103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
After finding a single model from this game in the basement in my parents house(cant even remember i even bought it), i have gaind an inntrest in this no longer existing game from Forge World.
To thouse who plays it or have tryed it, how does it play?
I have tryed to find a pdf of the rulebook but alas nothing trustworthy yet, can anyone help me out whit that?
Edit:
This game is now officialy returning!
1001
Post by: schoon
Is a great little game that pays much like X-Wing or Wings of War.
Pity that they've stopped supporting it.
1206
Post by: Easy E
You can find my review of the game here: https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/02/review-aeronautica-imperialis-forgeworld.html
My blog actually has a great deal of content for the game in the form of battle reports, including a lot of shots of my scratchbuilt models too.
I think it is great fun and love to play it. It is super easy to learn, but hard to master.
73524
Post by: Jimmy Zimms
Extra bonus is that if you ever take up playing Epic they're usable there too.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Well got my hands on some digital rules now thanks to a fellow dakka user so its reading time.
Any suggestions for web stores that sells proxy models?
im not exactly good whit scratch build.
1001
Post by: schoon
With a little patience, I'd bet they come up on eBay.
73524
Post by: Jimmy Zimms
FrozenDwarf wrote:Well got my hands on some digital rules now thanks to a fellow dakka user so its reading time.
Any suggestions for web stores that sells proxy models?
im not exactly good whit scratch build.
Try vanguard miniatures. They're rapidly expanding their ranges as a supplier of Epic proxies and that includes flyers. a bunch of new designs that are in the works have been shown off recently in Facebook so they're going to get some more too soon (chaos and some additional imperial interceptors).they do truescale so they're in scale with FW unlike most lines but be aware are in metal.
http://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/product-category/defeat-in-detail/
If you can't dig up IA bases with the integrated height and airspeed indicators don't sweat it; Just use two dice next to the flyer when you play.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
schoon wrote:With a little patience, I'd bet they come up on eBay.
they are on ebay but mainly tau, and overpriced just as all specialist games models are on ebay.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Chaos and Ork stuff is super easy to scratchbuild. PM me and I can guide you.
For Proxy Imperials and SMs Vanguard has a great range.
If you are looking for something less than official, Tyranids are easy to scratchbuild. PDF, Gue'vesa, Rogue Traders, and Lost and the Damned can also use Vanguard and Dark Realm stuff pretty easily. Varingyr used the old Steel Crown range and Spartan Games ranges. Those stats are in the Airspace Compilation.
If you follow this link to my AI review, it has the links to the Compilation which has new factions, aircraft, missions, special equipment, etc.
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/02/review-aeronautica-imperialis-forgeworld.html
I have an unholy love for this game.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
Hellion Skyboards make great stand-in Eldar/Dark Eldar with a little work; add a nose/cockpit and you're pretty much ready to go.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Well, seems it is returning based on the teaser at the Fest yesterday.
Mutch sooner then i expected, so getting slightly exited.
Who will make it, will be it be plastic or resin and will it be compatible with the old models is prolly the moust important questions.
Necromunda, bloodbowl, titanicus and now aeronautica. Seems specialist games are finaly returning.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
It will most likely follow in the same vein as AT. Some plastics to start with in 6mm scale and resin upgrades later, unless the popularity explodes like it did with Titanicus.
Sneaky, sneaky way to create the whole line for Nu-Epic later down the years...
1206
Post by: Easy E
FrozenDwarf wrote:Well, seems it is returning based on the teaser at the Fest yesterday.
Mutch sooner then i expected, so getting slightly exited.
Who will make it, will be it be plastic or resin and will it be compatible with the old models is prolly the moust important questions.
Necromunda, bloodbowl, titanicus and now aeronautica. Seems specialist games are finaly returning.
Do you have a link I can look at?
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Glad theres another chance to own this game. Hope it won't be imperial-only models like Titanicus...
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Easy E wrote: FrozenDwarf wrote:Well, seems it is returning based on the teaser at the Fest yesterday.
Mutch sooner then i expected, so getting slightly exited.
Who will make it, will be it be plastic or resin and will it be compatible with the old models is prolly the moust important questions.
Necromunda, bloodbowl, titanicus and now aeronautica. Seems specialist games are finaly returning.
Do you have a link I can look at?
there realy aint mutch to see, just a 30 sec animation of bullet tracers in the sky followed by the logo for AI.
it was just to say: hey we are bringing the game back. no ETA ofc, but im guessing half a year from now IF it is to released this year.
SamusDrake wrote:Glad theres another chance to own this game. Hope it won't be imperial-only models like Titanicus...
original had planes from IG, SM, chaos, ork, eldar and tau. i would be dissapointed if the reboot dont have the same at the minimum.
106122
Post by: General Helstrom
As far as I remember, AI was mostly let down by being a massively expensive boutique Forge World production, with the 300 page hardcover rulebook alone being an absurdly high bar to entry. It was slightly less of a disaster than Dreadfleet.
GW as a whole has gotten pretty clever about pushing new products to market since then, so I have good hopes for this revival!
77922
Post by: Overread
AI I think also suffered because way back then FW and online purchasing wasn't as common as it is today by far. Plus added to that was the fact that it was a 2007 game and Epic 40K was ended in 1997. So basically whilst Epic stuff was around until around 2013, the actual core advertising for the mainstream GW game was pretty much gone.
So AI for all its gains really had only a tiny market to hit. I think GW has learned from that and has a totally different attitude this time around and hopefully will do vastly better on the marketing. Heck Adepticus Titanicus has done really well and gone past GW's production expectations and its got some of the most expensive kits.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Gorgeous books and good game - played a few and MUCH prefered it to X Wing.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
Overread wrote:AI I think also suffered because way back then FW and online purchasing wasn't as common as it is today by far. Plus added to that was the fact that it was a 2007 game and Epic 40K was ended in 1997. So basically whilst Epic stuff was around until around 2013, the actual core advertising for the mainstream GW game was pretty much gone.
Do you mean "Epic 40k" as in specifically the 3rd edition Epic 40,000 or more generally the Epic game systems? Because while the Forge World miniatures were originally sculpted for Epic 40,000, epic Armageddon was released in 2003 and was still kicking about when AI was released. Mind you, AI was made from spare parts - artwork from Imperial Armour volumes 1 and 2, miniatures sculpted for Epic and bases from Sabretooth's Lord of the Rings CMG.
One thing I'd like is for the new game to come with longer flying stands, but that's only a minor niggle.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
AndrewGPaul wrote:
One thing I'd like is for the new game to come with longer flying stands, but that's only a minor niggle.
on that i too agree on, but then again we dont even know what kind of base the remake will use....
they might drop the "dial bases" completely.
82184
Post by: Thymais
I'd like to see the models in a larger scale, like maybe 15mm instead of 6mm.
I reckon they will have terminals similiar to Adeptus Titanicus. So the dial bases may become redundant.
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Thymais wrote:I'd like to see the models in a larger scale, like maybe 15mm instead of 6mm.
I reckon they will have terminals similiar to Adeptus Titanicus. So the dial bases may become redundant.
Considering a Sokar Stormbird is nearly as tall as a Warlord when stood on end, 8mm will be enough. Besides, if they change the scale then say goodbye to epic...
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Do clouds play a role in this game? If so, I'll break out the cotton wool...
23558
Post by: zedmeister
SamusDrake wrote:Do clouds play a role in this game? If so, I'll break out the cotton wool...
Didn't make an appearance in the original game. It was pretty simple in that regard, the only thing you had to keep track of was altitude, speed, ammunition and fuel.
1206
Post by: Easy E
SamusDrake wrote:Do clouds play a role in this game? If so, I'll break out the cotton wool...
If you want clouds, search for the Airspace Rules Compilation..... they have cloud rules.
Edit: Here
https://app.box.com/s/2mwdb2pl02nu9mxe6ns0
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
"The clouds...they do move in herds!"
Cloud banks, Ladies and Gentlemen!
Omg, the Tyranids look just as scary as The Giant Claw! I'll take a dozen please...
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
General Helstrom wrote:As far as I remember, AI was mostly let down by being a massively expensive boutique Forge World production, with the 300 page hardcover rulebook alone being an absurdly high bar to entry. It was slightly less of a disaster than Dreadfleet.
Then you have quite the imaginative “memory” there. The book was neither 300 pages nor absurdly expensive, and contained all the rules and army lists for the models available at the time.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Having read the blog above, interested to see if they keep a height mechanic involved.
I never played AI in its original form, but that does strike me as something currently missing from X-Wing, which let’s face it is The Big Daddy of the market.
Having that seems pretty darned cool, and really suits atmospheric dog fighting. Heck, if they nail it, and the mechanics gain a real heavy rep on the wargaming scene, it could mean secondary/tertiary sales to those adapting the rules for the setting of their preference. Bases also, I guess?
113745
Post by: RFT
General Helstrom wrote:As far as I remember, AI was mostly let down by being a massively expensive boutique Forge World production, with the 300 page hardcover rulebook alone being an absurdly high bar to entry. It was slightly less of a disaster than Dreadfleet.
GW as a whole has gotten pretty clever about pushing new products to market since then, so I have good hopes for this revival!
It wasn't that bad, price-wise.
I bought in in 2008 and the books were 30 quid each. There was a deal on at the FW open day for both for £50. planes were £10-15 a pair with the bases. It's a long time ago but one of the reasons I got in to it was that it was pretty cheap (easily under 100) to have a playable force - and even a 2v2 engagement was quite fun. (I've got 4 thunderbolts, 2 lightnings and a marauder that I got but then never got to have a game with.) also the books were much cheaper than the imperial armour ones, and I just wanted some nice FW books. The two trial games I had of it were certainly good and, having not ever played Wings of War/Glory, it was AI that I always thought of when I first came across X-wing.
While it's cool it's coming back, I don't hold out much hope of whatever the new game is being backwards-compatible with the old models, either because of scale or different basing standard.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Having read the blog above, interested to see if they keep a height mechanic involved.
I never played AI in its original form, but that does strike me as something currently missing from X-Wing, which let’s face it is The Big Daddy of the market.
Altitude is important in aerial dogfighting games because of the energy tradeoff between altitude and speed (and the possibility of cocking up an manoeuvre and inadvertently ending up at flight level 0). In space, this is less of a concern; "climbing" and "descending" are no different to turning left or right. The Battlestar Galactica miniatures game includes altitude (allowing nine levels from -4 to +4) which reduce weapon range when firing between levels. I'm not convinced it adds enough to the game to be worth including, IMO. BSG also allows a plane's facing to be different from its direction of flight, but it can only coast while in that state.
the cost in 2007 of the AI rulebook and two packs of planes was about £50, roughly the same as the cost of the X-Wing starter today. It was the lack of publicity that did for the game, I think. While Wingsof War predates AI, I was aware of AI before I ever saw a copy of Wings of War.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Has anyone ever tried an orbital dogfight game? Because orbital mechanics are a brain twister; fastest way to catch up with someone?
Thrust away from them.
And so on.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
There is a board game, Attack vector by Ad Astra Games, that took a stab at portraying accurate orbital mechanics in 3D. I don't know how playable the results were, though.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
The other nice thing about AI, besides the altitude and energy management mechanic, is that the default missions are much more than just "line up and kill each other" like X-Wing. For example, you can win purely with successful attacks on ground targets, with your fighters only needing to tie up the defenders and keep them off your bombers. And with the way victory points are calculated sometimes the best choice is to accept that you've done enough and head for home even though both sides still have substantial forces left. It's a mission system that gives a lot more reward to having a long-term strategy and executing it well vs. the typical dice optimization and emphasis on tabling the other player that 40k typically turns into. And it makes having a variety of unit types make a lot more sense. A bomber in X-Wing doesn't really fit and ends up an awkward mess because it doesn't have any appropriate targets to attack and FFG has to somehow make it relevant in a dogfight. A bomber in AI can just be a bomber and attack ground targets because the game supports that aspect of air combat.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
I hope they basically take the existing AI rules unchanged in terms of movement combat but change the damage system over to the AT method. The fixed roll with fixed critical hit chance makes no account of position so tactical manoeuvring only explicitly benefits from the free extra shot for tailing while AT seamlessly incorporates relative position and heavy damage.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
AndrewGPaul wrote:There is a board game, Attack vector by Ad Astra Games, that took a stab at portraying accurate orbital mechanics in 3D. I don't know how playable the results were, though.
Not very. The game is better suited as a fancy tool for teaching vector handling for first year STEM students than it is as a game.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
I only played a couple of games of the 1st edition of the game, and never got as far as introducing missiles or projectile weapons, but after a few turns of wrestling with the game aids we actually started to fly the ships (as in, we went from "so, how do I plot out a 60degree turn to port" to "well, I want to pitch up 30degress, roll 90 degrees to get my lasers in arc and initiate a spin to keep them in arc as we pass each other"). if we'd kept on at it, rather than only playing one or two games in a 12 month period and thus having to re-learn the game each time, it would have been easier. Mind you, the designers admitted that the orbital mechanics rules were experimental even by their standards.
But back to AI. i watched Guerilla Miniature Games' video the other week, and it flowed faster than it seemed like it would from reading the rules. My only criticism was a visual one - the planes should have been on taller stands. I might try and paint some Nightwings so I can get a game in at my club.
54612
Post by: witchdoctor
I loved AI and thought it was a fun, clean game.
My only issue was the "I go, you go", when there was a disparity between model count. In fact, as an Imperial Player you could spam the board with a few Arvus Lighters at 1/5 cost of a Thunderbolt and force an Eldar player to show all his moves and then move your Thunderbolts perfectly to react. Generally speaking nobody that liked to play AI was also the WAAC type, but Orks would usually outnumber Eldar 2 or 3 to 1 in a typical game.
Also, the Very High maneuverability aircraft should have had some better benefit over the high maneuver aircraft, but the two additional cards you got, weren't all that useful most of the time.
1206
Post by: Easy E
witchdoctor wrote:I loved AI and thought it was a fun, clean game.
My only issue was the "I go, you go", when there was a disparity between model count. In fact, as an Imperial Player you could spam the board with a few Arvus Lighters at 1/5 cost of a Thunderbolt and force an Eldar player to show all his moves and then move your Thunderbolts perfectly to react. Generally speaking nobody that liked to play AI was also the WAAC type, but Orks would usually outnumber Eldar 2 or 3 to 1 in a typical game.
Also, the Very High maneuverability aircraft should have had some better benefit over the high maneuver aircraft, but the two additional cards you got, weren't all that useful most of the time.
It is more Alternate Activation than I-Go-U-Go. However, as you say the team with more planes had an advantage in movement and positioning. It was a balance method to offset the high-skill, high lethality forces with the less skilled, high numbers aircraft.
For example, Eldar Phoenix with star cannons and vectored(?) engines are wicked sick in getting into the killzone, but that is offset by good team tactics by a force like Orks.
1206
Post by: Easy E
For those who never played, here is a Throwback Thursday video by Ash from GMG.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvQ-GCSXTBA
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
AndrewGPaul wrote:There is a board game, Attack vector by Ad Astra Games, that took a stab at portraying accurate orbital mechanics in 3D. I don't know how playable the results were, though.
I don't see anything at all about orbital mechanics in Attack Vector.
OP - I'm not aware of any. There are a couple of computer games with good orbital mechanics but they don't have combat.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
The orbital mechanics rules are in a supplement, and are explicitly described as experimental and unfinished.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
First images of the re release is here, game to be released soon.
Plastic multipart planes. Hard to judge the model scale in regards to old FW models as there is no info about the model scale, but they kept the hex bases with the two dials, so im guessing the game wont bee too far off the orginal.
It will not be another "dreadfleet", it will get new planes, game expansions plus game support over the years.
Uknown at this time if its FW or GW that will "run it", as upcoming news will appear on the FW FaceB site.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Oh, I want this!
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
The planes remind me of an old arcade game called Varth: Operation Thunderstorm. And that is an awesome thing!
1206
Post by: Easy E
Can not wait. Saving up money now!
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
*sigh*
*takes out credit card*
Already thinking of paint schemes.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
"Double Eagle" is a pretty good book.
83418
Post by: Sledgehammer
Ahh yes, Just got me some Lightnings for my IG regiment the 1st Arkellan Volunteer Group based on the flying Tigers.
Now I sadly do not believe I can get the teeth on the thunderbolts.
92245
Post by: Darnok
Sledgehammer wrote:Ahh yes, Just got me some Lightnings for my IG regiment the 1st Arkellan Volunteer Group based on the flying Tigers.
Now I sadly do not believe I can get the teeth on the thunderbolts.
There is plenty of room for them on the Marauder though!
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
My plan is to paint a strip of white and use a .005 marker to paint in the black.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
I painted these to represent the artillery barrage and orbital strike stratagems for Adeptus Titanicus, but they'll find a good home in the new AI, now.
1
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
RFT wrote:While it's cool it's coming back, I don't hold out much hope of whatever the new game is being backwards-compatible with the old models, either because of scale or different basing standard.
The scale might be different, but the bases look identical to the old ones in terms of function, just different styling.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I hope we can buy extra bases!
I need more of those for my home builds.
88012
Post by: locarno24
....Is that a pair of punisher cannons in the nose?
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Whoa, good eyes! I didn’t spot that.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
Five barrels? More likely Avenger gatling cannons than Punishers.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Mega-bolter is the one with same visuals, traditionally.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I wonder if it is a ground-attack Thunderbolt with the Avenger Strike Cannon?
I wonder how much GW is going to stick to canon aircraft, vs. go off into the woods with new or updated designs and specs?
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
So we have a release date… and it’s next week!
Warhammer Community article here.
We get:
• a starter box
• a campaign/core rules book (rules are the same as the starter, no Necromunda 0-day dlc here)
• a separate game mat, different from the one in the box)
• four sets of plastic minis (two Imperial, two Ork)
• two sets of custom dice that actually look readable
• two card decks (aircraft stat references)
• card tokens sold separately which I believe is a first for GW
• some nifty plastic ground assets which look to be worth picking up if you play Adeptus Titanicus too.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
yes they confirmed that now.
"This includes a variant of the Thunderbolt never-before-seen on the tabletop – the avenger bolt cannon-armed Thunderbolt Fury"
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
Easy E wrote:I wonder if it is a ground-attack Thunderbolt with the Avenger Strike Cannon?
I wonder how much GW is going to stick to canon aircraft, vs. go off into the woods with new or updated designs and specs?
We’ll probably see more variants (the old game had a photo recon and “dam buster” variants of the Marauder which never got made into models) but the Imperial Navy alone has ten basic chassis to choose from, and the introduction of flyers into 40k has added a number of new models for Marines, Eldar, Tau and Chaos, as well as giving the Necrons some planes.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I am not a fan of the scale changes.... at least from what I can eyeball. The T-Bolts and Fighta-bomberz look huge!
They may not fit with my old forces.....
