Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chopstick wrote:
ace maneuver change should be easy enough. remove the dumb "choose your facing" of the maneuver.

So you mean step 1 where you choose whether your plane goes left or right? That would help a bit I guess though it would make a lot of manoeuvres effectively the same. I do kind of like that there's some flexibility after you choose a manoeuvre to apply it differently, but at the moment there's a few too many options.

I do find it crazy that the least manoeuvrable plane in the game (Eavy Bomber) is still capable of doing a complete 180 in either direction in the space of a single turn. Kinda makes a mockery of the actual manoeuvrable aircraft. Your suggestion would help.

A simple system would be that manoeuvres work as follows:

1. Fly straight a chosen amount (don't get to change direction before)
2. Perform manoeuvre (only opportunity to change direction)
3. Fly straight until you run out of movement

Manoeuvre options 1 to 3 would be fly straight, 60° turn and 120° turn. Then high manoeuvre levels let you make an additional turn where you can fly straight for another distance, so something like this...

1. 0°
2. 60°
3. 120°
4. 60° + 60° (better than 120° since it gives you more options)
5. 180°
6. 60° + 120°
7. 120° + 120°
8. 180° + 180° (loop)

I imagine Eavy Bombers would only be 1-2 (meaning you have to plan your bombing runs a turn or two in advance). But maybe that's still not enough variation once you get to the fighter type aircraft.

Though it would also be cool to integrate altitude and speed changes with the manoeuvres like was included with the first AI game, to give the sense of "energy fighting" like real dogfighting works.

Love the new Space Marine and Eldar models.

They will grace my Titanicus table as well as AI.

We seriously need an X-wing rules conversion to make these models worth playing

Just used the original game's maneuver card, that also removed the hex board. Ammo should also be easy enough to implement.

The old game used the 9 attitude system, which make chase and catch quite difficult, crappy plane like Valkyrie with max attitude 7 can't attack target at attitude 9.

In my more productive moments I've considered a 1 or 2 modern hex bases sized movement template

Chopstick wrote:
Just used the original game's maneuver card, that also removed the hex board. Ammo should also be easy enough to implement.

The old game used the 9 attitude system, which make chase and catch quite difficult, crappy plane like Valkyrie with max attitude 7 can't attack target at attitude 9.

I think the old game had a better system with the cards, but folk still had complaints about that. Some people even wrote rules for WW2 aircraft using the old AI rules because it bridged the gap between very detailed dog fighting games (too detailed to use with more than a couple of planes) and the more simplified squadron level games. It was simple enough to have a handful of planes on the table, but still detailed enough to be satisfying without being overly complicated.

The altitude system in the old game was also better in that speed changes and altitude changes were linked to your manoeuvre, so a high G turn might cost you speed, a wing over might cost you altitude but gain you speed.

The old system needed some tweaks, but instead they scrapped it for a far worse system.

The problem is that these changes need to come from GW, I can house rule stuff, sure, but for the game to get a foot hold with a broader audience it needs to be better out of the box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
In my more productive moments I've considered a 1 or 2 modern hex bases sized movement template

Like this?

https://okb14.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/ai-maneuver-cards/

Ah, so theres more to come for the Eldar range. Kewl!

The contents of this box is just right as even the Space Marine aircraft look snazzy. Just not keen on using hex maps for this game...

Space Marine aircrafts are the most heavily armed in this game. Eldar probably have jink on all aircraft, otherwise they're toasted.

The show indicated that they would have a save of some kind, because holofields are still a thing, so yay for that.

Chopstick wrote:
Space Marine aircrafts are the most heavily armed in this game. Eldar probably have jink on all aircraft, otherwise they're toasted.

In the interview with Andy Hoare they said the Eldar were a challenge to balance and they've given a rule that makes them "harder to hit" at long and medium ranges, encouraging you to get into close range with them.

Of course, given how badly balanced the game already is, I don't have great faith that they've balanced the Eldar well.

My guess is the Eldar end up too expensive for a weak unit that doesn't have a lot of firepower, making them terrible, and Space Marines are too cheap for their endurance and firepower making them the best force we'll have. But that's just my guess, I hope GW proves me wrong But for the aircraft we already have it seems the game designers over value agility and undervalue raw hit points and firepower (which from the games I've played becomes the dominating stats).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Space Marine aircrafts are the most heavily armed in this game. Eldar probably have jink on all aircraft, otherwise they're toasted.

