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've seen a number of people who like the idea of sporting Airborne Regiments for the Imperial Guard. This idea is mainly geared for people wishing to play this style. Seeing as how mech armies have Tank Commanders, my thought is... why not have Valkyrie/Vendetta Commanders for those wanting to play paratrooper? The idea is that a player can upgrade a Valkyrie/Vendetta gunship to a Wing Commander. A Wing Commander counts as a HQ and does not occupy a Fast Attack slot in the player's FOC. The option would be available to standard Imperial Guard, Militarum Tempestus and Elysian Drop Troops only:


Wing Commander

Cost: 50

Stats:
- BS: 4
- Ld: 9

Unit type:
- Vehicle (Flyer, Hover, Transport, Character)

Unit composition:
- 1 Wing Commander

Special rules:
- Gunship Commander: Identical as to Tank Commander except relating to the Valkyrie/Vendetta instead
- Aerial Combat Orders: At the start of the players turn, the Wing Commander may issue 1 order to its unit. The Commander takes a leadership test. If it passes, the order is successful. This is done prior to declaring what mode the unit is flying in

Options:
- The Wing Commander must take a Valkyrie/Vendetta gunship.
- The Wing Commander's squadron must include 1-2 other Valkyrie/Vendetta gunships. The selection can be mixed and need not be identical to the Wing Commander's vehicle.
- All vehicles in the squadron may take any upgrade as normal.
- One Wing Commander may be upgraded to Sky Baron Manfred Redd for 50 points.

Aerial Combat Orders:
- "Follow my lead!" - When Zooming, the unit may stop at any point, including at the start and end of movement, to make an additional turn of up to 90 degrees.
- "Cover them, boys - The unit gains Supporting fire up to 18''. One or more of the unit may choose to fire Overwatch and may rotate up to 90 degrees to do so.
- "Target locked, now everybody fire!" - The entire unit fires using the Wing Commander's BS.
- "Break formation - One or more gunships may temporarily leave the unit. It can move and shoot as if a separate unit but must rejoin the Wing Commander's unit by the end of the player's following movement phase. If it fails to do so, the gunship is permanently a separate unit and does not benefit from further orders.


Sky Baron Manfred Redd
A highly skilled Imperial Navy commander with countless victories and decorations to his name. He is most easily spotted in his distinctive red gunship.

Stats:
- BS: 4
- Ld: 9

Unit type:
- Vehicle (Flyer, Hover, Transport, Character)

Unit composition:
- Sky Baron Manfred Redd (unique)

Special Rules:
- Gunship Commander
- Aerial Combat Orders
- Mobile Command Vehicle
- Weapon Overcharge: Once per turn, the Sky Baron may overcharge 1 of its Las-weapons to fire using the Plasma Cannon's profile (Range: 36'', S: 7, AP: 2, Type: Heavy1, Blast, Gets hot). Does not benefit from Twin-linked if the weapon originally has this rule. If the weapon Gets Hot, it results in 1 point of hull damage and the weapon is destroyed.
- Aggressive Insertion (Valkyrie only): Units deploying from the Sky Baron's Valkyrie are able to assault and gain Hammer of Wrath during the ensuing assault phase.
- Pinpoint Insertion (Vendetta only): Units deploying from the Sky Baron's Vendetta do not scatter.

Warlord Trait:
- Airborne Regiment: Up to 1D3 units gain Deep Strike. If the unit already has Deep Strike, it instead does not scatter.

I love this idea. Have you tried these rules at all in-game?

this is awesome dude. Im currently working on aircav and this would be perfect.

I like it. It reminds of the Aces in Skies of Death.

I would take away break formation though, it just leads to too many shenanigans like having 6+ independent Valkyries/vendettas.

 J3f wrote:
I like it. It reminds of the Aces in Skies of Death.

I would take away break formation though, it just leads to too many shenanigans like having 6+ independent Valkyries/vendettas.

I dunno... I feel the main inhibiting factor is that getting 6+ Valkyries/Vendettas is still going to be really expensive. 6+ Valkyries are still going to cost 6+ Valkyries, at the end of the day. Indeed, there are ways where you can already get 6+ Valkyries; such as with Elysian Drop Troops or by taking the Militarum Tempestus' Airborne Assault Formation as part of your army. However, doing so opens your army up to some glaring weaknesses that an appropriately prepared enemy can completely take advantage of.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I love this idea. Have you tried these rules at all in-game?

