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.

At a glance they're very similar, the general structure of the two games is the same.

The original game was played without the hexes, but using manoeuvre cards. The hex board of the current version IMO is a step down because it limits options, but on the up side it does make games go faster.

The new manoeuvres give more options and agility, but that added agility means it's now a bit too easy to get your guns on a target so that where the original game you were having to think several moves in advance, the current version you're just thinking about how you get guns on target that turn which makes it a shallower game.

In the original, speed and altitude changes were linked to the manoeuvre you chose to do, and there were more altitude levels. Doesn't make a huge difference to how the game plays, but an added level of simplification to the current game.

The unlimited ammo thing means you will always shoot if given the option, in the original you spent more time planning your shots to make the most of them.

In general, the original had fewer kills because of both the limited ammo and lower agility of aircraft. Where now it's likely to end a game with most aircraft destroyed, in the original many aircraft would survive and it was more important to play to the mission specific objectives.

A subtle change that has a big effect in ground attack missions is that fighters can carry much larger bomb loads compared to the original. This had the effect of making fighters the better option in ground attack missions than dedicated bombers (because they can get to the target quicker, drop the bombs, then proceed to dogfight for the rest of the game). Also on a couple of aircraft that were previously "ground attack", GW didn't put "ground attack" in their weapons in the new edition, so something like the Marauder Destroyer actually makes for a decent dog fighter simply because it has heaps of firepower it can send at enemy aircraft, whereas in the original game those fixed forward facing guns were listed as ground attack so couldn't be used against enemy aircraft. Another example is the Valkyrie, in the original the wing mounted guns were classified as "ground attack", but they're not in the new edition, so they can fire air-to-air, that has made the Valkyrie Vendetta for 21pts one of the best fighters in the game simply because it has 6 Lascannons which give it a huge amoutn of air-to-air firepower compared to the aircraft that were actually intended to be fighters.

But the overall structure of the games is very similar, it's just those subtle changes have a big effect on how it actually plays.

So if you play the new version and think "this feels a bit simplistic, a bit shallow and too easily turns into a clusterfeck in the middle of the board", it's those few changes from the 1st to 2nd edition that made it feel that way.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
It feels more like a casual board game then a full scale miniature game that the original is, and that is show by the fact that there is no core rulebook, only the rules that follows the campain 2p boxes, and thouse rules are watered down, so game is deffo ment as a small standalone board game.

So basicly, it boils down to what you want from your game. If you want a proper miniature game, you play by the old FW rules, if you want a casual, fun, blast things to bits game, then play the current version.

I think one of my big problems I didn't mention in my earlier post is the balance of the new game is terrible, it wasn't even great before, but now it's awful.

But I played a few games with the new rules and started getting bored because those small rules changes just sapped the depth out of the gameplay.

(and btw, everything but the aircrafts are limited run production(hexboard,statcard,dices,plastic ground assets, plastic ground air defence and physical campain book, so grab stuff fast it wont come back, and for the love of god, dont break the bases, GW never sold the bases seperatly)

Yeah, it's odd that even the books are limited since they're the source of rules for many of the aircraft. I wonder if they intend to release a proper rulebook for it at some stage. The rules are in the starter sets, but only the rules for the aircraft that come in the starter set, so if you buy any additional models then you need to also buy the campaign book.

As for bases, at this point I've bought more aircraft than I'll ever field in one go so if I break a couple of bases I'm good, but if you're only going to get as many aircraft as you need to play a game, yeah, maybe be careful with the bases. You could just replace them with something else though and use counters instead of the dials. I actually find the dials annoying because they're a bit too stiff and hard to see.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Campain books are pdf only now so they are not completely gone, but the biggest issue outside or rules is prolly their complete lack of will to maintain at all times a stock of the gameboards.
Why make a hex grid movment system when you have 0 intensions of supplying the boards/mats?? all you get is what comes with the campain box and that is only suitable for max 100p vs 100p.

Yeah, that's been a bit disappointing.

Even the boards they did sell temporarily were too small IMO. I think it adds to the "compressed" feeling of the game compared to the original. The original, in spite of having smaller scale aircraft, was best played on a 4x4 or larger board. The aircraft and bases have gotten bigger, but the biggest hex map they sold is only 3x3 (I think 18x18 hexes or so?), and the one in the box is even smaller again, (I think only about 13 hexes across?). It all adds to that effect of just becoming a clusterfeck in the middle of the board.

I'm hoping they release something like a V2 of the game that brings back some of the features of the original game.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I think the only thing new AI needs is randomness at the end of an ace maneuver. Like if maneuver has 3 ending facings, you need to roll a d3 to determine your facing.

Larger boards really help, I've put together 2 of the AOE's and it seemed to make it flow better.

I don't really like the idea of randomness to determine facing as it takes away the aspect of your pilot choosing to do something. In the news and rumours thread I proposed a movement system where you just omit the final facing change and simplify the manoeuvres to something like this...

Movement process:

1. Fly straight a chosen amount (don't get to change direction before)
2. Perform manoeuvre (only opportunity to change direction)
3. Fly straight until you run out of movement

Manoeuvre options 1 to 3 would be fly straight, 60° turn and 120° turn. Then high manoeuvre levels let you make an additional turn where you can fly straight for another distance, so something like this...

1. 0°
2. 60°
3. 120°
4. 60° + 60° (better than 120° since it gives you more options)
5. 180°
6. 60° + 120°
7. 120° + 120°
8. 180° + 180° (loop)

The manoeuvrability levels would need to be readjusted appropriately, I imagine Eavy Bombers would only be 1-2 (meaning you have to plan your bombing runs a turn or two in advance). Fighter Bomber type aircraft might be 1-4, medium manoeuvrability might be 1-6 and then very agile aircraft can do them all. But maybe that's still not enough variation once you get to the fighter type aircraft.

But being a hex system is what limits the granularity to 60° increments, if we went back to a hex-less system it'd offer more flexibility in designing the manoeuvres.

sarcastro01 wrote:
I have no problems with the new maneuver system. Honestly you only need the first three choices to realistically be able to get around where you need to. Speed management is much more important than the maneuver you pick in this system. Looking at the old card system, it seems to actually be more restrictive than the current game making it a slower affair which is not something most folks want in their dog fights (especially if you're running demos.)

To me, the whole problem is that you only need the first 3 choices, and even the lowest manoeuvrability planes can do the first 3 choices so what's the point in agile fighters?

In the old system you played a fixed number of turns, and at the end of that planes that weren't shot down would fly home. So it wasn't really "slower", it's just you'd likely end a game with some aircraft surviving and it was more important to play to your objectives whereas the current game devolves into a deathmatch regardless of the objectives.

I can appreciate some folk might enjoy the fact the new system allows for more shooting opportunities, and maybe it's better for a one off demo, but you quickly realise after a few games that it is tactically a lot shallower. The original game you're thinking several turns in advance, you're thinking about how to achieve the objectives while losing as few planes as possible, and you're thinking about using squadron level tactics to best leverage your aircraft. In the new game you're just thinking about what to do to have guns on target that turn.