me.
I also do expect we will see a 4x4 board eventually, I think they might release a board to accompany every new book/faction. Like they might introduce a new faction within a campaign book in a different setting from rynns world, and the new boards will reflect those planets instead.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Flicking through the rule book I noticed they say a 3’x3’ board would be a small engagement (and that’s the size of the Rynns World board) with an “average” game using a 4’x4’ board and a large game an 8x4 board.
Makes me wonder if some larger boards are in the pipeline?
One of the things they covered in the Twitch steam was that the Rynn's World board is designed so two sets can make an even bigger play area, thus the "large game."
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Flicking through the rule book I noticed they say a 3’x3’ board would be a small engagement (and that’s the size of the Rynns World board) with an “average” game using a 4’x4’ board and a large game an 8x4 board.
Makes me wonder if some larger boards are in the pipeline?
One of the things they covered in the Twitch steam was that the Rynn's World board is designed so two sets can make an even bigger play area, thus the "large game."
But the Rynn's World board is only 3x3, so not even "average", and combining two would make 6x3, still smaller than what they say would be a "large game".
That's why I found it odd, what they call "average" is bigger than the boards they sell and also not a size that can be easily made with their boards.
Might be reading a bit much into this, but I believe someone earlier mentioned that GW had said there are 5 races initially planned (including, Imperial Navy and Orks).
Noticed that the opening paragraph of the Wings of Vengeance book makes reference to 5 races, Imperial, Orks, Chaos, Tau and Necrons, maybe just a coincidence or could they be the initial 5? Doesn't sound too far-fetched, only surprise there really is Necrons where I would have expected Eldar.
I'm having a ton of fun building baby thunderbolts and dakkajets. Would love to see the thunderbolts in 28mm scale, and also the cool alternate noses and tail for the dakkajets in full size. Fights bombast would also be a great addition to the 28mm work line, like how dark elder have the razor wing and void raven.
No mention yet of the exclusive crew cards going up anywhere.
I'd love to see a 28mm scale plastic Thunderbolt, would be fun to put alongside the resin one I got a few years ago, but I fear this is what we'll be getting with regards to the Imperial Navy. At regular scale it'll just be the Valkyrie and nothing else. :(
Really enjoying painting these kits, my only regret is gluing the engines of the Thunderbolt in place, with no easy access to the parts that are showing through the transparent part.
Now, why couldn't have they just but the cards in the aircraft and aces back, I have nice hard cards and then annoying paper bits which I have to download and print out!
Bschwi1 wrote: Now, why couldn't have they just but the cards in the aircraft and aces back, I have nice hard cards and then annoying paper bits which I have to download and print out!
Mostly because that would give no bonus for those who ordered the compete sets from GW mail order.
On the other hand, there are services that can print those to a very professional standard these days.
Flicking through the rulebook description of the Fury, the fluff for the twin Avenger cannons says the downside to them is that they fire so fast they tend to run out of ammo and so often need the support of other aircraft.
But the rules still give it unlimited ammo, I wonder if that was a last minute change or maybe we'll see the rules updated down the track to limit the ammo of it?
It wouldn't surprise me if there's a future supplement that allows for ammo limitations, but as is right now, personally I'm glad we've got a cap on just missiles and not regular guns, it is as is already hard enough to hit and damage something.
Fluff guy and rule write probably don't work together.
And autocanon thunderbolt running out of ammo just as fast if the pilot going full auto, it only carry 400 round, I can eastimate the Fury carry around 2500- 6400 round.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Flicking through the rulebook description of the Fury, the fluff for the twin Avenger cannons says the downside to them is that they fire so fast they tend to run out of ammo and so often need the support of other aircraft.
But the rules still give it unlimited ammo, I wonder if that was a last minute change or maybe we'll see the rules updated down the track to limit the ammo of it?
Doubt it, since an individual engagement is so short. However, I could see it as a narrative scenario; game one, ground attack mission against Ork positions. Game 2, get back home while o Lt being able to use the lascannon.
Unlimited ammo was a mistake IMO. The engagements portrayed in the original game were also short, but you would typically only get a couple of attacks with your heavy guns and four or five with your secondaries, and it really added to the experience both in terms of tactics and dramatic feel.
Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.
Yodhrin wrote: Unlimited ammo was a mistake IMO. The engagements portrayed in the original game were also short, but you would typically only get a couple of attacks with your heavy guns and four or five with your secondaries, and it really added to the experience both in terms of tactics and dramatic feel.
Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.
Guess they didn't want players to get frustrated with inconclusive engagements where people have run out of ammo and neither side can really bring down the other. Ork players can now carefreely blaze away with their dakka.
Yodhrin wrote: Unlimited ammo was a mistake IMO. The engagements portrayed in the original game were also short, but you would typically only get a couple of attacks with your heavy guns and four or five with your secondaries, and it really added to the experience both in terms of tactics and dramatic feel.
Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.
Guess they didn't want players to get frustrated with inconclusive engagements where people have run out of ammo and neither side can really bring down the other. Ork players can now carefreely blaze away with their dakka.
You generally had enough ammo on your main guns to fire every 2 or 3 turns (given a game goes for 12 turns). The limited ammo basically only meant you’d blaze away when you were in the optimum range band with no hit modifiers, but think twice about it if you were at a non-optimal range.
Given you need a 5+ to hit and outside your optimal range you don’t generally get to throw many dice, the end effect on the outcome of a game isn’t huge, it just adds the extra element of decision making.
BrookM wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if there's a future supplement that allows for ammo limitations, but as is right now, personally I'm glad we've got a cap on just missiles and not regular guns, it is as is already hard enough to hit and damage something.
