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.

The flying rules are at present the only thing I strongly dislike in 40k. I hate that we have jump packs jet packs jetbikes and skimmers but this plane (that moves as fast as a Jetbike/skimmer) or this leathery winged flying monster is moving SO FAST that it makes almost no sense to ever attack them (just base thanks to Jink they have a 11/12 chance of evading any attack because of how fast they're taking those 18" a turn.

Unless of course you take your anti air options. Which are, in armies not called the Imperium, generally speaking another flying thing. Because someone at GW said "hey should we copy/paste some generic anti air options into this GK/Necron/DE codex were making for 7th?" "Naw the anti air rules are so binary nobody ever wastes points on them and just bets on ignoring flying stuff and hoping it doesn't make it's points back."

I have never seen an anti-air unit or option taken in 7th. Ever. What's the point, you'll most likely waste your points anyway since most flying things aren't gonna give a hoot about something that'll take one HP off a flyer then get killed by that flyer so it doesn't have to worry about it later.

So, what would some additional anti-air options be? Here's my list.

-Jump pack units may use their jumps in the assault phase to charge a flyer of FMC. Use vehicle rules for the flyer. For the FMC, it must take a grounding test at the end of the assault phase. If passed, it is not locked in combat, if failed it is grounded and is. Flying Monstrous Creatures may charge jump or jet pack infantry while not on the ground, but will always be grounded and locked if the assault continues after they do.

-Blast weapons used against flyers use only the scatter die. If a scatter result is rolled the attack misses.

-Jet pack infantry may target flying units normally if they do not move in the movement or assault phase

-Only vehicle weapons mounted on a turret may target flying units, but these weapons target them normally

So do any of these rules make sense/improve the game? Thoughts on how flyers could be buffed to compensate (maybe reliability, always coming any turn you want after turn 1?)

Remove flyers and FMC. There are no place for them in 40k

The problem with ground-to-air is that they made it all hit ground targets on 6s, in 6e they worked because you could have a gun with Skyfire and Interceptor that could hit both ground and air targets. Nowadays the only worthwhile ground-to-air units are Saber platforms (which are hilariously inexpensive), Contemptors, and Tau battlesuits (both of which can choose to be Skyfire or not).

As to broad sweeping changes to Flyers I'd like to see Flyers and Fast Skimmers combined into one type that sits somewhere in between the two on mobility/durability, infantry AA weapons that aren't comically overpriced the way flakk MLs are, more plastic kits for AA vehicles, and change Skyfire so the gun can hit ground targets at BS.

Thought about the jet/jump-pack idea myself; I'd probably consider a lowered hit or charge change or something like that, seeing how most flyers are priced/designed with their higher survivability in mind.

Has the benefits of making jump-infantry more apealing, and giving CC armies a better way to deal with flyers.

DrunkPhilisoph wrote:
Thought about the jet/jump-pack idea myself; I'd probably consider a lowered hit or charge change or something like that, seeing how most flyers are priced/designed with their higher survivability in mind.

Has the benefits of making jump-infantry more apealing, and giving CC armies a better way to deal with flyers.

Are they though? Most (worthwhile) flyers are AV12. Even if you just consider the benefits of not having to worry about rear armor what's the pricing difference between a Vendetta and Russ?

proposed rule:

flyers can only be hit by guns of at least 48" range and the shooter must be within 36" . this is to show that long range guns can hit a target high up in the sky in the vertical axis but the horizontal axis is shortened. to simplify the need to measure at weird angles , the shooter must be within 36" but the rang of the gun must shoot further at 48". I chose the ranges arbitrarily and would like feed back on what distances should it be.

Say if a the icarus lascannon has a 90" range, shouldnt it be able to hit planes 72" away?

what are the common long ranges of guns?

This will allow all lascannons, missiles launchers, autocannons to shoot down planes like they are suppose to. while guns of shorter range simply can not put a bullet that high into the air.

