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.

Hi all. Opinions on this greatly appreciated.

During our apoc game yesterday one of my mates asked me to have a read at the flyers tactica on the GW site.

We have always played flyers as moving their minimum 3 feet in a straight line.

The part my friend drew my attention to is as follows:

Quote/ WHERE ARE THE BRAKES?!?
With the exception of Hover Mode, flyers have no way of stopping in midair. This fact is reflected in the movement rules for flyers, which require you to move them at least 36" every Movement Phase. However, that doesn't mean you have to go racing across the whole table each turn, though that can be a good option at certain times. Pilots use something called an "S-turn" to reduce their ground speed, and you can do the same with flyers in Apocalypse. Zig-zag across your line of approach to slow down, or even consider looping and flying back towards your original starting point. In summary, think through your movement carefully, and make sure you plan it out for the next several turns, as you can't stop to get your bearings. /Quote

This seems to imply that flyers can in fact move any amount they please on the table as you'll always be able to bend the tape measure round to where you want the flyer to end up.

If this is the case, what advantage do Eldar flyers get being able to move a minumum of 18".

Is this right or games workshop mixing up their own rules again.

I'm confused.

This is not a rules post.

Flyer's can't quite move any amount they please.

Have you been in an airplane and done a loop?

Have you played a computer game that simulates flying? (Even GTA san andreas?)

You have to move at least 36", and you can't really only fit 1 loop in that, otherwise you would crash.

Work it out but each time you want to move 20" make sure to say "ok i'm looping here, then (after you spend enough distance to stabilize), i turn here, and turn here".

You probably won't be facing the direction you want to be facing though.

Hmm seems dakka dakka now counts how many times I edit my posts.

flyers aren't part of the cure rule set because they aren't intended for a competitive and strict environment, rather they are used in games where the players are more open to trying out interesting new things and are generally purely for fun.

That said, I think it's fair enough to claim this sort of stuff but I would expect the movement to be at least close to realistic, I wouldn't nor would I let my opponent turn on the spot or anything similar.

onlainari wrote:This is not a rules post.

I'd say we're discussing the rules for flyers movement.

Thanks for the input so far guys.

It still suggests to me that flyers can stay still and claim to be flying by doing a 36" loop.

I know what you guys are saying that a real plane cannot perform that manouver or it would crash/find it impossible to do so however this is not a real plane and even if we were to use flight dynamics - it's still a plane 38,000 years in the future.

How do other people play this rule?

That you have to move your flyer at least 36". You can't just leave it sitting there and say that's what you did. I don't have my Apocalypse book handy, but depending on what, if any, limitations are given to flyers turning, that might not be so easy.

Otherwise, you still have to move it along a 36" course, even if that puts you right back where you started.

I don't have the Apocalypse rule book (one I don't own) so could anyone clarify what the definition for turning or looping on a flyer is?

Thats any easy question actually. The answer is..... There is no definition in apoc. It's just fluff.

I think what they are implying is that you don't have to go zooming across the board in a straight line, turn after turn.

Moving your flyer up the board in a zig zag pattern, etc., instead of one straight line. Each turns movement must be a straight line however.

This is yet another example of the fact that GW tends to lack fact checking on their tactical articles. The flyer movement rules state that the flyer's new position must be more that 36" away from its former position.

You could fly your flyer over the entire board in a big curvy path with tons of curves and turns in it if you wanted (and you didn't mind your opponent looking at you weird) but you still have to end up atleast three feet from your starting position. And none of that extra movement will matter for anything because bombing runs work on the straight line between starting and ending points.

Yep, a very poor fact-checked tactica article. Flyers must end their move more than 36" away from their previous position. The actual 'path' their movement takes is immaterial unless you are playing with rules that affect a flyer based on its position during movement.

The tactica is implying that, through the course of the battle, you could form a zig-zag pattern to maximize effectiveness(always at least 36" from your starting point); instead of simply bouncing from one short table-edge to the other. At no point can you bend your tape to shorten your flight plan.

Smashotron, that's a very charitable interpretation. My impression upon reading the article (some months ago) was that the writer was indeed trying to find a loophole to allow lower minimum movement distance.

Savnock wrote:My impression upon reading the article (some months ago) was that the writer was indeed trying to find a loophole to allow lower minimum movement distance.

That's what I was thinking as well Savnock.

It wouldn't be the first time that GW articles have been at loggerheads with the rules.