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.

I really think treating them as temporary assets would cover a lot of bases. It also means you need less table space for huge bases, or the flyers that are just stupid huge.

It’s similar to how some of the huge titan miniature are basically just a figure you can theoretically use in a game. And when used are often best used as a mission, or more like a special terrain feature that does things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I would advocate for abstract rules.

I forget which edition, but a previous incarnation of Epic allowed for orbital bombardments, where you used a BFG ship, off-board, as a counter, shifting it along its track ready for its turn to unleash hell.

Epic A. (4th)

Epic A also illustrated the problem with aircraft and army composition. 40k could lift the rules entirely and they would be fine... bar the AA problem. The second you have aircraft that do aircrafty things, you want a counter. Because of the possible presence of aircraft every EpicA army has 10%+ of its points spent on AA. I don't think they want every 40k army to include AA, not least because only a few have it and the rest have various cludges. So either aircraft are toned down massively so the points spend is questionable/everything can shoot it, which is odd, or it becomes part of your system from the ground it and a constant list building pressure.

There was also, probably the same edition, time in Epic where fighters did little against anything on the board, but were instead used to drive enemy bombers, which could mess things right up, away.

I think it was Epic 40,000?

can't remember what they did in 3rd, but in 4th you can CAP with fighters and intercept bombers, trying to shoot them down or abort their firing runs.

The aircraft vs. AA fight was one of the issues with 6th. Everyone could buy them fortifications in the rulebook, and use the AA mounts on them. But they were not the best. You wanted to use your own flyer. Which you got when your codex dropped. Codex creep and the haves vs. have-nots was one of the worst ever. Because flyers were strong, but not everyone had them, or good tools to deal with them.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The second you have aircraft that do aircrafty things, you want a counter.

It's possible to write the rules such that you don't strictly need a counter, in the same way that there's no counter for an off-board artillery barrage. It can't occupy objectives or block your movement, just do damage, so if it has a limited duration you can wait it out.

So you could implement aircraft as an asset that shows up, makes an attack run, and then has an escalating chance of bugging out and being done for the game. Then, have that chance escalate faster as it takes damage from AA weapons during the run. That gives utility to having at least some AA capability, even if it isn't enough to kill an aircraft outright, while also meaning an army without AA isn't going to just get shot with impunity five turns straight.

I mean, that's just one way to approach it- air support has been handled in many wargames before.

Suggestion of Abstract.

To relieve the need for on-board AA assets? Perhaps give every army some kind of CAP (Combat Air Patrol, in case anyone was wondering) rating.

This represents the wider battlefield/theatre, and that AA tends to have a ludicrous range.

The hypothetical CAP rating could instead be tied to the Mission at hand - or perhaps modified by it. After all, if you’re tasked with a Forlorn Hope type bunker assault or otherwise attacking a prepared position? Your foe is just more likely to have AA cover in place, whether or not it’s part of the force you’re engaged with.

Rather than outright destroying friendly fliers? Perhaps have it as some kind of interdiction, affecting if and when your aircraft can make an attack run.

Going further abstract, such a CAP Rating may also reflect how a given force fights. Eldar of all stripes tend to favour much smaller forces, fighting on their own terms. So one might imagine a low CAP. But? It could be a higher one precisely because of their fondness for Popping Out Of Nowhere. There, rather than a formal air screen or AA defence, it’s representing the time it takes to scramble a fighter or bomber to intercede.

Really just spit balling here, mostly for the sake of conversation. But I think there’s at least a nucleus of an interesting Combined Arms approach there.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Suggestion of Abstract.

To relieve the need for on-board AA assets? Perhaps give every army some kind of CAP (Combat Air Patrol, in case anyone was wondering) rating.

This represents the wider battlefield/theatre, and that AA tends to have a ludicrous range.

The hypothetical CAP rating could instead be tied to the Mission at hand - or perhaps modified by it. After all, if you’re tasked with a Forlorn Hope type bunker assault or otherwise attacking a prepared position? Your foe is just more likely to have AA cover in place, whether or not it’s part of the force you’re engaged with.

Rather than outright destroying friendly fliers? Perhaps have it as some kind of interdiction, affecting if and when your aircraft can make an attack run.

Going further abstract, such a CAP Rating may also reflect how a given force fights. Eldar of all stripes tend to favour much smaller forces, fighting on their own terms. So one might imagine a low CAP. But? It could be a higher one precisely because of their fondness for Popping Out Of Nowhere. There, rather than a formal air screen or AA defence, it’s representing the time it takes to scramble a fighter or bomber to intercede.

Really just spit balling here, mostly for the sake of conversation. But I think there’s at least a nucleus of an interesting Combined Arms approach there.

I suspect that's more complicated than necessary. First and foremost, I'd lean into what they were doing with Primaris - give everything some sort of Cheap/throw away Anti-X Anti-AIRCRAFT gun Think: Icarus Stubbers\Missile Pods\etc on Dreads and Repulsors, Icarus Missiles (which could easily be a freebie also-choose on Infantry with Missile Launchers etc) on the Bellicatus Array. Just make them (or most of them, because the Thunderstrike Icarus Rocket Pod isn't really "extra" its more of a main gun) Aircraft-Target-only and hand them out a bit more.

Anti-Air as a solution gets a little too RPS. It's a fine rule like the other Anti's but these things aren't impossible to kill and don't need to be designed where only dedicated counters can answer them.

I don't think they need to be that complicated. People just want their cool toy planes to zoom across the table and shoot at things. They don't need to be dramatically different from other combat vehicles. They just need to be combat vehicles.

The trick is the mobility element and the simple fact that if you have a huge piece of plastic propped up on a thin plastic stick, you need a pretty large base to keep it from falling on the nicely painted armies below. That base isn't really supposed to be there, but its existence complicates the whole model and how models interact with it is the only real problem that needs to be solved.

GW just should switch from flystand + base to tripod. It's way easier to set model with three thin legs then huge base

 kabaakaba wrote:
GW just should switch from flystand + base to tripod. It's way easier to set model with three thin legs then huge base

A base is an aesthetic thing on a miniature, I would hate to see tripods like that on the table.

But I think a huge problem is that GW kind of has been trying to make flyers an everything catch all. They want them on the table, they want them to be fast, change interaction with everything and manageable.
They could easily have them zooming across the battlefield and use passive defence, and different modifications to rolls to make them interesting. Or if drop craft they could be used sort of like drop pods that can land and lift off leaving troops.

A slightly more abstract but heavily Narative, and giveing a hover mode to everything as a choice would cover those who want them on the table. I think aircraft has always been popular since they where pushed into the main standardised game, just always really badly implemented.

40k players don't like the abstract stuff though, well unless it has a model (the whole abstract card game kills me, but they love it). So abstract anti flier solutions are just going to be seen as a tax. And the more stuff you have like that the more it becomes a straight mathematical calculation as to whether or not to include in your army.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
40k players don't like the abstract stuff though, well unless it has a model (the whole abstract card game kills me, but they love it). So abstract anti flier solutions are just going to be seen as a tax. And the more stuff you have like that the more it becomes a straight mathematical calculation as to whether or not to include in your army.

It’s actually less abstract than a lot of 40K is now.
My suggestion is used in a few games, and passive defence would just be how you roll and attack a flyer during an opponent’s turn.
Players could use there cool flyers in speedy flying ways, without needing a mass of rules and creating a bunch of units that need weird, or reliant rules on there opponents bringing a target.