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
would not realy supprise me if the scale is changed.
they wont sell as mutch toys you know if people can use the original stuff.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Then again, I can't imagine it's going to be too difficult to find in-scale, 3-D printable Grimdark planes to make what you want.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Maybe another reason Rynns world contains the rules is for existing players who just want to be up to date with the new version? This would actually work in their favour as the game will be on the tables much sooner and getting noticed...
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
That's basically just the normal rulebook more than it is an expansion, with the starter pack having a booklet version in it (no campaign rules etc).
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
lots of parts and confirmed AT scale, aka 8mm.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
So, preorders are open; what-all is everyone getting?
Anyone really want them to release the ‘eavy Bommer kit already too?
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Just waiting to see whats coming next week, but for now it's just a box of Thunderbolts for Horizon Wars.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Mr_Rose wrote:So, preorders are open; what-all is everyone getting?
Anyone really want them to release the ‘eavy Bommer kit already too?
I ordered the rules, the expanded map, objectives, Thunderbolts, and Destroyers. Dunno if I'll ever to get to play a game but w/e.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I grabbed the game box and a box of Thunderbolts from Amazon at a discount. Got the set with anti-aircraft guns and missiles and the cards from GW (not available yet on Amazon.)
I'll get more planes when they are available at a discount. Same with the Rynn's world rule book.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Curiously enough, got two boxes and a bit to share with a pal. I'm taking the ork sides without any previous orky tendensies, thinking of hacking and painting them up as a small mercenary band that does odd jobs for the Imperium when they are lacking in power. A Blood Axes flying circus, perhaps :d
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
People have de-Orked the dakka jets for 40k to look like an F86 Sabre.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
book and 1x marauder destroyers ordered.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
2 Starters, Rynn book, Marauder Destroyers for me.
Rynn mat is a hard pass, it costs the same as a 3x3 mousepad mat. Until I get one of those, two starting mats combined give the same total area anyway.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Most mouse pad mats are only single sided. The GW one is double sided. That may make a difference for some folks.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
CptJake wrote:Most mouse pad mats are only single sided. The GW one is double sided. That may make a difference for some folks.
And easier to carry, to be fair. But it'll take the durability of neoprene over cardboard any day.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
So far as I can tell, the ranges etc are all measured base-to-base.
Therefore, provided your Tiny Wee Plane (TWP) is otherwise WYSIWG, it being more Tiny Wee than standard TWP's shouldn't make much difference.
And as ever, on that basis, if your opponent is whining about that, chances are that's the least of your worries in that particular match up
54612
Post by: witchdoctor
Fajita Fan wrote:People have de-Orked the dakka jets for 40k to look like an F86 Sabre.
Isn't that what the K4T Wolfcub of the Enothian PDF was supposed to be in Double Eagle?
That's actually a pretty cool concept for a conversion squadron. I think they were also supposed to have a larger turbo-prop fighter-bomber too...
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Fajita Fan wrote:People have de-Orked the dakka jets for 40k to look like an F86 Sabre.
*sigh* and that's more projects for the project god, conversion for the conversion throne then...
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
witchdoctor wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:People have de-Orked the dakka jets for 40k to look like an F86 Sabre.
Isn't that what the K4T Wolfcub of the Enothian PDF was supposed to be in Double Eagle?
That's actually a pretty cool concept for a conversion squadron. I think they were also supposed to have a larger turbo-prop fighter-bomber too...
I had no idea wtf those planes were in Double Eagle, I did some googling and someone posted some renditions based on the description.
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Lq40R
I also really wish the AI mats were neoprene like what you can get third party but unfortunately my GW store said I can't use gaming surfaces other than GW products. This makes AT a little hard given that GW doesn't actually sell an appropriate 4'x4' neoprene mat.
4402
Post by: CptJake
What would be cool is to get a ton of the Hexon plastic hex stuff to make a board for this. I always wanted to do it for Ogre Miniatures, but the shipping on enough Hexon stuff was always a bit too much for me to swallow.
https://www.kallistra.co.uk/?page=8
The hexes are 4 inches, so bigger than the GW hexes and the bases, but in my opinion it would let you make some pretty cool terrain.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
If you’re in the USA,GHQ have a terrain system based on 4” hexes:
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/hex-material.html
1206
Post by: Easy E
I personally, like to scratchbuild my own AI planes, but you can also find a lot of interesting stuff for PDF, Rogue Traders, Gue.vesa, Lost and the Damned, and other human based forces in other lines.
The Airspace Compendium has a lot of fun rules for various commercially available lines. I also like Vanguards aircraft.
Find the Airspace Rules Compendium now: http://z8.invisionfree.com/Airspace/index.php?showtopic=881&st=0entry22007348
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
Oh yeah!
I am going to use my Wings of Glory models so just the campaign book needed. Looking forward to P-51's manned by the Imperium attempting to shoot down Eldar 190's.
83418
Post by: Sledgehammer
Sherrypie wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:People have de-Orked the dakka jets for 40k to look like an F86 Sabre.
*sigh* and that's more projects for the project god, conversion for the conversion throne then...
Yup, and It's where I got the idea for my fighters for 40k, (I couldn't afford thunderbolts and lightnings so the $35 ork jet kit was a bit more affordable).
Here is chris13f original f86 sabre imperial dakka jet.
And here are my p40 esq imperial dakka jets
I'm looking forward to finally getting some thunderbolts, marauders and lightnings into the 1st AVG.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Anyone who hasn't seen a P-51D in person needs to. The only airplane I've ever been up close to that rivals its presence is the Tomcat.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Fajita Fan wrote:Anyone who hasn't seen a P-51D in person needs to. The only airplane I've ever been up close to that rivals its presence is the Tomcat.
Fo sho!
I'll see your tomcat & raise you an SR-71.
The P51D sounds & looks better than a Spitfire. Weird that it sounds better since they have the same engine.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Cool work, Sledge!
Yeah, I might do something similar with the wee orky birds then.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Fajita Fan wrote:Anyone who hasn't seen a P-51D in person needs to. The only airplane I've ever been up close to that rivals its presence is the Tomcat.
They have Mustang at Duxford and indeed it is a very nice looking plane.
It resides in an American memorial hanger with a B-52 and other beautiful craft such as the SR-71. Always enjoy visiting and the highlight is watching the Spitfires and Dragon Rapides taking off and making flybys, whilst enjoying fish and chips out on one of the benches.
But for me, it has to be the film star residing at Duxford and her name is the Sally B. She portrayed the Memphis Belle in the 1990 movie, and is blessed with both name-designs. I was ten years old when they bought in the other Flying Fortress from europe, for the film, and lucky enough to see them fly over my home.
Getting back to the topic at hand, it would be amazing if there was an Aeronautica Imperials game event hosted at Duxford. Automatically Appended Next Post: Racerguy180 wrote:
The P51D sounds & looks better than a Spitfire. Weird that it sounds better since they have the same engine.
The Mustang and Spitfire look great together, if you ever get that opportunity. Personally, the Mosquito is my preference to those.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Racerguy180 wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:Anyone who hasn't seen a P-51D in person needs to. The only airplane I've ever been up close to that rivals its presence is the Tomcat.
Fo sho!
I'll see your tomcat & raise you an SR-71.
The P51D sounds & looks better than a Spitfire. Weird that it sounds better since they have the same engine.
There’s a Blackbird at the Air and Space museum by me and while I love it I guess I’ve seen so many Tomcats moving around on runways and flying over my houses and schools that it’s even more special to me.
I never researched it (and I assume it’s cultural) but I wonder why we stopped customizing fighter jet paint schemes. Think of how cool an F15 or something would look with checkerboards or pinup art...
54612
Post by: witchdoctor
Fajita Fan wrote:I never researched it (and I assume it’s cultural) but I wonder why we stopped customizing fighter jet paint schemes. Think of how cool an F15 or something would look with checkerboards or pinup art...
Combination of factors over the decades for US Aviation to include:
-Custom paint is a bit of a lost art among the population
-Research into dogfighting and visual detection has led to low visibility paint schemes for superior survivability
-Stealth
-Improvement in IFF (Identification Friendly Foe) technology
-Maintenance Pressures means you don't have hours to spare on painting Miley Cyrus onto the side of the AC-130 named "Wrecking Ball."
-Creating a safe environment for female military personnel (Pinup girls and other related imagery are part of a number of factors that create an environment that enables predators)
You still get a little in the USN as the CAG birds will get a high visibility paint scheme that echoes the 1970s-1980s squadron livery. Some Army helicopters will have low visibility artwork (usually a simple stencil) on the engine cowling. There's also the occasional USAF bird that has some historically significant livery, but these are one-off things usually authorized by someone high up for a PR event.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I think one of my favorite warplane moments when a B-1 Lancer took off over us while traveling across So Dak. Pretty sweet!
Also, going to the Mighty 8th Air Museum in Georgia was sweet.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
witchdoctor wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:I never researched it (and I assume it’s cultural) but I wonder why we stopped customizing fighter jet paint schemes. Think of how cool an F15 or something would look with checkerboards or pinup art...
Combination of factors over the decades for US Aviation to include:
-Custom paint is a bit of a lost art among the population
-Research into dogfighting and visual detection has led to low visibility paint schemes for superior survivability
-Stealth
-Improvement in IFF (Identification Friendly Foe) technology
-Maintenance Pressures means you don't have hours to spare on painting Miley Cyrus onto the side of the AC-130 named "Wrecking Ball."
-Creating a safe environment for female military personnel (Pinup girls and other related imagery are part of a number of factors that create an environment that enables predators)
You still get a little in the USN as the CAG birds will get a high visibility paint scheme that echoes the 1970s-1980s squadron livery. Some Army helicopters will have low visibility artwork (usually a simple stencil) on the engine cowling. There's also the occasional USAF bird that has some historically significant livery, but these are one-off things usually authorized by someone high up for a PR event.
All fair points.
And yes, the B-1 is about as loud as turbofan-powered aircraft get. I love how they shake your chest even airborne.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Taken the plunge and ordered the box of Thunderbolts.
Not yet ready to take on a new game but I can at least prepare a minimum flight group( 100 pts? Hmmm... ) for when it is time. I hope the game does well.
95191
Post by: godardc
witchdoctor wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:
-Creating a safe environment for female military personnel (Pinup girls and other related imagery are part of a number of factors that create an environment that enables predators)
I don't recall having ever read something as wrong as this, to stay polite, on DakkaDakka. I'm sad now.
All the others points are well thoughts, though
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Anything that contributes to the objectification of women in the workplace (and active military service is a very special workplace but a workplace nonetheless) is something that - even if it doesn't actively encourage bad behavior - certainly doesn't foster an atmosphere of respect.
If it still were a practice I'd totally be in favor of female pilots getting to adorn their planes however they want. Having looked through a bunch of nose art recently my favorite are actually the cartoon characters. Road Runner was one of my favorites as a kid for some reason.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
So I've been digging through the rules for AI and I'm kind of disgusted, honestly. The original was one of the best games GW's ever made; it was clean, elegant, straightforward, worked great with minimal models, and managed to be cinematic and evocative at the same time. And they've dumped a pile of bloat all over it just so they can sell extra cardboard.
X-Wing v.1 was very much a game of card combos rather than a dogfighting game, and that turned it into a frustrating exercise in gross imbalance where the power-combo could go through anything you put in front of it no matter how well it flew, which is why X-Wing v.2 has put effort into toning down the power of the cards and bringing back the dogfighting. And GW's just gone the exact opposite direction by taking a game that was about dogfighting and had no card-combos, and adding unique named pilots/stratagems/random crap.
So thbbbt to this whole exercise; thank you for the new models, but I'm pulling the old rulebook back out to fly them with.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Racerguy180 wrote:The P51D sounds & looks better than a Spitfire. Weird that it sounds better since they have the same engine.
Really?
I like pretty much all WW2 warplanes, in the end each and every one of them carried actual people in to close quarters combat in a way that was never seen before and will never be seen again. As cool as modern jets are, they're never going to hold the same place in my heart as the incredible WW2 fighters carrying banks of machine guns and cannons in to large scale air battles between reasonably well matched forces.
BUT, aesthetically speaking, the P51 has always looked pregnant to me, with its low slung intercooler and oil cooler.
The Spit was one of the more elegant looking fighters of the time, the P47 and Typhoon/Tempest are some of the most imposing looking (though I don't think there are any surviving Tempests?), though the P40 looks pretty mean as well. The Emil variants of the 109 I find really brutal looking.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
AnomanderRake wrote:So I've been digging through the rules for AI and I'm kind of disgusted, honestly. The original was one of the best games GW's ever made; it was clean, elegant, straightforward, worked great with minimal models, and managed to be cinematic and evocative at the same time. And they've dumped a pile of bloat all over it just so they can sell extra cardboard.
X-Wing v.1 was very much a game of card combos rather than a dogfighting game, and that turned it into a frustrating exercise in gross imbalance where the power-combo could go through anything you put in front of it no matter how well it flew, which is why X-Wing v.2 has put effort into toning down the power of the cards and bringing back the dogfighting. And GW's just gone the exact opposite direction by taking a game that was about dogfighting and had no card-combos, and adding unique named pilots/stratagems/random crap.
So thbbbt to this whole exercise; thank you for the new models, but I'm pulling the old rulebook back out to fly them with.
I take it the hexes weren't in the original game? The playthroughs I see on Youtube aren't using them.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Hex model base was, but hex movment was not.
Seems GW used Shadespire as inspiration when they remade AI instead of the original FW rules.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
FrozenDwarf wrote:Hex model base was, but hex movment was not.
Seems GW used Shadespire as inspiration when they remade AI instead of the original FW rules.
How d’you figure that? Other than converting ranges and movement to hexes the rules are nearly identical to 1st edition, as are the aircraft stats. They certainly aren’t doing any of the following: using custom die faces (ordinary d6’s all the way); limiting activations per-turn; using pre-selected squadrons; integrating random card drawing and deck customisation; eschewing points as a balancing mechanism; or invoking any sort of season/rotation mechanism.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
Yep the hex-board makes movement simpler and drops the movement cards (which you had to cut out yourself and had a cheap sketch of the flight path). The core of the game is exactly the same. The new cards are an 'aide memoire' - most of the information is in the wings of Vengeance rule book, and all of it is in the Rynn's World Campaign book.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
SamusDrake wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:So I've been digging through the rules for AI and I'm kind of disgusted, honestly. The original was one of the best games GW's ever made; it was clean, elegant, straightforward, worked great with minimal models, and managed to be cinematic and evocative at the same time. And they've dumped a pile of bloat all over it just so they can sell extra cardboard.
X-Wing v.1 was very much a game of card combos rather than a dogfighting game, and that turned it into a frustrating exercise in gross imbalance where the power-combo could go through anything you put in front of it no matter how well it flew, which is why X-Wing v.2 has put effort into toning down the power of the cards and bringing back the dogfighting. And GW's just gone the exact opposite direction by taking a game that was about dogfighting and had no card-combos, and adding unique named pilots/stratagems/random crap.
So thbbbt to this whole exercise; thank you for the new models, but I'm pulling the old rulebook back out to fly them with.
I take it the hexes weren't in the original game? The playthroughs I see on Youtube aren't using them.
They basically translated the original game in to a hex game, it wouldn't be terribly hard to play the new version without hexes and the old version with hexes.
There's pros and cons for hexes, the hexes definitely make the game play faster, no measuring and laying cards to figure out manoeuvres, but the big cons is you can't just play it on existing boards, you have to buy a hex board, so we're unlikely to see cool scenic boards for it and also that it's the sort of game that benefits from having a bigger board to allow aircraft to manoeuvre, but big hex boards are hard to find and expensive.
105062
Post by: Soulless
So...Rules question here.
During the end phase a stalling aircraft will try to avoid the stall going into a spin by rolling against its Handling.
If the roll is successful the aircraft speed is reduced by 1 (within the aircraft limits) and altitude is set to the aircraft maximum.
Isnt this completely the opposite of what would be happening?
If anything, recovering from a stall should be increasing speed and reducing altitude, right?
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Cheers for the insight guys.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Soulless wrote:So...Rules question here.
During the end phase a stalling aircraft will try to avoid the stall going into a spin by rolling against its Handling.
If the roll is successful the aircraft speed is reduced by 1 (within the aircraft limits) and altitude is set to the aircraft maximum.
Isnt this completely the opposite of what would be happening?
If anything, recovering from a stall should be increasing speed and reducing altitude, right?
I haven't opened up my rulebook yet but yes, logically you're correct.
122261
Post by: slave.entity
I read somewhere that there was some news about eldar planes being shown at some event recently. Warcom or something? I'm not exactly sure.
Anyone know more about this?
105062
Post by: Soulless
I wish GW would have used dials instead of tokens to select maneuvers...Just as XW, there should have been a dial for each ship, with only the maneuvers that ship can select.
This token system feels so last second...
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Soulless wrote:I wish GW would have used dials instead of tokens to select maneuvers...Just as XW, there should have been a dial for each ship, with only the maneuvers that ship can select.
This token system feels so last second...
The old method for AI used to be just to record it on a piece of paper, which I think works better than the counters. During a game I played in store before release, I wasted so much time just trying to find the counter that matched the manoeuvre I wanted.
I might see if I can make up some dial counters for manoeuvres rather than trying to use the cardboard ones.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Soulless wrote:I wish GW would have used dials instead of tokens to select maneuvers...Just as XW, there should have been a dial for each ship, with only the maneuvers that ship can select.
This token system feels so last second...
The old method for AI used to be just to record it on a piece of paper, which I think works better than the counters. During a game I played in store before release, I wasted so much time just trying to find the counter that matched the manoeuvre I wanted.
I might see if I can make up some dial counters for manoeuvres rather than trying to use the cardboard ones.
Yeah its just not well thought out, as if they didnt even consider it before it was printed and packaged.
I just cant imagine them having playtested this and not ever thought "hey, isnt there a better, easier and more intuitive way to do these orders".
For two Dakkajet's and one Fightabommer I need 14 different tokens at hand for the maneuvers..
And since these are supposed to be handled "in secret" I need to either keep them face down randomly sorted (making finding the right one insanely annoying) or shield them somehow from my opponent so they cant see whats being used and not.
And thats just for three craft. Double that and were talking double the tokens...
To add to the annoyance, they made the maneuver tokens the same size, shape and color as the status tokens...
I just cant imagine that they didnt notice these stupid and easily avoidable issues during development.
Hoping they release some accessories that solve this but seeing how they want £10 for 8 dice Im sure they would charge insanely for it.
113745
Post by: RFT
Use of dials for manoeuvre selection might be an IP issue with Fantasy Flight. I’ve got some acrylic wound trackers that’ll work for the job which weren’t expensive.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
RFT wrote:Use of dials for manoeuvre selection might be an IP issue with Fantasy Flight. I’ve got some acrylic wound trackers that’ll work for the job which weren’t expensive.
I hope IP hasn’t gotten that crazy. I’ve never played Xwing and never knew about their counters, but a dial counter was literally the first thing after “just write it down” that came to mind when trying to think up a way to secretly note manoeuvres.
It’d suck if they copyrighted what is literally the most obvious solution to that problem.
