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.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Youre getting confuddled with 7th i think? Jink was a constant 4+ cover save for a flyer that had moved in 6th. It was a 4+ if it zoomed/moved flat out iirc.

[6e-Rule-Spaghetti] Jink in 6th edition did give a constant save, but fliers only got jink if they used evade as per the hard to hit rule but only while zooming, which was further modified while going flat out, though they could in many cases choose to switch to the hover 'type' at which point as fast skimmers they temporarily gained the actual jink rule which did give them a constant 5+ cover save unless going flat out as previously mentioned... [/6e-Rule-Spaghetti]


Marine fliers were the ones that ignored the melta rule - Stormtalon, Stormraven, Stormwolf, Stormfang, Storm Eagle, Caestus Assault Ram ... curiously not the Fire Eagle unless it was errataed. The icarus was decent enough but you only got one per detachment with no real survival chances - other fliers were the best counters to fliers, and the whims of the reserve rolls.

But 6e did quite a good job of shooting itself in the foot even without fliers.

One issue related to the no CC thing was their footprint on the table. As you could not be in CC, they acted as mobile denial zones where they were.

So many rules tweaks on that issue over the years.

My curiosity regarding whether 7th could be fun comes from me liking the variety of units in 7th, including the superheavies, even though my inclination is more towards 2nd or 3rd edition

A.T. wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
You don't need specific weaponry you just need to be able to roll 6+

They were immune to close combat and non-skyfire blast and template weapons, several also ignored melta (if you could get close enough), were often armour 12 so effectively ignored lance and small arms, were snapshot to hit only, and if you did actually hit one of them with a weapon capable of doing damage they could retroactively jink to get a save against it, assuming they didn't already have a save like helldrakes.

It was pretty ugly being one of the 'have-not' factions compared to one of the 'have' factions - a sisters of battle army might be throwing everything they have just to try and luck out and wing on whereas red hunters siege marines with a squadron of interceptor hunter tanks treated fliers as free kills.

Should have been clear i was not talking about 6th ed+ rules alone (all they did good was fix/standardize the movement rules with the rest of the game flow) as side from that-
This is where FW had superior rules for flyers-

.They counted as being "high up" so you took a 12" added range penalty but they never gained cover from terrain on the table.
.Non AA units could shoot at them with non-template weapons needing a 6+ to hit
.Jump infantry could assault flyers in close combat.
.pintle mounted weapons all count as AA aside from dedicated AA vehicles
.flyers hit each other on normal BS
.they crashed and burned on an immobilized result, destroyed result and explode result, which is why certain universal upgrades existed that gave them extra armor equivalents to be able to keep moving when shaken, or a once per game re-roll of an immobilized result (chaff and flare launchers)

As for the ground AA vehicle/options off the top of my head throughout the editions (3rd-7th)
.flakk trukk-orks
.firestorm-eldar
.praetor, hydra-imperial guard
.icarus array dune crawler-admech
.sky ray-tau (original FW rules were much better-could self fire 2 seekers a turn and never ran out of ammo)
.doredeo, contemptor, hunter, stalker, land raider helios, flak missiles-space marines/chaos space marines
.obelysk-necrons

Manticore for Imperial Guard and Whilrwind Hyperios for Space Marines too. Imperial Knights had the AA carapace mount.

Chaos is a glaring omission, with just skyfire missiles patched in for Havocs. Forgefiends were ok but only through weight of fire. Chaos had good flyer options instead but ground fire was limited.

I am also a bit surprised they didn't give an AA mode to Exorcists, the missile launcher tank is ideal for it.

Tyran wrote:Yes, because what any and every xeno player wants is having to buy an Imperial defense line with a lascannon for AA. /s

GW not producing a xenos specific aesthetic variants of the standard fortifications in the rulebook is a problem you have with GWs business strategy, not a problem with the 6th edition sir.

insaniak wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I think not being able to engage a zooming flyer in CC is a fair and realistic concept.

It certainly is... but as such, if they are included as a standard part of the game, every army needs reliable and accessible options to shoot them down without having to take units specifically dedicated to only that role. Otherwise, regardless of how 'realistic' it is, it's just bad game design.

Consider... "..if armoured vehicles are included as a standard part of the game, every army needs reliable and accessable options to destroy them without having to take units specifically dedicated to only that role. Otherwise, regardless of how 'realistic' it is, it's just bad game design."

insaniak wrote:

The "we dont have AA" argument requires ignoring the Ageis Defence Line (+50pts) which can take an icarus lascannon for an extra 35pts

It really, really doesn't. Again, having to take a specific unit, and in particular one that doesn't even fit your faction, on the off chance that your opponent has flyers because nothing else can hurt them is bad game design.