This also allow blast weapons to do air burst explosive shots at flyers.

Yes, the immunity of flyers to blast weapons really is ridiculous. The whole idea of Flak is to catch the flier in an airburst because otherwise putting a bullet on it is too unlikely. Sidewinders are designed to fill the target's engines with shrapnel. Etc, etc.

 Filch wrote:
proposed rule:

flyers can only be hit by guns of at least 48" range and the shooter must be within 36" . this is to show that long range guns can hit a target high up in the sky in the vertical axis but the horizontal axis is shortened. to simplify the need to measure at weird angles , the shooter must be within 36" but the rang of the gun must shoot further at 48". I chose the ranges arbitrarily and would like feed back on what distances should it be.

Say if a the icarus lascannon has a 90" range, shouldnt it be able to hit planes 72" away?

what are the common long ranges of guns?

This will allow all lascannons, missiles launchers, autocannons to shoot down planes like they are suppose to. while guns of shorter range simply can not put a bullet that high into the air.

This also allow blast weapons to do air burst explosive shots at flyers.

Ridiculous, Dark Eldar don't have a single gun over 36''. Like we don't have enough problems dealing with anti-air.

 Filch wrote:
proposed rule:

flyers can only be hit by guns of at least 48" range and the shooter must be within 36" . this is to show that long range guns can hit a target high up in the sky in the vertical axis but the horizontal axis is shortened. to simplify the need to measure at weird angles , the shooter must be within 36" but the rang of the gun must shoot further at 48". I chose the ranges arbitrarily and would like feed back on what distances should it be.

Say if a the icarus lascannon has a 90" range, shouldnt it be able to hit planes 72" away?

what are the common long ranges of guns?

This will allow all lascannons, missiles launchers, autocannons to shoot down planes like they are suppose to. while guns of shorter range simply can not put a bullet that high into the air.

This also allow blast weapons to do air burst explosive shots at flyers.

This would make Flyers even better against anyone not running Lascannon spam. Multi-meltas for instance would be useless.

Brainstorming:

Blast weapons can hit Flyers.

Weapons are at -12" representing the high altitude of the Flyers.

Every unit can see every Flyer, representing the high altitude and actual dynamics of Flyers and having the positive side effects of refusing the unfairness of players placing the Flyers very close to the ground.

J3F, Should a multi melta be used for anti air? so you think they intended a short range 36" multi melta to shoot down planes that Are in high Altitudes from the ground? Should lance weaponry of the eldar 36" be used for high altitude shooting from the ground?

Should i be able to hit a plane flying high Altitudes with a heavy bolter ? How about a 24" bolter with psy ammo or assault cannon? a freaking plasma pistol?

In real life, how do you shoot down a plane? You use long range weaponry because it can send the projectile at high velocity closing the long distances from where the plane was and where it will be.

when the vtol plane or helicopter is hovering low, is when you can shot it with an ak47. But when it is super sonic and at high altitude can you hit it with an ak47?

Alexisawesome, dark eldar are what they are, highly mobile and all short range fighting. You knew what you was getting into when you bought dark eldar. you want long range shooting then ally in an army that can. Also ironically i got the idea from the blasted night shields.

well technically when a fighter in real life does a strafing run they tend to dive VERY low to the deck, we had some F18s doing CAS drills at Lejeune before I got out and for about 2 weeks we watched them dive bomb targets it was rather interesting.

but is it always dive bombing in a sortie? or was that all for show to demonstrate the impressive capabilities of the pilots and planes?

btw, your topic on fixing lootas. I think 14ppm for a s7 ap4 gun at 48" is incredibly cheap for bs2. Because a havoc with an autocannon is 25pts already only ever gets 2 shots. I think lootas are perfectly priced and are great at shooting down flyers because of their bs2 an high volume of shots.

Effective weapon range reduction is good and was a part of the original flyer rules.

Blast weapons should be able to direct-shot flyers - fire the weapon as if it did not have the Blast rule.