I think the next best alternative to counters which indicate your manoeuvre is instead have counters which number the planes and then write them on a separate piece of paper.
Hunting for tokens is annoying, you could organise them in to stacks but then your opponent is going to know which one you picked up and put next to each plane.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
I find the dials in X-Wing fiddly, they take up a huge amount of space and it makes it hard to see which options a given ship has. If I lose a dial for X-Wing I’m gunned. If I lose a counter, that’s easily resolved.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Also, sight screens, yo. Resolves the concealed pick thing at a stroke and you can use your squadron list so you don’t even have to remember anything extra.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AndrewGPaul wrote:I find the dials in X-Wing fiddly, they take up a huge amount of space and it makes it hard to see which options a given ship has. If I lose a dial for X-Wing I’m gunned. If I lose a counter, that’s easily resolved.
The dials for XW2.0 (as well as accessories for first edition) makes all options visible when selecting maneuvers.
They hardly take up more space than all the tokens youll need to have available to play AI. (Though xw has a great deal of other tokens, but the dials hardly take up space enough to be an issue).
If you lose an xw dial you can buy a new third party one, or more likely you will get one for free if you just ask FFG support for it.
Individual tokens for this is among the more stupid design choices ive seen over the past few years, just cant imagine how they could go with it.
Id take a few dials any day over a tacklebox full of numbered tokens
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Geez no, keep as many bespoke thingamabobs required for playing away from me as possible. I'll write the numbers on paper or get a vision screen any day over needing a bunch of fiddly cardboard toys.
111691
Post by: callidusx3
Just to add my intent with this game...
I'm using it to play at home with friends and family, so I bought just Rynn's World. I will use my old epic planes (I left GW back in 2004, so never got AI when it first released) based on 1" hexes. I'll just need to acquire a 3'x3' mat with 1" hex grid printed on to it.
This will also save my wallet some. I've spent enough on GW these past 2 years on Underworlds, Kill Team and ME:SBG. Automatically Appended Next Post: Soulless wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Soulless wrote:I wish GW would have used dials instead of tokens to select maneuvers...Just as XW, there should have been a dial for each ship, with only the maneuvers that ship can select.
This token system feels so last second...
The old method for AI used to be just to record it on a piece of paper, which I think works better than the counters. During a game I played in store before release, I wasted so much time just trying to find the counter that matched the manoeuvre I wanted.
I might see if I can make up some dial counters for manoeuvres rather than trying to use the cardboard ones.
Yeah its just not well thought out, as if they didnt even consider it before it was printed and packaged.
I just cant imagine them having playtested this and not ever thought "hey, isnt there a better, easier and more intuitive way to do these orders".
For two Dakkajet's and one Fightabommer I need 14 different tokens at hand for the maneuvers..
And since these are supposed to be handled "in secret" I need to either keep them face down randomly sorted (making finding the right one insanely annoying) or shield them somehow from my opponent so they cant see whats being used and not.
And thats just for three craft. Double that and were talking double the tokens...
To add to the annoyance, they made the maneuver tokens the same size, shape and color as the status tokens...
I just cant imagine that they didnt notice these stupid and easily avoidable issues during development.
Hoping they release some accessories that solve this but seeing how they want £10 for 8 dice Im sure they would charge insanely for it.
I know out there someone has figured out how to use a die to secretly select the maneuver. Dice would save quite a bit on clutter, making selection quicker.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Sherrypie wrote:Geez no, keep as many bespoke thingamabobs required for playing away from me as possible. I'll write the numbers on paper or get a vision screen any day over needing a bunch of fiddly cardboard toys.
All have there taste but I prefer a few "thingamabobs" to dozens of tokens and vision screens.
Curious though, exactly what is fiddly about turning a dial? More fiddly than having pen and papers or dozens of tokens and dividing vision screens?
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
I have the cards but haven't opened them, are there enough for most battles? Just put a die under the card?
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
My collection of X-Wing dials is huge and takes up a significant amount of space - much more than the single baggie of counters for Aeronautica Imperialis, which will do me for any size of game I foresee ever playing. Since the counters aren't keyed to the ships, I don't need to get ever more just because I've bought more planes. I also find placing a counter takes longer than manipulating a dial. And the counters don't ever get loose and result in the wrong symbol being shown.
YMMV, but I find AI to be a more user-friendly way to do it.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
AndrewGPaul wrote:I find the dials in X-Wing fiddly, they take up a huge amount of space and it makes it hard to see which options a given ship has. If I lose a dial for X-Wing I’m gunned. If I lose a counter, that’s easily resolved.
I'd almost rather have had dials for AI given that you only need three different ones (for low, high, and very high maneuverability). Having to sort through the stack of cardboard tokens seems to take a while.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AndrewGPaul wrote:My collection of X-Wing dials is huge and takes up a significant amount of space - much more than the single baggie of counters for Aeronautica Imperialis, which will do me for any size of game I foresee ever playing. Since the counters aren't keyed to the ships, I don't need to get ever more just because I've bought more planes. I also find placing a counter takes longer than manipulating a dial. And the counters don't ever get loose and result in the wrong symbol being shown.
YMMV, but I find AI to be a more user-friendly way to do it.
Fair enough.
Although, five years of XW and ive never had anyone presenting any of those things you mentioned as an issue. No broken/lose dials, no issues storing or transporting them and lost dials can easily be replaced for free or at minimal cost.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
No such thing as manoeuvrability classes any more. You just get a number showing the highest rated turn you can use.
I still think I prefer ‘face up behind a screen’ as the fastest and simplest solution to counter-picking.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AnomanderRake wrote: AndrewGPaul wrote:I find the dials in X-Wing fiddly, they take up a huge amount of space and it makes it hard to see which options a given ship has. If I lose a dial for X-Wing I’m gunned. If I lose a counter, that’s easily resolved.
I'd almost rather have had dials for AI given that you only need three different ones (for low, high, and very high maneuverability). Having to sort through the stack of cardboard tokens seems to take a while.
Na you would either need generic ones covering all numbers/maneuvers, or individual ones for each ship as there will likely be ships further on that have like "1-2, 5" or similar maneuvers.
I wouldnt mind either way, generic ones would mean they can sell em separately and anyone can buy/replace whatever whenever or even not at all, individual ones would just be neater and help you not setting maneuvers a craft doesnt have.
In any case, were not ever gonna get individual ones now, but maybe generic ones. There is already someone on etsy making maneuver dials for the game but shipping is stopping me from ordering them right away
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
This wouldn't be very hard to 3d print something. I'm thinking of a dial with the numbers 1-8, a hole in the middle, and just a rod being held by friction in the middle that points to a number. Rotate the rod to your maneuver, turn face down, done.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Personally, it's probably mostly about my everlasting loathing of hyperspecialised game components in addition to them being fiddlier than placing dice or tokens. Ideally, I'd prefer my wargames to only require a book, some paper for notes and a bunch of normal dice (of varying sizes, sure, but preferably without any bespoke nonsense that FFG games just love). For moving I like to have either straight up zones (squares, hexes, whatever) with borders or a normal ruler for unrestricted moves, games like Fallout and X-Wing drowning you in cardboard bits is very good at instantly killing my interest. Either gamely restricted or properly free, diddling around in-between rarely improves anything.
If we take into account that AI only has like what, eight different maneuvers, of which most planes can only perform the first six or less, you can put your choices in order with normal d6's or d8's behind a screen (like the main game box ) and just lift that when both sides have made their decisions. Rolling sometimes stuck cardboard dials that oftentimes obscure what choices you had while trying to decide, which also might commit the ultimate sin of useful gaming aids by being keyed to a specific model, ehh... logistically bothersome, when there's barely any improvement in the quality of life over basic, universal things that don't just take up space when you decide to do literally anything else in your life. Not the worst thing, no, but also nothing I'd advocate for as something crucial to the game. As a sidenote, why do so many dials only show the chosen value instead of having an arrow pointing to it? Would let you see all possibilities easier.
Regarding the token placement, a box wide enough to stand on its own and tall enough to hide the chits from the other player could work well, especially if the possible maneuvers were printed on both sides so the players would always have the choices in front of them while thinking. If one uses the data cards, a written list or something, just place them on the table, put the box between them, place your order markers down and start revealing.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Could you use a little rack like the types you put Scrabble letter tiles on? That wouldn't take up as much room as a box.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Sherrypie wrote:Personally, it's probably mostly about my everlasting loathing of hyperspecialised game components in addition to them being fiddlier than placing dice or tokens. Ideally, I'd prefer my wargames to only require a book, some paper for notes and a bunch of normal dice (of varying sizes, sure, but preferably without any bespoke nonsense that FFG games just love). For moving I like to have either straight up zones (squares, hexes, whatever) with borders or a normal ruler for unrestricted moves, games like Fallout and X-Wing drowning you in cardboard bits is very good at instantly killing my interest. Either gamely restricted or properly free, diddling around in-between rarely improves anything.
If we take into account that AI only has like what, eight different maneuvers, of which most planes can only perform the first six or less, you can put your choices in order with normal d6's or d8's behind a screen (like the main game box ) and just lift that when both sides have made their decisions. Rolling sometimes stuck cardboard dials that oftentimes obscure what choices you had while trying to decide, which also might commit the ultimate sin of useful gaming aids by being keyed to a specific model, ehh... logistically bothersome, when there's barely any improvement in the quality of life over basic, universal things that don't just take up space when you decide to do literally anything else in your life. Not the worst thing, no, but also nothing I'd advocate for as something crucial to the game. As a sidenote, why do so many dials only show the chosen value instead of having an arrow pointing to it? Would let you see all possibilities easier.
Regarding the token placement, a box wide enough to stand on its own and tall enough to hide the chits from the other player could work well, especially if the possible maneuvers were printed on both sides so the players would always have the choices in front of them while thinking. If one uses the data cards, a written list or something, just place them on the table, put the box between them, place your order markers down and start revealing.
Appreciate the response, while I dont agree with much of it I at least see where youre coming from.
Dials combine all the functions needed for this mechanic into a single component, reducing the amount of "stuff" required to play the game. That, to me, makes it quicker and easier to handle and manage.
My opinion of course, to each their own.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Question for those who’ve bought Rynn’s World.
For someone that bought Wings of Vengeance, do I have a particularly pressing need to obtain Rynn’s World?
I mean, I’m gonna get it eventually, but does it add enough that it should be considered a priority purchase, or do you think I can pootle along without it for a month or two, whilst I Git Gud?
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
@Soulless: yeah, I can see combining stuff as being nice, but when one dabbles with miniatures, board games, multiple active role playing campaigns and what nots... there's a real risk of accruing bespoke gubbins that are forever useless should a project die out after the initial surge of interest as they don't serve any (obvious) purpose beyond gathering dust.
Maybe it's a defensive mechanism, staying away saves space for more grey plastic mountains of shame in the den
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Question for those who’ve bought Rynn’s World.
For someone that bought Wings of Vengeance, do I have a particularly pressing need to obtain Rynn’s World?
I mean, I’m gonna get it eventually, but does it add enough that it should be considered a priority purchase, or do you think I can pootle along without it for a month or two, whilst I Git Gud?
Rynn’s World has the five additional missions the rules for ground attacks and ground targets, the ‘full’ force lists (including both Eavy Bommers variants and the Marauder Destroyer) and the campaign experience system for pilots.
It’s kinda hard to say really.
I mean you can ignore the campaign stuff but the scenarios are really the “full” game - just dogfights will not develop real skill as an Air Commodore. I’d say give it a couple of weeks, see if you actually like the game (of course you will) then get it.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Question for those who’ve bought Rynn’s World.
For someone that bought Wings of Vengeance, do I have a particularly pressing need to obtain Rynn’s World?
I mean, I’m gonna get it eventually, but does it add enough that it should be considered a priority purchase, or do you think I can pootle along without it for a month or two, whilst I Git Gud?
Not played it but watched a few playthroughs. It seems the map included with WOV is good for just the contents of that set, but if you've got additional aircraft on top of that then yeah, get the Rynns board.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Sherrypie wrote:Personally, it's probably mostly about my everlasting loathing of hyperspecialised game components in addition to them being fiddlier than placing dice or tokens. Ideally, I'd prefer my wargames to only require a book, some paper for notes and a bunch of normal dice (of varying sizes, sure, but preferably without any bespoke nonsense that FFG games just love). For moving I like to have either straight up zones (squares, hexes, whatever) with borders or a normal ruler for unrestricted moves, games like Fallout and X-Wing drowning you in cardboard bits is very good at instantly killing my interest. Either gamely restricted or properly free, diddling around in-between rarely improves anything.
If we take into account that AI only has like what, eight different maneuvers, of which most planes can only perform the first six or less, you can put your choices in order with normal d6's or d8's behind a screen (like the main game box ) and just lift that when both sides have made their decisions. Rolling sometimes stuck cardboard dials that oftentimes obscure what choices you had while trying to decide, which also might commit the ultimate sin of useful gaming aids by being keyed to a specific model, ehh... logistically bothersome, when there's barely any improvement in the quality of life over basic, universal things that don't just take up space when you decide to do literally anything else in your life. Not the worst thing, no, but also nothing I'd advocate for as something crucial to the game. As a sidenote, why do so many dials only show the chosen value instead of having an arrow pointing to it? Would let you see all possibilities easier.
Regarding the token placement, a box wide enough to stand on its own and tall enough to hide the chits from the other player could work well, especially if the possible maneuvers were printed on both sides so the players would always have the choices in front of them while thinking. If one uses the data cards, a written list or something, just place them on the table, put the box between them, place your order markers down and start revealing.
The existence of bespoke tokens doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to use a pen and paper or dice or the existing counters if you prefer.
I don’t know what the xwing dials are like, I was just going to stack 3 circles of plasticard, one with numbers, the other two with a hole so only one number is visible, and a central hole for a pin. The reason for 3 being that I can use a pin with a head to hold it together securely without needing a tight friction fit.
I wouldn’t bother making specialised ones for different planes. Just ones with all the numbers and leave it to the player to know what manoeuvrability their planes are.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Strong magnets have enough friction to keep a little dial in place.
62705
Post by: AndrewGPaul
If you’ve got Wings of Vengeance, I’d wait until you’ve painted the models and played a few games. You can quite happily play with just the contents of the box for a while until you have the rules down.
As soon as you want to add Marauder Destroyers or ‘Eavy Bommers, or want to do something other than a straight dogfight you’ll want Rynn’s War, but it’s not a compulsory purchase right away.
By the way, looking over the mat from Wings of Vengeance, the he bottom right of the rural side of it is the J’Migan Bridge feature table from Warhammer World. The wrecked Warlord and Baneblade are also from other WW tables.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Question for those who’ve bought Rynn’s World.
For someone that bought Wings of Vengeance, do I have a particularly pressing need to obtain Rynn’s World?
I mean, I’m gonna get it eventually, but does it add enough that it should be considered a priority purchase, or do you think I can pootle along without it for a month or two, whilst I Git Gud?
Play a few games and see how you go. I got the starter set but I think I'll be getting Rynn's World pretty soon because it has the scenarios and rules for other models.
The starter set gives you bombers, but the scenarios related to bombing missions is in Rynn's World rather than the starter set. Automatically Appended Next Post: SamusDrake wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Question for those who’ve bought Rynn’s World.
For someone that bought Wings of Vengeance, do I have a particularly pressing need to obtain Rynn’s World?
I mean, I’m gonna get it eventually, but does it add enough that it should be considered a priority purchase, or do you think I can pootle along without it for a month or two, whilst I Git Gud?
Not played it but watched a few playthroughs. It seems the map included with WOV is good for just the contents of that set, but if you've got additional aircraft on top of that then yeah, get the Rynns board.
I think even the Rynn's board is going to be a little small. I'm thinking of just going straight for something like this...
https://www.tinywargames.co.uk/online-store/Team-Yankee-With-2-inch-hex-6x4-feet-p68981081
Or maybe getting a hex dot stencil so I can spray paint a hex pattern on a different board, like this (though wondering if I can make my own rather than buying one).
https://litko.net/products/stencil-2-inch-hex-grid-dot-pattern
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Thanks for the thinks guys
Really enjoying building these kits, and think I’m hooked just on the build quality alone.
Just hoping a majority of players don’t get fully hung up on WYSIWYG for this one.
Under wing weapons for instance. Most of the time, we can’t actually seem them all that clearly. So if I’ve modelled for I think looks cool, it shouldn’t make a huge difference whether their Air to Air missiles, or Air to Ground, provides my list is clear.
Ditto the models, come to think of it. These are of course significantly bigger than the original metal Epic models, and I understand the same for the original Aeronautica stuff. But given its all measured hex-to-hex, should the actual dimensions of the model matter a jot? So long as your stand-ins are consistent, what’s the difference?
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
There is no difference, playing with the old stuff works just fine.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Soulless wrote:So...Rules question here.
During the end phase a stalling aircraft will try to avoid the stall going into a spin by rolling against its Handling.
If the roll is successful the aircraft speed is reduced by 1 (within the aircraft limits) and altitude is set to the aircraft maximum.
Isnt this completely the opposite of what would be happening?
If anything, recovering from a stall should be increasing speed and reducing altitude, right?
I think what they're trying to show is an uneventful stall, where an aircraft attempts to climb too much but just levels out a bit instead of dramatically falling out of the sky. So if the stall is caused by going too slow, you just set it to it's minimum speed, and if it's caused by going over the max altitude you just set it to max altitude.
A stall in combat will generally occur while the plane is near maximum throttle and for a fighter plane producing a lot of thrust it can regain energy quickly, so a careful adjustment may be enough to stop the plane just falling out of the sky (rather than dramatically falling out of the sky and having to dive and regain speed to recover from the stall).
But the way it's worded is odd, it makes it sound like you should adjust to the max altitude even if you stalled at low altitude, I think what they mean is increase the altitude by 1 (as the aircraft was attempting to climb) unless you're at your max in which case set it to max, but that's not really how it's worded.
Also I don't really like how stalling makes you harder to hit and thus can be used as an evasive tactic. Stalling in combat is almost always a horrible idea because the time you're just hanging in the air you're a sitting duck, unable to manoeuvre out of the way of enemy guns.
Play a combat flight simulator, if you can get the enemy plane to stall they become such an easy target, hovering there unable to jink out of the way.
The only time I can think it's beneficial to stall is when you know you have more energy and/or power than a plane which is on your tail, you can climb rapidly knowing that the plane on your tail will stall before you, position your plane for a fast stall recovery and if you get lucky the positions will be reversed when you've both recovered from the stall you'll be on their tail. I'm sure I've read of a real life WW2 dogfight that went down that way and allowed an outnumbered pilot to get a kill and escape. If you misjudge and stall before the plane on your tail does, you'll be blown out of the sky.
But that's not really a scenario that can be recreated in AI. Automatically Appended Next Post: Sherrypie wrote:There is no difference, playing with the old stuff works just fine.
It's not going to affect the gameplay, but if you play with old and new models on the table it's going to look a bit odd as the old ones are quite a bit smaller.