I agree, and the dice rolls are pretty straightforward. It's not like Necromunda where you have to roll, roll again, roll ammo, cool checks, roll this roll that. There isn't that useless fat on this game where it takes forever to accomplish anything and i'm glad. I do kind of wish the fury was a little more expensive though, I personally prefer the look of the autocannons (the nose looks better), and that is the standard thunderbolt. I just feel there should be just as much incentive to take the standard one.
Iracundus wrote: Guess they didn't want players to get frustrated with inconclusive engagements where people have run out of ammo and neither side can really bring down the other. Ork players can now carefreely blaze away with their dakka.
The inconclusive engagements were one of the very good things about AI 1.0! It was much more realistic from a fluff point of view, with mission objectives being more important than kills and loss rates being much more in line with real air combat. It was a nice contrast from 40k and its constant mutual annihilation. And it's unfortunate to see GW remove that feature to pander to people who suck at setting up shots and just want to fish for 6s every turn.
Ammo is fine, but the number had to make sense or they should let the player decide how they distribute their ammunition among the guns, or had to sacrifice hardpoint for it.
The Marauder destroyer in the original AI can fire its main gun 2 times, while the turrets had unlimited ammo, apparently 1000 rounds of ammo for each turret is enough for 12 turns.
With sustained burst and tailing fire rule, you can run out of ammo quickly even if they give you 10-12 shots.
Yodhrin wrote: Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.
The hexes just mean you don’t need awkward maneuver cards. X-Wing’s templates were an improvement over WoW/G’s cards, at least IMO. Hexes are a cleaner solution than either.
Yodhrin wrote: Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.
The hexes just mean you don’t need awkward maneuver cards. X-Wing’s templates were an improvement over WoW/G’s cards, at least IMO. Hexes are a cleaner solution than either.
Which is funny when you think about it, because both are downgrades from the earlier Blue Max's/Canvas Eagles' system, which uses hexes with flightpath maneuvers, much in the same way as X-Wing but without any of the uncertainty:
I must admit that, from what I've seen on videos, for me the regular AI system provides too much freedom in how exactly you can perform your maneuver, and selecting a maneuver really limits you very slightly. I personally prefer you having to choose the full maneuver before knowing what the other player is going to do, which also handly removes the need for a IGUGO movement activation.
Yodhrin wrote: Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.
The hexes just mean you don’t need awkward maneuver cards. X-Wing’s templates were an improvement over WoW/G’s cards, at least IMO. Hexes are a cleaner solution than either.
I don't agree, in either regard. The cards weren't any more or less "awkward" than a ruler and the hexes don't "just mean" not having to use them, the additional layer of abstraction means they have a big impact on how the game plays and how planes maneuver; again, under the new system, the supposedly-focused-on-ground-attack Marauder Destroyer is arguably one of the best superiority fighters, because the combination of hexes functionally increasing maneuverability and unlimited ammo make it easier to keep it nose-on with even enemy fighter craft for more of the game, and it can just blaze away with all weapons continually.
Hexes also affect the feel of the game, giving much more of a boardgame flavour to proceedings. Some folk like that, but personally it's not what I'm looking for from a wargame - if I want to play boardgames, I play boardgames.
Yodhrin wrote: The cards weren't any more or less "awkward" than a ruler
Disagree here. They really were more awkward because of how you had to insert the card in the middle of the measurement and line everything up correctly with cards that weren't very well suited for the job. With hexes you get most of the same functionality but with much less ambiguity in where a model is and who bumped which model how far, etc. I have some major problems with how open-ended the maneuvers are and think that it should be more like X-Wing with having to commit to a particular direction, but moving to a hex grid was a major improvement.
Also, supposedly AI 1.0 was supposed to use hexes from the beginning and the cards were an awkward workaround to cope with the fact that GW wasn't willing/able to do the hex grid maps it would require.
under the new system, the supposedly-focused-on-ground-attack Marauder Destroyer is arguably one of the best superiority fighters, because the combination of hexes functionally increasing maneuverability and unlimited ammo make it easier to keep it nose-on with even enemy fighter craft for more of the game, and it can just blaze away with all weapons continually.
That isn't a hex grid problem, it's a problem with GW's incomprehensible unit design choices for it. GW never should have removed the ground attack only rule from the Destroyer's primary weapons, and absolutely shouldn't have given it the ability to deploy ground troops (!!!) or carry AA missiles. A properly designed Destroyer is no better as an AA unit than it was in 1.0.
Hexes also affect the feel of the game, giving much more of a boardgame flavour to proceedings. Some folk like that, but personally it's not what I'm looking for from a wargame - if I want to play boardgames, I play boardgames.
This is an odd statement to make given how many classic wargames were based on grid systems of various shapes.
And if anything this game doesn't need, it's more dedicated ground attack unit, save those for epic. Almost everything in 40k is a dedicated ground attack unit, they even said Skystrike missile is rare, because no one use them, and they can just use Hellstrike missile to shoot at aircraft instead.
And if anything this game doesn't need, it's more dedicated ground attack unit, save those for epic. Almost everything in 40k is a dedicated ground attack unit, they even said Skystrike missile is rare, because no one use them, and they can just use Hellstrike missile to shoot at aircraft instead.
Disagree strongly. One of the biggest strengths of AI 1.0 was its focus on realistic scenario objectives and roles for its units, and dedicated ground attack aircraft are part of that. Fluff-wise they should have minimal AA ability, and that's what the rules should represent.
Disagree strongly. One of the biggest strengths of AI 1.0 was its focus on realistic scenario objectives and roles for its units, and dedicated ground attack aircraft are part of that. Fluff-wise they should have minimal AA ability, and that's what the rules should represent.
Alright, I think looking at the new rule for too long had my memory mixed up.
