Flakk missiles are a 10 ppm upgrade to a missile launcher.

They have AP 4.

In practice, this means that they only ever get to shoot down flying AV.

It's not even worth it to shoot at flyrants or daemon princes. They can basically just fly around all game with complete impunity if flakk missiles are your primary source of AA (and there's no reason why they shouldn't be; that's what they're for).

This gets super annoying against flyrants with twin-linked devourers. Because then you have an almost impossible to kill model that will score roughly 10 hits per round on the devourers alone, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Ditto for flying daemon princes with witchfire attacks.

So in addition to FMCs being practically impossible to kill, it also means that those flakk missiles may as well not even have an AP value most of the time. Sure, it'll strip armor from 4+ armor FMCs.

But how many people are using those?

Proposal:

Cap flying FMCs at 4+ armor. At least then they'll have to jink. You could even give them skilled rider of some such nonsense.

This would make BOTH make flakk missiles more worthwhile AND make flying MCs less of a giant pain in the rear.

Nah. I do think it should be common practice to have them at 4+, but certainly not cap them at it.

Flyrants are tough buggers, to be sure... But they're one of the few things that can claim that in the Nids' Codex. So maybe nerf them, after you buff the rest of the codex.

As for the Princes, you're saying WITCHFIRES-the worst psychic powers in the game-make them a threat? Trust me, if witchfires are ruining your day, your opponent either rolls insanely well or you have terrible tactics. Princes are CC monsters, not shooting platforms.

Why does any FMC need a 3+ or better armor?

With 4+ armor, the chances of causing an unsaved wound on a 4+ FMC with T6 with an S6, AP null shot without skyfire is 1 in 24.

It would take, on average, 72 bolter shots to cause a single wound on a flyrant if it had 4+ armor.

3+ armor means that they're basically immune to flakk missiles...which are SPECIFICALLY FOR AA.

Flakk missiles aren't the only AA gun in the game so shouldn't be the baseline used to claim a whole unit type needs a rules change

3+ Save =/= immune. It means resistant.

And if you'll notice, a good deal of Nids FMCs do have 4+ armor. The Flyrant (the big bad? the head honcho? the best around?) just happens to have a 3+.

And I don't see why you're bringing bolters into this. Bolters aren't that different with a 3+ as with a 4+. (108 as opposed to 72 shots to do a wound-either way, not efficient in the slightest).

And Flakk Missiles are hardly useless. Compare them to Krak against a Flyrant:

Flakk hits on 3s, wounds on 3s, with a 3+ save-6.75 shots to a wound.
Krak hits on 6s, wounds on 2s, with no save-7.2 shots to a wound.

Flakk is more efficient assuming no jinking-add a jink to the equation, and you're looking at it being more than twice as good. The numbers actually improve against the Prince (wounding on 2s for both, instead of 3s and 2s, so Flakk only needs 5.4 shots to do a wound, while Krak still needs 7.2).

Edit: Oh, and FNP further tips the favor in Flakk missiles.

MWA HA HA H NO....

You having the habit of using crappy anti air missiles should not force all monsters in the universe to have a poor armour save. How space marine centric or even Traditio centric do you want the game to be ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I use shoota's to shoot down marines should all power armour be capped at a 6+ sv ?

No. But for fluff reasons they should have their rules significantly adjusted. They should keep their immunity to assault when in flyer mode, but get shorter movement distance (9-18" IMO, shorter than true aircraft but a bit faster than walking MCs) and lose the "snap shots only" rule. These are giant lumbering birds, not fighter jets coming in on a strafing run at 200+ mph. They should have the improved mobility of a flying beast, but they shouldn't be any harder to hit than any other huge and slow target.

OZ:

That's not at all comparable. What would be comparable is me saying:

"You know, the average result, assuming melta distance, for a to-penetrate roll for a meltagun is a 15 (S8 + average 7 on 2d6). Maybe there shouldn't be AV 16 vehicles.

And I'm not saying that all MCs should have a "poor" armor save (a 4+ isn't poor if you compare it to the rest of the game).

I'm specifically saying that flying MCs should be capped at 4+ armor. Not all MCs. Just flying ones. You know, the ones that most weapons in the game can't reliably hit.

You say that I have a habit of using "crappy anti-air missiles."

I ask: why are they crappy?

You'll answer: because they don't do their jobs well.

I'll ask: why not?

You'll answer, I assume, agreeing with me: because most serious FMCs have 3+.

Should flakk missiles be crappy? Or should they actually fulfill their intended purposes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
No. But for fluff reasons they should have their rules significantly adjusted. They should keep their immunity to assault when in flyer mode, but get shorter movement distance (9-18" IMO, shorter than true aircraft but a bit faster than walking MCs) and lose the "snap shots only" rule. These are giant lumbering birds, not fighter jets coming in on a strafing run at 200+ mph. They should have the improved mobility of a flying beast, but they shouldn't be any harder to hit than any other huge and slow target.

I could get behind this.

 Traditio wrote:
You'll answer, I assume, agreeing with me: because most serious FMCs have 3+.

Also because they're bad at killing vehicle flyers compared to other AA units. Flak missiles are an act of desperation, not the standard by which everything should be balanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
You'll answer, I assume, agreeing with me: because most serious FMCs have 3+.

Also because they're bad at killing vehicle flyers compared to other AA units. Flak missiles are an act of desperation, not the standard by which everything should be balanced.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. AV runs anywhere from 10-12 for flying vehicles (so far as I'm aware), meaning that the average d6 result I need is anywhere from a 3-5 to glance. If I have a devastator squad with flakk, and you have an AV 12 flier, there's a good chance that you'll be jinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I use imperial fists chapter tactics. AV 12 fliers don't scare me.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree with this. AV runs anywhere from 10-12 for flying vehicles (so far as I'm aware), meaning that the average d6 result I need is anywhere from a 3-5 to glance. If I have a devastator squad with flakk, and you have an AV 12 flier, there's a good chance that you'll be jinking.

Yes, there's a good chance that I'll be jinking because there's a good chance I'd be going back into reserve to set up a better attack next turn anyway. But that's about all you can expect to get. Against AV 12 your devastator squad gets 4 shots with a 3+ to hit, a 5+ to glance/pen, and a 4+ cover save. That's an average of 0.4444 HP taken off, which translates to your devastator squad probably shooting at a flyer for an entire game and still failing to kill it. A weapon where the best you can reasonably expect to achieve is moderately annoying the enemy is a pretty good definition of "act of desperation", especially at the ridiculous cost of flak missiles.

Interestingly lascannons firing snap shots still get you 0.2222 HP per devastator squad, probably accomplish the same result of getting the target to jink, and are far better than the missile launchers against every other target type. Flak missiles are trash.

Quad guns on aegis lines are str7 ap4

Same issue.

No, but the 3+ armor ones should probably cost a lot more.

FMCs would be more balanced if ground-based AA was less terrible. Let people buy Velocity Trackers for Razorbacks (this isn't a concrete proposal, an actual solution would include more vehicles and likely something more limited than the actual Tau item) and tough FMCs are suddenly a lot less durable/skewey.

(And the most powerful FMCs tend to rely on 2+ Inv/Cover anyway)

4+ armor is crap armor with over 50% of army's are in power armor
A better fix is lower the cost of flack to 2 points a model
But the idea is GW wants to sell AA units make flack to good and why get AA

Oldmike wrote:
4+ armor is crap armor with over 50% of army's are in power armor
A better fix is lower the cost of flack to 2 points a model
But the idea is GW wants to sell AA units make flack to good and why get AA

Just make 3+ armor flyers more expensive.

Naaris wrote:
Quad guns on aegis lines are str7 ap4

Same issue.

The Quad Gun doesn't take up a Heavy Support slot (if you are concerned about that sorta thing) but it also comes with a Defense Line, which means it is doing more than just failing to kill an air opponent.

just fix FMC rules. The layers of BS you have to go through to hurt them is just silly. Hard to hit rule should not exist for FMC.

Here is where all your suggestions fall apart traditio.

What does what equipment they have have to do with their armor save?

Your argument isn't based on the relative lower armor values of flying vehicles vs vehicles. It's that something that hurt you a bunch in games should be weaker.

You fail to take into account other factors. Like maybe Nid fliers need to be a little bit tougher to maintain a little bit of staying power because it's the only source of AA nids have.

Consider that their fliers could be killed easier by both ground forces AND enemy fliers while the nids only answer to enemy fliers is PURELY their own fliers. My understanding is that demons are mostly in the same boat.

These units do not exist in a bubble. They are not a single entity that needs to be balanced against single entities. They are part of an army and they help provide the army with the ability to function against other armys. (not that the game is balanced well)

The Flyrant needs to be less good, and the rest of the codex more good.

Martel732 wrote:
The Flyrant needs to be less good, and the rest of the codex more good.

I agree with that. My idea was to reduce the cost of Hive tyrants by about the cost of wings (walkrants are over costed). Make wings replace a pair of scything talons (now flyrants can only bring 1 pair of tldwblw and would need to use a thorax swarm to fire 2 weapons in a turn). I think that should basically fix them.

Hormagaunts and termagants should 100% be beasts. And put hormagaunts back up to WS 4.

Just b.c they are Strong against a Few things doesn't mean we need to nerf them so you feel better about what your bringing in your list. They have different Counters to them, heck bolters can hurt them. Also if they do take a wound every turn they have to take a grounding test.


Stop QQing b.c you dont want to add AA in your list other than a couple Assault 1 Missiles FOR 10pts!!! and expect that 10pts to kill a 280pt model with a couple shots


What you are asking is equivalent to me saying "My DE cant hurt knights so Knights should get wounded against Haywire on a 4+ instead of a 6"

Instead I would take more Lances (Not HWB) and maybe my fliers so they cant shoot at them.

EDIT: He isnt just talking about Flyrants, he said all FMC. Honestly FMC arnt thatgood, its the additional rules (like the Daemons 2+ Invul save) should be toned down, Flyrants are nearly 300pts. SM can take 3 Storm Ravens just like nids can bring 3 Flyrants, the point is 90% the players DONT make a counter to Air units.