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Sure, I meant there's no difference in gameplay. Rest is aesthetics, for some it works and some find it jarring.
54612
Post by: witchdoctor
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Soulless wrote:I wish GW would have used dials instead of tokens to select maneuvers...Just as XW, there should have been a dial for each ship, with only the maneuvers that ship can select.
This token system feels so last second...
The old method for AI used to be just to record it on a piece of paper, which I think works better than the counters. During a game I played in store before release, I wasted so much time just trying to find the counter that matched the manoeuvre I wanted.
I might see if I can make up some dial counters for manoeuvres rather than trying to use the cardboard ones.
Is there any particular reason why we couldn't just write down the maneuver number on a sheet like the 1st Edition AI roster sheet instead of fiddling with counters? I have to go to the store to pick up my copy today.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Soulless wrote:So...Rules question here.
During the end phase a stalling aircraft will try to avoid the stall going into a spin by rolling against its Handling.
If the roll is successful the aircraft speed is reduced by 1 (within the aircraft limits) and altitude is set to the aircraft maximum.
Isnt this completely the opposite of what would be happening?
If anything, recovering from a stall should be increasing speed and reducing altitude, right?
I think what they're trying to show is an uneventful stall, where an aircraft attempts to climb too much but just levels out a bit instead of dramatically falling out of the sky. So if the stall is caused by going too slow, you just set it to it's minimum speed, and if it's caused by going over the max altitude you just set it to max altitude.
A stall in combat will generally occur while the plane is near maximum throttle and for a fighter plane producing a lot of thrust it can regain energy quickly, so a careful adjustment may be enough to stop the plane just falling out of the sky (rather than dramatically falling out of the sky and having to dive and regain speed to recover from the stall).
But the way it's worded is odd, it makes it sound like you should adjust to the max altitude even if you stalled at low altitude, I think what they mean is increase the altitude by 1 (as the aircraft was attempting to climb) unless you're at your max in which case set it to max, but that's not really how it's worded.
Also I don't really like how stalling makes you harder to hit and thus can be used as an evasive tactic. Stalling in combat is almost always a horrible idea because the time you're just hanging in the air you're a sitting duck, unable to manoeuvre out of the way of enemy guns.
Play a combat flight simulator, if you can get the enemy plane to stall they become such an easy target, hovering there unable to jink out of the way.
The only time I can think it's beneficial to stall is when you know you have more energy and/or power than a plane which is on your tail, you can climb rapidly knowing that the plane on your tail will stall before you, position your plane for a fast stall recovery and if you get lucky the positions will be reversed when you've both recovered from the stall you'll be on their tail. I'm sure I've read of a real life WW2 dogfight that went down that way and allowed an outnumbered pilot to get a kill and escape. If you misjudge and stall before the plane on your tail does, you'll be blown out of the sky.
But that's not really a scenario that can be recreated in AI.
That makes a bit more sense I guess. I was also wondering about just that; Why are we setting altitude to maximum if a stall is avoided at low altitude?
If a stall is avoided, the ships should at best stay at the same altitude, the "climb" was already adjusted for previously in the round. And to avoid the stall you wouldnt be climbing anymore.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
I'll 3d print a dial and a little hand magnetized to it to see how that works. Maybe a lip around the edge so the hand doesn't get affected by turning it over.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Theres another dude at Etsy doing maneuver dials and some other stuff for AI now, this one in europe so now theres at least one in USA and Europe.
I like these, think ill be ordering a few of them!
https://www.etsy.com/se-en/listing/721026238/aeronautica-imperialis-maneuver-dials-v1?ref=shop_home_active_9&frs=1
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
I quickly mocked this up in TinkerCAD to try printing. The octagon is 40mm tall and wide, the hole in the middle is recessed for a magnet and the little indicator will have a magnet glued to the other side. The lip should keep the indicator from touching the table so friction of the magnet should keep the indicator in position. I'll try printing it tonight to see how it comes out.
1
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
It works but at 40mm a side it’s not too much smaller than an AI base. I’ll probably shrink this down tomorrow but the 5mm magnet provides enough friction to keep the indicator in place when it’s turned over. .
3
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
got the book yesterday and there is a few things i would like some toughts on.
1: it seems to me that imp, is only viable in large (maybe medium sized game), as they need a large game mat to be able to kite the mid range game and large math apparently means large games. allso does imp favor beeing the defender in moust of the scenarios? thats atleast how i see it.
2: equipment upgrades dont seems like they realy are worth it. it is either 1 time use or only works on a 6. very low odds...
3: beeing 10p below the limit is just fine, but beeing 1-3 points above is not...............
would have just been better if they wrote it as a +/- 5 point tolerance.... aka if you have 100p then you can be from 95 to 105.
101462
Post by: MarkNorfolk
but then that would just be a 105 point game. you've just shifted the upper threshold a bit.
If it helps - just think of it as a 95 point game.
Besides, having put some thought in to a list for a pre-arranged game with a preset limit and then your opponent speaks up and say "I'm 5/10/20 points over - is that ok?" Well, no. No it isn't.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Being 3 points over in a 100 point AI game is like being 60 points over in a 2000pt 40k game...
If someone told me they were 3 points over I’d make one of my planes an Ace and say, “that’s fine I’m now 5pts over so that’s even.”
103099
Post by: Sherrypie
Yeah, coming into a fight underpointed is only shooting yourself in the foot, which is okay, whereas going a bit over is less cool. If you're playing with friends, you know roughly how you all prefer to play and so on, asking "hey I went three points over, that cool?" tends to go down pretty well, but if we're talking about how the limit is written to the main rules, the upper limit is the upper limit, full stop.
That of course flies out of the window when talking about narrative scenarios and stuff, but for pitched battles the limit should be written in stone.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
so if it is sutch a big deal to go 1-3p over, why was the "10p under" section written in the first place?
should WG just have not included that line and instead written: you must be at exact agreed point limit, no diviation is allowed,??
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
MarkNorfolk wrote:Besides, having put some thought in to a list for a pre-arranged game with a preset limit and then your opponent speaks up and say "I'm 5/10/20 points over - is that ok?" Well, no. No it isn't.
It is okay if that's what's written in to the rules, which is what FrozenDwarf is talking about.
It really doesn't matter either way, I don't know why people are getting hung up on it, the rules says you're allowed to be within a 10 pt range, you aren't allowed to go over that range OR under that range, what the range is actually in numerical terms is mostly arbitrary.
I couldn't care less if it said 10pts under or +/- 5pts, the anal people who like to use every last point will just adjust themselves to use every last point within the range.
The nice thing is that we've actually been given a range, so people have no excuse for going either under or over it, it's in the rules.
105062
Post by: Soulless
FrozenDwarf wrote:so if it is sutch a big deal to go 1-3p over, why was the "10p under" section written in the first place?
should WG just have not included that line and instead written: you must be at exact agreed point limit, no diviation is allowed,??
There is a special rule that apply to two of the scenarios, "Underdog", where if a player has 5p or more less force than the opponent they automatically get initiative in the first turn.
Im a bit surprised that this isnt a general rule that apply to all scenarios but at least in these two scenarios this could make a difference.
Maybe not a huge reason to not max out on points but with time maybe strategies will emerge that utilise this.
While I find its weird they would put a limit on how low you are allowed to go, that isnt really neccessary, but the limit on the high end should absolutely be a hard limit. For pickup and competetive, when playing with friends just do whatever you agree upon.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
The lists have a bunch of 1 and 2 point upgrades so you should never really be 3 points short tbh. Going over points usually means you're trying to squeeze something in that the points are trying to prevent. Example: It looks like Imperial players are only supposed to be able to take 4 planes at 100 points as a naked Thunderbolt is 21pts. Taking 5 Thunderbolts at 105 points and telling your opponent it's just 5 points means you've squeezed in more than what the rules designers intended for a 100 point game.
Like I said, if you're 3 points over I'm upgrading one of my guys to an Ace for a reroll. Automatically Appended Next Post: Walls were too thin on the smaller dial I printed so I’m beefing them up and trying again.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.
2
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Looking good! Hopefully we get a similar affordable an off the shelf solution. I'm mildly worried if GW does it, it'll cost $50 for 4 counters.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Something weird in Scenario 2 (The Straggler).
The defender begins the game with one bomber that is deployed along one side of the engagement area.
The victory conditions for this scenario states that:
"The defenders bomber is trying to escape. It may voluntarily disengage at any time from any edge of the area of engagement without conceding any victory points. Instead the defender earns victory points equal to the aircrafts points cost."
So...Instant free victory points for the defender? This is a mistake or am I missing something?
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Looking good! Hopefully we get a similar affordable an off the shelf solution. I'm mildly worried if GW does it, it'll cost $50 for 4 counters.
You know anyone with a 3D printer? I’ll share the file, you just need a pair of 5x1mm magnets.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Also, ive realised you will have to decide on the mission and decide/roll for attacker and defender before building your squadrons for many of these scenarios.
Good think its a farily quick process to build a squadron.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
MarkNorfolk wrote:but then that would just be a 105 point game. you've just shifted the upper threshold a bit.
If it helps - just think of it as a 95 point game.
Besides, having put some thought in to a list for a pre-arranged game with a preset limit and then your opponent speaks up and say "I'm 5/10/20 points over - is that ok?" Well, no. No it isn't.
FrozenDwarf wrote:so if it is sutch a big deal to go 1-3p over, why was the "10p under" section written in the first place?
should WG just have not included that line and instead written: you must be at exact agreed point limit, no diviation is allowed,??
There is nothing wrong with playing uneven points or an unequal # of planes. War isnt fair and that's the fun of it.
Should pick mine up next week and cant wait.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Soulless wrote:Something weird in Scenario 2 (The Straggler).
The defender begins the game with one bomber that is deployed along one side of the engagement area.
The victory conditions for this scenario states that:
"The defenders bomber is trying to escape. It may voluntarily disengage at any time from any edge of the area of engagement without conceding any victory points. Instead the defender earns victory points equal to the aircrafts points cost."
So...Instant free victory points for the defender? This is a mistake or am I missing something?
Well it sounds like you jump off the map for some free victory points but then a quarter of your force is gone. It can risk sticking around to help fight the rest of the enemy then disengage.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Fajita Fan wrote:Soulless wrote:Something weird in Scenario 2 (The Straggler).
The defender begins the game with one bomber that is deployed along one side of the engagement area.
The victory conditions for this scenario states that:
"The defenders bomber is trying to escape. It may voluntarily disengage at any time from any edge of the area of engagement without conceding any victory points. Instead the defender earns victory points equal to the aircrafts points cost."
So...Instant free victory points for the defender? This is a mistake or am I missing something?
Well it sounds like you jump off the map for some free victory points but then a quarter of your force is gone. It can risk sticking around to help fight the rest of the enemy then disengage.
True but gaining VPs for it while at the same time denying the opponent those VPs feels a little strong.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Depends, with more than a quarter of your force gone you'll have a harder time scoring the rest of the victory points. It's an idea...
Anyone done the math on grot rokkits? I think I'm going to just paint my other Destroyer as a freshly-looted grot bomma but I've never found one trick Ork weapons to be worth a damn in all these years.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Soulless wrote:Also, ive realised you will have to decide on the mission and decide/roll for attacker and defender before building your squadrons for many of these scenarios.
Good think its a farily quick process to build a squadron.
yes, but it allso means you need to have a diverse hangar to bring to the games, as you are assembling the formation on the "fly", unless the scenario and att/ def is agreed upon in advance.
tbh, dont see any issue witht that tough, these kits are not that expensive, nor do they take mutch space in your travel case.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Fajita Fan wrote:I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.
Just a thought; you could have triangular tokens to sit on the two unmarked triangles of the hex base, to indicate this.
105062
Post by: Soulless
FrozenDwarf wrote:Soulless wrote:Also, ive realised you will have to decide on the mission and decide/roll for attacker and defender before building your squadrons for many of these scenarios.
Good think its a farily quick process to build a squadron.
yes, but it allso means you need to have a diverse hangar to bring to the games, as you are assembling the formation on the "fly", unless the scenario and att/ def is agreed upon in advance.
tbh, dont see any issue witht that tough, these kits are not that expensive, nor do they take mutch space in your travel case.
I dont think its an issue either, just that I noticed it and it is different from most other games ive played!
I enjoy the idea that players bring their "hangar" to a game and build their squadron on site, depending on the scenario at hand!
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Fajita Fan wrote:I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.
The attachment points are so tiny, I don't know how you'll be able to magnetise them. I'm not even sure the wings are thick enough to sink a magnet in to.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.
The attachment points are so tiny, I don't know how you'll be able to magnetise them. I'm not even sure the wings are thick enough to sink a magnet in to.
go oldschool, go blu-tack!
the bombs/missiles has no weigh to them so blu-tack has no issues holding them in place.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Fajita Fan wrote:It works but at 40mm a side it’s not too much smaller than an AI base. I’ll probably shrink this down tomorrow but the 5mm magnet provides enough friction to keep the indicator in place when it’s turned over. .
Add a small hemisphere to the underside of the pointer needle and corresponding divots at each position. That'll make it more positive and everyone likes that positional click.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Scott-S6 wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:It works but at 40mm a side it’s not too much smaller than an AI base. I’ll probably shrink this down tomorrow but the 5mm magnet provides enough friction to keep the indicator in place when it’s turned over. .
Add a small hemisphere to the underside of the pointer needle and corresponding divots at each position. That'll make it more positive and everyone likes that positional click.
I don't totally trust my printer with lock-and-key things like what you describe (it kinda dribbles so there'll be bits of plastic in the wrong places) but my little 25mm dials hold just fine from the friction of the magnet. I could instead add little pegs that stick up, that might work.
Here's the file if anyone is interested in printing them.
https://www.tinkercad.com/things/i1gysCD7oW1
105062
Post by: Soulless
Ive found two instances in the Rynns World book that suggest the game is played in the typical manner.
The first is the part about "preparing the game" (p.9) that deals with AoE size. While the segment does mention hexes of 2", it also states various sizes of AoEs but mentoned in feet x feet.
Wouldnt it be better to state a width and height in hexes?
Then, at p.52 in the segment about "Landing zones" it states "...and will specify a distance in inches from this marker within which aircraft must land."
I wonder when they decided to move to hexes. I prefer hexes so its all good, just wish the book didnt have these mistakes!
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Anyone planning on using planetary assault tiles to make a custom board?
107707
Post by: Togusa
I got to play the game for the first time last night, and here are my thoughts.
First, what the hell is with the hit/dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
The movement diagrams are just downright confusing for a new player, I would have much preferred the movement system from X-wing, a lot of the time I noticed my opponent and I were just sitting there turning the graphs ten ways to sideways trying to figure out the correct way to move something.
Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
The board feels way too cramped and tight, really think it needs to be double the size given the scale of the aircraft.
I don't like how you can go base to base contact either, with no issue. No rules for collisions? No ramming? I would really like to see some kind of rule that states you must remain x hexes from an enemy model.
The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.
I am going to play it again tonight, but so far I am not impressed with it and will probably end up passing on it as a game.
The models on the other hand, now those models are absolutely amazing. My desire to build and paint is very strong with this release, I like how simple they are to build and how good they look when painted. They are a little delicate (unexpected) A- For the Miniatures, C so far for the rules. Compared to AT, I think it's a bit of a letdown.
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
What is the hex count on the map? For example, # of hexes x # of hexes.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Togusa wrote:
The board feels way too cramped and tight, really think it needs to be double the size given the scale of the aircraft.
The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.
i think these 2 points is basicly the same.
imp is mid range (5-7 hexes) or long range (8-10 hexes), imp is simply not ment to fight short range.(if that can be avoided when you have orc fighters rushing towards you, is a different topic)
thing is, you will not get these kind of ranges on a small board, prolly not even on a 4x4. you moust likely need a 8x4 board to get the moust out of imp, orcs on the other hand is short range.
i supect that games will be very one sided untill we get the other armies air units in the game.
it was prolly not the best move to have orc and imp as factions in the 2player box considering how very different their playstyle is.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Some small issues:
Togusa wrote:
First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
You hit on fives, not sixes. It’s only sixes if they’re on a different level.
Togusa wrote: Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
Top turrets can also fire sideways (i.e. on the same level) so just go down to match them. And if you’re at alt.1 and they try to hide below, they die; either because they crashed like a doofus (no take backs, remember) or they landed and turned themselves into a sitting duck.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Togusa wrote:I got to play the game for the first time last night, and here are my thoughts.
First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
The movement diagrams are just downright confusing for a new player, I would have much preferred the movement system from X-wing, a lot of the time I noticed my opponent and I were just sitting there turning the graphs ten ways to sideways trying to figure out the correct way to move something.
Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.
Correct me if im wrong.
Basic "to hit" is 5+. You only get 6+ if shooting through different altitudes, or shooting at a stalling/spinning ship.
This does give imperials an advantage as their ships typically have higher service ceiling and thus can stay at an altitude the orks cannot reach so they can dictate the accuracy of shooting throughout the game. But the modifier goes both ways.
Weapons with "up" or "down" firing arcs (turrets etc) can still target ships that is at the same altitude so you shouldnt have much problems getting their shots off tbh.
I havent played enough to comment on how things are balanced or not but I, for one, find it kind of fresh to see a game where things seem to have some survivability to them. I prefer it if total annihilations is an uncommon thing.
I do wish there were a bit more to shooting and damage than currently but the little experience I have so far at least have been positive and im eager to get a few "real" games played before I make a final judgement.
107707
Post by: Togusa
Mr_Rose wrote:Some small issues:
Togusa wrote:
First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
You hit on fives, not sixes. It’s only sixes if they’re on a different level.
Togusa wrote: Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
Top turrets can also fire sideways (i.e. on the same level) so just go down to match them. And if you’re at alt.1 and they try to hide below, they die; either because they crashed like a doofus (no take backs, remember) or they landed and turned themselves into a sitting duck.
My opponent constantly bumped his levels to always be above or below. I.E. Might as well be 6+ to hit because 8/10 times that is what I got.
I need to get a copy of the rules because I have a feeling there are things my teacher didn't tell me about the game.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Togusa wrote: Mr_Rose wrote:Some small issues:
Togusa wrote:
First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
You hit on fives, not sixes. It’s only sixes if they’re on a different level.
Togusa wrote: Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
Top turrets can also fire sideways (i.e. on the same level) so just go down to match them. And if you’re at alt.1 and they try to hide below, they die; either because they crashed like a doofus (no take backs, remember) or they landed and turned themselves into a sitting duck.
My opponent constantly bumped his levels to always be above or below. I.E. Might as well be 6+ to hit because 8/10 times that is what I got.
I need to get a copy of the rules because I have a feeling there are things my teacher didn't tell me about the game.
Its alternating activations, if he moves a ship up/down, you move your next ship to equal level. And so on.
It isnt possible for either player to constantly stay out of altitude, unless you have an entier squadron that has a higher max-altitude than your opponent. Which will cripple yourself equally so its not a very effective strategy!