The original AI isn't short of Ground attack unit for the Imperium, all of the aircrafts are or can be used as ground attack, meanwhile how many can be effective in the air? Thunderbolt, Lightning, Thunderhawk, and maybe Destroyer if you can steer the unlimited ammo turret (for some reason) to where you want to shoot. (it's dumb)
Ehh no I don't think this game need more ground attack unit, maybe attacking the ground (in an air combat game) would be more interesting if they made tiny tanks and tiny soldiers instead of fake bunker door, and called it Epic.
Chopstick wrote: The original AI isn't short of Ground attack unit for the Imperium, all of the aircrafts are or can be used as ground attack, meanwhile how many can be effective in the air? Thunderbolt, Lightning, Thunderhawk, and maybe Destroyer if you can steer the unlimited ammo turret (for some reason) to where you want to shoot. (it's dumb)
Well yes, that's the point. AI 1.0 represents how real-world air combat works, with separation between air superiority fighters and ground attack aircraft (and some multi-role aircraft/configurations that can do both). It's absolutely intended that not all units in your list are capable of engaging air targets effectively because you're supposed to be using your air superiority fighters to escort them to the ground targets that are the mission objective. Stop thinking of AI as a boring "line up your units and slaughter each other until one side is dead" and start thinking of it as a simulation of real-world air combat and tactics, where destroying enemy aircraft is just a means to an end and you can accomplish the mission without a single air to air kill.
Yodhrin wrote: I must admit that, from what I've seen on videos, for me the regular AI system provides too much freedom in how exactly you can perform your maneuver, and selecting a maneuver really limits you very slightly. I personally prefer you having to choose the full maneuver before knowing what the other player is going to do, which also handly removes the need for a IGUGO movement activation.
This is very much true. We had alot of testgames last night in our gaming club, and initially we thought that we had misread the rules. Truth ist that the Maneuvre #5 for example allows the Dakkajets to just turn in almost any direction, fly an arbitrary length from there, and then reorient in whichever way they like. Starting out somewhere aimed at the middle of the Board, they can always bring aim to bear to anywhere on the board - there is not actually any subtlety or forethought necessary, because you have 3 different directions to chose from initially, then turn around and have another 3 directions to continue on in, and both moves you can divide up whichever way you want.
Frankly its ridiculous; all use should be used on the thick arrows, or be divided as one likes on the higher maneuvres which move turn move, but: you shoulld not be allowed to divide up your movement between up to three segments. Add to that a throttle of one or two and the option to go down a level of hight and you can regularly also go as fast as you wish.
Intuitively, it feels like the Board needs to be significantly larger than the one in the Starter Box, by a very large margin - imperials find it almost impossible to get into the medium range band, and orks otoh find it trivial to stay within minimum distance.
IMO the solution to the maneuver problem is that you should have to commit to the maneuver number and which arrows you're going to use, with the only choice being at what point you execute each turn. That gives you a bit of flexibility in fine-tuning your position and keeps some advantage to moving second, but doesn't let you arbitrarily teleport to any hex on the table once your target has committed. The only problem I haven't figured out is how to track the maneuver choice since something like X-Wing's maneuver dials doesn't really have space for so many maneuvers.
Yodhrin wrote: The cards weren't any more or less "awkward" than a ruler
Disagree here. They really were more awkward because of how you had to insert the card in the middle of the measurement and line everything up correctly with cards that weren't very well suited for the job. With hexes you get most of the same functionality but with much less ambiguity in where a model is and who bumped which model how far, etc. I have some major problems with how open-ended the maneuvers are and think that it should be more like X-Wing with having to commit to a particular direction, but moving to a hex grid was a major improvement.
I honestly don't get how folk can see it that way(the awkward bit). Everything you just said also applies to rulers/tape measures, yet there's no suggestion that AT, 40K, Necromunda etc would be better games for being switched to a hex map because range measuring is just too "awkward" and unwieldy.
Also, supposedly AI 1.0 was supposed to use hexes from the beginning and the cards were an awkward workaround to cope with the fact that GW wasn't willing/able to do the hex grid maps it would require.
A lot of the original Star Wars films effects were bodge jobs and workarounds, that didn't affect my enjoyment of them, and "I'd always intended it be this way" didn't really excuse some of Lucas' more...interesting changes in the special editions. Sometimes having to abandon part of an idea you had due to external constraints results in a better end product than you'd have gotten otherwise; for me, that would apply to AI.
under the new system, the supposedly-focused-on-ground-attack Marauder Destroyer is arguably one of the best superiority fighters, because the combination of hexes functionally increasing maneuverability and unlimited ammo make it easier to keep it nose-on with even enemy fighter craft for more of the game, and it can just blaze away with all weapons continually.
That isn't a hex grid problem, it's a problem with GW's incomprehensible unit design choices for it. GW never should have removed the ground attack only rule from the Destroyer's primary weapons, and absolutely shouldn't have given it the ability to deploy ground troops (!!!) or carry AA missiles. A properly designed Destroyer is no better as an AA unit than it was in 1.0.
That change fixes the Destroyer, not the broader trend I was trying to illustrate by bringing it up(apologies if that was unclear). The base Marauder and similar larger, heavier planes still remain too maneuverable due to the compressed play space and the way moving through hexes affects your rate of turn, and too capable of engaging superiority fighters on the latter's own terms. I shudder to think what playing against nuAI Eldar is going to be like if they play up the maneuverability aspect of the faction.
Hexes also affect the feel of the game, giving much more of a boardgame flavour to proceedings. Some folk like that, but personally it's not what I'm looking for from a wargame - if I want to play boardgames, I play boardgames.
This is an odd statement to make given how many classic wargames were based on grid systems of various shapes.
Classic != widely played these days(or even vaguely recently). Literally the only hex-based wargame I've ever seen actually being played in the UK in 25 years of being in the hobby(and most of that not in GW's but clubs etc) was Battletech(who's use of hex grids was a holdover from its initial incarnation as a boardgame), and even that was uncommon. Historicals, GW games, and the games that hoovered up people frustrated with GW games were 99% of what I saw played over here, and they were all almost universally based on "freeform" systems that used widgets or rulers to measure distance and turns. Every game I've personally played that's used a map grid has been a boardgame of some description, so that's what I associate them with primarily, hence why I said it's not what I'm personally looking for from a wargame.