As a Nid player I have faced against 3 Storm Raven army lists MANY times (We have a BA player that loves playing them) And honestly with 5 MC he still wins 50% the time easily.

" heck bolters can hurt them"

No, they really can't. It's mathematically possible, yes, but so unlikely as to not be a pratical consideration. No one has 500 bolter shots laying around to get into statistically meaningful chances.

Stormravens are overcosted trash, however. They are especially awful with Death from the Skies.

Martel732 wrote:
" heck bolters can hurt them"

No, they really can't. It's mathematically possible, yes, but so unlikely as to not be a pratical consideration. No one has 500 bolter shots laying around to get into statistically meaningful chances.

Stormravens are overcosted trash, however. They are especially awful with Death from the Skies.

Hurting and killing are 2 different things. You need to remove 1 wound? Go for it.

The point is most guns can hurt them. Most FMC are 280-340pts. Trying to kill 300pts with 20 points a turn is a stupid idea.

Nerfing something b.c you dont want to change your list is stupid too. The game is balanced when you TALK to your opponent first. If they are Nids or Daemons then you know there is a very good chance of 2-4 FMC.

You dont have to play storm ravens tho, there are many AA options and Other AA fliers (Now there are other AA fliers)

EDIT: FMC can be hurt with blasts and templates if that unit has Skyfire. Again there are other options stop QQing b.c you dont want to take those options .

.

Watch out , we have a strong minority of YES !

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" heck bolters can hurt them"

No, they really can't. It's mathematically possible, yes, but so unlikely as to not be a pratical consideration. No one has 500 bolter shots laying around to get into statistically meaningful chances.

Stormravens are overcosted trash, however. They are especially awful with Death from the Skies.

Hurting and killing are 2 different things. You need to remove 1 wound? Go for it.

The point is most guns can hurt them. Most FMC are 280-340pts. Trying to kill 300pts with 20 points a turn is a stupid idea.

Nerfing something b.c you dont want to change your list is stupid too. The game is balanced when you TALK to your opponent first. If they are Nids or Daemons then you know there is a very good chance of 2-4 FMC.

You dont have to play storm ravens tho, there are many AA options and Other AA fliers (Now there are other AA fliers)

EDIT: FMC can be hurt with blasts and templates if that unit has Skyfire. Again there are other options stop QQing b.c you dont want to take those options .

.

I mostly ignore them. But, like all MCs in 7th ed, they are too good for their points compared to their vehicle bretheren. Although a big reason I ignore them is because I have no cost effective means of dealing with them.

Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

The only thing here I agree with is that flakk missiles are stupid-bad. I expect a special weapon that costs that much to be able to actually do a job. If it doesn't, then it's overcosted trash and needs to be fixed at some point.

The silly thing is that I'd probably still not take ML's in my marine lists if the flakk was automatic and free. (Although they would look a bit more tempting.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

Yeah that's about it, but that also encompasses almost all of the fmc's used competitively. (Fateweaver is like the single exception, and he doesn't care about your AP either.)

I mean, if we're speaking non-competitively, then who cares? Tell your opponent you want ap3 flakk for the narrative. But for win/loss games, I would like to see options at least somewhat close to worth their points.

 Happyjew wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

All FMC have 3+ saves, Daemons can use many rules to get a FMC a 2++, but you kill the Pink Horrors/Herald and that doesnt happen. Fateweaver is the only OP FMC and thats jsut b.c the Grim ward. (spelling)

Flyants and Daemon Princes (with Armor) are 280-310pts They are the same cost sometimes more than Wraith knights and Ripe Tides and I'd same those two are stronger than Flyrants and DP even tho they arnt flying.

Flying just needs different weapons to take them out, OP wants to use a light anti air vehicle weapon to kill a MC. It doesnt work like that lol.

As it turns out, heavy anti-tank weapons can't hurt them meaningfully either. 280-310 is still too cheap for FMCs. You know what i get for that? A fething land raider.

Martel732 wrote:
Hormagaunts and termagants should 100% be beasts. And put hormagaunts back up to WS 4.

Honestly the whole codex outside the MC's and Warriors should be beasts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Hormagaunts and termagants should 100% be beasts. And put hormagaunts back up to WS 4.

Honestly the whole codex outside the MC's and Warriors should be beasts.

Probably.

Yea I'm sorry, but no.

Tyranids already suffer enough as it is.
You essentially want to weaken their HQ/anti-air/only good unit because 10 points of missiles won't work?

Invest in better anti air.
Flakk should only ever be a last resort, never something to rely on.
So what's your plan against AV13 flyers too?
Glancing them on 6's won't do a thing.





Edit:
On another related note, does this mean you will want to make gargantuan flyers worse too?
As the harridan already suffers.

Its funny how so many people complain about FMC, when only 2 really see alot of play and 2 others time to time

Flyants
Fate Weaver

Hive Crones
Daemon Princes

And OP most likely is talking about Flyrants.

Having played 3 Flyrants for many games I can say this, the current Tau, Necrons, Eldar have way more deadly gak in there codex's

Stormhawk Interceptor is AV 12/11/11 with enough Fire to force a Flyrant to Jink and even take a wound for 1/2 the cost, take 3 of those. Thats only what 400pts? Compare to there 840ptss that you are forcing them to Jink and fly off the table every/everyother turn.

Guess who doesn't get Stormhawks? This guy.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

All FMC have 3+ saves, Daemons can use many rules to get a FMC a 2++, but you kill the Pink Horrors/Herald and that doesnt happen. Fateweaver is the only OP FMC and thats jsut b.c the Grim ward. (spelling).

And this is blatantly wrong. I can name at least 2 FMCs without a 3+ save. Harpy, Hive Crone. Daemons do not come standard with armour saves (except possibly the Daemons of Khorne, haven't looked at the codex in a while).

 Happyjew wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

All FMC have 3+ saves, Daemons can use many rules to get a FMC a 2++, but you kill the Pink Horrors/Herald and that doesnt happen. Fateweaver is the only OP FMC and thats jsut b.c the Grim ward. (spelling).

And this is blatantly wrong. I can name at least 2 FMCs without a 3+ save. Harpy, Hive Crone. Daemons do not come standard with armour saves (except possibly the Daemons of Khorne, haven't looked at the codex in a while).

Bloodthirsters start with 3+ armour, Daemon Princes can (and usually do) buy it, but Be'lakor and Lords of Change can't get armour (GuOs and Keepers of Secrets don't fly).

A quick scan isn't coming up with any other FMCs, it's actually a pretty rare unit type (including Special Characters I'm seeing eleven total (Flyrant, Harpy, Hive Crone, DP, Be'lakor, LoC, Fateweaver, three Bloodthirsters, Tau wacky command suit))

(So more FMCs have 3+ armour than don't, I guess? (By a margin of six to five, so barely))

Not rare enough.

Just throwing it out there, if you are taking devs and giving them all flakk to try and be AA then you are doing it wrong, that alone is going to be 40 points for 4 flakk ML. If you want dedicated AA Defense line, or get a AA Rhino to do a better job at it, OR if you buy forge world take a interceptor, they are like 75 points, and rip Flyers to shreds.

Ironically, flying vehicles are very easy to deal with. FMCs are just MCs that are even more invincible.

Martel732 wrote:
Ironically, flying vehicles are very easy to deal with. FMCs are just MCs that are even more invincible.

Oh yeah, this always boils down to not an issue with FMC but MC in general, i agree that MC are WAY more powerful compared to vehicles. They get all the benefits with out any of the draw backs of vehicles.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Ironically, flying vehicles are very easy to deal with. FMCs are just MCs that are even more invincible.

Oh yeah, this always boils down to not an issue with FMC but MC in general, i agree that MC are WAY more powerful compared to vehicles. They get all the benefits with out any of the draw backs of vehicles.

At least MC are subject to all manner of weapons fire. Add in "Hard to hit" and it becomes a mind-numbing obstacle.

Why is it people only remember FHT and Demon Princes? Is it because the 4+ save Tyranid Flyers are irredeemable garbage nobody plays?

 raverrn wrote:
Why is it people only remember FHT and Demon Princes? Is it because the 4+ save Tyranid Flyers are irredeemable garbage nobody plays?

They're still hard to hit. It's a bitter pill to invest in any AA, as skyfire sucks vs ground targets. Plus, death from the skies takes 80% of the AA out of the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 raverrn wrote:
Why is it people only remember FHT and Demon Princes? Is it because the 4+ save Tyranid Flyers are irredeemable garbage nobody plays?

They're still hard to hit. It's a bitter pill to invest in any AA, as skyfire sucks vs ground targets. Plus, death from the skies takes 80% of the AA out of the game.

And yet people still don't play Harpies.

It's because 3+ armor is that much better than 4+ armor. If you can get pentaflyrant, you just go with pentaflyrant. If BA had harpies, I might use them over stormravens. Because vehicles suck.

Flack missile do a mediocre/crappy job of shooting down flyers. Which is in line with krack missiles and frags being crappy/mediocre at their respective jobs. The fact that the (IMHO) already overpriced MLs need to pay a frankly ludicrous price to do a yet another job poorly is what gets me. If they were free, I still don’t think people would use them as a viable form of AA, but it would make MLs slightly more attractive.

The only time to take them is if you feel the need for some token AA, but can’t fit any of the superior options into your list.

The armor value of FMCs if a minor point compared to the price/S/RoF issues.

Why not Icarus Lascannon? You can throw one behind an Aegis or most other fortifications.

I understand not all armies have great ones, but having even a single flier makes a big difference. A single Vendetta has been more than enough for me against flying units. I'd really love to try a Vulture against flying armor saves.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Why not Icarus Lascannon? You can throw one behind an Aegis or most other fortifications.

I understand not all armies have great ones, but having even a single flier makes a big difference. A single Vendetta has been more than enough for me against flying units. I'd really love to try a Vulture against flying armor saves.

DftS ruins that philosophy, though. I suspect that will be rolled into 8th ed.