To add to my previous reply, I also had problems with the maneuvers, constantly had to twist and turn the cheatsheet to get good grasp of how to move my craft. But its definitely something that will come with experience.
But I agree that it can be a turnoff for new players.
I wish the cardpacks came with each maneuver printed on a card for easy reference.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Togusa wrote: Mr_Rose wrote:Some small issues:
Togusa wrote:
First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
You hit on fives, not sixes. It’s only sixes if they’re on a different level.
Togusa wrote: Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
Top turrets can also fire sideways (i.e. on the same level) so just go down to match them. And if you’re at alt.1 and they try to hide below, they die; either because they crashed like a doofus (no take backs, remember) or they landed and turned themselves into a sitting duck.
My opponent constantly bumped his levels to always be above or below. I.E. Might as well be 6+ to hit because 8/10 times that is what I got.
I need to get a copy of the rules because I have a feeling there are things my teacher didn't tell me about the game.
The rulebook is floating out there on the internet if you’d like to read the rules before buying anything.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Interesting complaints, I don't necessarily think this a game for everyone, but I actually think it's one of the better rules out there.
Togusa wrote:I got to play the game for the first time last night, and here are my thoughts.
First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
As someone mentioned before, the game is alternating activations, so you should be able to get on the same altitude as your opponent most of the time, making it a 5+ to hit.
The game is designed in a way that planes are not super easy to shoot down, so that things like "tailing fire" becomes important to really boost your chance of shooting down an enemy plane.
The movement diagrams are just downright confusing for a new player, I would have much preferred the movement system from X-wing, a lot of the time I noticed my opponent and I were just sitting there turning the graphs ten ways to sideways trying to figure out the correct way to move something.
You do have to carefully read the rules for movement to understand how the diagrams work. The first game I played being led through by a store manager he was incorrectly using the movement diagrams, but if you actually read the rules and examine the example diagram they give you in the rules, it becomes pretty simple.
After 1 or 2 games it should become pretty instinctive as there's only 6 manoeuvres that can be done with the planes that are currently out, you're basically looking at where the arrows are point. to figure out how tight the manoeuvre is.
Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.
You need to exploit the alternate activations and initiative system to ensure you stay at a favourable altitude relative to your opponent.
Squadrons with more aircraft are at a bit of an advantage, but at the end of the day your opponent can only run so far before you're both at altitude 1. The idea with turret armed bombers is that you can still use your fighters to somewhat control your opponent.
The board feels way too cramped and tight, really think it needs to be double the size given the scale of the aircraft.
I definitely agree with that. I think the game would have benefited hugely by staying 6mm scale (instead of going up to 8mm) so that the bases could be smaller and you can fit more hexes on a table. When the table is only 15 to 20 hexes long / wide and aircraft can cover most of that distance in a single turn, it's hard to keep your opponent at the optimal range.
The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.
Sounds like you were having altitude issues. Most games I've played so far the shooting has mostly been done at 5+ to hit.
I am going to play it again tonight, but so far I am not impressed with it and will probably end up passing on it as a game.
The models on the other hand, now those models are absolutely amazing. My desire to build and paint is very strong with this release, I like how simple they are to build and how good they look when painted. They are a little delicate (unexpected) A- For the Miniatures, C so far for the rules. Compared to AT, I think it's a bit of a letdown.
Definitely give it another go and have a read through the rules to make sure your opponent isn't trying to cheat you. Maybe it's not for you, but I found it really fun once I got my head around it, which only took a couple of games because the rules are pretty simple.
The game is all about manoeuvring, you have to out manoeuvre your opponent so that you get the opportunity to throw more dice and improve your chances of blowing them out of the sky.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Is there a wysiwyg requirement for the bombs? If so, are there preferred loadouts?
105062
Post by: Soulless
Breotan wrote:Is there a wysiwyg requirement for the bombs? If so, are there preferred loadouts?
I dont think so, guess its each to their own but i wont bother with wysiwyg in this one.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Thanks, Soulless.
I'm willing to do wysiwyg on the noses of the aircraft but the bombs are just too large a matrix for me to be able to deal with.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Breotan wrote:Thanks, Soulless.
I'm willing to do wysiwyg on the noses of the aircraft but the bombs are just too large a matrix for me to be able to deal with.
I mean, on this scale you can hardly see the difference of the different thunderbolts at tabletop distance, and youll never see the difference of the wing hardpoints unless you pick up and turn the model around. Going wysiwyg can be fun and thematic but I wouldnt imagine it to become a requirement for this game.
In the other AI thread on this forum someone posted pics of the thunderbolt with the front section magnetised so they could swap out the main weapon between the regular and marauder. Seemed to be pretty easy and quick enough to do, I guess that could be an option if you enjoy tinkering with the models
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
You don’t even have to magnetise the thunderbolt noses, as the nose slips between the fuselage piece and the wing piece quite easily.
My problem is I was going to airbrush a camo scheme on my Imperial aircraft, and doing that I won’t be able to get the Camo pattern to match if I’m swapping out noses.
On the Orks I don’t like the aesthetic of the beaky Dakkajets, so I’m considering hacking the noses off the beaks to make them look more like the traditional mig15-esque Ork fighters. Doing so will mean losing the nose guns off the aircraft, hopefully no one takes issue with that.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
AllSeeingSkink wrote:You don’t even have to magnetise the thunderbolt noses, as the nose slips between the fuselage piece and the wing piece quite easily.
My problem is I was going to airbrush a camo scheme on my Imperial aircraft, and doing that I won’t be able to get the Camo pattern to match if I’m swapping out noses.
On the Orks I don’t like the aesthetic of the beaky Dakkajets, so I’m considering hacking the noses off the beaks to make them look more like the traditional mig15-esque Ork fighters. Doing so will mean losing the nose guns off the aircraft, hopefully no one takes issue with that.
I’m thinking the exact same thing.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Other than plane for plane, at this scale things are so tiny or otherwise hard to see (under wing bombs etc), one would hope the vast majority of players don’t enforce strict WYSIWYG.
Long as I can tell what I’m facing, such as a Thunderbolt or a Thunderbolt Fury, what exactly it’s packing under its wings can be declared from game to game.
So for Fightas, if you conversion work removes the guns, but it’s otherwise still clearly a Fighta? What is the actual difference to me as your opponent?
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
On the Orks I don’t like the aesthetic of the beaky Dakkajets, so I’m considering hacking the noses off the beaks to make them look more like the traditional mig15-esque Ork fighters. Doing so will mean losing the nose guns off the aircraft, hopefully no one takes issue with that.
why would they?
all of the dakka jets has guns on the wings. remove the entire front if you so wish but the planes still has guns aslong as you dont remove thouse on the wing aswell.
as for missiles/bombs, you only see the tip of them anyways so aslong as you make it very clear before the game starts, what plane has what, it aint a problem. (maybe make a token system on the base for easier track of what plane uses what)
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
I think tokens on the bases or cards are easier to see than tiny little WYSIWYG ordinance under the wings. The biggest thing is making it clear to your opponent and to you what is armed with what. If I have equally good shots at two bombers, one who's dropped his ordinance and one who hasn't, I need to be able to tell which is the better the target.
This is one thing I love about AT, looking across the table I can very clearly see what your Warlord or Reaver has!
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Fajita Fan wrote:I think tokens on the bases or cards are easier to see than tiny little WYSIWYG ordinance under the wings. The biggest thing is making it clear to your opponent and to you what is armed with what. If I have equally good shots at two bombers, one who's dropped his ordinance and one who hasn't, I need to be able to tell which is the better the target.
This is one thing I love about AT, looking across the table I can very clearly see what your Warlord or Reaver has!
fosho
They should've made a flight terminal ALA Titanicus.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Racerguy180 wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:I think tokens on the bases or cards are easier to see than tiny little WYSIWYG ordinance under the wings. The biggest thing is making it clear to your opponent and to you what is armed with what. If I have equally good shots at two bombers, one who's dropped his ordinance and one who hasn't, I need to be able to tell which is the better the target.
This is one thing I love about AT, looking across the table I can very clearly see what your Warlord or Reaver has!
fosho
They should've made a flight terminal ALA Titanicus.
That would have been nice!
82928
Post by: Albertorius
So, now that the game's been out a little while and people has been able to actually play it, what's the general feeling? Is it any good?
I've been watching some actual play videos and it might be me, but I'm feeling it a tad lacking, tbh. I come from Blue Max/Canvas Eagles and X-Wing, and the general feeling I got from what I've seen is that maneuvers are kind of waaaaay too flexible, at least for my tastes. Choosing a specific maneuver limits you not much at all and most of the actual decisions on the movements are made while you're actually moving; that kind of bothers me because I personally prefer the uncertainty.
I've also heard grumblings about the general to hit chances, and that it ends up being more of a game of "hunting for 6s" than of actual strategy. Plus, the limited size of the core's playing zone seems to favor the orks a bit much.
So... what are people's opinions on the game?
2572
Post by: MongooseMatt
We are quite getting into it - the game is more hunt the 5's than 6's, and the manoeuvres give a nice amount of flexibility while still limiting options. We are about to dive into a full campaign!
827
Post by: Cruentus
Albertorius wrote:So, now that the game's been out a little while and people has been able to actually play it, what's the general feeling? Is it any good?
I've been watching some actual play videos and it might be me, but I'm feeling it a tad lacking, tbh. I come from Blue Max/Canvas Eagles and X-Wing, and the general feeling I got from what I've seen is that maneuvers are kind of waaaaay too flexible, at least for my tastes. Choosing a specific maneuver limits you not much at all and most of the actual decisions on the movements are made while you're actually moving; that kind of bothers me because I personally prefer the uncertainty.
I've also heard grumblings about the general to hit chances, and that it ends up being more of a game of "hunting for 6s" than of actual strategy. Plus, the limited size of the core's playing zone seems to favor the orks a bit much.
So... what are people's opinions on the game?
This is my feeling, generally “meh”, after reading the rules (starter and the Rynn’s World book). I come from the same background of Blue Max, etc., and was underwhelmed. I will likely use the models to play AI v1, or will work up some other mod. I likely won’t play it straight from the box, particularly with unlimited ammo for most weapons.
This was a release I was really looking forward to, and I’m fairly disappointed, although the models are rather nice (the only saving grace for me). Even though I will be unlikely to buy anything else.
105062
Post by: Soulless
Albertorius wrote:So, now that the game's been out a little while and people has been able to actually play it, what's the general feeling? Is it any good?
I've been watching some actual play videos and it might be me, but I'm feeling it a tad lacking, tbh. I come from Blue Max/Canvas Eagles and X-Wing, and the general feeling I got from what I've seen is that maneuvers are kind of waaaaay too flexible, at least for my tastes. Choosing a specific maneuver limits you not much at all and most of the actual decisions on the movements are made while you're actually moving; that kind of bothers me because I personally prefer the uncertainty.
I've also heard grumblings about the general to hit chances, and that it ends up being more of a game of "hunting for 6s" than of actual strategy. Plus, the limited size of the core's playing zone seems to favor the orks a bit much.
So... what are people's opinions on the game?
Ive not played much, only a 2 games using the starter.
My feeling so far though is similar to yours about the maneuvers. It feels weird to say it but I would like for them to be more limited.
Im torn on the simple tohit/wound rules, on the one hand I like that they are quick and easy but on the other hand it feels like most weapons are just the same.
I just dont know how I feel yet, need more and bigger games. Currently im enjoying the heck out of painting the models though!
82928
Post by: Albertorius
I fell like, at the very least, you should have to select "R" or "L" when choosing maneuver, even if the rest stays the same.
1206
Post by: Easy E
It seems like a downgrade from the previous version, which was really one of GW/ FWs most tactical games.
Pretty much what I expected to happen! The scale change really bothers me to an irrational degree, even if it didn't with Blood Bowl.
That being said, I look forward to the expansions and will consider upgrading my forces based on what comes next. I always have AI v1 and no one can take it away from me, so why not make room for AI v2?
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Easy E wrote:It seems like a downgrade from the previous version, which was really one of GW/ FWs most tactical games.
Pretty much what I expected to happen! The scale change really bothers me to an irrational degree, even if it didn't with Blood Bowl.
That being said, I look forward to the expansions and will consider upgrading my forces based on what comes next. I always have AI v1 and no one can take it away from me, so why not make room for AI v2?
I pretty much a agree with all that. It’s been quite a few years since I last played the original AI, but I don’t remember it turning in to a clusterfeck with a mess of planes in the middle of the table trying to hurl as many dice as possible at each other like seems to happen in this one.
Also the scale change really hurts the gameplay. The scale change in BB didn’t actually affect the game, but in AI the planes (or more importantly, the bases) have gotten bigger and the gaming area smaller, you don’t have the space to do long high speed sweeping attacks across the battlefield.
I think maybe the game needs some more “to hit” modifiers and bring back ammo limits to encourage outmanoeuvring your opponent even if it takes several turns, rather than just trying to keep them in your fire arc every turn so you get to throw more dice. Tailing fire is a good idea but it’s not worth giving up turns of shooting to strive for it.
On the plus side the hex movement really speeds up how the game is played and in a good way, the boards are just too small and due to the scale increase I think they’ll always be a bit too small (even a 4’ wide board isn’t big enough when the hexes are 2” big).
And I do love the models, have already bought a bunch and plan on buying more when they come out.
17897
Post by: Thargrim
To me it feels like you shouldn't really be going past 100 points on a 3x3 table, 4x4 might be okay for 150 points. The more planes you run the more of a clusterf it becomes and the same becomes true IMO for any game like this, including X wing ( I still prefer 2-4 ships per side in X wing matches). I do kind of like the simplicity of the game, especially the to hit/wound system. A lot of other games like Necromunda require too many rolls to accomplish anything, and then you have to make cool checks and it's just too much for me.
The hex based movement reduces the room for error, as opposed to people fudging their measuring or using templates to move which can get fiddly. I really think if they release a 4x4 board though the game will open up a lot more.
edit: the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release. The sustainability in a gaming group of a game like this with only two factions isn't very good. I can probably help local interest get going for a few months but at a certain point people will want to play something else if there isn't a proper lineup of options.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Thargrim wrote: the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.
To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...
17897
Post by: Thargrim
SamusDrake wrote: Thargrim wrote: the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.
To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...
I don't think we'll see a third until feb/march next year. November this year is the eavy bommer and possibly grot bommer, december doesn't really see many significant releases. At best I think we'll see a new faction announced before the end of the year, but not released.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Thargrim wrote:SamusDrake wrote: Thargrim wrote: the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.
To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...
I don't think we'll see a third until feb/march next year. November this year is the eavy bommer and possibly grot bommer, december doesn't really see many significant releases. At best I think we'll see a new faction announced before the end of the year, but not released.
If we see a third faction anytime before next September, I'll be very surprised. We've still got the Avenger and Lightning from the Imperial Navy not to mention the Fighta, Wazbom Blastajet, Burna-Bommer, and Blitza-Bommer for the Orks (I expect the Burna and Blitza will be a combo kit).
When a third faction does get released, it will either be Guard or a new set with two new factions such as Guard and Chaos.
17897
Post by: Thargrim
Breotan wrote: Thargrim wrote:SamusDrake wrote: Thargrim wrote: the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.
To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...
I don't think we'll see a third until feb/march next year. November this year is the eavy bommer and possibly grot bommer, december doesn't really see many significant releases. At best I think we'll see a new faction announced before the end of the year, but not released.
If we see a third faction anytime before next September, I'll be very surprised. We've still got the Avenger and Lightning from the Imperial Navy not to mention the Fighta, Wazbom Blastajet, Burna-Bommer, and Blitza-Bommer for the Orks (I expect the Burna and Blitza will be a combo kit).
When a third faction does get released, it will either be Guard or a new set with two new factions such as Guard and Chaos.
If they really think they could drag two factions out that far i'd be surprised, it kinda contradicts what was said in the twitch stream. Scout craft for the current two factions were mentioned, if I remember correctly. And something about new factions arriving sooner than you think. When it comes to the word soon though I am not inclined to believe it will line up with my idea of soon, which is less than four months or so. But the rulebook has a lore paragraph that more or less alludes to five factions, being imperial, orks, necrons, chaos, tau. To me that was too on the nose and i'm thinking we might not see eldar until much later if at all. To be honest I have no interest in seeing the burna bommer, blastajet whatever, cause in this game rules wise i'm not sure they stand out as different enough in terms of their mechanics at this scale. The basic dakkajet already rolls 8 dice at close range, what are they going to do with the burna bommer then? I don't expect to see those (they look like basic variations of the same craft). I do expect to see the lightning, and weak light scout craft for each faction though.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Has anyone thought of using the titanicus bunkers, etc for AI?
103061
Post by: vyse.04
I picked up the starter set earlier this week and have the Dakkajets built (minus the bombs/missles). I too hope additional factions come sooner rather than later. The initial releases definitely nickel and dimes us from the start, but I am content to build the basic planes and add on to two or three of the factions later on (mostly play WH with my two boys).
The models look great and I like the rules at a glance, but I'd like to see some better maps and more fleshed out roles. It currently feels like a beta release with an entry cost of at least $90, but I knew that going in. I think AI will really "take off" once roles like transports come into play to spice things up.
It would have been nice to get the Ork and Imperium Cards with the starter set given the cheap paper mat, but I may end up picking those up if we enjoy the base game. I'd also like to see GW release the individual model rules online as the rule books only cover Ork/Imperium and I feel that offshoot games like this are the perfect candidates for "free rules." Having to drop $30-$40 to use a new faction will kill all of the interest I currently have.
I hope to have everything built by the weekend to get a few games in, then I will give some updated thoughts.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.
Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Albertorius wrote:Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.
Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.
Yeah I agree.
Personally I enjoyed the handful of games I played, but as vyse said above, it feels a bit like an (expensive) beta release.
That said I love me some tiny planes, so I'll probably end up buying every squadron they release, they'll probably sit on my shelf next to my tiny WW2 planes I already have 2 starter sets + destroyers box. The only thing I haven't bought is the ground defences and the area of engagement.
I hope the game develops in to more and people get in to it more. At the 2 GW stores nearby they've said they're selling like hotcakes, but I noticed at the local non- GW store it didn't seem like they were even carrying the game.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Albertorius wrote:Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.
Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.
not thin, just done wrong.
funny, they did the same errors with AT, seems they dont know how to make 2p boxes for anything but the 3 core games.
yes games tends to be a clusterfeth but that seems to be ork`s fault beeing only short range with high speed to clouse in fast.
allso, i feel board sizes should be bigger then what is reccomended. 3x3 should be for 30-60p, 4x6 for 65-100p and 4x8 for 105p+
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
The cardboard map is two sided, I wonder if two maps next to one another would work.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I may get the updated models and just use the old rules, but then all my old things are way out of scale..... decisions.
Also, as I consider this can anyone point me to some wargaming mats with 2 inch hexes? I have not found one I like yet.
Thanks!
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Fajita Fan wrote:The cardboard map is two sided, I wonder if two maps next to one another would work.