Consider... "having to take an anti-tank unit, and in particular one that doesn't even fit your faction, on the off chance that your opponent has armoured vehicles because nothing else can hurt them is bad game design."

As i stated above; GW not producing xenos variants of the standard fortifications is a GW business model problem, not an edition problem.

I refuse to come out with "just print off/scratchbuild your own xenos variants!" because thats not a proper argument - same with "just use Forgeworld units!"; not available enough to constitute a proper answer imo.

All that out the way, cheers for keying out the tale of the ultramarines in the carniverrous forrest - that had me chuckling aloud, on my own, in a darkened room.


For the AA list, the imperial guard and renegades of chaos get 'Sabre Air Defence Platform's and marines have the 'Tarrantula' Hyperios Air Defence Launcher or Hyperios Command Platform weapon upgrade.

Folks.

Can we get back to the thread topic?

An effort in that vein.

Been and gone from Dad’s house. Given inherent unpleasantness, it was kinda fleeting and totally forgot about the second attic. But sadly seems my Man O’War stuff is lost to the dust of time.

And so…..reconstituting that collection and more may very well be my next focus.

Did you have many fleets for mow? Quite awhile ago I considered collecting it and some random helpful guy on warseer gave me pdfs of everything in every box set

 SirDonlad wrote:

Tyran wrote:Yes, because what any and every xeno player wants is having to buy an Imperial defense line with a lascannon for AA. /s

GW not producing a xenos specific aesthetic variants of the standard fortifications in the rulebook is a problem you have with GWs business strategy, not a problem with the 6th edition sir.

GW failing to produce xenos specific AA options for the xenos factions is a problem both with GW's business strategy and with 6th edition, because 6th edition was a GW game driven by GW's business strategy. Trying to separate them is nonsense.

By that logic GWs business strategy is driven by your involvement and investment so the actual problem you have with 6th edition is you!

Nice one Tyran. 6th was going to be a great and long-running edition if it weren't for you!

 SirDonlad wrote:
By that logic GWs business strategy is driven by your involvement and investment so the actual problem you have with 6th edition is you!

Nice one Tyran. 6th was going to be a great and long-running edition if it weren't for you!

You might be joking, but if we generalize "you" and "we" as the 40k playerbase and fandom as a whole, we did have our part in incentivising a lot of the issues 40k had over the ages.

But that little argument does nothing to change the issue that a lack of access to AA options was a big issue in 6th (and best exemplified with how Flyer and FMC spam dominated 6th).

Hell GW even forbade Tyranids from using weapon emplacements (and thus the Aegis Defense Line was worthless for them) so please shut up about a single Fortification somehow solving a core issue of 6th (but hardly the only one).

 Tyran wrote:
.

But that little argument does nothing to change the issue that a lack of access to AA options was a big issue in 6th (and best exemplified with how Flyer and FMC spam dominated 6th).

If youd have just let the edition live for a couple more years GW could have released exactly that, but your hunger for edition souls couldnt wait.

Maybe, but a few more years would have done nothing for the Grav spam and D weapon rules (I'm pretty sure those were introduced in 6th).

Was invisibility and 2++ rerollable Screamer Star also a 6th ed thing or 7th? admittedly I do struggle to remember what nonsense was part of which nonsense edition (formations and psychic dice were 7th, I do recall that).

 Tyran wrote:
Maybe, but a few more years would have done nothing for the Grav spam and D weapon rules (I'm pretty sure those were introduced in 6th).

Was invisibility and 2++ rerollable Screamer Star also a 6th ed thing or 7th? admittedly I do struggle to remember what nonsense was part of which nonsense edition (formations and psychic dice were 7th, I do recall that).

Dude, i completely understand.
I know invisibility got toned down in 7th and was at its comical worst during 6th.
My mind associates grav spam with the release of SM centurions so that might be 6th?
I think the 2++ rerollable screamerstar was 7th but i cant be sure either because i was deep into HH at that point.
Smashfucker was definetly a 6th edition problem in that same vein though.
I know D weapons and the superheavy damage chart were a white dwarf addition for the release of Imperial Knights during 6th and got enshrined in 7th core rules because they ruined a game i rushed a paintjob for during 6th.
Against another tyranid player as it happens.