Unfortunately, my experience has been somewhat limited as most within my circle of friends are rigid, by-the-book, no Imperial Armour rules, kind of players. But from the few games where this was tried, I found my most often used order being "Target Locked", with the occasional follow-up of "Break Formation" to have one Valkyrie hang back to mop up any survivors of the initial unit targeted, while the Wing Commander flies ahead to find its next target (or the other way around). That said, the added maneuverability of "Follow My Lead" does make Zooming pretty fun to use.

I've not however really used much of "Cover Them, Boys". Would the 2-3 Multi-Lasers (Heavy3, S6) be effective for firing Overwatch?


P.S.: Does anyone reckon there would be much demand for an Imperial Navy/Air Cavalry Battlegroup formation, akin to how MechGuard have a dedicated Armoured Battlegroup formation?

mr. peasant wrote:



P.S.: Does anyone reckon there would be much demand for an Imperial Navy/Air Cavalry Battlegroup formation, akin to how MechGuard have a dedicated Armoured Battlegroup formation?

Probably not in the same way, no. ABG's can actually capture and hold points in Maelstrom missions if my understanding of the ABG is correct.

There isn't really much point to this when you have the IA3 Elysian drop troops list that does the "air cav" concept better. Just take a CCS in a dedicated transport Valkyrie, which is what your HQ concept is representing. And remember that fluff-wise the aircraft only have a pilot + gunner + optional door gunners, any command abilities would be coming from a squad inside the transport. So even if you want to have special aircraft orders or whatever you'd need to remove the transport capacity and assume that the command staff passengers will never disembark.

 Frankenberry wrote:

mr. peasant wrote:



P.S.: Does anyone reckon there would be much demand for an Imperial Navy/Air Cavalry Battlegroup formation, akin to how MechGuard have a dedicated Armoured Battlegroup formation?

Probably not in the same way, no. ABG's can actually capture and hold points in Maelstrom missions if my understanding of the ABG is correct.

From my understanding, Flyers can hold points as long as they are Hovering.

 Peregrine wrote:
There isn't really much point to this when you have the IA3 Elysian drop troops list that does the "air cav" concept better. Just take a CCS in a dedicated transport Valkyrie, which is what your HQ concept is representing. And remember that fluff-wise the aircraft only have a pilot + gunner + optional door gunners, any command abilities would be coming from a squad inside the transport. So even if you want to have special aircraft orders or whatever you'd need to remove the transport capacity and assume that the command staff passengers will never disembark.

The Commands are being given to its own unit; exactly like a Tank Commander; not to infantry. In that respect, it should play quite differently from Elysian Drop Troops and is not at all akin to a CCS sitting in a Valkyrie. In terms of fluff, there's no reason why the gunner can't be put in a command position since it happens both, in real life and fiction, all the the time. After all, the term "Wing Commander" is not something I've just simply made up but is instead the rank/position that used to command a flying wing - a grouping of squadrons.

Remove Break formation and it's gona be good. Or rework it so that the separated flyer can't secure objectives. Cause i can easilly see it being exploited.

Hmm... from the consensus here, it seems to be that the general opinion here is that the "Break Formation" has abuse potential by using it not as intended but instead to get extra flyers to secure objectives with.

I would be most grateful if someone can explain to me how exactly this is overpowered so that I can begin to fix the problem. I mean for comparison, the Elysians are already able to - assuming points allowing - field dozens of separate Valkyries as the Elysians use them as dedicated transports for all their infantry. In that respect, having 6 (for Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus) shouldn't present such an unfair advantage.

mr. peasant wrote:
Hmm... from the consensus here, it seems to be that the general opinion here is that the "Break Formation" has abuse potential by using it not as intended but instead to get extra flyers to secure objectives with.