Still ends up only 3 feet wide (18 hexes), I think 4 feet is better.
There is a place that sells 6'x4' mouse mat style hex boards, but I'm thinking of getting a double sided one without hexes and spraying the hexes on myself.
Another option I’ve been playing around with is to get a nice satellite image off google, put a hex pattern over it, cut it up in to A4 sheets and get them printed and then glue them to a sign writers board. A4 is a bit annoying to piece together, but it’s by far the cheapest by acreage for colour printing on good quality paper.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Albertorius wrote:Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.
Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.
Yeah I agree.
Personally I enjoyed the handful of games I played, but as vyse said above, it feels a bit like an (expensive) beta release.
That said I love me some tiny planes, so I'll probably end up buying every squadron they release, they'll probably sit on my shelf next to my tiny WW2 planes I already have 2 starter sets + destroyers box. The only thing I haven't bought is the ground defences and the area of engagement.
I hope the game develops in to more and people get in to it more. At the 2 GW stores nearby they've said they're selling like hotcakes, but I noticed at the local non- GW store it didn't seem like they were even carrying the game.
I might use the AI models for Blood Red Skies
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Soulless wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: Albertorius wrote:Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.
Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.
Yeah I agree.
Personally I enjoyed the handful of games I played, but as vyse said above, it feels a bit like an (expensive) beta release.
That said I love me some tiny planes, so I'll probably end up buying every squadron they release, they'll probably sit on my shelf next to my tiny WW2 planes I already have 2 starter sets + destroyers box. The only thing I haven't bought is the ground defences and the area of engagement.
I hope the game develops in to more and people get in to it more. At the 2 GW stores nearby they've said they're selling like hotcakes, but I noticed at the local non- GW store it didn't seem like they were even carrying the game.
I might use the AI models for Blood Red Skies
I haven’t played blood red skies, from what I’ve read it gets a bit too abstract for my liking.
Someone actually made rules for usin WW2 planes with the original AI rules, I was in the middle of making up some squadrons of 6mm WW2 planes to play original AI
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Fajita Fan wrote:The cardboard map is two sided, I wonder if two maps next to one another would work.
Still ends up only 3 feet wide (18 hexes), I think 4 feet is better.
There is a place that sells 6'x4' mouse mat style hex boards, but I'm thinking of getting a double sided one without hexes and spraying the hexes on myself.
Another option I’ve been playing around with is to get a nice satellite image off google, put a hex pattern over it, cut it up in to A4 sheets and get them printed and then glue them to a sign writers board. A4 is a bit annoying to piece together, but it’s by far the cheapest by acreage for colour printing on good quality paper.
There’s a company who sells a clear plastic hex map that you can use to overlay any game mat.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
FrozenDwarf wrote: Albertorius wrote:Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.
Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.
not thin, just done wrong.
I mean to be an actual boardgame to appeal to actual boardgamers. Having to assemble the stuff is one thing, but not having stuff like the fighter cards inside the box will pretty much kill any interest.
yes games tends to be a clusterfeth but that seems to be ork`s fault beeing only short range with high speed to clouse in fast.
allso, i feel board sizes should be bigger then what is reccomended. 3x3 should be for 30-60p, 4x6 for 65-100p and 4x8 for 105p+
Or maybe hexes should be one inch and the minis half the size. That would probably make the game better at a sensible sized game space.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
Pretty sure GW purposely avoided 1 inch hexes since there is a lot of third party options out there for such.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
ikeulhu wrote:Pretty sure GW purposely avoided 1 inch hexes since there is a lot of third party options out there for such.
And made the game worse for it, because it's pretty clear that the scale of the minis and the boards is too small in number of hexes, but too big real state wise.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
No argument there. Personally, I think 1 inch may have been a little two small, but 1.5 inch probably would have been the sweet spot of allowing both decent sized models and some actual air space for the models to play in.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Not the cheapest solution, and at one point they were known for slow delivery of orders, but http://hotzmats.com will do 2 inch hexes on their mats for you.
I don't own any of their stuff, but have seen it and it does look nice. I would prefer mouse pad to the heavy felt they use though. Automatically Appended Next Post: ikeulhu wrote:No argument there. Personally, I think 1 inch may have been a little two small, but 1.5 inch probably would have been the sweet spot of allowing both decent sized models and some actual air space for the models to play in.
And, I think Battletech maps are 1.5 inches. That would be nice...
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
ikeulhu wrote:No argument there. Personally, I think 1 inch may have been a little two small, but 1.5 inch probably would have been the sweet spot of allowing both decent sized models and some actual air space for the models to play in.
The original AI had 1.5 inch bases, so if they’d kept the old scale 1.5 would have been the natural choice for hex size.
I assume they upped the scale so that they could do plastic models with more detail, but for the most part it’s not beneficial.
I posted these size comparisons over in the news thread...
1001
Post by: schoon
Togusa wrote:First, what the hell is with the hit/ dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.
First, statistically speaking, changing the number of dice thrown can be used to vary the result just as well as the target number.
Second, I've not been having the same difficulty in getting to the same altitude, and thus keeping the 5+, which you correctly point out is key to not wiffing on shots.
82928
Post by: Albertorius
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ikeulhu wrote:No argument there. Personally, I think 1 inch may have been a little two small, but 1.5 inch probably would have been the sweet spot of allowing both decent sized models and some actual air space for the models to play in.
The original AI had 1.5 inch bases, so if they’d kept the old scale 1.5 would have been the natural choice for hex size.
I assume they upped the scale so that they could do plastic models with more detail, but for the most part it’s not beneficial.
The planes are lovely and the detail is astonishing... but even with 2'' hexes the big ones are unwieldy the moment they get near one another.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure the scale change is not beneficial, but here we are. I'm seriously thinking about just build and print my planes for the shelve and actually play with regular Battletech boards and smaller, 3d printed ones. I'm quite sure it will work better with more real state.
113745
Post by: RFT
Breotan wrote:
If we see a third faction anytime before next September, I'll be very surprised. We've still got the Avenger and Lightning from the Imperial Navy not to mention the Fighta, Wazbom Blastajet, Burna-Bommer, and Blitza-Bommer for the Orks (I expect the Burna and Blitza will be a combo kit).
When a third faction does get released, it will either be Guard or a new set with two new factions such as Guard and Chaos.
I have been pondering how the designers will combine the old and new aircraft. the 40k-scale aircraft kits tend to cover several roles out of one basic airframe where the FW planes were more specialised.
I'm pretty sure the Dakkajet *is* the Fighta - the softback rulebook even uses refreshed lineart of the old AI Fighta on the dakkajet page. I don't have my old books in front of me but I think the stats are a straight port. Wazom, blitza and burna would seem to be represented by the Fighta-Bommer and if they come in to the game, it'll be via weapons and upgrade sprues like with AT.
My personal suspicion is that the november release is due to some sort of manufacturing or design slippage. It's painfully obvious when you look at a store shelf that there was supposed to be 3 kits per faction at launch, so the bommer is just completing what was supposed to be out already and shouldnt; be taken as any indication of release frequency.
Second Campaign book (and/or the organised play rules) and new faction with 2 or 3 kits in march, I reckon. Probably Chaos.
I think my main bugbear so far is that they should ship the bases unassembled. unpainted metallic plastic looks terrible.
Also - rules question- what happens if an aircraft is assigned a maneuver it can't perform? I;m sure there must be a rule but I coudn't find it. instant spin? instant stall?
105062
Post by: Soulless
RFT wrote: Breotan wrote:
Also - rules question- what happens if an aircraft is assigned a maneuver it can't perform? I;m sure there must be a rule but I coudn't find it. instant spin? instant stall?
IIRC the aircraft is forced to execute a level flight maneuver (1) at its current speed. Dont have the book beside me so not completely sure.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ikeulhu wrote:No argument there. Personally, I think 1 inch may have been a little two small, but 1.5 inch probably would have been the sweet spot of allowing both decent sized models and some actual air space for the models to play in.
The original AI had 1.5 inch bases, so if they’d kept the old scale 1.5 would have been the natural choice for hex size.
I assume they upped the scale so that they could do plastic models with more detail, but for the most part it’s not beneficial.
I posted these size comparisons over in the news thread...
Are those smaller planes the epic models or the AI models?
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Those are the original forge world AI ones from I think 2007-ish. The original epic ones from the 90’s were smaller again, they were too small and out of scale with the 6mm scale of epic, when FW remade them for AI they made them proper 6mm scale.
1464
Post by: Breotan
The original (metal) models were almost half as small as the FW resin ones.
827
Post by: Cruentus
I really wanted to like this game, and have many Imp and Chaos planes from the first AI days. I did buy the starter and the campaign book, but reading the base rules left me disappointed.
The planes are nice, but the rules seem a mess, not to mention stuff being in different publications.
I'm going to see if I can use the old AI bases for these new planes (I know they're designed for the ball and socket, but I think the pegs will still work), or use Check Your Six stands. The only question is whether the planes will be too large or unbalanced.
I think I'm going to give up on this until they correct some of the funkiness, and it gets consolidated into an actual rulebook at some point (a year or two?), and see if the reviews have improved. I "might" buy planes, depending. Shame.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Cruentus wrote:
I'm going to see if I can use the old AI bases for these new planes (I know they're designed for the ball and socket, but I think the pegs will still work), or use Check Your Six stands. The only question is whether the planes will be too large or unbalanced.
pegs are universal.
fighters wont have any issue, but the bombers might be easy to tip over.
88932
Post by: Sonsoftherock
Had my first couple of games. New scale Destroyers with old scale Thunderbolts versus Old scale Orks. The hex map made the scale unimportant. Used a GEV map from Steve Jackson's Ogre the hexes fit the old bases perfectly and it seemed a decent size.
In a straight up Dogfight the Destroyers are deadly with the imperials winning both times. Sides were two T'bolts and two Destroyers no upgrades 96 versus 3 Fightas and 2 Fightabommas with all bar one Fighta upgraded with rockets also 96. We used the Orks on round bases with dice to indicate speed and altitude, this actually worked better than the dials as it was easier to see!
Enjoyable game and will play again, probably just use old points and stat lines for stuff that hasn't come out yet.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
got my fighta bommerz today, am i alone in thinking that these planes are a multi platform cast?
the wings are way too small at the connection point(about 5mm of the wing is missing it looks like), and there is two guns on the sprue that is not mentioned in the assembly instruction at all.
101214
Post by: Mr_Rose
Uh, no? The original model has that stepped wing root too. Not sure about the extra guns though; are you sure they aren’t the ones for the “open” nose? The two conical noses have the guns sculpted in.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
Mr_Rose wrote:Uh, no? The original model has that stepped wing root too. Not sure about the extra guns though; are you sure they aren’t the ones for the “open” nose? The two conical noses have the guns sculpted in.
then the wings are an odd design if it is intensional.
after a bit of looking, the extra guns apparently can be glued to the bomb/rocket hardpoints under the wings, even tough the assembly manual do not showcase this.
dunno what kind of rules they would follow tough.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
FrozenDwarf wrote: Mr_Rose wrote:Uh, no? The original model has that stepped wing root too. Not sure about the extra guns though; are you sure they aren’t the ones for the “open” nose? The two conical noses have the guns sculpted in.
then the wings are an odd design if it is intensional.
after a bit of looking, the extra guns apparently can be glued to the bomb/rocket hardpoints under the wings, even tough the assembly manual do not showcase this.
dunno what kind of rules they would follow tough.
They represent the Kustom Big Shootas in the rules.
They are mentioned in the instructions, bottom left of the last page with a cog symbol that means alternate build option.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
i guess that is what you get for speed building them planes.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Remember those pilot cards GW was offering if you purchased one of their bundles? Are those just alternate cards of the ones that come in those Aircraft and Aces boxes? Or are they different?
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Played my first game last night and both my opponent and I really enjoyed it. I think at least 3 other people @ my flgs are picking it up so hopefully we can get a pool of pilots to play.
There was a decent amount of interest from the X-Wing crowd so maybe there'll be a couple of converts joining as well.
Definitely looking forward to see what/when they release(hopefully not necromunda style) more aircraft and other areas of engagement/"terrain" as well.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Breotan wrote:Remember those pilot cards GW was offering if you purchased one of their bundles? Are those just alternate cards of the ones that come in those Aircraft and Aces boxes? Or are they different?
The cards in the Aicraft and Aces boxes contain.... aircraft and aces, the same ones that are in the Rynn's World book (as in, there's nothing on the cards that isn't also in Rynn's World).
The cards that came with the bundles were crew upgrade cards, you can download them off the Warhammer Community downloads page and as far as I'm aware the rules on those cards don't exist anywhere else other than on these cards.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Breotan wrote:Remember those pilot cards GW was offering if you purchased one of their bundles? Are those just alternate cards of the ones that come in those Aircraft and Aces boxes? Or are they different?
The cards in the Aicraft and Aces boxes contain.... aircraft and aces, the same ones that are in the Rynn's World book (as in, there's nothing on the cards that isn't also in Rynn's World).
The cards that came with the bundles were crew upgrade cards, you can download them off the Warhammer Community downloads page and as far as I'm aware the rules on those cards don't exist anywhere else other than on these cards.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/
i have the A&A box for orks, the 3 ork cards on the download page is just named differently from what is in the A&A box.
lightning reaction is flyboss, ace gunna is da black barun and strategic bommer is toofkraker.
expecting the same thing for the imp deck.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
FrozenDwarf wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: Breotan wrote:Remember those pilot cards GW was offering if you purchased one of their bundles? Are those just alternate cards of the ones that come in those Aircraft and Aces boxes? Or are they different?
The cards in the Aicraft and Aces boxes contain.... aircraft and aces, the same ones that are in the Rynn's World book (as in, there's nothing on the cards that isn't also in Rynn's World).
The cards that came with the bundles were crew upgrade cards, you can download them off the Warhammer Community downloads page and as far as I'm aware the rules on those cards don't exist anywhere else other than on these cards.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/
i have the A&A box for orks, the 3 ork cards on the download page is just named differently from what is in the A&A box.
lightning reaction is flyboss, ace gunna is da black barun and strategic bommer is toofkraker.
expecting the same thing for the imp deck.
Interesting. The Imperial ones don't match the Imperial aces, but maybe they do match some cards in the A&A box?
I didn't buy the cards because I've already burned so much money on AI didn't feel like burning more on cards (seriously, I don't think I've ever paid more for what amounts to 18 models that aren't terribly large and the rules to use them ).
I had assumed the A&A cards only had stuff from the rulebooks because the only ones I'd seen matched rules in the Rynn's World, was that a wrong assumption?
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I didn't buy the cards because I've already burned so much money on AI didn't feel like burning more on cards (seriously, I don't think I've ever paid more for what amounts to 18 models that aren't terribly large and the rules to use them ).
I had assumed the A&A cards only had stuff from the rulebooks because the only ones I'd seen matched rules in the Rynn's World, was that a wrong assumption?
compared to AT, Tanks and Wings of Glory, this skirmish game feels cheap
im expecting the card boxes to have everything included for this "wave". as soon as an expansion that includes new plane additions to an exisisting army is released, i expect the old deck box will be outdated.
i too normaly dont care mutch for cards, but it is faster too look at a card then flip true pages in a book.
17897
Post by: Thargrim
I don't think wings of glory is that costly, if anything that game is cheaper than X wing in the long run cause it's more casual and less card/deck building focused (not to mention 2 planes per played is a fine game). AI however is expensive but not to the extend of AT. I built a marauder bomber today and it's gorgeous, could never afford the resin one when I was younger but this is the next best thing. And unlike AT my local GW actually stocked this in store, but only doing so for a limited time like they did with necromunda/blood bowl.
The cards are useful to me for ease of play, I've never been a fan of having to flip through books during games.
I'm not looking forward to more card packs, it depends. 25-30 bucks for cards is a bit much for me. If they do little ten dollar small card packs for specific ships like the lightning then i'll be fine with it. But i'm hoping these expensive packs I just bought will stay valid for a good while.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Maybe it's worse in Australia, but AI has cost me $436AUD RRP to get 2 squadrons of 10 planes (so, largish but not excessive) and associated rules, that's without buying cards or the extra table or the ground assets which would cost $666. That sort of money buys you a console and several games, or gets you much of the way to a mid ranged gaming PC. Looking at the US GW site, it would be $255 USD for what I bought or $391 including cards and whatnot.
That's an expensive game in my book, given at the end of the day you don't have a huge amount of stuff, AT might be worse but that's not saying much Looking at prices for Wings of Glory stuff, that sort of money would buy a lot of things.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
I’ll be more excited when the AT and AI rules cross over.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Maybe it's worse in Australia, but AI has cost me $436AUD RRP to get 2 squadrons of 10 planes (so, largish but not excessive) and associated rules, that's without buying cards or the extra table or the ground assets which would cost $666. That sort of money buys you a console and several games, or gets you much of the way to a mid ranged gaming PC. Looking at the US GW site, it would be $255 USD for what I bought or $391 including cards and whatnot.
That's an expensive game in my book, given at the end of the day you don't have a huge amount of stuff, AT might be worse but that's not saying much Looking at prices for Wings of Glory stuff, that sort of money would buy a lot of things.
that is more a "you" issue i think.
all you need to play a 100p game is 1 single box of fighters. to play all cenarios at around 150p means 1 of each box. so 150-200 AUD for one complete "army" depending if you are imp or ork player. (heck, 1 single AT warlord costs the same as 1ex of each box of imp planes........)
however if you alone has to supply "everything" in order to get some freinds to play, then yes it is gets expensive.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
Fajita Fan wrote:I’ll be more excited when the AT and AI rules cross over.
We were talking about this while playing. I've been toying around with the idea of running an AI/ AT game simultaneously. the only weirdness would be damage inflicted by bombing runs.
17897
Post by: Thargrim
I'm personally not, I prefer games focused on doing one thing and doing it well (air combat). Instead of a game trying to involve everything (like 40k) and being a mess. I collect both AT and AI and the thought of the two combined brings more of a headache than any kind of idea of fun.
97033
Post by: Jack Flask
So I picked up AI on release but haven't gotten around to playing any games, and I'm seeing in Rynn's World that it lists a large game using a 8'x4' Field of Engagement. Have any of you tried playing a larger game and think that that size is necessary, or could I get away with 6'x4'?
I'm trying to plan out buying a nice cloth/mousepad mat to play on but I'm not sure if I should get two 4'x4' or one 6'x4'.
I know the game is using 2" hexes but 8'x4' seems like quite a lot of space given that it's almost the size of a small Apocalypse table.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Jack Flask wrote:So I picked up AI on release but haven't gotten around to playing any games, and I'm seeing in Rynn's World that it lists a large game using a 8'x4' Field of Engagement. Have any of you tried playing a larger game and think that that size is necessary, or could I get away with 6'x4'?
I'm trying to plan out buying a nice cloth/mousepad mat to play on but I'm not sure if I should get two 4'x4' or one 6'x4'.