Just received my sealed copy of The End Times: Archaon. Really just part of the quest to have all the 8th ed rules, the story itself is not part of my WHFB headcanon. Its a very beautiful book tho, and satisfyingly huge.

Anyone know which imperial armor books has the updated badab war stuff? Trying to get rules together for a (probably never going to happen) badab war campaign

The badab war books were IA 9&10, i have the original releases, not sure what your after with updated versions.

 aphyon wrote:
The badab war books were IA 9&10, i have the original releases, not sure what your after with updated versions.

I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth

I don't know if they did anything for 7th edition, but there were pdf updates released on the forgeworld website that you might still be able to find floating around the net :

FWchaptertactics.pdf (and possibly FWchaptertactics-v2.pdf - I don't know if that was the original name or my renaming)
6th edition, November 2013

Siege_Assault_Van.pdf
6th edition, December 2013

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
The badab war books were IA 9&10, i have the original releases, not sure what your after with updated versions.

I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth

Ah ok i see what your after, i play core 5th so i never bothered i think the original rules are the best as is.

A.T. wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth

I don't know if they did anything for 7th edition, but there were pdf updates released on the forgeworld website that you might still be able to find floating around the net :

FWchaptertactics.pdf (and possibly FWchaptertactics-v2.pdf - I don't know if that was the original name or my renaming)
6th edition, November 2013

Siege_Assault_Van.pdf
6th edition, December 2013

these where the ones I was thinking of, thanks!

though they did butcher my minotaurs lol

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
these where the ones I was thinking of, thanks

I had only played a single game with the siege rules, as part of a doubles tournament.
Squadroned hunters with interceptor, red scorpions to throw a whole bunch of skyfire out onto the field, and inquisitor Lok because... I had the model I guess, also BS5 on the icarus.

After all that there was exactly one team who had turned up with aircraft. No kill like overkill against those guys.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But sadly seems my Man O’War stuff is lost to the dust of time.

And so…..reconstituting that collection and more may very well be my next focus.

I too want my old collection to live again as I am not getting it back. Doesn't seem to be a wealth of 3D printed options out there though.

I do miss my old editions of the Renegades and Heretics FW lists (all the old list options were fun to play). I also actually miss the firing arcs of the tanks. I prefer the wounds characteristics that vehicles have now instead of Hull Points (stop glancing a main battle tank to death with damn bolters!) but especially now that they've reintroduced pivoting, there still is not a consequence for your opponent flanking you.

 blockade23 wrote:
I do miss my old editions of the Renegades and Heretics FW lists (all the old list options were fun to play). I also actually miss the firing arcs of the tanks. I prefer the wounds characteristics that vehicles have now instead of Hull Points (stop glancing a main battle tank to death with damn bolters!) but especially now that they've reintroduced pivoting, there still is not a consequence for your opponent flanking you.

I mean, glancing main battle tanks with bolters rarely happened in practice for the games I played, even in 10th edition. Still, if a tactical squad managed to get into the rear arc of something so squishy then it's a big reward for that player and a learning moment for the victim. and even then most of the time bolters would still only glance on 6's against AV10, the weakest of armor saves.

I may be crazy but I don't mind hullpoints as much, but I can see how they're annoying.

The way they were applied it effectively punished you for bringing vehicles by adding 2 redundant damage systems to the game.

The wound system also was bad for the game because it removed vehicles from being vehicles and just making them mirror monstrous creatures.

The only system i play that does wounds on everything well is DUST 1947.

The way they do it is a combination of progressively less shots VS higher armor (for both infantry and vehicles) against vehicles specifically outside light or open topped vehicles heavy armor cannot even be hurt by any not AT weapon. however AT weapons do a bunch of damage for every single shot against a vehicle.

Here is an example of a SSU infantry squad-with the difference between what small arms and AT weapons can do (number of shots/damage) to infantry as well as vehicles with armor classes of 1-4 (infantry) and 1-7(vehicles).



It comes back to good game design. the idea isn't as bad as implementation in most cases.

I didnt mind the implementation of hullpoints, but i was always annoyed by how few a vehicle has.
I thought 7 for a rhino, 9 for a Landraider or something like that would work.

I miss vehicle stat sheets with vehicle-specific and location-specific damage charts.

Personally I would have preferred something like armor degradation with each penetrating hit.

With the armour value being the 'hullpoints'?

Kinda. You wouldn't die because your "hullpoints" reached zero, but because after enough penetrating hit your vehicle might only be held together by duck tape and a light tap would be enough to cause some damage and finish it off.