Martel732 wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Why not Icarus Lascannon? You can throw one behind an Aegis or most other fortifications.

I understand not all armies have great ones, but having even a single flier makes a big difference. A single Vendetta has been more than enough for me against flying units. I'd really love to try a Vulture against flying armor saves.

DftS ruins that philosophy, though. I suspect that will be rolled into 8th ed.

I have yet to see a single person play DftS rules, our GW store even says, yeah dont use it.

except for its expensive monetary cost. The space marine AA formation with a hunter and 2 stalkers is a gem. The stalkers still have plenty of targets to shoot at full BS that aren't flyers - skimmers,jet-bikes, ect.

Martel732 wrote:
It's because 3+ armor is that much better than 4+ armor. If you can get pentaflyrant, you just go with pentaflyrant. If BA had harpies, I might use them over stormravens. Because vehicles suck.

As a tyranid player, the armour has nothing to do with it. It's just because the weaponry on harpies is abysmal.
Yay. Another S6 AP5 large blast. Just the kind of light infantry killing firepower tyranids need to supplement their codex full of anti-light-infantry guns.

Arson Fire wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's because 3+ armor is that much better than 4+ armor. If you can get pentaflyrant, you just go with pentaflyrant. If BA had harpies, I might use them over stormravens. Because vehicles suck.

As a tyranid player, the armour has nothing to do with it. It's just because the weaponry on harpies is abysmal.
Yay. Another S6 AP5 large blast. Just the kind of light infantry killing firepower tyranids need to supplement their codex full of anti-light-infantry guns.

Agree. Nobody sees harpys on the table because their weapons are redundant for the rest of the army, a bunch of their guns won't work as aa (which is mostly what we need flyers for) and that all makes them very over-costed for their points. Basically the same problem with the whole nid dex.

I think if tyranids were smart they would spam warriors. They are great vs the ROF weapons that people take. No one takes str 8 weapons cept melta and melta is not effective vs mass warriros.

Just play cover save gimics with your BS shrouding inducing creatures and spam a warrior horde with rending talons and tons of dakka.

That would at least disrupt some metas.

Wouldn't work with my local group: Dark Reapers, dual-fusion Crisis Suits, Dominions, Tempestus squads with meltas, Fire Dragons, Sternguard with combi-meltas, etc, are all pretty common simply because Paladins, Crisis/Broadside suits and various sorts of tanks are frequently used.

Tournaments? Well, it might make an interesting spoiler once or twice, which might be worth trying... (And look, if you're bringing Tyranids to a big tournament, you're either looking to play counter-meta, or you're looking to get lucky matchups, so, why not?)

I wish warriors were viable too. I have a ton of them.

Warrior spam is very similar to terminator spam, and has many of the same weaknesses.
You're substituting a 2+ armour save for a 4+ save with 3 wounds, which makes them about as hard to kill vs AP5 weaponry (average 6 wounds to drop either of them).
However the warriors struggle a lot more against other classes of weapons (AP <=4 and S8+) that terminators shrug off.

In terms of offence, unfortunately S4 rending is not a great substitute for thunder hammers/power fists. I suppose you could think of them like lightning claw terminators, only with rending instead of AP3 and shred.

Maybe if a future tyranid codex allowed warriors to take crushing claws, they would be more viable. They gave them to tyrant guard, so I figure why not?

kambien wrote:
Watch out , we have a strong minority of YES !

Yeah, if the majority of votes saying "NO" weren't just trolling...

But then who started this dumpster fire?

It's like saying, welp, my IG Lasguns have trouble with Space Marines Power Armor. Better make the SMs T3 Sv4+!

Votes would be weighted by the number of ounces your infantrymen weigh.

 Xenomancers wrote:
except for its expensive monetary cost. The space marine AA formation with a hunter and 2 stalkers is a gem. The stalkers still have plenty of targets to shoot at full BS that aren't flyers - skimmers,jet-bikes, ect.

Yeah, I'm pretty envious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's because 3+ armor is that much better than 4+ armor. If you can get pentaflyrant, you just go with pentaflyrant. If BA had harpies, I might use them over stormravens. Because vehicles suck.

As a tyranid player, the armour has nothing to do with it. It's just because the weaponry on harpies is abysmal.
Yay. Another S6 AP5 large blast. Just the kind of light infantry killing firepower tyranids need to supplement their codex full of anti-light-infantry guns.

At least it wounds meqs on 2+. That's the best way to get rid of them, actually.

I am just sitting here with my Onagers like

NO. This makes about as much sense as making marines have 5+ Armor because Boltguns are AP 5. If you are expecting armored fliers, bring the right tool for the job or accept they'll get their armor saves against what you're using. (And despite my avatar, I don't use flyrants)

For me, if there is an issue, its flyers getting full BS while ground units have to perform Snap shots. It should be consistent between the two.

Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

 Lance845 wrote:
Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

This makes hitting flyers way too easy. If anything non-skyfire weapons should only hit on 6s and have to re-roll all successes, and the flyer should have a re-rollable 2+ cover save. And that's probably being excessively generous to the non-skyfire weapons for the sake of letting you pretend you have a chance of hitting, in reality you shouldn't be able to fire at flyers at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

This makes hitting flyers way too easy. If anything non-skyfire weapons should only hit on 6s and have to re-roll all successes, and the flyer should have a re-rollable 2+ cover save. And that's probably being excessively generous to the non-skyfire weapons for the sake of letting you pretend you have a chance of hitting, in reality you shouldn't be able to fire at flyers at all.

We aren't playing Reality, we are playing 40k

 Charistoph wrote:
Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

I agree with your categories, however I think your intended roles for the harpy and hive crone are the wrong way around.

As with many things in the tyranid codex, something in the design process got fethed up along the way, but the crone is meant to be an aerial supremacy fighter.
Its fluff describes it as one. It's armed with missiles that re-roll to hit vs flyers, and a special rule to improve the strength of its vector strike, which is primarily useful vs flyers.
The drool cannon doesn't fit the rest of its loadout, but schizophrenic rules and weapon options aren't uncommon in this codex.

The harpy on the other hand is a light bomber.
Just about all its weapon options are blasts, and it drops bombs on things it flies over. It's rubbish, but at least it has a fairly clear role.
Aside from that sonic screech rule at least... Previous comment about schizophrenic rules applies.

 CrownAxe wrote:
We aren't playing Reality, we are playing 40k

And in 40k you have dedicated AA weapons and air superiority fighters if you need to kill flyers.

Giving a minus penalty to hit them simply hinders the same old armies yet again.
Orks would need a 7 to hit some flyers while marines would only need a 5+

Also means certain characters could take them out of the sky easily.
Autarch with fusion gun or a few of the phoenix lords would shred them.


If you want to make them easier to hit, it needs to be something that doesn't benefit half the armies while screwing the other half.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" heck bolters can hurt them"

No, they really can't. It's mathematically possible, yes, but so unlikely as to not be a pratical consideration. No one has 500 bolter shots laying around to get into statistically meaningful chances.

Stormravens are overcosted trash, however. They are especially awful with Death from the Skies.

Hurting and killing are 2 different things. You need to remove 1 wound? Go for it.

The point is most guns can hurt them. Most FMC are 280-340pts. Trying to kill 300pts with 20 points a turn is a stupid idea.


.

As far as I can remember, Iam sure that a typical Flyrant (Hive Tyrant, Wings, two sets of TL Devourers, and E-grub) costs only 240pts. Fully decked out Flying Nurgle DP (in CSM), costs around 300pts though (armor, wings, ML 3, Black Mace). Not 280pts to 340pts level.

I am Ok with the current armor save and states of FMC. My past frustration was that by RAW, FMC can claim 4+ cover WITHOUT jinking just by having a toe in ruin EVEN they are in swooping. Thank goodness the draft FAQ now taken this "what the ****" thing out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

This makes hitting flyers way too easy. If anything non-skyfire weapons should only hit on 6s and have to re-roll all successes, and the flyer should have a re-rollable 2+ cover save. And that's probably being excessively generous to the non-skyfire weapons for the sake of letting you pretend you have a chance of hitting, in reality you shouldn't be able to fire at flyers at all.

Woah woah woah, calm down there satan

 Charistoph wrote:
Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

Arson Fire wrote:I agree with your categories, however I think your intended roles for the harpy and hive crone are the wrong way around.

As with many things in the tyranid codex, something in the design process got fethed up along the way, but the crone is meant to be an aerial supremacy fighter.
Its fluff describes it as one. It's armed with missiles that re-roll to hit vs flyers, and a special rule to improve the strength of its vector strike, which is primarily useful vs flyers.
The drool cannon doesn't fit the rest of its loadout, but schizophrenic rules and weapon options aren't uncommon in this codex.

The harpy on the other hand is a light bomber.
Just about all its weapon options are blasts, and it drops bombs on things it flies over. It's rubbish, but at least it has a fairly clear role.
Aside from that sonic screech rule at least... Previous comment about schizophrenic rules applies.

Note, this is what it SHOULD be, not what it is. The Drool Cannon is what makes the Crone more of a Bomber type. The idea of the Drool Cannon and its set up doesn't really help with the "anti-Flyer" concept. The rest of the Special Rules could be altered. The Harpy's Weapons can be reassigned to non-Blast Weapons that would more fitting to taking out those Flyers.

But that is more my opinion than anything else. The Drool Cannon can be renamed and reformated to be a proper anti-Flyer Weapon, but it is easier to just convert the Harpy to that than trying to twist the Drool Cannon.

oldzoggy wrote:Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

With stats like that, we should be looking at a FGC rather than an FMC, much like a Super-Heavy Flyer is more likely to have 6+ Hull Points and an Armor Facing over 12.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

I know of a T8/9W GMC with a 3++, but he doesn't usually fly because he's got a giant magic artillery cannon staff thing that requires him to not move (and he's a Daemon of Tzeentch so one casting of Cursed Earth and he's got a rerollable 2++)

(Anyone who wants to whine about OPness should remember he's 999pts and illegal in games under 4,000pts)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

With stats like that, we should be looking at a FGC rather than an FMC, much like a Super-Heavy Flyer is more likely to have 6+ Hull Points and an Armor Facing over 12.