I know the game is using 2" hexes but 8'x4' seems like quite a lot of space given that it's almost the size of a small Apocalypse table.
I haven't played any big games yet, but the 2.5x2.5 included in the starter set is about the right size for intro games, and the Rynn's World 3x3 board is good for a smallish game. I feel like a medium sized game would go well on a 4x4 or 6x4.
8 wide seems a bit overkill, but maybe could have some fun bomber escort missions. The slowest plane currently in the game (Eavy Bommer) has move 4, so would take all 12 turns to cover an 8 foot board, the next slowest is the Marauder which would take about 10 turns.
FrozenDwarf wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Maybe it's worse in Australia, but AI has cost me $436AUD RRP to get 2 squadrons of 10 planes (so, largish but not excessive) and associated rules, that's without buying cards or the extra table or the ground assets which would cost $666. That sort of money buys you a console and several games, or gets you much of the way to a mid ranged gaming PC. Looking at the US GW site, it would be $255 USD for what I bought or $391 including cards and whatnot.
That's an expensive game in my book, given at the end of the day you don't have a huge amount of stuff, AT might be worse but that's not saying much Looking at prices for Wings of Glory stuff, that sort of money would buy a lot of things.
that is more a "you" issue i think.
all you need to play a 100p game is 1 single box of fighters. to play all cenarios at around 150p means 1 of each box. so 150-200 AUD for one complete "army" depending if you are imp or ork player. (heck, 1 single AT warlord costs the same as 1ex of each box of imp planes........)
however if you alone has to supply "everything" in order to get some freinds to play, then yes it is gets expensive.
I would say it's partly a "me" issue and partly how the game is designed. Yes, getting 2 squadrons** naturally makes it more expensive.
BUT, while you might only "need" 100pts of fighters to play a game, that's not really how the game is intended to be played.
2 of the 6 missions we have require ground defences, 2 require bombers, and 3 require a transport aircraft (which at the moment is just shoehorned in as a Marauder Destroyer, we don't have any "proper" transports yet like the Arvus, Valkyrie, Thunderhawk, Orca, etc).
The game is clearly designed that you'd have a selection of aircraft to choose from to suit the mission, not just 100pts of fighters (even if you maybe only intend to play 100pt games). I fully expect to buy a few more boxes just for the Orks and Imperials over the next few months to fill out proper bombers/transports for the Orks and proper transports for the Imperials.
Sure, you can "get in" to the game with just 1 squadron of fighters and play a few games, if you're going to play around more than just a few introductory dog fights the game is designed for players to have a healthy collection of options to play different scenarios.
The way GW set up this release is to nickle and dime players. You could just get away with buying the starter set.... but the starter set doesn't include the full rules or a full sized mat, so you're likely going to need to buy Rynn's World and the bigger mat anyway (which almost doubles your initial investment without getting any more planes). Then if you buy more planes you need more tokens. Then the cards aren't included in the boxed set. Then the way they gave you half boxes in the boxed set means you don't quite get enough fighters in the starter set, but if you buy another box of fighters you end up with more than you're likely going to want to use unless you're playing a huge game (playing a game with 9 dakkajets seems way excessive to me except in the biggest of games).
I'm obviously just ranting, I bought it all anyway but if GW had of priced it a bit better and made it feel less like nickle and diming, I'm sure I'd find it easier to get other players in to the game, at this stage if I ask a friend to get in to it unless they just buy a box of fighters like you suggested they're probably going to be in for $200AUD-ish (box of fighters, box of bombers and the rules). That's a tough sell to get a mate in to the game (partly why I ended up just going for 2 squadrons, lol).
**(one could argue at this stage the intention is people would buy 2 squadrons, given the ground defences box is a mixed kit)
105062
Post by: Soulless
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Jack Flask wrote:So I picked up AI on release but haven't gotten around to playing any games, and I'm seeing in Rynn's World that it lists a large game using a 8'x4' Field of Engagement. Have any of you tried playing a larger game and think that that size is necessary, or could I get away with 6'x4'?
I'm trying to plan out buying a nice cloth/mousepad mat to play on but I'm not sure if I should get two 4'x4' or one 6'x4'.
I know the game is using 2" hexes but 8'x4' seems like quite a lot of space given that it's almost the size of a small Apocalypse table.
I haven't played any big games yet, but the 2.5x2.5 included in the starter set is about the right size for intro games, and the Rynn's World 3x3 board is good for a smallish game. I feel like a medium sized game would go well on a 4x4 or 6x4.
8 wide seems a bit overkill, but maybe could have some fun bomber escort missions. The slowest plane currently in the game (Eavy Bommer) has move 4, so would take all 12 turns to cover an 8 foot board, the next slowest is the Marauder which would take about 10 turns.
FrozenDwarf wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Maybe it's worse in Australia, but AI has cost me $436AUD RRP to get 2 squadrons of 10 planes (so, largish but not excessive) and associated rules, that's without buying cards or the extra table or the ground assets which would cost $666. That sort of money buys you a console and several games, or gets you much of the way to a mid ranged gaming PC. Looking at the US GW site, it would be $255 USD for what I bought or $391 including cards and whatnot.
That's an expensive game in my book, given at the end of the day you don't have a huge amount of stuff, AT might be worse but that's not saying much Looking at prices for Wings of Glory stuff, that sort of money would buy a lot of things.
that is more a "you" issue i think.
all you need to play a 100p game is 1 single box of fighters. to play all cenarios at around 150p means 1 of each box. so 150-200 AUD for one complete "army" depending if you are imp or ork player. (heck, 1 single AT warlord costs the same as 1ex of each box of imp planes........)
however if you alone has to supply "everything" in order to get some freinds to play, then yes it is gets expensive.
I would say it's partly a "me" issue and partly how the game is designed. Yes, getting 2 squadrons** naturally makes it more expensive.
BUT, while you might only "need" 100pts of fighters to play a game, that's not really how the game is intended to be played.
2 of the 6 missions we have require ground defences, 2 require bombers, and 3 require a transport aircraft (which at the moment is just shoehorned in as a Marauder Destroyer, we don't have any "proper" transports yet like the Arvus, Valkyrie, Thunderhawk, Orca, etc).
The game is clearly designed that you'd have a selection of aircraft to choose from to suit the mission, not just 100pts of fighters (even if you maybe only intend to play 100pt games). I fully expect to buy a few more boxes just for the Orks and Imperials over the next few months to fill out proper bombers/transports for the Orks and proper transports for the Imperials.
Sure, you can "get in" to the game with just 1 squadron of fighters and play a few games, if you're going to play around more than just a few introductory dog fights the game is designed for players to have a healthy collection of options to play different scenarios.
The way GW set up this release is to nickle and dime players. You could just get away with buying the starter set.... but the starter set doesn't include the full rules or a full sized mat, so you're likely going to need to buy Rynn's World and the bigger mat anyway (which almost doubles your initial investment without getting any more planes). Then if you buy more planes you need more tokens. Then the cards aren't included in the boxed set. Then the way they gave you half boxes in the boxed set means you don't quite get enough fighters in the starter set, but if you buy another box of fighters you end up with more than you're likely going to want to use unless you're playing a huge game (playing a game with 9 dakkajets seems way excessive to me except in the biggest of games).
I'm obviously just ranting, I bought it all anyway but if GW had of priced it a bit better and made it feel less like nickle and diming, I'm sure I'd find it easier to get other players in to the game, at this stage if I ask a friend to get in to it unless they just buy a box of fighters like you suggested they're probably going to be in for $200AUD-ish (box of fighters, box of bombers and the rules). That's a tough sell to get a mate in to the game (partly why I ended up just going for 2 squadrons, lol).
**(one could argue at this stage the intention is people would buy 2 squadrons, given the ground defences box is a mixed kit)
Agree, AI definitely seems to be about more than 100p dogfights. We just dont have the crafts for it yet
As for map sizes, im looking to get a 6x4 hexed mat (DeepcutStudios) as ill never have room or even wish to play on anything bigger! A 6x4 with 2" hexes seems enough for most "typical" games.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Anyone come up with some solutions for transporting aircraft?
The aircraft are large but flat, so modifying a standard carrying case seems like it'd waste a lot of space (depth). I'm thinking of carving some foam and putting it in to a case from a hardware store, not sure what works good for shaping it though.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
no solution but an idea might be to get one of thouse universal hardcases with foam and use a hot knife to carve out slots in the foam. just slide the planes in the slot nose first.
then carve out a section in the remaining material for the pegs+bases.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Anyone come up with some solutions for transporting aircraft?
The aircraft are large but flat, so modifying a standard carrying case seems like it'd waste a lot of space (depth).
Put them in sideways.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Rules question, if you buy multiple of the same additional weapon, do they count as unique weapons, or increase the ammo count? If it's the former, you could fire all your (for example) rokkits at once, if not you'd have to fire them one set at a time.
One thing I noticed is that Fighta Bommers are actually really good bombers now, previously they were okay but not great, but now you can take 3x sets of bombs or 2x sets of big bombs, meaning you get to roll 12 (!) dice on a bombing run. That's enough, on average, to do 8 structure points of damage. Maybe a bit broken? The bombing mission it'd make most sense just to take 3 or 4 Fighta Bommers and combined with their high speed, they could easily take out all 3 ground targets by the end of turn 2. The bigger bombers might pack a slightly bigger punch, but it doesn't really matter if ground targets only have 4 structure points and the speed advantage of the Fighta Bommer means you don't really much time to stop them before they reach the targets.
It almost seems like the best option in general is just to outfit fighters with bombs rather than taking bombers, but the Fighta Bommer is even more extreme as it can throw 12 dice at a bombing run.
But even the regular Dakkajet, you can take 2 sets of wing bombs for only 20pts total to throw 8 dice and on average 4-ish structure points of damage. Take 5 of them in a 100pt bombing mission and you'd likely end up with a quick and easy 60 victory points.
Am I just totally missing something or did GW totally not playtest it?
FrozenDwarf wrote:no solution but an idea might be to get one of thouse universal hardcases with foam and use a hot knife to carve out slots in the foam. just slide the planes in the slot nose first.
then carve out a section in the remaining material for the pegs+bases.
What sort of universal cases are you thinking? I guess I'd be most worried about breaking the guns off the nose/tail of the marauders, and some of the smaller details off the orky aircraft, but with your idea if you could tune how much pressure it applies to the aircraft it may work.
lord_blackfang wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Anyone come up with some solutions for transporting aircraft?
The aircraft are large but flat, so modifying a standard carrying case seems like it'd waste a lot of space (depth).
Put them in sideways.
Sideways how? I think the wingspan and length is too much for most cases that come to mind to have them on their sides, unless you have a case in mind that has very deep foam? Are there any cases designed to hold cavalry upright? That might be the right depth.
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
in terms of rules, you might be right but you forget the plane requirments in scenario nr 2 and 4 in rynns campain book, they spesificly demand a bomber "class" plane and that means eavy bommer or grot bommer.
as for the mentioned hard case example:
https://www.amazon.com/Seahorse-SE-300F-Protective-Case-Foam/dp/B001A1VE8U
ofc im not saying go for that spesific one, but something in that style. you local hardware shop is shure to have something like it.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
FrozenDwarf wrote:in terms of rules, you might be right but you forget the plane requirments in scenario nr 2 and 4 in rynns campain book, they spesificly demand a bomber "class" plane and that means eavy bommer or grot bommer.
That's somewhat true, but of the 2 missions that require a bomber, 1 doesn't actually involve bombing (revolves around keeping the bomber alive) and the other is the Garrison support mission (where it may be more beneficial to take a Grot Bommer that can't even attack ground targets, and still use fighters to attack the ground targets).
The actual bombing mission (mission 6) doesn't require bomber class aircraft.
Unless I'm missing something it just seems like they didn't playtest bombing to realise that it's exceptionally easy to bomb stuff to death to the point you don't need the extra bomb capacity of the bomber class aircraft. That fighters, particularly the Ork fighters, are exceptionally good at taking out ground targets. Even if not playing a specific bombing mission, ground defences seem like they're really easy to kill.
Bomb loads have increased a lot from the original game, where a fighta could previously have a bomb load that let them roll 2 dice a dakkajet now rolls 8 dice, and a fighta bommer has gone from 6 dice with a full bomb load to 12.
I think AI in its current form needs some tweaking still. A couple of those tweaks would be to tone down the bomb loads and make the Destroyer's guns ground attack only. Another one would simply to release some big boards (4x4, 6x4 and 8x4).
Ah okay, I get what you mean now, cheers. Our hardware stores aren't as good as the ones in Murica but I'll have a look.
Anyone know how a dremel goes with shaping foam? Maybe use a high speed steel or brush head on it?
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
on hard foam, sanding paper at high speed works well, but makes an unbeliable mess.
soft foam i think your only options are hotwire or a long snap off section blade.
personly i have never tryed it cuz when i buy cases sutch as the one i linked, they allways has pluck foam. (aka small pre cut squares you simply pull out to make the rooms you need)
97033
Post by: Jack Flask
Soulless wrote:Jack Flask wrote:So I picked up AI on release but haven't gotten around to playing any games, and I'm seeing in Rynn's World that it lists a large game using a 8'x4' Field of Engagement. Have any of you tried playing a larger game and think that that size is necessary, or could I get away with 6'x4'?
I'm trying to plan out buying a nice cloth/mousepad mat to play on but I'm not sure if I should get two 4'x4' or one 6'x4'.
I know the game is using 2" hexes but 8'x4' seems like quite a lot of space given that it's almost the size of a small Apocalypse table.
I haven't played any big games yet, but the 2.5x2.5 included in the starter set is about the right size for intro games, and the Rynn's World 3x3 board is good for a smallish game. I feel like a medium sized game would go well on a 4x4 or 6x4.
8 wide seems a bit overkill, but maybe could have some fun bomber escort missions. The slowest plane currently in the game (Eavy Bommer) has move 4, so would take all 12 turns to cover an 8 foot board, the next slowest is the Marauder which would take about 10 turns.
It never occurred to me until after reading your post that I could take the map length divided by 2 to get the number of squares...
That's awesome to hear though, thanks! I'll go with a 4'x6' then since I discovered it is insanely hard to find a folding table at anything above that size as well.
125178
Post by: AceXT
Feldherr makes a foam insert for the Wings of Vengeance box that holds all the minis and their bases (disassembled). It's not going to help you once you add to your collection, though.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Looking in to transparent hex overlays to rest on top of other mouse mat tables.
Is there any place selling 2" hex transparent sheets suitably large for AI?
So far the best option I can find is just to buy acetate sheets from an art shop and draw them myself with a marker, which isn't terribly cheap and quite time consuming.
105062
Post by: Soulless
So far, what do people consider a good "standard" pointlimit for AI?
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Soulless wrote:So far, what do people consider a good "standard" pointlimit for AI?
I think it’s not so much a points limit as an aircraft limit, as keeping track of manoeuvres gets tedious with too many planes. I think 5 to 8 per side is a good number. Rather than targeting a set points limit we look at what aircraft would be good (e.g. maybe 2 bombers and 4 fighters) then balance the squadrons to match whatever points that turned out to be.
105062
Post by: Soulless
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Soulless wrote:So far, what do people consider a good "standard" pointlimit for AI?
I think it’s not so much a points limit as an aircraft limit, as keeping track of manoeuvres gets tedious with too many planes. I think 5 to 8 per side is a good number. Rather than targeting a set points limit we look at what aircraft would be good (e.g. maybe 2 bombers and 4 fighters) then balance the squadrons to match whatever points that turned out to be.
Sounds reasonable but still, being able to agree on a points limit and meet up for a game would be nice.
Then again, unless you also agree on what scenario and who will attack/defend, thats not really possible anyway. Im really looking forward to the Matched Play expansion becoming a reality, hope it does.
While on scenarios, can someone explain when keeping something in reserve would ever be a good option in this game? They dont get any flanking advantage and you cant be sure when they will arrive (or even IF, in the unlikely event the dice screw you over and gives your opponent extra VPs...).
And they are always optional. I just dont see any situation where it would be a good idea to not get all firepower on the table turn one, especially since their arrival is limited and uncertain?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
So how is the faction balance? I had my first game the other day and felt like the Orks were massively outclassed in every area and only marginally cheaper than the vastly superior Navy.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
of the 6 games I've played so far, it's been about 50/50. some games the dakkajets & fightas demolish the thunderbolts & marauders, others the destroyers smoke dakkas early then get chipped away the rest of the game.
I would say overall the game needs more factions to give the variety of opponents it needs.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
I feel like the Imperials have a slight advantage in pure dogfights, but the Orks have a slight advantage in the bombing scenario, as the slightly lower price and high speed means they can take out ground targets really early to rack up quick VPs (no waiting several turns for a Marauder to get over the target) then continue the arm wrestle in the air to win out overall.
There is some luck down to what happens in the first turn, as that first turn often has most of the Imperial craft within a good firing range and if they get lucky rolls they can knock a few Dakkajets out of the sky immediately. Orks feel like they rely more on luck due to throwing more dice but needing a 5+ then another 5+ to do damage.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
I could see using a bunch of fightas and equipping them with ALLLLLLLL the dakka. would even things up a little with the fury. you get the slightly tougher airframe and a ton of shots(more than dakkajets).
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Racerguy180 wrote:I could see using a bunch of fightas and equipping them with ALLLLLLLL the dakka. would even things up a little with the fury. you get the slightly tougher airframe and a ton of shots(more than dakkajets).
That’s the idea behind my Orks...
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Racerguy180 wrote:I could see using a bunch of fightas and equipping them with ALLLLLLLL the dakka. would even things up a little with the fury. you get the slightly tougher airframe and a ton of shots(more than dakkajets).
If you average it out over 2 turns of shooting, a fully equipped Fighta still does less damage than a Fury over those same 2 turns but costs 6pts more.
I was originally thinking the Orks were more luck based, but after doing some math hammering it seems they genuinely are the underdogs in dogfight scenarios. They need to not only be at close range but also deprive the imperials of being at medium range otherwise they’re at a statistical disadvantage.
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
Racerguy180 wrote:
Definitely looking forward to see what/when they release(hopefully not necromunda style) more aircraft and other areas of engagement/"terrain" as well.
The majority of local interested players, including myself, are waiting to see what the range will look like before jumping in. Imagine a WWII flying game launching with British vs Germans but some wanting American and Japanese airplanes. BTW, for the purpose of interest there is no difference to us between Imperial, Space Marine, or some other designation GW likes to give chapters to make them seem like something different. We view them all fundamentally as Nazis. If the next release is SM vs Chaos we will probably give up even watching for what we want.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Historically Chaos in Aeronautica is quite unique from the Imperials. Chaos use the Hell Blades as their main fighters, which are fast, agile, cheap, but not much firepower and can't take much damage.
They contrast against Imperials who are slower, tougher and better firepower.
So I wouldn't hate the idea of Chaos being next, though I'd prefer Eldar or Tau.
