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.

Hey everybody,
I hope this is the right place for the thread.

Anyhow, so I was looking just through the Space Marine Codex again when I realized that it would make an awful amount of sens if the Thunderfire cannon's Airburst rounds could hit flyrs.
Basically, from what I understand of the 6th edition rules, blast template weapons cannot hit flying vehicles. However, from a logical point of view, I figured that if the Airburst round was just fired high enough, it would make a very good anti aircraft weapon.
From a rules perspective, I would figure it would be pretty sweet if the "ignores cover" for the airburst could be changed to "skyfire" when targeting an aircraft since... well speed and maneuverability kind of fly out of the window when there's a huge explosion and shrapnel in the sky. Plus, with 4 S5 hits, it wouldn't be terribly over powered.


So to get to the point, what would y'all think of allowing the Thunderfire's airburst round to act as if it was an S5 AP 6 Heavy 4 weapon with the "skyfire" special rule when it is aimed at an aircraft? (in a friendly game of course)

Any input and opinion welcomed.
(Also I am aware that Space Marines already have a blimp ton of gadgets and possibilities and other factions could use anti aircraft stuff more etc. etc.)

Given that Str5 won't do squat against most flyers, whatever. Even the Ork flyer will only get glanced on 5s, and this can't even hurt a Stormraven or a Vendetta.

Still, I think just for the sake of it being possible, it would be nice. And you never know when it can come in handy

airburst doesn't mean it's used at all against flying stuff
about every semi-modern / modern artillery pieces (used en masse since WW1) use airburst shells with timed fuses / proximity detectors and so on
not any more precise that regular shells, just intended to shower an area with shrapnel so that it's more useful against infantry in cover
Good luck scoring a hit with a timed 155mm airburst shell on an attack chopper, don' even think about hitting a strafing plane

@TanKoL
I definitely see where your point and I mostly agree.
I got the idea about the anti air craft facet of the Thunderfire cannon because I thought many anti air craft guns worked in such a manner, ie. exploding mid-air in proximity of an aircraft and basically exposing it to enough shrapnel to damage it. I thought this wikipedia quote kind of fitting: "The ammunition and shells fired by these weapons are usually fitted with different types of fuses (barometric, time-delay, or proximity) to explode close to the airborne target, releasing a shower of fast metal fragments"

But I guess none the less, one can't just turn an artillery weapon skywards and hope to hit an aircraft, just because the ammo works similarly

Yes absolutely .... and when it comes to Flak batteries, it's really more of a saturation fire than anything else