Remember the days when FW was designing the Flyers, and AV12 on a Flyer at all was a superheavy-only thing? (And AV higher than 10 on rear armour didn't exist at all?)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

With stats like that, we should be looking at a FGC rather than an FMC, much like a Super-Heavy Flyer is more likely to have 6+ Hull Points and an Armor Facing over 12.

Remember the days when FW was designing the Flyers, and AV12 on a Flyer at all was a superheavy-only thing? (And AV higher than 10 on rear armour didn't exist at all?)

Sadly, no. I have little Forgeworld access, and had even less before 6th Edition.

Still, I can't totally agree or disagree to that when we have the Storm Turkey flying around as is. Its stats would have to be adjusted to account for a developmental cap on Flyer AV to being SHF as 12, and everyone else has less. Not like that would be a bad thing over all, though. But things like Flakk Missiles and other dedicated AA Weapons would also have to be adjusted.

Same thing applies to FMCs, though, too, which is why I put in the thought that certain FMCs would have a stat and Special Rule setup to reflect what their actual design goal is/should be, much like there is a difference between the Storm Talon, Storm Turkey, and Marauder.

Honestly, I'm more or less satisfied with FMCs as they are now, they got balanced quite a bit in 7th - save for one point, detailed later.

But as for the OP's original question, if ALL FMCs had a max of 4+ armor, most AA out there would wound on 2+s, ignoring armor. That's a pretty bad time. And 3+ armor is far from invincible, it's just decent.

My biggest remaining complaint about FMCs is their 360 deg firing arc. When they are flying, I think they should be limited in firing arc just like flyers.

Because when using flyers, especially non-hovering ones, you have to plan your strafing runs and act on whatever targets you can pivot to actually target. it takes some skill and planning.

With FMCs, you have limitations on which direction you may fly, but this effectively is meaningless. They can fire at anything, anytime, with no limitations other than range.

For example - flying over an AV14 battlewagon and shooting its rear armor of 10 is not only unfair, it doesn't really make logical sense, unless maybe the FMC did a head first dive bomb while firing.

So, in short, 3+ saves on FMCs don't bother me. Having no limitation on firing arcs, which takes all the planning and skill out of using flyers, does. Because being hard to hit should come with some drawbacks, and with flying vehicles it does. With FMCs, it does not.

Then new rules would need to be set up to consider the arc of the weapons in question. Aren't those questions bad enough for Eldar Vehicles and Imperial Knights already?

Albeit, if everything was on square bases, it would be pretty simple to define. But everything is either on circles or ovals, and arcs can be rather relative at that point.

Furthermore, if they are good enough for Swoopers, why not for Bikes, Cavalry, regular Monstrous Creatures, or even just Infantry?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:


For example - flying over an AV14 battlewagon and shooting its rear armor of 10 is not only unfair, it doesn't really make logical sense, unless maybe the FMC did a head first dive bomb while firing.

From most of the military lore I've read (up to the Gulf War), this replicates the fact that most military vehicles have weak top armor; they expect most incoming fire to be from ground level, and thus to save on weight aren't heavily armored against attacks from above. I believe there is even a missile system designed to use this tactic - when the missile gets close to the target, it rockets skyward and then dives for the vehicle's weakly armored engine plate from above. I think it's the Sagger missile that does this.

There's more than one system that does that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_attack

 Peregrine wrote:
No. But for fluff reasons they should have their rules significantly adjusted. They should keep their immunity to assault when in flyer mode, but get shorter movement distance (9-18" IMO, shorter than true aircraft but a bit faster than walking MCs) and lose the "snap shots only" rule. These are giant lumbering birds, not fighter jets coming in on a strafing run at 200+ mph. They should have the improved mobility of a flying beast, but they shouldn't be any harder to hit than any other huge and slow target.

Pretty much this, stripping away the whole Snap Shot thing might be a bit strong but even a +1 to hit 'large targets' would help, but since GW thinks dice modifiers are too much faff (but are willing to have six varients of the same USR) that ain't going to happen

Also all Missle and Rocket launcher weapons should have Skyfire by default, but gotta sell them flyers

Die modifiers are hard to balance on a D6.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

All FMC have 3+ saves, Daemons can use many rules to get a FMC a 2++, but you kill the Pink Horrors/Herald and that doesnt happen. Fateweaver is the only OP FMC and thats jsut b.c the Grim ward. (spelling).

And this is blatantly wrong. I can name at least 2 FMCs without a 3+ save. Harpy, Hive Crone. Daemons do not come standard with armour saves (except possibly the Daemons of Khorne, haven't looked at the codex in a while).

I was talking about NONE have a 2+ save. sorry worded it poorly. My english is bad.

Martel732 wrote:
Die modifiers are hard to balance on a D6.

I don't disagree, but would it be any less 'balanced' (like GW cares about that) than the existing myriad re-roll effects, its too early to do hard sums...

 Stormonu wrote:
From most of the military lore I've read (up to the Gulf War), this replicates the fact that most military vehicles have weak top armor; they expect most incoming fire to be from ground level, and thus to save on weight aren't heavily armored against attacks from above. I believe there is even a missile system designed to use this tactic - when the missile gets close to the target, it rockets skyward and then dives for the vehicle's weakly armored engine plate from above. I think it's the Sagger missile that does this.

The problem is that normal aircraft don't get to do this because they have to follow the normal LOS and firing arc rules for vehicles. Only FMCs get to magically fly one direction and shoot out their butt into rear armor. If 40k went back to the 5th edition rules for flyers, where all attacks from flyers automatically hit side armor to represent the weaker top armor, it would make a lot more sense. But as it is it just makes FMCs better than flyers, like MCs are better than tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
From most of the military lore I've read (up to the Gulf War), this replicates the fact that most military vehicles have weak top armor; they expect most incoming fire to be from ground level, and thus to save on weight aren't heavily armored against attacks from above. I believe there is even a missile system designed to use this tactic - when the missile gets close to the target, it rockets skyward and then dives for the vehicle's weakly armored engine plate from above. I think it's the Sagger missile that does this.

The problem is that normal aircraft don't get to do this because they have to follow the normal LOS and firing arc rules for vehicles. Only FMCs get to magically fly one direction and shoot out their butt into rear armor. If 40k went back to the 5th edition rules for flyers, where all attacks from flyers automatically hit side armor to represent the weaker top armor, it would make a lot more sense. But as it is it just makes FMCs better than flyers, like MCs are better than tanks.

Fliers hitting side Im fine with.

FMC better than tank....No that argument is so bad we arnt even going to talk about it (we cant even compare them there are way to many variables), BUT if you said MC vs Dreadnought. Then yeah I say MC are better.

I wish to express my surprise at the results of this thread.

To my mind, two things were illustrated by this thread:

1. Most people disagree with my proposal.

2. Most people, at least, in terms of in-thread participation, agree with me that there's a problem.

I'm also amused to note that Peregrine, who usually opposes me apparently simply based on the principle that I must be opposed, has seemed, though of course disagreeing with me, to propose a harsher nerf than I have.

I simply recommended that MCs be capped at 4+ armor. This means that my flakk missiles, which cost 39 ppm (14 ppm for the devastator marine + 15 ppm for the missile launcher + 10 ppm for the flakk missile upgrade), hit on 3s, potentially reroll misses, wound Flyrants on 3s and ignore armor.

Peregrine has proposed that MCs keep whatever armor they want, but lose the hard to hit rule.

This means that my krak missiles, which cost 29 ppm (14 ppm for the devastator marine + 15 ppm for the missile launcher), hit on 3s, potentially reroll misses, wound flyrants on 2s and ignore armor.

Really, I have to express my annoyance at the fact that so many of you seem to have answered the OP with one of three responses:

1. 4+ armor sucks.

2. Flakk only costs 10 ppm.

3. Get the right tool for the job!

I answer:

1. 4+ armor may or may not suck. But FMCs don't just rely on armor for durability. They rely on the hard to hit rule for durability. Any non sky-fire weapon only has a 1/6 chance, per shot, of hitting an FMC.

You can't ignore this fact when determining whether a 4+ armor save "sucks" for an FMC.

Given the fact that most weapons in the game can't reliably hit FMCs, even 4+ armor is pretty decent.

2. Flakk does not only cost 10 ppm. Flakk costs: 1. cost of platform + 2. cost of missile launcher + 3. cost of flakk upgrade.

3. Flakk is the right tool for the job. Flakk is to fliers as melta is to vehicles.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm also amused to note that Peregrine, who usually opposes me apparently simply based on the principle that I must be opposed, has seemed, though of course disagreeing with me, to propose a harsher nerf than I have.

No, I oppose you because you're almost always wrong. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is your time. FMCs (and MCs in general) need to be nerfed to bring them in line with vehicles, and FMCs fluff-wise need rules that make them more like jump infantry than air superiority fighters.

3. Flakk is the right tool for the job. Flakk is to fliers as melta is to vehicles.

No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

I'm actually willing to grant what you are saying here. Yes, the lascannon should be better against AV than the krak missile, and the plasma cannon should be better than the frag missile.

Nonetheless, the krak and frag missiles remain a good "all around, jack of all trades" option for 15 ppm. Flakk is basically the same thing. The problem that I see is that the SM player pays a premium for flakk, but he doesn't actually get the results that he otherwise would have expected for a krak or frag missile.

Krak missiles are worth their points unless you're facing up against AV 14 or 2+ armor. Frag missiles likewise can be worth their points.

Flakk missiles vs. FMCs? Different story.

At the end of the day, I'm not demanding that big of a nerf.

I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

I'm actually willing to grant what you are saying here. Yes, the lascannon should be better against AV than the krak missile, and the plasma cannon should be better than the frag missile.

Nonetheless, the krak and frag missiles remain a good "all around, jack of all trades" option for 15 ppm. Flakk is basically the same thing. The problem that I see is that the SM player pays a premium for flakk, but he doesn't actually get the results that he otherwise would have expected for a krak or frag missile.