Peregrine wrote: IMO the solution to the maneuver problem is that you should have to commit to the maneuver number and which arrows you're going to use, with the only choice being at what point you execute each turn. That gives you a bit of flexibility in fine-tuning your position and keeps some advantage to moving second, but doesn't let you arbitrarily teleport to any hex on the table once your target has committed. The only problem I haven't figured out is how to track the maneuver choice since something like X-Wing's maneuver dials doesn't really have space for so many maneuvers.
no, the solution is that you must use all your movement on the long arrows inbetween the start and end hex, or in the high maneuvres which have starthex, inbetween hex, endhex and two long arrows inbetween, then you are permitted to distribute it as you wish. From the Endhex, the short arrow should ONLY indicate your possibilities for final orientation - but NEVER permit to keep moving to use "unused" movement".
Peregrine wrote: IMO the solution to the maneuver problem is that you should have to commit to the maneuver number and which arrows you're going to use, with the only choice being at what point you execute each turn. That gives you a bit of flexibility in fine-tuning your position and keeps some advantage to moving second, but doesn't let you arbitrarily teleport to any hex on the table once your target has committed. The only problem I haven't figured out is how to track the maneuver choice since something like X-Wing's maneuver dials doesn't really have space for so many maneuvers.
no, the solution is that you must use all your movement on the long arrows inbetween the start and end hex, or in the high maneuvres which have starthex, inbetween hex, endhex and two long arrows inbetween, then you are permitted to distribute it as you wish. From the Endhex, the short arrow should ONLY indicate your possibilities for final orientation - but NEVER permit to keep moving to use "unused" movement".
Disagree strongly. That makes the maneuver system really awkward since there are a lot of maneuvers that you can't perform anymore but does nothing to fix the problem of not having to commit to a maneuver until after your target moves. Even if the turn is always in the final hex you still have your choice of which bold arrow to move along initially and which facing to set at the end of the maneuver. You can still make the choice between "go left, end facing backwards" and "go right, facing forwards" depending on what your target does. And that's way too much freedom allowed from a system that is supposed to make you commit to your move before you see what your target is doing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: I honestly don't get how folk can see it that way(the awkward bit). Everything you just said also applies to rulers/tape measures, yet there's no suggestion that AT, 40K, Necromunda etc would be better games for being switched to a hex map because range measuring is just too "awkward" and unwieldy.
The only reason those games wouldn't work is that they have the vertical element represented by actual model position and not by abstract elevation stats. You can't play 40k on a hex grid because the terrain prevents you from using the hexes. If you magically create a hex map that can overlay onto terrain then yes, 40k would benefit immensely from using one.
That change fixes the Destroyer, not the broader trend I was trying to illustrate by bringing it up(apologies if that was unclear). The base Marauder and similar larger, heavier planes still remain too maneuverable due to the compressed play space and the way moving through hexes affects your rate of turn, and too capable of engaging superiority fighters on the latter's own terms. I shudder to think what playing against nuAI Eldar is going to be like if they play up the maneuverability aspect of the faction.
But, again:
1) This isn't a hex grid issue. The hex grid represents the same maneuvers that you can do with the old cards. In fact, the hex grid makes aircraft less maneuverable because you have to move in full-hex increments instead of arbitrary fractions of an inch. If any aircraft have ended up being more maneuverable it's only because GW did the equivalent of taking the old cards and adding several new position options to each card (and then giving bombers access to 2-3 more cards). If you translate the old cards directly to the hex grid you eliminate this problem.
2) The maneuverability of large aircraft only really matters because GW screwed up their stats. Who cares if a bomber gets a bit more maneuverable if all of its weapons except for weak defensive turrets (which don't really care about position anyway) are literally unable to shoot at other aircraft? Put the air to ground rule back on the Destroyer's primary weapons and it is no longer engaging air superiority fighters effectively.
Yodhrin wrote: I honestly don't get how folk can see it that way(the awkward bit). Everything you just said also applies to rulers/tape measures, yet there's no suggestion that AT, 40K, Necromunda etc would be better games for being switched to a hex map because range measuring is just too "awkward" and unwieldy.
It likely would.
As a long time BTech player, I can tell you that hex maps take the ambiguity out of measurement. There's no possible argument over moving something a little too close if everything is done with hexes. In BTech movement, range and LOS is binary. You either are or you aren't. There's no middle ground with mis-measuring or true LOS or any of that nonsense.
Chopstick wrote: Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?
That sounds like BS to me, because at the moment the biggest board they’ve released is 3x3, but bases have grown so a 3x3 now would have probably been a 2x2 back with the original AI bases. A 2x2 poster doesn’t cost much to print, even as a 1 off if you aren’t shifting enough to buy bulk.
Maybe if they release an 8x4 board I might believe that.
Chopstick wrote: Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?
That sounds like BS to me, because at the moment the biggest board they’ve released is 3x3, but bases have grown so a 3x3 now would have probably been a 2x2 back with the original AI bases. A 2x2 poster doesn’t cost much to print, even as a 1 off if you aren’t shifting enough to buy bulk.
Maybe if they release an 8x4 board I might believe that.
But they've already admitted that the starter set board is not a full-size board, and it's (supposedly, I didn't buy the starter set) cheap paper that won't last more than a game or two. To properly support the game you need to commit to higher quality full table sized hex grids and that's a much more expensive item that GW can't produce in their own factory.
Well yes, that's the point. AI 1.0 represents how real-world air combat works,
I knew this would bring up, in real world they develop a lot of variations of interceptor(and other thing),this game isn't heavily favor ground attack craft because it's realistic, it's because they were from 40k/epic, which is a ground combat game.
