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.

Hello fellow Dakka mates!

I recently bought the Death from the Skies rulebook, and I am thinking about introducing it to my Warhammer 40k group. Overall, I think that it is a decent set of rules. Of which one can choose to use or ignore at their leisure.

Barring any glaring ommissions that I have noticed, the Vendetta specifically. I do believe it would add value to our Warhammer 40k games. I have noticed that some armies are gimped in the perspective that their Flyers can not assume all 3 roles. I think that can easily be rectified by allowing a player choose which role a particular unit will fill, by declaring that as a part of building the army list in question.

So what say does the Dakka peanut gallery? Am I off my rocker? Does it make sence?

I await for constructive feedback, please post any questions, comments, complaints. Or even please tell what your group has had done to include rules simular in nature.

Attack Flyers should have the rules of the Fighter, but in reverse. I.e. They should have -1 BS against Air targets, but shoot at normal BS against ground targets.

SYKOJAK wrote:
Hello fellow Dakka mates!Overall, I think that it is a decent set of rules.

You must have very low standards for rules. The DFTS rules are garbage, the dogfight phase is literally "play rock/paper/scissors to see who dies" and the rest of the rules are more pointless complexity added on to the bloated mess of 40k. You're never going to make flyers function well at 28mm scale, so keep their rules simple and abstracted.

Barring any glaring ommissions that I have noticed, the Vendetta specifically.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Vendetta_Gunship_update.pdf

I think that can easily be rectified by allowing a player choose which role a particular unit will fill, by declaring that as a part of building the army list in question.

The problem is that this idea doesn't make any fluff sense. The whole point of roles is that there are limits to what certain aircraft can do. No matter how much you wish it were otherwise a Vendetta has zero chance against an air superiority fighter in a dogfight. A Thunderbolt/Barracuda/Nightwing/etc is much faster, equipped with weapons/targeting systems/etc for air combat, and generally capable of choosing to engage the Vendetta only when a kill is guaranteed. Giving the Vendetta the ability to choose to be an air superiority and magically overcome the limitations of its design does not make any sense at all. If anything the dogfight rules should be modified to state that a bomber or attack flyer engaged in a dogfight by a fighter is automatically destroyed.

Now, granted, the standard rules for flyers have the same problem of transport helicopters getting the same AA capability as dedicated air superiority fighters (and even being better at it in some cases!), but at least those rules are simple. If you're going to massively over-complicate one of the most awkward parts of the core rules with your new expansion you really need to have it be an improvement.

If you're introducing DFTS into a casual environment, i.e. maybe 2 flyers max per army, then really there isn't much to be gained. All that is likely to happen is your ground attackers get better, and with the exception of the Vendetta and Vulture, this isn't game changing.

The consensus on the dogfight deally is that it was a dry run for Stormcloud attack, and really doesn't belong in 'standard' 40k, as you're as well just rolling 3 dice, totaling them and losing a hull point if you're an attack flyer v attack flyer.

That said, some of the actual missions are not half bad, and if you've got a large number of flyers over a large number of players, i'd recommend you try them multiplayer.

 Peregrine wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
Hello fellow Dakka mates!Overall, I think that it is a decent set of rules.

You must have very low standards for rules. The DFTS rules are garbage, the dogfight phase is literally "play rock/paper/scissors to see who dies" and the rest of the rules are more pointless complexity added on to the bloated mess of 40k. You're never going to make flyers function well at 28mm scale, so keep their rules simple and abstracted.

Barring any glaring ommissions that I have noticed, the Vendetta specifically.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Vendetta_Gunship_update.pdf

I think that can easily be rectified by allowing a player choose which role a particular unit will fill, by declaring that as a part of building the army list in question.

The problem is that this idea doesn't make any fluff sense. The whole point of roles is that there are limits to what certain aircraft can do. No matter how much you wish it were otherwise a Vendetta has zero chance against an air superiority fighter in a dogfight. A Thunderbolt/Barracuda/Nightwing/etc is much faster, equipped with weapons/targeting systems/etc for air combat, and generally capable of choosing to engage the Vendetta only when a kill is guaranteed. Giving the Vendetta the ability to choose to be an air superiority and magically overcome the limitations of its design does not make any sense at all. If anything the dogfight rules should be modified to state that a bomber or attack flyer engaged in a dogfight by a fighter is automatically destroyed.

Now, granted, the standard rules for flyers have the same problem of transport helicopters getting the same AA capability as dedicated air superiority fighters (and even being better at it in some cases!), but at least those rules are simple. If you're going to massively over-complicate one of the most awkward parts of the core rules with your new expansion you really need to have it be an improvement.

I would argue that most if not all modern aircraft, can and do get modified from their previously designed combat role. As a case in point, if the USAF can modify a C130 into a gunship, by adding various weapon systems, and targeting systems, it has totally been changed from your standard Cargo plane into an Attack Flyer. That is just one of many instances, where modern aircraft have been converted into other roles.This is only the 21st Century, imagine what the factions of the 411th century could do.

Now I am by no means a military aircraft expert, but I see anything is plausible given enough time, resources, and technology devoted to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thank you Pereguine for pointing out the FAQs Errata for the Vendetta.

Gonna have to agree with the fact the the DFTS rules are aweful.

The only people who actually push them are usually, not always, but usually the WAAC players who want to abuse them.

There is a very good reason that GW recently went back on the whole "these are the new flyer rules" pitch because even GW store managers were like, no don't use these rules unless you both actually agree, use the already written rules.

Truth be told I think flyers were a dumb idea to begin with but, that's neither here nor there.

I'd just stick with Stormcloud Attack.

If you want to play with 40k flyers, stick to a pure flyer game - it works well and is good fun.

locarno24 wrote:
I'd just stick with Stormcloud Attack.

If you want to play with 40k flyers, stick to a pure flyer game - it works well and is good fun.

Ok, how are the rules different?

SYKOJAK wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
I'd just stick with Stormcloud Attack.

If you want to play with 40k flyers, stick to a pure flyer game - it works well and is good fun.

Ok, how are the rules different?

I don't know about DFTS, but Stormcloud Attack is poor copy of X-Wing, if you are familiar with that game. It's flyers only and can be a fun way to play with the big flyer models. Models move too little to work with a ground force game.

However, it is just enough off-target with the rules that if you're played Wings of War/X-Wing/Attack Wing you can see the glaring breakdown in its rules. It would never survive as a tournament/competitive game (for one thing, it desperately lacks a points system), and it has very limited ability to expand its design space/play options.