Krak missiles are worth their points unless you're facing up against AV 14 or 2+ armor. Frag missiles likewise can be worth their points.

Flakk missiles vs. FMCs? Different story.

At the end of the day, I'm not demanding that big of a nerf.

I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

Yes. A single missile is never going to accomplish much on it’s own. Frag/krack/flack, does not mater. A stronger argument would be “I want the 4xMLs in my dev squad to have a credible chance of shooting down an un-jinking flyrant.” Even Melta, a specialist tool that’s good at it’s job, requires 4-5 shots to reliably kill a tank. This is a flexible number, depending on your definition of reliable, and can be reduced with buffs/special rules. Forcing a unit to jink is basically a mission-kill for a turn. Sure, it can still move and snap shot, but it’s combat effectives is drastically reduced. It’s not quite the same as shooting it down, but pretty close. The game is not that long, and taking something out for a turn can sometimes be just as important as killing it.

Flack missiles are overpriced. I don’t think anyone is arguing against that. Of the marine AA options, they are the bottom of the barrel. They do have a few perks though. They are flexible; the classic ML advantage. Not just in the fact that you have multiple ammo options, but in deployment. They can be taken on a huge number of units, so fitting some into your list is almost always possible. They are also ubiquitous. Any marine player probably has a number of them in their collection.

If the root of your problem is that you want flack missiles to be viable, work to fix them. Making broad sweeping changes to a whole class of things is a lot harder to do and keep things balanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'm also amused to note that Peregrine, who usually opposes me apparently simply based on the principle that I must be opposed, has seemed, though of course disagreeing with me, to propose a harsher nerf than I have.

No, I oppose you because you're almost always wrong. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is your time. FMCs (and MCs in general) need to be nerfed to bring them in line with vehicles, and FMCs fluff-wise need rules that make them more like jump infantry than air superiority fighters.

3. Flakk is the right tool for the job. Flakk is to fliers as melta is to vehicles.

No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

Would you be opposed to the idea of instead of nerfing MC and FMC to be in line with vehicles, we do the opposite and buff vehicles to be more in line with MC and FMCs?

Also this entire thread is pointless because a proven and highly effective way of dealing with flyers is as follows

Buy the iccurus las canon 85 points (Twin linked, sky fire, interceptor)
Buy vindicare assassin (150 points)
Put assassin on las cannon
firing at BS 8, hitting on 2s re rolling to hit on 4.
Can hit the thing before it even gets on the board.
once its dead, hop off and shoot the rifle for the rest of the game.

Option 2

Buy quad linked iccurus las canon from the vengence weapon batterys 75 points (2 shot, twin linked, 3 HP, hitting on 5s, sky fire, interceptor, 14 AV all around)
put in the corner, let it do its job.
Buy another if you want to be safe

The thing you need to remember is this, if you dedicated even 200 points toward AA, and that AA only takes out a 150 points model say, it still is going to make up its points, because now you dont have a flyer removing your points from the board.

 Traditio wrote:


I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

And this is the problem with every single one of your proposed rules threads. You hone in on a single model. Decide that one thing must be the reason why that model wrecks your day, and then propose some sweeping change to the game with the intent of targeting that single unit.

Relentless was the devil. Now it's 3+ armor on hive tyrants.

The issues go deeper and these proposed rule changes don't fix things.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:


I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

And this is the problem with every single one of your proposed rules threads. You hone in on a single model. Decide that one thing must be the reason why that model wrecks your day, and then propose some sweeping change to the game with the intent of targeting that single unit.

Relentless was the devil. Now it's 3+ armor on hive tyrants.

The issues go deeper and these proposed rule changes don't fix things.

^ This

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

I'm actually willing to grant what you are saying here. Yes, the lascannon should be better against AV than the krak missile, and the plasma cannon should be better than the frag missile.

Nonetheless, the krak and frag missiles remain a good "all around, jack of all trades" option for 15 ppm. Flakk is basically the same thing. The problem that I see is that the SM player pays a premium for flakk, but he doesn't actually get the results that he otherwise would have expected for a krak or frag missile.

Krak missiles are worth their points unless you're facing up against AV 14 or 2+ armor. Frag missiles likewise can be worth their points.

Flakk missiles vs. FMCs? Different story.

At the end of the day, I'm not demanding that big of a nerf.

I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

Yes it is.
You want it to Jink? Use Hunters or an Icarus Lascannon or our aircraft with AP2-3 weaponry or Rending Assault Cannons.

You want a weapon that kinda hurts a variety of targets? That's the ML. However, Flakk missiles are overpriced and quite honestly should either be just 5 points or even free. Other weapons do the specialization thing better.

Nevelon wrote:Yes.

I assume that by "yes" you mean "yes, it's too much to demand that a flyrant should have to jink in that case."

A single missile is never going to accomplish much on it’s own. Frag/krack/flack, does not mater.

If I shoot a krak missile at a 12 AV or inferior skimmer, there's a good chance that the owner of that skimmer will jink. Especially if its open topped.

Even if I'm only shooting a single krak missile.

A stronger argument would be “I want the 4xMLs in my dev squad to have a credible chance of shooting down an un-jinking flyrant.”

Yes. But I don't think that this is really different from saying that a flyrant should have to jink if I shoot flakk at it. If my 4 MLs have a decent chance of shooting down an un-jinking flyrant, then the owner of the flyrant should have to jink to avoid being shot down. That means that either flyrants should have 4+ armor or flakk should have AP 3.

Forcing a unit to jink is basically a mission-kill for a turn. Sure, it can still move and snap shot, but it’s combat effectives is drastically reduced. It’s not quite the same as shooting it down, but pretty close. The game is not that long, and taking something out for a turn can sometimes be just as important as killing it.

Again, if I fire a krak missile at a skimmer, the owner of that skimmer is probably going to jink. If I shoot a frag missile at a group of guardsmen, depending on the circumstances, the owner very well might have them go to ground.

If I fire a flakk missile at a flyrant, the owner will...ignore it.

If the root of your problem is that you want flack missiles to be viable, work to fix them. Making broad sweeping changes to a whole class of things is a lot harder to do and keep things balanced.

How would it further imbalance the game if flyrants, daemon princes, etc. were capped at a 4+ armor save? This wouldn't substantially affect the durability of daemon princes and flyrants, while in the air, against any non-skyfire weapon, with the exception of those which have a HRoF and have AP4.

Flyrants would become weaker against heavy bolters.

Every 18 heavy bolter rounds would cause an unsaved wound against a flyrant (compared to the 54 rounds currently required).

Nobody complains about how broken heavy bolters are.

 Traditio wrote:
Again, if I fire a krak missile at a skimmer, the owner of that skimmer is probably going to jink.

That depends entirely on the situation. For example, against AV 12 (Wave Serpent, Devilfish, etc) a BS 4 krak missile has a 22% chance of inflicting a penetrating hit. If you consider losing a HP without suffering any rolls on the damage table to be an acceptable risk it's actually a pretty safe gamble to decline to jink against a single krak missile. Now, obviously if you're in a situation where it makes sense to be on the conservative end of the risk vs. reward trade-off you jink, but in that kind of very-conservative strategy being forced to jink is not a big deal.

If I shoot a frag missile at a group of guardsmen, depending on the circumstances, the owner very well might have them go to ground.

This is almost never going to happen. A frag missile will hit 1-2 guardsmen, wounding on a 3+, and allowing a 5+ armor save. Going to ground in the open gives a cover save that is worse than their armor save, so it's pointless. Going to ground in terrain makes very little sense because with a 4+ cover save already that frag missile is unlikely to do more than kill a single meatshield model. In fact, a normal bolter marine is probably a bigger threat than the frag missile. The only time you're going to force a squad to go to ground with a single frag missile is, again, when your opponent is playing an ultra-conservative strategy where protecting a scoring unit at all costs is required. And in that case they don't care if they make a few token lasgun shots at BS 1 or BS 3.

If I fire a flakk missile at a flyrant, the owner will...ignore it.

Welcome to life as a missile launcher model. Your single shot is unlikely to scare anyone very much. If you want scary threats you take specialized units, not missile launchers.

And of course if you're comparing a single flak missile against a flyrant to a single flak missile against a vehicle flyer, well, that flyer isn't likely to jink either unless it was already planning to go back into reserve next turn. The chances of doing anything to an AV 12 flyer with a single flak missile are pretty low and it's usually a safe gamble to allow the shot without jinking if you need full-BS shots next turn.

Yep.

The problem is not in FMC armor, it's in the flakk being overpriced as hell.
It really should come standard with all missile launchers.

I mean, cap at 4+ armor?
Sure, daemons might be OK, they got invul.
Flyrant might be OK once discounted.

But the coldstar? Dude's a T4! He has a rough time even with 3+ and is virtually never picked. A failed crash test means he goes splat.
Without the 3+ he becomes outright unplayable unless absurdly cheap.


The game needs not weaker FMCs, it need better grounded AA. Free flakk is a decent start as it gives many armies an option, even if not ideal, for an AA weapon that is still useful even when the sky is clear.

If we're fixing the game, simply remove the penalty for firing at flying stuff entirely.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If we're fixing the game, simply remove the penalty for firing at flying stuff entirely.

More or less agree with this. A flat BS penalty would be better then snap shots but just letting people shoot them also works great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If we're fixing the game, simply remove the penalty for firing at flying stuff entirely.

How about no. Aircraft should be virtually impossible to hit without specialized AA weapons, like they are in the real world (unless by "flying stuff" you mean FMCs only, leaving flyers as they are).

Again, this entire thread is pointless because you can either

A) take 2 vengeance battery emplacements for 150 points and have them both with the quad linked icurous las canon, 4 twin linked shots at BS 2, S9 AP2, Sky fire and interceptor. AV 14 all around, 3 HP and can s cure objectives, drop them on objectives on your side. The turn after their flyer comes on you are going to be able to get 8 shots at I before he goes again.