However these realistic combat knowledge didn't apply for the other. Tau seem doing fine shooting at aircraft with the Ion cannon (on their hulky aircraft) and unguide missile. Most of Tau and Eldar weapon don't suffer from the "ground attack" curse, so they can both be an air or ground attack crafts.
Chopstick wrote: Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?
That sounds like BS to me, because at the moment the biggest board they’ve released is 3x3, but bases have grown so a 3x3 now would have probably been a 2x2 back with the original AI bases. A 2x2 poster doesn’t cost much to print, even as a 1 off if you aren’t shifting enough to buy bulk.
Maybe if they release an 8x4 board I might believe that.
But they've already admitted that the starter set board is not a full-size board, and it's (supposedly, I didn't buy the starter set) cheap paper that won't last more than a game or two. To properly support the game you need to commit to higher quality full table sized hex grids and that's a much more expensive item that GW can't produce in their own factory.
The 3x3 board I was talking about was the Rynn's world board which is the bigger board that GW sells separately.
The starter set board is only 2.5x2.5.
That's why I reckon it sounds like BS, saying they couldn't make a big enough board 12 years ago when to make an equivalent sized board to what they've released now would have only been 2x2'.
(granted I think even 3x3 is too small and I'll be buying a 6x4 mouse mat style board at some stage, 3x3 is the best GW has given us so far)
Most my criticism of the current incarnation of AI is because I REALLY want it to do well so that it actually gets expanded. At the end of the day I can go back and play with my old planes using my old rulebooks and even make up my own rules to play by (though unfortunately I don't have an Imperial squadron in old scale ). But it'll be so much nicer if enough people pick up AI that I can go down to the local gaming shop and play a game.
Chopstick wrote: I knew this would bring up, in real world they develop a lot of variations of interceptor(and other thing),this game isn't heavily favor ground attack craft because it's realistic, it's because they were from 40k/epic, which is a ground combat game.
Where are you getting the idea that the game heavily favors ground attack aircraft? Every faction in AI 1.0 had air superiority fighters in addition to the ground attack aircraft. The game had ground attack aircraft because that's the role those units had fluff-wise and it fit with the realistic objective-based scenario design.
However these realistic combat knowledge didn't apply for the other. Tau seem doing fine shooting at aircraft with the Ion cannon (on their hulky aircraft) and unguide missile. Most of Tau and Eldar weapon don't suffer from the "ground attack" curse, so they can both be an air or ground attack crafts.
I'm not sure where you get this idea from. The primary Tau bomber (Tigershark AX-1-0) has the air to ground rule on its main weapon. I'll grant that Eldar get to cheat and shoot aircraft with their "bombers", but they're more like oversized fighters than true bombers and pay an extremely high point cost for it.
Well yes, that's the point. AI 1.0 represents how real-world air combat works,
I knew this would bring up, in real world they develop a lot of variations of interceptor(and other thing),this game isn't heavily favor ground attack craft because it's realistic, it's because they were from 40k/epic, which is a ground combat game.
However these realistic combat knowledge didn't apply for the other. Tau seem doing fine shooting at aircraft with the Ion cannon (on their hulky aircraft) and unguide missile. Most of Tau and Eldar weapon don't suffer from the "ground attack" curse, so they can both be an air or ground attack crafts.
Old AI wasn't linked to 40k/epic rules, so I don't really get what you mean by that.
I never played Tau, but I considered Eldar a special case where they make their aircraft so manoeuvrable that even their bomber aircraft are competent fighters. Looking at the Tau rules (remembering I've never actually played with them) it seems that fixed guns on bombers were also "ground attack" weapons, the ones that weren't look like turrets or drones? If they did have big fixed guns on slow moving aircraft they probably should have been made ground attack too.
But it makes zero sense that a Marauder destroyer would be a better fighter than a Thunderbolt. Maybe a better rule would be to make the Marauder guns -1 to hit against aerial targets or some such. On the flip side Eldar aircraft could be +1 to hit to represent their manoeuvrability.
If there's one gripe I have it's that manoeuvrability doesn't really mean much.
Manchu, in the Aeronautica Imperialis 2019 group people mentioned you can pop the bases open by just rotating a small flat had screw driver in the slot, or even with a fingernail. Apparently they're not glued
Haven't tried mine yet but have seen quite a few where it's done, and looks easy enough
I decided to pop a spare base open and it can be done with some care by gently popping a tweezer or screwdriver into the sides where the dials stick out. I tried pushing through the middle, but that didn't really work for me.
But yeah, they are not glued together, pic of the interior of the base, for those interested:
Albertorius wrote: Funny, I didn't think the holes of the disks would be hexagonal...
It minimises contact points so you can specify a close fit (so the dials are held by friction) but still actually be able to rotate the dial. The hexagonal shape is pretty arbitrary though; any regular polygon should work but I expect there’s some calculated trade-off between the fit and how difficult it makes the mould.
WholeHazelNuts wrote: In case anyone was wondering about the scale of the new system... here's my old AI with my new AI...
Interesting that the old Foregworld 'Eavy Bommer is the right size to be a Fighta Bommer now.
And the Lightning is tiny compared to the Thunderbolt.
Thanks! I had heard 30% bigger. Then I saw a scale pic difference online and decided to skip this one. I will just keep building and using my old stuff for now and see what happens with the game.
BrookM wrote: I decided to pop a spare base open and it can be done with some care by gently popping a tweezer or screwdriver into the sides where the dials stick out. I tried pushing through the middle, but that didn't really work for me.
But yeah, they are not glued together, pic of the interior of the base, for those interested:
BrookM wrote: I decided to pop a spare base open and it can be done with some care by gently popping a tweezer or screwdriver into the sides where the dials stick out. I tried pushing through the middle, but that didn't really work for me.