Space Marines don't interest me except for the Thunderhawk, I'd like to see the Thunderhawk but most the other SM flyers look like out of scale crap to me (except the Horus Heresy stuff from Forge World, but I'm assuming GW want to stay in 40k initially at least).
I would like to see some proper transports though, Arvus Lighter, Valkyrie, Orca, that sort of stuff, and maybe some new transports for the other races as well. The Eavy Bommer can carry some troops, but it'd be nice if Orks had something suited to landing troops in the heat of battle, as then you can have some cool scenarios based on ground support.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
I would hope for hellblades, helltalons, & helldrakes for chaos, maybe a flying daemon.
105062
Post by: Soulless
A few questions regarding ground assets.
Can two, or more, ground assets occupy the same hex?
Can ground assets occupy the same hex as an objective/target/landing zone?
Can a landed aircraft taxi into a hex occupied by a ground asset or landing zone?
I want to model my ground assets and objectives onto bases but wonder if it will interfere somehow with the game mechanics ive yet to have found an answer to?
Edit:
Just remembered something else I was wondering and cant find the answer to.
When a craft is removed due to its fuel limit running out, does it count as a destroyed aircraft when calculating the end game scoring?
The rulebook doesnt say specifically, but does mention fuel being how many turns a craft can operate before crashing and being removed from play.
And one of the scenarios has an optional rule where a craft is allowed to voluntarily disengage the turn it runs out of fuel so that would support the idea that a craft running out of fuel is included for scoring purposes.
We dont have any craft with a fuel limit yet so who knows what will happen, but Id be happy if any ship with a fuel limit also comes with a special rule that allows them to voluntarily disengage the turn they run out of fuel, just as the special rule of the optional scenario "The Straggler". That gives it a way out but will require some good planning and executing to get the craft to be useful in the game while yet timing its fuel to reaching a table edge.
9394
Post by: Malika2
Need some terrain?
Heavy Ordinance Defence Bunker (6mm) - £14.00
The Novan heavy ordinance defence bunker can be found all across Tusculum Nova space typically guarding the approaches to cities, starports and military installations. Variably armed and often found in mutually supporting positions alongside other defensive measures, and garrisoned by a least a platoons worth of infantry these bunkers have proven there worth during countless conflicts and are not to be underestimated.
Set contains:
1 x Resin Bunker
1 x Resin heavy laser turret
1 x Resin heavy rotary cannon turret
1 x Metal radar dish
Bunker dimensions: 125mm wide, 65mm depth, 15mm high, not including turrets or radar dish.
Various models show for scale purposes only and are not included in the set. Note also that the resin colour may vary.
https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/heavy-ordinance-defence-bunker-6mm/
Medium Landing Pad (6mm) - £7.50
A common hard landing pad design found throughout Novan territory.
Set contains one resin medium landing pad in two parts.
Pad dimensions: 90mm wide, 5mm in height.
Various models show for scale purposes only and are not included in this set. Note also that the resin colour may vary.
https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/medium-landing-pad-6mm/
Large Landing Pad (6mm) - £10.00
A common hard landing pad design found throughout Novan territory.
Set contains one resin large landing pad in three parts.
Pad dimensions: 185mm long, 95mm wide, 5mm high.
Various models shown for scale purposes only and are not included in this set. Note also that the resin colour may vary.
https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/large-landing-pad-6mm/
Single Bridge Span (6mm) - £8.00
[img]A resin cast generic human bridge span with a slot on the inner faces for insertion of a 2mm thick plastic sheet or MDF (not included) road to whatever width you desire.
Set contains:
2 x bridge spans
4 x optional bridge legs
6 x optional barriers
Span dimensions: 48mm long, 25mm high. Additional legs 20mm high each.
Infantry figure and 50mm square plastic road tile shown for scale purposes only and is not included in this set. Note also that the resin colour may vary.[/img]
https://vanguardminiatures.co.uk/shop/single-bridge-span-6mm/
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
I quickly blutacked one of the Eavy Bommers together to get a sense of the size of it. It’s a bit bigger wingspan and fatter than a Destroyer, but not quite as long.
92543
Post by: Binabik15
Cool, scale pics! Couldn't find any assembled Big Bommers on the net yesterday. Eavy Bommer is a big boy, but costing the same as Marauders would be more reasonable from this comparison.
I snagged a 5€ X-Wing, well, X-Wing up. I'll either gift it to my brother or use it to make a Dakkajet X-Wing depending on size. Seriously, not a single store acros three cities had AI models or boxes, so I'm flying blind (hurr hurr) until my starter arrives :(
12530
Post by: archont
Binabik15 wrote:. Seriously, not a single store acros three cities had AI models or boxes, so I'm flying blind (hurr hurr) until my starter arrives :(
Thats because its not selling, I feel like. Even the FB Groups are essentially dead. It's another botched Specialist Games Release, imho. For me, sure, I had my eldar flyers 3D printed and homebrewed some rules, I got two iterations of the starter Box to assemble a rather large variant of Ork and Imperial Planes, but the truth is: In the leadup to the release GW announced in their propaganda, that they would churn out three more factions in short order. Some people were expecting the third faction within a month and the fourth before christmas.
As it is, the starter fails in the same way as Adeptus Titanicus essentially: Only a small part of the Player Base is incentivized to spread out their collection. Tau, Eldar, Chaos, Tyranid, Space Marine ... Players all cannot join in on the fun, yet. As the Release schedules are known now, there's not a snowballs chance in hell we'll get access to a third faction before Q1 2020 is almost up. Or in other words; the best part of half a year will be spent with only ork and imperial planes. This Policy simply fails to catch momentum. Initial Releases need to be broader to catch a wider crossection of the community, else it will be DOA. Out of the 50 people in my gaming club, 10 of which congregate every friday for 40k, only one (1 !) was even willing to get into the rules and play a couple of AI Games with me, even though he had to do nothing else than show up and play it.
People were hyped for about a Week or Two, then the Release hit and Excitement died down almost immediately.
Sad :-(
52122
Post by: Mentlegen324
archont wrote: Binabik15 wrote:. Seriously, not a single store acros three cities had AI models or boxes, so I'm flying blind (hurr hurr) until my starter arrives :(
Thats because its not selling, I feel like. Even the FB Groups are essentially dead. It's another botched Specialist Games Release, imho. For me, sure, I had my eldar flyers 3D printed and homebrewed some rules, I got two iterations of the starter Box to assemble a rather large variant of Ork and Imperial Planes, but the truth is: In the leadup to the release GW announced in their propaganda, that they would churn out three more factions in short order. Some people were expecting the third faction within a month and the fourth before christmas.
As it is, the starter fails in the same way as Adeptus Titanicus essentially: Only a small part of the Player Base is incentivized to spread out their collection. Tau, Eldar, Chaos, Tyranid, Space Marine ... Players all cannot join in on the fun, yet. As the Release schedules are known now, there's not a snowballs chance in hell we'll get access to a third faction before Q1 2020 is almost up. Or in other words; the best part of half a year will be spent with only ork and imperial planes. This Policy simply fails to catch momentum. Initial Releases need to be broader to catch a wider crossection of the community, else it will be DOA. Out of the 50 people in my gaming club, 10 of which congregate every friday for 40k, only one (1 !) was even willing to get into the rules and play a couple of AI Games with me, even though he had to do nothing else than show up and play it.
People were hyped for about a Week or Two, then the Release hit and Excitement died down almost immediately.
Sad :-(
I can understand about the lack of other factions, but just why would people think that "short order" meant they were going to double the kits/factions for the game within around 2-3 months of release? How is that in any way suggested or even feasible?
12530
Post by: archont
Hi! This was inferred from the Release-Speed associated with Warcry almost immediately preceding the AI Release for one;
and for another the relatively low effort required to create two planes per faction. This could be two halfsized sprues per plane, making a total of 4 planes have the same effort required in machining as the regular multipart plastic kits have.
These assumptions combined - low investment per model, low number of required models per faction, a roll-out of one faction per month would be less than one regular plastic kit per month.
edit: For better understanding; english is not my first language, consider the thunderbolt Box: A single medium sized Sprue holds 2 Planes. Two such medium Sized Sprues make up the usual multipart Plastic Kit, but in an AI Box, they just put two identical such sprues, et voila they have 4 thunderbolts in a single box, with half the effort required for a regular multipart plasstic kit. With the effort of only one regular Plastic Kit, holding 2 Eldar Planes and 2 Tau Planes (maybe sold in a Xenos Bundle), GW could have immediately doubled the amount of people able to participate in AI.
Instead they waste effort on variant kits (marauder destroyer) or a third plane for the orks. At this point we can be confident that until christmas nothing else is gonna come along, so we have spent 3 months (end of SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC) with two (2) Factions, but GW could have easily released a total of four (4) and is obviously capable of this (looking at Warcry)
105062
Post by: Soulless
Sad to say the interest for AI does seem to have fallen rather quickly, I just hope it ignites again when a third faction, and perhaps some expansions, arrive.
GW did say, on the stream or was it some article, that the game did in fact sell over their expectations but I assume they would say this no matter the truth behind it.
Whatever the case, Im all in on it as Im loving it the few games ive had and collecting the models is pure delight!
Aside from more factions I think they should put their efforts into the competetive expansion they have mentioned as a "want to do". Put out solid rules and accessories for pure competitive games of AI and I think it can spark up some excitement!
103666
Post by: FrozenDwarf
agreed, GW simply dont understand the importanse of big release wave and frequent follow up releases, and since AI is 40k, not 30k, all 40k factions is supposed to be represented!
the eavy bomber should been there on day1, with the grot bomber 3 weeks after and by now we should have had the 3rd faction release date info for nov or dec.
when GW said they would support AI for years to come i expected that in terms of campain books and rules updates, not that it would take 2-3 years to release all the factions!
827
Post by: Cruentus
I have to agree with the above. I bought the starter, and Rynn's World, opened them, read them, and then ebayed 'em. They did not grab me at all, and were different enough from AI 1.0 (and not in a good way) that I lost all interest. And I had saved up a warchest to buy into it (I love me some air combat games). I'll be sticking with the original AI unless something major happens (however unlikely).
The above being said, the models are great looking, and I would likely only re-buy one or two to paint and display, that's about it.
111831
Post by: Racerguy180
FrozenDwarf wrote:agreed, GW simply dont understand the importanse of big release wave and frequent follow up releases, and since AI is 40k, not 30k, all 40k factions is supposed to be represented!
the eavy bomber should been there on day1, with the grot bomber 3 weeks after and by now we should have had the 3rd faction release date info for nov or dec.
when GW said they would support AI for years to come i expected that in terms of campain books and rules updates, not that it would take 2-3 years to release all the factions!
They kinda screwed the pooch with how they've release Necromunda(more than a year for all gangs), Titanicus(only now getting knight upgrades) & AI (yet to see 3rd faction). GW's timid release of Specialist games has shot themselves in the foot.
I love AI and have gotten interest from other 40k players @ my flgs, but want to play their faction. Cant say that I blame them.
116075
Post by: WhiteHaven
Does anyone know if you can shoot down autonomous weapons? I don't know if I am skipping right over it in Rynn's World but with the Grot Bommas coming I want to get a plan to deal with them.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
As much as I love AI in general it has been a disappointing release. The rules feel a bit incomplete and are a downgrade from the original, and as others have mentioned it would have been great to see some other races out earlier.
Instead of releasing 3.5 kits for Orks and 2.5 kits for Imperials, if they’d only released fighters but for 5 races and maybe 1 race with a bomber for some different missions, maybe that would have worked better. The ground assets could have been tokens for now so that they could invest more in to varying the races.
I’ve often joked that GW’s business strategy in recent years seems to be to extract the most amount of money out of the smallest possible player base, and this seems to have hit that nail on the head again. I’ve dropped a ton of cash on AI, more than I’d spend on gaming in a year these days I’ve spent on AI alone. But how many other people have just completely passed it by? I feel like a lot would have.
WhiteHaven wrote:Does anyone know if you can shoot down autonomous weapons? I don't know if I am skipping right over it in Rynn's World but with the Grot Bommas coming I want to get a plan to deal with them.
I can’t see any specific rule for it. My feel is no you can’t, as they don’t have hit points and have very unique rules from regular aircraft. In the original AI I would have guessed yes you can, as once fired they act basically like aircraft and had a regular aircraft stat line with hit points and just a paragraph on self destructive attacks and limited timespan, so it makes sense you could shoot them down as they were just aircraft. This time they’ve been given a weapon stat line but a page of unique rules, so rather than being an aircraft with special rules they’re a weapon with special rules.
But that’s just my take, maybe I’ve missed something.
116075
Post by: WhiteHaven
AllSeeingSkink wrote:As much as I love AI in general it has been a disappointing release. The rules feel a bit incomplete and are a downgrade from the original, and as others have mentioned it would have been great to see some other races out earlier.
Instead of releasing 3.5 kits for Orks and 2.5 kits for Imperials, if they’d only released fighters but for 5 races and maybe 1 race with a bomber for some different missions, maybe that would have worked better. The ground assets could have been tokens for now so that they could invest more in to varying the races.
I’ve often joked that GW’s business strategy in recent years seems to be to extract the most amount of money out of the smallest possible player base, and this seems to have hit that nail on the head again. I’ve dropped a ton of cash on AI, more than I’d spend on gaming in a year these days I’ve spent on AI alone. But how many other people have just completely passed it by? I feel like a lot would have.
WhiteHaven wrote:Does anyone know if you can shoot down autonomous weapons? I don't know if I am skipping right over it in Rynn's World but with the Grot Bommas coming I want to get a plan to deal with them.
I can’t see any specific rule for it. My feel is no you can’t, as they don’t have hit points and have very unique rules from regular aircraft. In the original AI I would have guessed yes you can, as once fired they act basically like aircraft and had a regular aircraft stat line with hit points and just a paragraph on self destructive attacks and limited timespan, so it makes sense you could shoot them down as they were just aircraft. This time they’ve been given a weapon stat line but a page of unique rules, so rather than being an aircraft with special rules they’re a weapon with special rules.
But that’s just my take, maybe I’ve missed something.
I think your right unfortunately, I was hoping to try to swat them like V1s. Looks like I'll have to get the bombers before they launch then.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
Now I have the mental picture of grots giving Tbolts the finger avoiding fire...
105062
Post by: Soulless
Assembled my Eavy Bombers yesterday and find they fall of the pegs very easily, all other craft have been a very snug fit but not these ones. Anyone else had this issue?
96441
Post by: Cripple X
I'm really surprised to read all the negativity here saying that the game has flopped. There are a few people in my area playing and really enjoying it, which is more than I can say for Blood Bowl, Necromunda, or Adeptus Titanicus. There are others who are interested in AI as well, but are waiting on their particular faction to be released, as others have mentioned. Honestly AI seems to hit off especially well for a specialist game in my experience. It probably just boils down to a particular local scene as to whether people are playing or not.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Purchased a squad of Thunderbolts but I did not go for Aeronautica itself due to the hexes. Nothing wrong with Hex-based games(quite awesome really), but a flight combat game requires a large playing area for best results. The expense and lack of suitable hex maps is - sadly - a deal breaker. And looking on the website the Rynn's world map is no longer available...
That said, I am looking forward to more xenos craft, even if they are used in another game. Eldar is a must, and Tyranids would be pretty sweet too.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Soulless wrote:Assembled my Eavy Bombers yesterday and find they fall of the pegs very easily, all other craft have been a very snug fit but not these ones. Anyone else had this issue?
Yeah I just finished building one and it has that issue. I'm putting a ball of blutack in the hole for now, but it's not a great solution and is still quite floppy.
116075
Post by: WhiteHaven
I've been looking for a company that makes or will make a clear 2 in hex overlay so I can use 6x4 mats I own to expand the play area. Unfortunately so far I haven't found one. The Rynn's World map pack is nice but I would love a 6x4 mat for large battles. Hoping the Imperial Navy gets Lightnings, Avengers, and Valkryies.
105062
Post by: Soulless
I bought a 4x4 mat with hexes printed from deepcut. 4x4 seem enough for any game ill be lucky to play! Automatically Appended Next Post: AllSeeingSkink wrote:Soulless wrote:Assembled my Eavy Bombers yesterday and find they fall of the pegs very easily, all other craft have been a very snug fit but not these ones. Anyone else had this issue?
Yeah I just finished building one and it has that issue. I'm putting a ball of blutack in the hole for now, but it's not a great solution and is still quite floppy.
Yeah it sux :/
I dont wanna glue the ships to the pegs and I have the pegs glued to the bases, but maybe ill do it for just these.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
The blutac seems to be working, rather the gluing them in. I’m not too worried about them falling out during a game with the blutac, but I think if you leave them on a display shelf for a long time with the blutac they’ll probably gradually move (hopefully not fall out though).
I didn’t find anyone making big hex overlays either, art shops sell acetate sheets to make a DIY overlay, but it seems hard to find sheets big enough without just buying a (very expensive) roll of several hundred metres. Art stores seem to sell up to A1 or A0, but then you need several sheets to cover a table.
121471
Post by: Fajita Fan
WhiteHaven wrote:I've been looking for a company that makes or will make a clear 2 in hex overlay so I can use 6x4 mats I own to expand the play area. Unfortunately so far I haven't found one. The Rynn's World map pack is nice but I would love a 6x4 mat for large battles. Hoping the Imperial Navy gets Lightnings, Avengers, and Valkryies.
Sadly not 2" but there's hope for one someday. I was going to get one for Battletech.
http://www.tablewar.com/3x3-geo-mat-hex-grid/
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Fajita Fan wrote: WhiteHaven wrote:I've been looking for a company that makes or will make a clear 2 in hex overlay so I can use 6x4 mats I own to expand the play area. Unfortunately so far I haven't found one. The Rynn's World map pack is nice but I would love a 6x4 mat for large battles. Hoping the Imperial Navy gets Lightnings, Avengers, and Valkryies.
Sadly not 2" but there's hope for one someday. I was going to get one for Battletech.
http://www.tablewar.com/3x3-geo-mat-hex-grid/
It’s also a bit too small at 3x3. You’d need 4 sheets to cover a 6x4 table and the joins would be a bit annoying.
The more I play the less I like the hexes and would rather go back to the old manoeuvre cards. The downside is the fire arcs get a bit more vague, but the hex system simultaneously feels too restrictive but also planes are too manoeuvrable overall. Automatically Appended Next Post: WhiteHaven wrote:Does anyone know if you can shoot down autonomous weapons? I don't know if I am skipping right over it in Rynn's World but with the Grot Bommas coming I want to get a plan to deal with them.
I’ve been looking at the rules for Grot Bombs, given how un manoeuvrable they are relative to everything else in the game I think they pretty much rely on hitting the turn they’re released. After that they’ll just be slowly circling in big circles, only being able to turn once 60 degrees each turn.
Seems you really need to get them to hit first turn, which isn’t too hard (within 6 hexes directly in front or directly off to a side) and don’t rely on trying to manoeuvre around and hit things.
The old grot bomb rules I think were a bit more flexible as they were essentially just self destructing planes.
|
|