B) take an twin linked icarus cannon Agis defense line, take a vindicare assassin, put him on the cannon and you get a skyfire, interceptor, twin linked hitting on 2s las cannon. Shoot him down the turn he comes in, hop off the turret and pop targets.

You are looking at AA all wrong, don't look at, aa that costs X points should be able to take down a flyer at X points. Look at it this way, if you take say, 400 points worth of AA and it only shoots down a unit that was 300 you might think, it did not make up its points. Well your wrong becuase even though it only killed 300 points of air units, think about what those air units would have killed if you did not have aa.

If you wanna take care of fmc, take dedicated AA. Because news flash, you take out a flyranid you just beat that arm becuase I bet dollars to doughnuts his whole army is geared toward that single unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If we're fixing the game, simply remove the penalty for firing at flying stuff entirely.

How about no. Aircraft should be virtually impossible to hit without specialized AA weapons, like they are in the real world (unless by "flying stuff" you mean FMCs only, leaving flyers as they are).

I support this, seeing as how vehicles are super weak. The only caveat is if the vehicle is hovering/is a vehicle that acts like a helicopter.

Storm talon gunship, vendettas, Corvus black star when hovering.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If we're fixing the game, simply remove the penalty for firing at flying stuff entirely.

How about no. Aircraft should be virtually impossible to hit without specialized AA weapons, like they are in the real world (unless by "flying stuff" you mean FMCs only, leaving flyers as they are).

Too be fair, Flying vehicles operate on several different levels and speeds, and 40K only recognizes two of the slowest.

On one hand, you have Skimmers, which are the slowest "flying" vehicles and their movement isn't much faster in a line than what would expect from a ground-based Vehicle. In game, these often fill the role of gunship in terms of mobility and ability to place firepower.

The next step up is the Zooming Flyer. What see here is usually something akin to what fighters and attack planes go with. However, in these cases, your standard Time on Target (ToT) of such a craft is usually measured in seconds, yet in-game, they are on board for enough time for a human to Run as far as their Weapon's kill range. So, either they are not moving at a speed that ToT makes them require such extensive requirements to hit, or they are moving at roughly the same speed we would see an Apache or Hind flitting around trying to dodge fire and land shots on target, to which doesn't require nearly as much targetting assistance to hit (just to penetrate or not get shot).

Exactly. "Flyers" are, at best, slow helicopters moving at a slow jog. And totally vulnerable to regular firepower at normal human reaction times.

Sonic aircraft? Not represented in 40k, aside from the Master of Ordnance.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. "Flyers" are, at best, slow helicopters moving at a slow jog. And totally vulnerable to regular firepower at normal human reaction times.

Sonic aircraft? Not represented in 40k, aside from the Master of Ordnance.

We rarely agree on anything, but I basically agree with the above.

If you really want more realism and more "fluffiness," Peregrine, then you should be open to the idea of fliers that enter the game on turn 2, make a bombing run, and then leave. And then can enter the game no earlier than 2 turns later.

This would be to reflect the fact that a flier would have to fly in, make the bombing run, fly away, FLY BACK AROUND, and then fly in, make another bombing run, etc.

That would justify the hard to hit special rule.

 Traditio wrote:
If you really want more realism and more "fluffiness," Peregrine, then you should be open to the idea of fliers that enter the game on turn 2, make a bombing run, and then leave. And then can enter the game no earlier than 2 turns later.

Sure. And when my Marauder arrives it destroys the entire enemy army, because that's what happens when a space B-52 carpet bombs an area the size of a football field. My Vulture's space hellfire missiles should each be a 95% chance of killing a tank in one shot and it should be able to fire all six of them at separate targets in a single turn, just like real-world helicopter gunships. My Thunderbolt's ground attack weapons would be a bit lighter, but each of its four 500lb bombs should be able to collapse a building and kill everything inside it. Because hey, realism!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sonic aircraft? Not represented in 40k, aside from the Master of Ordnance.

Not true at all. True "fighter jet" aircraft are represented in 40k, whether you like it or not. The Valkyrie and similar units are helicopter equivalents, but the Thunderbolt/Barracuda/etc sure aren't. The fact that their rules are kind of awkward as a result of trying to cram "fighter jet" types into a 28mm game on a 6x4 table does not change the fact that those rules are representing high-speed targets that only specialized AA weapons would have any hope of hitting.

::Sigh:: Reality doesn't matter. You should never build the rules of the game with the intent of representing reality. Penn and Teller did that. It's called Desert Bus. It's fething miserable.

The game play should only represent reality through abstracts that create the most enjoyable experience. If that means ground units suffer a penalty for shooting at flyers to balance their relative weakness then so be it. If that penalty is restricting armys against having effective methods of dealing with flyers and thus creating a miserable gameplay experience then get rid of it.

Make the game fun first. What would happen in reality means nothing next to making a fun game.

Really they should just get rid of the 'flyers' rules altogether, and make them count as jump infantry again for FMC, and aircraft count as skimmers to represent the whole fact they are slowing to a relative crawl to be able to do anything.

Peregrine wrote:Sure. And when my Marauder arrives it destroys the entire enemy army, because that's what happens when a space B-52 carpet bombs an area the size of a football field. My Vulture's space hellfire missiles should each be a 95% chance of killing a tank in one shot and it should be able to fire all six of them at separate targets in a single turn, just like real-world helicopter gunships. My Thunderbolt's ground attack weapons would be a bit lighter, but each of its four 500lb bombs should be able to collapse a building and kill everything inside it. Because hey, realism!

You were the one arguing from realism, not me.

Fact is, flying vehicles move awfully slow to be "hard to hit," and it's not like flying vehicles even particularly pay for the durability they get.

A landspeeder in the SM codex boasts 2 HP, BS 4 and has AV 10 all around. If you take it with an assault cannon to go with its heavy bolter (which isn't twin-linked), you end up paying 65 ppm. The stormtalon gets to twin-link both the assault cannon and the heavy bolter (a 15 point value?), gets ceramite plating, the Vectored Afterburners special rule and has better AV values than the landspeeder. And all of this is before you even take the "hard to hit" special rule into account.

How much is all of that worth?

And then when you take into account the "hard to hit" special rule, and you've just made it 4 times more durable against marines, 3 times more durable against IG, twice as durable against orks, etc.

All for a measly 45 points more than a comparable landspeeder.

No. I'm with what seems to be a popular opinion in this thread. Make flying vehicles skimmers. Make FMCs jump MCs. Re-price if necessary (but probably not necessary at least in some cases; they aren't priced as much as they should be now).

Conveniently, this would also fix my flakk problem.

 Traditio wrote:
Fact is, flying vehicles move awfully slow to be "hard to hit,"

Again, this is an abstraction caused by the limits of playing a 28mm game on a 6x4 table. Fluff-wise these aircraft are very fast, regardless of how many inches they move on the table. Therefore they have the "hard to hit" rule even if their on-table movement distance isn't realistic. Though really, nothing about 40k's movement distances or IGOUGO system is realistic anyway.

A landspeeder in the SM codex boasts 2 HP, BS 4 and has AV 10 all around. If you take it with an assault cannon to go with its heavy bolter (which isn't twin-linked), you end up paying 65 ppm. The stormtalon gets to twin-link both the assault cannon and the heavy bolter (a 15 point value?), gets ceramite plating, the Vectored Afterburners special rule and has better AV values than the landspeeder. And all of this is before you even take the "hard to hit" special rule into account.

On the other hand a Thunderbolt is AV 11 with 3 HP and has two twin-linked autocannons and a twin-linked lascannon, for 200 points. A LR Exterminator with a hull lascannon is 165 points and has AV 14/13/10 instead. Bump that up to maybe 175 points for twin-linking the LC and the Thunderbolt seems to be a rather poor deal. It's 25 points more expensive, significantly less durable, and has to spend half the game in reserve. The only real advantage it has is the ability to fire at other flyers at full BS, an advantage that seems to come at a very high price. And the LRBT isn't even a very good unit! Similar comparisons can be made with other aircraft: Barracudas vs. Hammerheads, Vendettas vs. infantry blobs with HWTs, etc. And the result tends to be that flyers are generally not a powerful class of units. Only FMCs stand out as exceptionally powerful, much like MCs are better than tanks.

In short: the problem here seems to be that the Land Speeder is too expensive, not that flyers don't pay for their rules. This fits very nicely with the fact that Land Speeders are very rarely taken even in armies that don't take flyers.

Make flying vehicles skimmers.

Which they are not, fluff-wise. Skimmers are "normal" vehicles with heavy armor, long endurance, etc, that can hover over obstacles. They are NOT true aircraft, and representing Thunderbolts/Barracudas/etc as skimmers makes no sense fluff-wise.

Conveniently, this would also fix my flakk problem.

By making flak missiles no longer exist? That's a rather strange definition of "fixing the problem".

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Sure. And when my Marauder arrives it destroys the entire enemy army, because that's what happens when a space B-52 carpet bombs an area the size of a football field. My Vulture's space hellfire missiles should each be a 95% chance of killing a tank in one shot and it should be able to fire all six of them at separate targets in a single turn, just like real-world helicopter gunships. My Thunderbolt's ground attack weapons would be a bit lighter, but each of its four 500lb bombs should be able to collapse a building and kill everything inside it. Because hey, realism!

You were the one arguing from realism, not me.

Fact is, flying vehicles move awfully slow to be "hard to hit," and it's not like flying vehicles even particularly pay for the durability they get.

A landspeeder in the SM codex boasts 2 HP, BS 4 and has AV 10 all around. If you take it with an assault cannon to go with its heavy bolter (which isn't twin-linked), you end up paying 65 ppm. The stormtalon gets to twin-link both the assault cannon and the heavy bolter (a 15 point value?), gets ceramite plating, the Vectored Afterburners special rule and has better AV values than the landspeeder. And all of this is before you even take the "hard to hit" special rule into account.

How much is all of that worth?

And then when you take into account the "hard to hit" special rule, and you've just made it 4 times more durable against marines, 3 times more durable against IG, twice as durable against orks, etc.