But yeah, they are not glued together, pic of the interior of the base, for those interested:
Thanks Brook, very helpful!
Ditto, figured they wouldnt be too much trouble. Thanks
Any speculation on when the first gamemat with AI19 hexes will be out. I kinda wish that GW would use neoprene instead of card stock.
Stormonu wrote: “Rynn’s world” - isn’t that the home world of the Crimson Fists?
Also, out of pure curiosity, how do these scale to Wings of Glory/Wings of War And X-Wing miniatures?
Yup, that is indeed the homeworld of the CF chapter. I'm pretty sure this has to do with the Battle for Rynn's world, likely in the immediate aftermath of the CF monastery getting nuked by their own warhead.
Yeah, Rynn’s World is a weird one; technically it’s a Space Marine recruitment world and therefore not subject to the Pax Imperium, but it also has a full Imperial Governor as head of state, separate from the Chapter Master. So it raises PDF and may even pay Imperial taxes, and therefore has a Navy presence in addition to the Chapter fleet.
All of which means the Ork invasion should have been stopped cold but…
Anyway, the Rynn’s World air campaign was IN vs. OAW despite the Marine presence more than because of them. Don’t blow up your own base guys. The More You Know
The campaign book is quite nice. It covers about 60/40 the initial defense, and then the reconquest. The fluff portion could be just a little larger, IMHO.
I wish they'd do a few more color-plates of the forces serving in the conflict. Seeing some better examples of the RynnsGuard air-arm would be nice.
I'm looking forward to the next one, though! The background always gives me more motivation to finish a project.
That would have been cool to see some alternate color palettes. Regarding the actual painting - it seems like a lot of things the community has done is a more impressive, and I don't usually feel that way about GW studio schemes (usually the studio scheme puts most others to shame, for me).
Heard the same at my store last week, most of it will be moving back to the webstore soon, as most stores just don't have the space for all of AI's stuff.
tneva82 wrote:Likely just store not finding much success with the sales so getting rid of the game for good there rather than taking space from shelves.
The bloke in the store claimed it had been selling well (not the most trust worthy of sources of course). Sold out of their initial supply of starter sets and destroyers. Of course another (non-GW, independent) store decided to not even carry AI.
Also it was only the board and the ground assets and maybe the cards. The other stuff was still on the normal shelves.
GoatboyBeta wrote:Probably moving to website only. Shelf space is always at a premium in stores.
Yeah probably, though this was a pretty large store in terms of foot print, their shelves weren't crammed super tight like some other GW stores.
I miss the days when GW would carry most of their range in stores. Back in those days I impulse bought a lot of stuff, these days I don't because I have to then plan my next Saturday around getting to GW to pick up my order.
WholeHazelNuts wrote: In case anyone was wondering about the scale of the new system... here's my old AI with my new AI...
Interesting that the old Foregworld 'Eavy Bommer is the right size to be a Fighta Bommer now.
And the Lightning is tiny compared to the Thunderbolt.
Thanks! I had heard 30% bigger. Then I saw a scale pic difference online and decided to skip this one. I will just keep building and using my old stuff for now and see what happens with the game.
I had an old marauder destroyer. Put it next to the new one.
So what’s next in the release pipe line or is that it for a while. Was eyeing this up in a Warhammer store a couple of weeks ago and think the wife was making mental notes for Xmas.
Are they planning to expand the orks and imperial lines or add other races.
xKillGorex wrote: So what’s next in the release pipe line or is that it for a while. Was eyeing this up in a Warhammer store a couple of weeks ago and think the wife was making mental notes for Xmas.
Are they planning to expand the orks and imperial lines or add other races.
3 more factions, Ork eavy bommer, and probably another imperial craft soon
BrookM wrote: The Grot Bommer is not until November, this was mentioned in a previous article some time ago.
They also didn't mention the existence of the Marauder Destroyer (not even in the Wings of Vengeance, because it only cover what's in the box) up until the pre-order preview.
They also claimed the other factions will get release quickly given me the impression that they will be done with Ork leftover and move on to the next factions in 2020 instead of dragging this, now I reckon that we'll see Grot Bommer in q1 2020, then hopefully it's new faction??? Or it go back to Q2 Lightning, Q3 Valkirie, Q4 Vulture into 2021.
Hopefully it'll be at least 2 kits per quarter in 2020.
Damnit, I want grot bommerz now!!!!!!! The 'eavy bommerz do look cool tho and cant wait to add them to B'rron Boomshakalaka's WAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!
In case you didn't notice there're goblin/grot manning the dorsal turret, you can see their green nose sticking out. This is probably the first ever appearance of AT-scale infantry
Chopstick wrote: In case you didn't notice there're goblin/grot manning the dorsal turret, you can see their green nose sticking out. This is probably the first ever appearance of AT-scale infantry
I was a little disappointed that none of the Dakkajets had open cockpits, missed a trick with that one.
I still have a couple of the old AI bommers that had an Ork hanging out the cargo bay randomly throwing bombs out. I doubt they will, but doing something like that again would be very cool.
The Bommers are up on the New Zealand webstore for preorder. Looks like they’re a more expensive kit than the other AI sets, not sure why they would be given they don’t look any bigger than the Destroyers and are still just 2 sprues.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Bommers are up on the New Zealand webstore for preorder. Looks like they’re a more expensive kit than the other AI sets, not sure why they would be given they don’t look any bigger than the Destroyers and are still just 2 sprues.
Look like 2 full size sprue.
On the other note Rokkit and bombs's design seem to be the same as one in Fighta Bommerz kit.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Bommers are up on the New Zealand webstore for preorder. Looks like they’re a more expensive kit than the other AI sets, not sure why they would be given they don’t look any bigger than the Destroyers and are still just 2 sprues.