I would be most grateful if someone can explain to me how exactly this is overpowered so that I can begin to fix the problem. I mean for comparison, the Elysians are already able to - assuming points allowing - field dozens of separate Valkyries as the Elysians use them as dedicated transports for all their infantry. In that respect, having 6 (for Imperial Guard and Militarum Tempestus) shouldn't present such an unfair advantage.

All Dedeicated Transports come with a Troops Tax, you have to buy both the Valkyrie and the squad it carries. An HQ formation only takes up 1 FOC slot but with no troops tax.

I like every thing as is, except "cover them, boys." Mostly because it doesn't feel very guardish (over watch isn't exactly a guard 'thing') and because supporting fire isn't even in the guard codex.

Also since at least a few people seem to be against break formation why not change the last part to "any gunship that hasn't rejoined the wing commander's unit by the end of the next movement phase are then put into ongoing reserves (assumed to have flown off to rejoin the wing commander later) and stay there until the wing commander leaves combat air space at which point they rejoin him when he renters the battle field."

That way they can't stay apart to keep the abuse down, but you could still split them and go after separate targets that might prohibit you from rejoining after the one turn.

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
I like every thing as is, except "cover them, boys." Mostly because it doesn't feel very guardish (over watch isn't exactly a guard 'thing') and because supporting fire isn't even in the guard codex.

Also since at least a few people seem to be against break formation why not change the last part to "any gunship that hasn't rejoined the wing commander's unit by the end of the next movement phase are then put into ongoing reserves (assumed to have flown off to rejoin the wing commander later) and stay there until the wing commander leaves combat air space at which point they rejoin him when he renters the battle field."

That way they can't stay apart to keep the abuse down, but you could still split them and go after separate targets that might prohibit you from rejoining after the one turn.

Sorry for the late reply. Can't believe I missed this post. I really like your solution to "Break formation". I think it certainly helps resolve people's complaints about its ability to be abused.

As for your comment about "Cover them, boys", I can definitely see where you're coming from. My original idea was to intentionally give the order a special rule that the IG wouldn't typically have access to as well as to give the Wing Commander an order for the assault phase. Perhaps the following as an alternative?

"Flash em, boys" - Gives the unit's attacks the Blind special rule (inflict the enemy unit with WS: 1 and BS: 1 until the end of next turn) .

Unless you have more than 12 aircraft it should really be a squadron commander, not a wing commander.

I'd give him a vulture option as well. I don't really love his orders, they are kind of bland. I'd have him have a built in comms relay, officer of the fleet effect, first off. And declare what type of CAS was authorized, 1 2 or 3

CAS 1 squadron weapons gain the rending and ignores cover rules.

CAS 2 jink saves improved by one, can snap shot at normal BS

CAS 3 gain strafing run and Tank Hunter special rules

Those are pretty powerful so he should be pricy. Note he can give those to any squadron, not necessarily his own. One order per turn, navy fliers have ld 10.

mr. peasant wrote:

As for your comment about "Cover them, boys", I can definitely see where you're coming from. My original idea was to intentionally give the order a special rule that the IG wouldn't typically have access to as well as to give the Wing Commander an order for the assault phase. Perhaps the following as an alternative?

"Flash em, boys" - Gives the unit's attacks the Blind special rule (inflict the enemy unit with WS: 1 and BS: 1 until the end of next turn) .

That sounds good, though it could use a better name, "flash em, boys" could give the wrong impression as to why exactly their targets are blinded.

Or you could change 'cover em' to something like any squad that take a wound from the wing commander's squadron has -3 to their charge range or some such.

Rather than Supporting Fire (as you say, you never really used it much anyway), why not change "Cover 'em!" to something like the following;

Cover 'em, lads!: Designate a friendly infantry unit within 12" of the target flier. The flyer may fire as many weapons as it is allowed at the same target as that infantry unit at BS 5.

This echoes the "Bring it Down!" twin-linked effect while still allowing for the vast number of twin-linked weapons on Guard fliers.

Also, is there a reason you've excluded the other fliers? Avengers, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Vultures, Aquilas, etc? Why can he only order Valkyries and Vendettas? (this especially conflicts with the ability to field them as Elysian HQ choices, since Vendettas and Vultures are both part of the same army list entry).

Wow this is actually very good!!! I won't be surprised at all if this was in the codex.