All for a measly 45 points more than a comparable landspeeder.

No. I'm with what seems to be a popular opinion in this thread. Make flying vehicles skimmers. Make FMCs jump MCs. Re-price if necessary (but probably not necessary at least in some cases; they aren't priced as much as they should be now).

Conveniently, this would also fix my flakk problem.

Land Speeders are 45 base, Stormtalons are 110 base, you are literally paying over dbl points for a Flier, 1AV more and a better gun.1 gets Strafing run the other gets DS

And in all honestly I rather bring a Land Speeder than a Storm Talon, I consider Storm talons less effective.

 Peregrine wrote:

Make flying vehicles skimmers.

Which they are not, fluff-wise. Skimmers are "normal" vehicles with heavy armor, long endurance, etc, that can hover over obstacles. They are NOT true aircraft, and representing Thunderbolts/Barracudas/etc as skimmers makes no sense fluff-wise.

Yes but true aircraft have no place in the scale of the game. Years ago Orks had a fast attack choice that was literally a strafing run from a fighta because the aircraft in game are going overhead so fast they'd hit and be gone before a shot could even be contemplated. Even things like Valks and Vendettas would be dropping grav shoot troops from heights unreachable by enemy fire, and could only be on the board if they were stopped to hover at best. Making all flyers count as skimmers is the only way to balance them out, while still letting people have their cake and eat it too. You got to face it, the game needs a major fat trim as it is, and just trashing the flyer concept is a great start. Let games like EPIC have aircraft moving are supersonic speeds over a battlefield. But 40K they'd HAVE to be moving slow so skimmer makes a lot of sense.

Amishprn86 wrote:Land Speeders are 45 base

And only come with a heavy bolter (that isn't twin-linked). If you want to add an assault cannon (that also is not twin-linked), that's an additional 20 points.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Yes but true aircraft have no place in the scale of the game.

We can't change the past and that means that aircraft, including "fighter jet" type aircraft, are in the game. You can argue all you like about the merits of aircraft in a 28mm game, but unless you're designing your own game that has nothing to do with 40k it's not relevant to this topic.

Making all flyers count as skimmers is the only way to balance them out, while still letting people have their cake and eat it too.

No, it is not the only way to balance them out. Flyers as a class are balanced just fine right now, the only problems are specific units with point costs that are too low. FMCs have some major issues, but mostly the same issues that MCs have relative to tanks. So the solution is to fix the MC/FMC rules to bring them to parity with vehicles and adjust the point costs on any specific units that need to be fixed.

 Traditio wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:Land Speeders are 45 base

And only come with a heavy bolter (that isn't twin-linked). If you want to add an assault cannon (that also is not twin-linked), that's an additional 20 points.

So? You are comparing more power for less range. You can also give it one if you really wanted too.

You can keep the HB, or add a TML and start killing things at 36-48" on turn 1 instead of maybe turn 2. It may not be a flier but it is also easier to hide and can get cover much more reliably so you don't always have to jink if being shot at with a stray ML or Lascannon. Fliers are Hard to hit, and that is there benefit. Not saying a Speeder is better, but the Stormtalon is not hugely stronger either.

A good friend of mine play WS's and uses Land Speeders, they definitely are worth there points every game.


If you had the argument that AA weaponry isn't very good and needs a boost, then sure I would agree with you, but nerfing something that literally doesnt need a nerf to make weaker things better is just backwards thinking.

Oh PS: Both are 2hp not just the speeder and the ST is a attacker not a fighter so it isn't reliable for AA anymore, hence why I feel the speeder is better.

I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

aint that the rule that ignores melta?

Well, it takes away the second die. But plain old ST 8 is just fine vs flying vehicles.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

aint that the rule that ignores melta?

Yeah, but not Armorbane. When was the last time you saw AA Melta?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:Land Speeders are 45 base

And only come with a heavy bolter (that isn't twin-linked). If you want to add an assault cannon (that also is not twin-linked), that's an additional 20 points.

So? You are comparing more power for less range. You can also give it one if you really wanted too.

You can keep the HB, or add a TML and start killing things at 36-48" on turn 1 instead of maybe turn 2. It may not be a flier but it is also easier to hide and can get cover much more reliably so you don't always have to jink if being shot at with a stray ML or Lascannon. Fliers are Hard to hit, and that is there benefit. Not saying a Speeder is better, but the Stormtalon is not hugely stronger either.

A good friend of mine play WS's and uses Land Speeders, they definitely are worth there points every game.


If you had the argument that AA weaponry isn't very good and needs a boost, then sure I would agree with you, but nerfing something that literally doesnt need a nerf to make weaker things better is just backwards thinking.

Oh PS: Both are 2hp not just the speeder and the ST is a attacker not a fighter so it isn't reliable for AA anymore, hence why I feel the speeder is better.

No one uses DFTS. It's actually worse than the current original flyer rules. I don't know a single club that uses those gak rules.

But there's still the threat that they become the actual rules in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:
But there's still the threat that they become the actual rules in 8th.

If that happens - the game dies - they can't be that stupid...wait...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But there's still the threat that they become the actual rules in 8th.

If that happens - the game dies - they can't be that stupid...wait...

The game won't die. Be serious here. People still willingly play with Eldar in the game. It will ensure that I never use a Stormraven ever again.

speaking of eldar - dark reapers are awesome. FMC get obliterated by them.

for 25 points a dark reaper gets a 48 inch range SnP missile launcher str 5 ap3 2 shots. Reaper range finder allows them to reroll hits against skimmers and flyers and IGNORE JINK.

they also got a 3+ save too for shyts and giggles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

aint that the rule that ignores melta?

Yeah, but not Armorbane. When was the last time you saw AA Melta?

I keep a MM on the nose of my stormraven.

I will agree that it’s a mostly useless rule on flyers, but thematically appropriate. Something with the aerodynamic properties of a brick is going to generate a lot of friction heat zipping down from orbit.

But due to the hight of the flight stand, metlagunners are basically going to have to kiss the base if they want to get the flyers into half range for the extra melta die. MMs have a little more wiggle room, but not by much.

I don't care if it is thematically appropriate. We are paying for what is essentially a useless rule.

Even if it just knocked off FIVE points of the aircraft I'd be okay.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't care if it is thematically appropriate. We are paying for what is essentially a useless rule.

Even if it just knocked off FIVE points of the aircraft I'd be okay.

Welcome to DE world.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't care if it is thematically appropriate. We are paying for what is essentially a useless rule.

Even if it just knocked off FIVE points of the aircraft I'd be okay.

Welcome to DE world.

Which rule are you specifically complaining about?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't care if it is thematically appropriate. We are paying for what is essentially a useless rule.

Even if it just knocked off FIVE points of the aircraft I'd be okay.

Welcome to DE world.

Which rule are you specifically complaining about?

Other than Night Vision on the Fliers? You know sense they literally will never use it, or the other few melee only units with it also. Or that the RSR cad gives a 6+ cover save (5+ to troops) only while NF is going on (Stealth already gives +1 so all units already have 6+ in open and would have better cover with Stealth instead of the RSR rule if it was in cover, so it LITERALLY is pointless). Or the fact that they are the same cost as other units and have 1 less armor save all around "So they can feel glassy".

There is some more but this post is about "FMC"

You do realise NF and the RSR bonuses stack, right? So it isn't entirely as useless as you say it is.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You do realise NF and the RSR bonuses stack, right? So it isn't entirely as useless as you say it is.

Was gonna say, you know cover bonuses stack right?

Yes they do, but Im saying it you are play DE correctly you will be in 4+ or 5+ cover ALREADY not 6+ cover to start the game.

Tell me what DE player leaves things in the open?

Also it only work (NF) 50% the games too.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes they do, but Im saying it you are play DE correctly you will be in 4+ or 5+ cover ALREADY not 6+ cover to start the game.

Tell me what DE player leaves things in the open?

Also it only work (NF) 50% the games too.

Ok im not a DE player so what rules boost you up to a 4+ cover saves.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes they do, but Im saying it you are play DE correctly you will be in 4+ or 5+ cover ALREADY not 6+ cover to start the game.

Tell me what DE player leaves things in the open?

Also it only work (NF) 50% the games too.

Ok im not a DE player so what rules boost you up to a 4+ cover saves.

Terrain and Jink. The point is DE players dont use these rules, the rules only work for 1 turn and only for half the games.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

aint that the rule that ignores melta?

Yeah, but not Armorbane. When was the last time you saw AA Melta?

Nearly every list I make has one or two of these actually.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

aint that the rule that ignores melta?

Yeah, but not Armorbane. When was the last time you saw AA Melta?

Nearly every list I make has one or two of these actually.

What in codex 40k is skyfire: armorbane? There are only a handful of armorbane weapons in the game, and I cannot think of 1 that has skyfire/the option for skyfire outside of mysterious objectives.

I was more talking Melta AA itself.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I can't believe someone talked about Amrored Ceramite on Space Marine aircraft as if it were an advantage. I've haven't seen that rule come up ONCE since the 6th edition codex and quite frankly I'd be happy if they got rid of it to make the aircraft cheaper.

aint that the rule that ignores melta?

Yeah, but not Armorbane. When was the last time you saw AA Melta?

Nearly every list I make has one or two of these actually.

What in codex 40k is skyfire: armorbane? There are only a handful of armorbane weapons in the game, and I cannot think of 1 that has skyfire/the option for skyfire outside of mysterious objectives.

Not armorbane, melta. He asked when was the last time you saw skyfire melta. And I take one or two every game.
Velocity tracker on riptide and/or ghostkeel.

And that doesn't matter because you're hitting a target with Av11-12.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And that doesn't matter because you're hitting a target with Av11-12.

Against AV 11, it makes less of a difference:
4/6 chance of HP loss (with 75% chance of AP1 vehicle table roll as well)
versus
35/36 chance of HP loss (with 32/35 chance of AP 1 vehicle table roll as well)

But it still makes a difference. That alone is NEARLY a 50% increase in hull-stripping power.