Do the AI models feel "worth it" for their asking price? Are they fun to build? How easy would they be to hack apart and rebuilt, because for all the claimed options on the GW site the two models shown are way to same-y. Eavy Bommers might push me over the edge for AI, but the local GWs and FLGS didn't even have AI models to advertise them, so I have no real idea of their clarity of detail and for size only internet comparison pics (often from this thread). I did finally get to see an AT knight, though!
It's very much a case of YMMV. Some kits are well worth it and some aren't for me.
I got both the Marauder Destroyer and Fighta-Bommer kits yesterday and whilst the F-B kit is worth it due to all the extra bits included (rokkits, bombs of both sizes and gun pods), the Destroyers didn't, missing the bombs and missiles you want to stick under the wings. Thankfully I had enough spares from a box of Thunderbolts, but it's not something that should be missing from the box IMHO.
I've personally only gotten the orks, and while I'd love a few more extras, I definitely think they're worth it. Working on turning my Dakkajets into biplanes and due to the nature of orks they seem ripe for conversions in general.
I do agree that, from what I've seen, the Imperial options are more limited... it's part of the reason I've held off on them, hoping to wait for another of the factions to pair off against my greenskins.
Including bombs and missile would increase to sprue size and jacking the price up to 50 like the Eavy Bomber.. I'll take the 10$ saved over bombs and missiles anyday.
In a long run when more aircrafts are introduced and they also had to take missile and bombs from thunderbolt kit, maybe that'd be a problem. Right now, not much.
RiTides wrote: I've personally only gotten the orks, and while I'd love a few more extras, I definitely think they're worth it. Working on turning my Dakkajets into biplanes and due to the nature of orks they seem ripe for conversions in general.
I do agree that, from what I've seen, the Imperial options are more limited... it's part of the reason I've held off on them, hoping to wait for another of the factions to pair off against my greenskins.
I'd need two forces because otherwise it'd never see play instead of "most likely never see play", so I I might have to start with the problematic starter. I vastly prefer the Orks -though some Vendettas might change that - and 3 dakkajets seems low. 9 seem a bit much and I'd want the Eavy Bommers, too, so a box of everything plus bigger map is too much to start out, starter plus fightas plus Eavy Bommers is also €€€ intensive. Maybe I'll get some from ebay.
Or get to 9 in a couple of months , cause I'd need a A-10, an X- Wing and a F-16 fighta for sure as "fun" models and some regular ones, of course. Grot Bombs, too, but until they release I might slap some together from 40k bits and the guns with grots.
If Eldar were out I'd have no choice but to get a Hemlock fighter wing.
Yeah, the starter set numbers are a bit weird and can lead to odd amounts when tossing in regular kits. Unless you do Fighta-bommers, one can never have enough of those!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Bommers are up on the New Zealand webstore for preorder. Looks like they’re a more expensive kit than the other AI sets, not sure why they would be given they don’t look any bigger than the Destroyers and are still just 2 sprues.
Do the AI models feel "worth it" for their asking price? Are they fun to build? How easy would they be to hack apart and rebuilt, because for all the claimed options on the GW site the two models shown are way to same-y. Eavy Bommers might push me over the edge for AI, but the local GWs and FLGS didn't even have AI models to advertise them, so I have no real idea of their clarity of detail and for size only internet comparison pics (often from this thread). I did finally get to see an AT knight, though!
I think they are worth it for me, but it's pretty subjective. They're well made kits, pretty good detail, go together easily. The only seams I felt I needed to deal with after gluing them together were the ones on the Dakkajets, because the line where the two halves come together stands out a bit, other than that they're pretty nice.
That said, purely as a kit, I don't think they're worth it in the sense other manufacturers (like Eduard for example, who mostly make low volume kits that are more expensive than the likes of Revell or Airfix) make 1/144 scale aircraft that are similar quality (better in some ways worse in others) that actually come with clear plastic canopies and are also cheaper.
BUT, those kits are historic models, not 40k, so if you want 40k models that you can play a game with, that adds some value to the GW kits (though there are a few rulesets out there for playing with historic models too).
I ordered the starter yesterday, though a pic of the fighter wing made of "just" a box of dakkajets and fighta-bommas each on the GW page made me think hard on going the individual boxes route, though. Ten planes allow for two different colour schemes right off the bat, but I'm growing fond of the Thunderbolts as well and three boxes, big map and Rynn book to test it out felt a bit much.
Got a slight urge to turn a scale model carrier into a Ork heli carrier now. Or a trukk/battlewagon into a giant land-based carrier vehicle. I blame the Deff Skwadron.
That said, purely as a kit, I don't think they're worth it in the sense other manufacturers (like Eduard for example, who mostly make low volume kits that are more expensive than the likes of Revell or Airfix) make 1/144 scale aircraft that are similar quality (better in some ways worse in others) that actually come with clear plastic canopies and are also cheaper.
I have the 2006 1/144 Edguard ME 262 on the sprue and the quality is absolutely NOT on par with GW, by a long shot. Extremely shallow panel line, shallow canon hole, flat and lack rivet mark on most part, the wheel is smooth with no texture, same for the chair and the interior cockpit is also flat and lack detail, the mold had error, thus create a hole in the pilot chair.
GW kit had both rivet, and bolt mark, while also had deep panel line. and it wouldn't be hard for them to make the Me 262 nose into multiple piece so they can have a very deep hole for the cannons.
That said, purely as a kit, I don't think they're worth it in the sense other manufacturers (like Eduard for example, who mostly make low volume kits that are more expensive than the likes of Revell or Airfix) make 1/144 scale aircraft that are similar quality (better in some ways worse in others) that actually come with clear plastic canopies and are also cheaper.