In the interview with Andy Hoare they said the Eldar were a challenge to balance and they've given a rule that makes them "harder to hit" at long and medium ranges, encouraging you to get into close range with them.

Of course, given how badly balanced the game already is, I don't have great faith that they've balanced the Eldar well.

My guess is the Eldar end up too expensive for a weak unit that doesn't have a lot of firepower, making them terrible, and Space Marines are too cheap for their endurance and firepower making them the best force we'll have. But that's just my guess, I hope GW proves me wrong

That's my concern with people wishing for xenos factions in AT, gw's ability to balance between factions is always hit and miss.

My guess is the Marine fighter will be just as maneuverable as the Eldar one in every way that matters, have twice the firepower and hit points, and cost 2 pts less.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
We seriously need an X-wing rules conversion to make these models worth playing

Once the whole range is in, I plan on just buying it all and using AI V1 from Warwick to play with these nice new toys!

 Mr_Rose wrote:
The show indicated that they would have a save of some kind, because holofields are still a thing, so yay for that.

Looking back at the original AI rules, they had a 5+ holofield save. I wonder if they'll have both the "harder to hit at long range" rule and also holofield.

I just hope GW don't massively overestimate the value of manoeuvrability of the new Eldar.

Jink is the best special ability they could get in the new edition, unless there're jink (2) or jink (3)

Phoenix probably get a HP increase, they have the same paper thin HP as the nightwing in the original, but was more focused on ground attack, now that most weapon aside from bombs and hellstrike can hit aircrafts.

Chopstick wrote:
Jink is the best special ability they could get in the new edition, unless there're jink (2) or jink (3)

I'd be surprised if the new Eldar don't come with new special abilities. The rule Andy Hoare described in the interview on WarCom doesn't sound like Jink in the slightest.

Phoenix probably get a HP increase, they have the same paper thin HP as the nightwing in the original, but was more focused on ground attack, now that most weapon aside from bombs and hellstrike can hit aircrafts.

Maybe, but the Phoenix looks no beefier than a Nightwing, so I'm gonna guess they'll both be 2 hit points like the original, but maybe GW will decide to beef them up a bit. There's not too many fighter type aircraft that GW have decided to grace with 3 hit points, from memory only the Thunderbolt so far and I imagine the Xiphon will be also.

Pre orders next week. Wonder if the pathfinder is the new name for the vigilant

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/05/30/sunday-preview-warhammer-skulls-adepta-sororitas-pre-orders-and-that-crab-you-love/

 zedmeister wrote:
Pre orders next week. Wonder if the pathfinder is the new name for the vigilant

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/05/30/sunday-preview-warhammer-skulls-adepta-sororitas-pre-orders-and-that-crab-you-love/

These two planes look identical to the other two kits, what is different about them?

Togusa wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Pre orders next week. Wonder if the pathfinder is the new name for the vigilant

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/05/30/sunday-preview-warhammer-skulls-adepta-sororitas-pre-orders-and-that-crab-you-love/

These two planes look identical to the other two kits, what is different about them?

The internal bomb bays/fuselage gubbins. The Colossus has a huge (conventional explosive) bomb (probably similar to the one on the Ork mega-bommer) and the pathfinder has an advanced sensor suite.
Unfortunate that you can’t really see the difference from above but there you go.

I hope the Marauder variants are not going to be too expensive... Between those AI releases, the Volkite weapons for Adeptus Titanicus, and the SoB on Saturday, this week is going to make my wallet cry.

£40 a pair for the Marauders I'm reckoning. It'll be resin expansions for the base plastic sprue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CorwinB wrote:
I hope the Marauder variants are not going to be too expensive... Between those AI releases, the Volkite weapons for Adeptus Titanicus, and the SoB on Saturday, this week is going to make my wallet cry.

Definitely, Necromunda, AI and Titanicus. The only thing that I'm relieved about is now 30K releases at the same time...

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Pre orders next week. Wonder if the pathfinder is the new name for the vigilant

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/05/30/sunday-preview-warhammer-skulls-adepta-sororitas-pre-orders-and-that-crab-you-love/

These two planes look identical to the other two kits, what is different about them?

The internal bomb bays/fuselage gubbins. The Colossus has a huge (conventional explosive) bomb (probably similar to the one on the Ork mega-bommer) and the pathfinder has an advanced sensor suite.
Unfortunate that you can’t really see the difference from above but there you go.

These variants lack the top turret, so there is a bit of visual difference from the top.