Against AV 12?
3/6 chance of HP loss (with ~67% chance of AP1 vehicle table roll as well)
versus
11/12 chance of HP loss (with 10/11 chance of AP1 vehicle table roll as well)

That's nearly DOUBLE the increase in raw hull-stripping power.

In both cases, you have a better chance of an explodes result.

Not to mention ap1 damage results in pens are superior.
It literally won my last game by velocity locking (or whatever it called that fixes its movement) a GK plane full of paladins and forcing it to fly out of the table.

The increased odds of something like that happening is very meaningful.
Skyfire melta is freaking nuts against anything using the AV system trying to fly around without the ceramic plating.

How on earth did you reach the conclusion that an ability that counters the rule meant to get easy penetrates on armor is irrelevant is beyond me.
It's practically like saying invul saves are irrelevant because armor exists.

1. Fliers as transports is always a trap. Because things on them die. Melta doesn't make a difference there.
2. Straight up HP damage is more efficient than praying for an explodes result.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Fliers as transports is always a trap. Because things on them die. Melta doesn't make a difference there.
2. Straight up HP damage is more efficient than praying for an explodes result.

1. Melta makes a difference if it means you take off an HP instead of failing to glance or pen, and when you get an explodes result instead of glancing the target.
2. Melta provides approximately a ~50% to ~90% boost in raw HP damage compared to non-Melta shots. By your own standard, Melta makes a significant difference in effectiveness.

So... what is your point? Is it your contention that a 50-90% boost in destructive capability is meaningless?

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Really they should just get rid of the 'flyers' rules altogether, and make them count as jump infantry again for FMC, and aircraft count as skimmers to represent the whole fact they are slowing to a relative crawl to be able to do anything.

I strongly agree with this. The only "flyers" that should show up in normal 40K games should be helicopter-like vehicles that are dropping off, picking up or supporting troops from an airborne position. Same goes for FMC's, they should at best be in Hover or Jump mode and junk the Swooping mode. Jets, Bombers and the like would be better represented by something like an artillery bombardment sort of rules, where the model isn't put on the board - unless you just want a visual representation that AA-style weapons can take an Overwatch against as it streaks over the battlefield.

Really, I love the flyer models they've made for 40K, but I don't think they should actually be used in the 40K game. If they want a flying game, they should do something that's a more serious attempt than Stormcloud Attack - that has a kernel of a good game, but it would really need better development to survive on its own.

 Stormonu wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Really they should just get rid of the 'flyers' rules altogether, and make them count as jump infantry again for FMC, and aircraft count as skimmers to represent the whole fact they are slowing to a relative crawl to be able to do anything.

I strongly agree with this. The only "flyers" that should show up in normal 40K games should be helicopter-like vehicles that are dropping off, picking up or supporting troops from an airborne position. Same goes for FMC's, they should at best be in Hover or Jump mode and junk the Swooping mode. Jets, Bombers and the like would be better represented by something like an artillery bombardment sort of rules, where the model isn't put on the board - unless you just want a visual representation that AA-style weapons can take an Overwatch against as it streaks over the battlefield.

Really, I love the flyer models they've made for 40K, but I don't think they should actually be used in the 40K game. If they want a flying game, they should do something that's a more serious attempt than Stormcloud Attack - that has a kernel of a good game, but it would really need better development to survive on its own.

Ok, EVEN if they are not Jets flying in the air super fast but slower moving aircrafts, the "Hard to hit" rule Still works.

All air craft vehicles has spots where you can unload into the plane and it wouldn't effect the plane much at all (IDK the actual term, my father work on planes in the air force) Less metal in these spots and a better built area for the important parts.

So even if dudes on the ground are shooting an aircraft 100 yards away most shots wouldn't do much anyway. There are more variables we can talk about to, but the point stands, Hard to hit is more realistic than we give it credit for.

Yea, hitting even a relatively stationary helicopter is absurdly hard.
A true jet us not "hard to hit", it's impossible. You usually can't even see it.

There is a reason for why our drill for enemy helicopter attack us "get the feth away from the cannon" rather than "try to take potshots at it" even though the cannon is powerful enough that it will wreck the chopper if it merely glances it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes they do, but Im saying it you are play DE correctly you will be in 4+ or 5+ cover ALREADY not 6+ cover to start the game.

Tell me what DE player leaves things in the open?

Also it only work (NF) 50% the games too.

Ok im not a DE player so what rules boost you up to a 4+ cover saves.

Terrain and Jink. The point is DE players dont use these rules, the rules only work for 1 turn and only for half the games.

I'm still a bit confused what universal rule to the get that give them that?

Terrain generally is a 4+ for ruins, 5+ for things like tree. Go to ground is default 6+ and jink is a 4+. Stealth would give a bonus to all of these

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yes they do, but Im saying it you are play DE correctly you will be in 4+ or 5+ cover ALREADY not 6+ cover to start the game.

Tell me what DE player leaves things in the open?

Also it only work (NF) 50% the games too.

Ok im not a DE player so what rules boost you up to a 4+ cover saves.

Terrain and Jink. The point is DE players dont use these rules, the rules only work for 1 turn and only for half the games.

I'm still a bit confused what universal rule to the get that give them that?

Terrain generally is a 4+ for ruins, 5+ for things like tree. Go to ground is default 6+ and jink is a 4+. Stealth would give a bonus to all of these

DE are more points b.c ALL MODELS get

NV, Fleet and PfP

When most of the time these 3 rules do little to nothing.

NV: Only works for 1 turn 50% the games, many units will never use it due to their rules

Fleet, Mostly good, but many units again wont need it. Take it off some units for a better fitting rule for them (They all have it to make them "fee fast" when it doesnt work, give them JsJ like Eldar)

PfP: This chart is better, but it still just trash, With all the S6+ FnP almost never works, it only works when your Vehicle dies and your guys inside do too, the Fearless sucks b.c everything breaks your armor so you want to "go to ground" for that +1 cover but you cant, so now your save is bad.

And Im saying there "Bonus cover" never takes into effect B.c of what you just said, its a Flat 6+ or 5+, yes stealth gives you a +1, but again like you said most terrain is already a 4+ or 5+, so 4-5+ via terrain with NF +1 for stealth is a 3-4+ Cover, if you did not use the terrain and use the DE cover, you would then have a worst save. No DE player will leave units clear in the open, AV10 open top and T3/5+ save dies in the wind now days.

OK Back on Topic.

I think we all agree that 4+ armor on FMC is a bad idea.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

OK Back on Topic.

I think we all agree that 4+ armor on FMC is a bad idea.

Or at least a very silly one that doesn't actually address anything.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

OK Back on Topic.

I think we all agree that 4+ armor on FMC is a bad idea.

Or at least a very silly one that doesn't actually address anything.

But...Flakk Missiles....

Next poll is should AV be capped at 13, otherwise my 10pt upgrade isn't a threat to everything in game.

Well ok ok hold on let's entertain OPs idea just for a moment and see where he is coming from.

Now hear me out hold on.

What about this, I agree that a single flak Amal should not be able to blast a flyer clean outta the sky, that's just silly, but what about a dev squad full of them?

How about this, if you take a dev squad full of flakk ML, meaning 4, and they all target the same flying creature, MC or vehicle, they get some sort of bonus? Maybe like something like "Flakk barrage" where the target of they jink need to reroll successful jinks, the idea being that they are littering the sky with shrapnel. That or change it so, the flakk is stronger then it currently is, AP stays the same, but, you can ONLY, get glancing hit, even if we made it str 6 and you roll a 6 for wound and the armor is only 10, it's always going to be a glance to represent the fact it's not a warhead with a payload but an air burst missile.

Huh huh? Yay nay? Build on the idea?

Or SM can just do what most other factions have to do, bring a dedicated AA weapon if you are that worried about it. Hunter's are pretty solid weapon platforms with reasonable range. Heck, their misses might even hit still. Who else can take AA on the troop choice as a standard upgrade?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Well ok ok hold on let's entertain OPs idea just for a moment and see where he is coming from.

Now hear me out hold on.

What about this, I agree that a single flak Amal should not be able to blast a flyer clean outta the sky, that's just silly, but what about a dev squad full of them?

How about this, if you take a dev squad full of flakk ML, meaning 4, and they all target the same flying creature, MC or vehicle, they get some sort of bonus? Maybe like something like "Flakk barrage" where the target of they jink need to reroll successful jinks, the idea being that they are littering the sky with shrapnel. That or change it so, the flakk is stronger then it currently is, AP stays the same, but, you can ONLY, get glancing hit, even if we made it str 6 and you roll a 6 for wound and the armor is only 10, it's always going to be a glance to represent the fact it's not a warhead with a payload but an air burst missile.

Huh huh? Yay nay? Build on the idea?

Well... the general idea of rolling more dice is that you have more chances for favorable results. So, by shooting 4 you already gain that bonus inherently.

1 shot on 1 die hitting on a 4+ is a 50% chance of success.

The likely hood that 1 die in 4 would be able to hit at that chance is a near guarantee (always a chance they all miss but the probability is SIGNIFICANTLY lower)

So why give an additional bonus to represent the thing that firing multiple shots already does?

 pumaman1 wrote:
Or SM can just do what most other factions have to do, bring a dedicated AA weapon if you are that worried about it. Hunter's are pretty solid weapon platforms with reasonable range. Heck, their misses might even hit still. Who else can take AA on the troop choice as a standard upgrade?

Oh I agree that's the best way to deal with it.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Or SM can just do what most other factions have to do, bring a dedicated AA weapon if you are that worried about it. Hunter's are pretty solid weapon platforms with reasonable range. Heck, their misses might even hit still. Who else can take AA on the troop choice as a standard upgrade?

Right there isnt anything wrong, he just wants a light vehicle killer to hit really hard. There are many options to pick from in the SM, more so than most armies.

But that would involve him changing his army, forcing him to buy NEW models to update his 5th edition rhino rush style.

Rhino Rush evolved into Gladius. You just need to play it for ObSec, rather than rush...