I have the 2006 1/144 Edguard ME 262 on the sprue and the quality is absolutely NOT on par with GW, by a long shot. Extremely shallow panel line, shallow canon hole, flat and lack rivet mark on most part, the wheel is smooth with no texture, same for the chair and the interior cockpit is also flat and lack detail, the mold had error, thus create a hole in the pilot chair.
GW kit had both rivet, and bolt mark, while also had deep panel line. and it wouldn't be hard for them to make the Me 262 nose into multiple piece so they can have a very deep hole for the cannons.
I haven't seen the 2006 release of the 262, I've seen the 2012 release of the Spitfire and thought it was pretty good, maybe they improved over that time, 2006 is 13 years ago now, models have come a long way in that time. At this scale you don't really need an interior at all, but a clear canopy is still nice (you just paint the interior and give it a wash, you can't really see what's going on inside the cockpit anyway).
As I said, better in some ways, worse in others. I'd rather have a clear canopy and no interior (you can still always just paint the canopy in) than GW's only option where you're forced to paint it.
As for panel lines, at this scale panel lines should be as fine as possible on a historic kit, and rivet detail is absurd at 1/144 let alone the 1/200-ish that the AI models should be. It's arguable whether 1/48 and 1/32 aircraft kits should have rivet detail as they'd still be so small you'd barely see them if they were properly scaled, let alone 100th+ scale models. Just think about how big the panel lines are on the AI kits, maybe 0.5 to 1mm large? At 1/200 that means in real life the panel gaps would be 4 to 8 inches wide and deep It's fine for a GW model to have such comical features, but historic kits need to balance shoving a lot of detail on to the kit with making them look unrealistic.
But as I said in my previous post, I don't think the GW kits are bad, in fact I said I thought they were pretty good.... but I think for the level of quality you get the price is still pretty bad, but if you want 40k planes they're your only option.
The footnotes imply Albia is Britain when it's Albania and the best Legion recruited from there. I hope the Ordo Cartographicus is on the case
Eldar would be lovely*, but depending on the actual Thunderbolt models and if I'll be gifted a box of Dakkajets I might end up with expanded Imperial Navy *and* Orks before too long and maybe should just have gotten individual boxes in the first place. First they have to make their way across the channel. though, pretty slow planes if they left Monday and still aren't here.
*Hemlocks vs. Vultures would not be fair, but really pretty to look at.
Elbows wrote: Actually 'Albion' is an alternative name for Great Britain, used in old timey poetry, etc. That's probably the 'Albia' connection.
Albia is one of the Techno-barbarian Empires on Old Terra, it's part of the North Atlan basin and where the ancient poet Shakespire comes from apparently.
The footnotes imply Albia is Britain when it's Albania and the best Legion recruited from there. I hope the Ordo Cartographicus is on the case
Eldar would be lovely*, but depending on the actual Thunderbolt models and if I'll be gifted a box of Dakkajets I might end up with expanded Imperial Navy *and* Orks before too long and maybe should just have gotten individual boxes in the first place. First they have to make their way across the channel. though, pretty slow planes if they left Monday and still aren't here.
*Hemlocks vs. Vultures would not be fair, but really pretty to look at.
I still say the best approach is two starters. Gives full squadrons of everything with enough discount that any superflous Marauders are free anyway.
The footnotes imply Albia is Britain when it's Albania and the best Legion recruited from there. I hope the Ordo Cartographicus is on the case
Eldar would be lovely*, but depending on the actual Thunderbolt models and if I'll be gifted a box of Dakkajets I might end up with expanded Imperial Navy *and* Orks before too long and maybe should just have gotten individual boxes in the first place. First they have to make their way across the channel. though, pretty slow planes if they left Monday and still aren't here.
*Hemlocks vs. Vultures would not be fair, but really pretty to look at.
I still say the best approach is two starters. Gives full squadrons of everything with enough discount that any superflous Marauders are free anyway.
One of my main gripes with the AI release is how every option seems like a bad option. You can buy 2 starter sets and that gives you the most planes per dollar, but you end up with more marauders than you'll want and once you subtract off the value of them, you might as well have bought them separately (I still haven't even built the 2 extra Marauders I got in my 2nd boxed set). You get 2 rulebooks which you can share with a friend, but still it's an incomplete rulebook and you'll want to get the Rynn's World one. You get 2 hex poster gaming areas, but they're really too small to be useful and even if you combine them next to each other you end up with a really narrow table.
There just doesn't seem any way to get value out of the AI release, no matter which way you look you aren't saving much money and don't feel like you're getting a good deal.
Still, I like me some tiny planes so I've dropped way too much money on AI But it makes it hard to convince my friends to get in on it when there's nothing I can point to and say "that's a good deal, start there".
I like this one more than the eavy bommer, might get a set if it costs the same.
Unfortunately the card play board sold out on the US site. If they can't keep a playable surface for this game in stock when it 100% needs one to even play it then that is a bad sign. I know people are going to say use 3rd party mats but that won't fly when my LGS is a GW.
That looks so sweet!! Much better than the Eavy Bommer, imo. Hopefully it comes with 4 grot bombs, if not I'll just have to kitbash some from other bits.
Thargrim wrote: I like this one more than the eavy bommer, might get a set if it costs the same.
Unfortunately the card play board sold out on the US site. If they can't keep a playable surface for this game in stock when it 100% needs one to even play it then that is a bad sign. I know people are going to say use 3rd party mats but that won't fly when my LGS is a GW.
it is a double edged sword, if it's sold out due to higher than expected demand, that's a good thing. If it's due to under producing to ensure not being left with unsold merchandise(for a new system no less) then it is wrong.
I really like the grot bommer and will most likely grabbing some (when budget allows..damn Sororitas)in the future.
they really need to get a move on to the other factions before it loses steam.
). But it'll be so much nicer if enough people pick up AI that I can go down to the local gaming shop and play a game.