I'll probably sit out the Marauders. I already have 6 Marauders (2 Destroyers and 4 standard from buying 2x starter boxes) so don't really feel like I need even more of them.

Will probably grab some drones though, even though I reckon they mostly suck rules wise, they boost the numbers in the squadron to give slightly more options when activating units.

CorwinB wrote:
I hope the Marauder variants are not going to be too expensive... Between those AI releases, the Volkite weapons for Adeptus Titanicus, and the SoB on Saturday, this week is going to make my wallet cry.

I feel your pain. I bought into Gravelords, now it's time for Kragnos and Kroak, and in like two weeks the new AoS box is out and I want both armies, ontop of the new weapons for my titans.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Will probably grab some drones though, even though I reckon they mostly suck rules wise, they boost the numbers in the squadron to give slightly more options when activating units.

Too expensive for 14 points 1 HP craft, mathwise I guess you can do 2 drone + 1 baracuda (no turret) for 50 points. But then the Tiger Shark cost 24 points with 5HP, and 2 baracuda with turrets had more total HP and firepower.

Preorders are up.

Chopstick wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Will probably grab some drones though, even though I reckon they mostly suck rules wise, they boost the numbers in the squadron to give slightly more options when activating units.

Too expensive for 14 points 1 HP craft, mathwise I guess you can do 2 drone + 1 baracuda (no turret) for 50 points. But then the Tiger Shark cost 24 points with 5HP, and 2 baracuda with turrets had more total HP and firepower.

I think the best choice for Tau is the Tiger Shark, at only 2pts more than a Barracuda you gain way more than you give up, and on their own drones look like crap.

But I'll grab a few drones simply to see if using them for increasing squadron size is beneficial. The more aircraft you have the more options you have in choosing when certain aircraft activate. But it's a difficult quality to judge because you need to play a few games to see if have more control over activations actually helps, and of course if they all get shot down in the first turn they haven't done much to help.

Tiger shark is pretty bad in low attitude mission. 2+ baracuda with access to ace maneuver 6 and 7 will give them an easier time flying around objects.

Chopstick wrote:
Tiger shark is pretty bad in low attitude mission. 2+ baracuda with access to ace maneuver 6 and 7 will give them an easier time flying around objects.

It's useful for a Tau player to own Barracuda's for the occasional mission that might see them being useful, but the majority of the time Tiger Sharks are going to be more useful.

Even if you are playing a low altitude mission I think a good argument could be made for having 3 extra HP over the extra agility and ace manoeuvres, you should be avoiding flying into objects anyway because even an agile aircraft has a chance of crashing. It's only if you're playing a low altitude mission that also has an absurd amount of terrain to dodge, maybe like a canyon run mission, in which case, yeah, high agility aircraft become viable... but in general GW has massively overpriced the value of agility and ace manoeuvres, IMO.

SG writers are too lazy to give some pre-made mission like Killteam, but their example of a standard Low attitude mission shown that the terrain are pretty dense.



Also only maneuever 6,7,8 allow you to circle or move through object, so a real agile craft with access to high maneuver have better way to avoid terrain than tiger shark.

Yeah I'd say if that level of terrain covered the whole board, then that's an absurd example because the terrain is so dense it becomes impractical to use anything but planes with really high Handling.

In those scenarios a Barracuda is obviously better and god help the Orks who have no manoeuvrable / high Handling options. But in spite of the book calling that "standard" to me that would be "extreme". Any more dense and there'd be no way through it at all, lol. It's half baked ideas like that which make AI a sub-mediocre ruleset.

Unless that's just what it looks like around the objective and the rest of the board is more open, in which case I revert to my previous opinion of 3 extra HP on the Tiger Shark being worth more.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Togusa wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Pre orders next week. Wonder if the pathfinder is the new name for the vigilant

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/05/30/sunday-preview-warhammer-skulls-adepta-sororitas-pre-orders-and-that-crab-you-love/

These two planes look identical to the other two kits, what is different about them?

The internal bomb bays/fuselage gubbins. The Colossus has a huge (conventional explosive) bomb (probably similar to the one on the Ork mega-bommer) and the pathfinder has an advanced sensor suite.
Unfortunate that you can’t really see the difference from above but there you go.

Do we have an idea what the rules for the Pathfinder might be? As far as I can see, they've shown the Colossus but not the Pathfinder and I couldn't find anything about it.

Also a bummer that you need to buy 2 of each when you would probably use one at most. Seeing that both variants share the plastic parts of the Marauder Bomber, they could've easily bundled them up together with 1 each.