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 think I want to take a trip back in time to the beginning of 5th....

"Tanks are unstoppable now! no need for plasmas just melta everywhere."

"cover can give a guardsman line squads the same save as marines."

"my tau army sucks now. I can't use fish of fury tactics because my armys eyes cant see under the devilfish like it used to"

"True Line of Sight is ruining this game!"

Every edition the sky is falling again, yet every edition we just see new players and returning old ones from when they ragequit/or took a break.

If there ever was a "golden age" for 40k i would say its probably 2nd ed where everyone talks of funny nastolgic stuff they did in that edition.

[quote=Vaktathi 514529 5400310 2639c6bd2a42e714227b06646829d6ea.jpgFliers are just one part of it, their rules are not particularly fluid and very obviously feel like a bolt-on to force something that really doesn't have much of a place on tactical platoon level engagement into the game.

The sense of scale is all wonky in general. We have armies that near nigh-battallion strength against armies literally composed of a couple squads, with strategic fire support assets and the like in a game where individuals can challenge each other in single combat and it matters. This game can't decide what it wants to be and sloppily tries to be everything. There's a lot of Random simply for its own sake that does nothing to enhance the game but merely confuse it, and the hammering of the utility and lifespan of armored vehicles makes them often largely pointless where hordes of infantry do battle below airshows.

 kronk wrote:
This is the Golden Age.

We have the Horus Heresy models and books from Forge World, we have (finally) a fun rule set (6th edition), and we're getting codecies released faster than ever.

Amen Brother.

anonymou5 wrote:

I hate to bring "real life" into a conversation like this, but imo, the sense of scale is fine. I was a Scout Platoon Leader in Kandahar in 10-11. My 20ish man PLT (29 on paper, but with mid tour leave and WIA it hovered around 20) received more fire support than you would believe. Our typical engagement was against 1-3, 3-6 man TB elements, and we rarely were without Kiowa or Apache support. Furthermore, we received fast mover support all the time, ranging from A-10s to F-16s, F/A 18s, even Mirages. Some of my sister Platoons received support from B1s and B52s. Furthermore, we recieved insane amounts of indirect assets, from mortars (of all sizes) up to 155s. Some operations within my Squadron received HIMARs Rockets (fired from 60 odd KM away), MICLICS, and Canadian MBT support.

I'm not saying that some of these elements can't be available, but you're not going to have the equivalent of an A-10 doing figure-8's and loitering at 30 feet above the ground or F-16's engaging within effective range of small arms and infantry carried RPG's and the like, while those heavy rocket launchers are 60km away and not advancing with you in direct support a couple hundred feet behind, and your company commander is probably not out there challenging enemy leaders to duels.

I do agree that it makes zero sense that the same aircraft providing CAS are excellent dogfighters. To me a Vendetta should be an A-10, capable of engaging air targets, but terrible at it. There should be dedicated AA fighters, that only have skyfire. (They 'should' be faster, but that would be boring in game)

Yeah, this is part of the problem, there's no differentiation so the A-10 equivalents dominate everything.

I didn't read your rant, cause it was full of rage-hate even at a glance, but I wanted to say... We just got four codexes in four months. We're doing okay.

 Vaktathi wrote:

anonymou5 wrote:

I hate to bring "real life" into a conversation like this, but imo, the sense of scale is fine. I was a Scout Platoon Leader in Kandahar in 10-11. My 20ish man PLT (29 on paper, but with mid tour leave and WIA it hovered around 20) received more fire support than you would believe. Our typical engagement was against 1-3, 3-6 man TB elements, and we rarely were without Kiowa or Apache support. Furthermore, we received fast mover support all the time, ranging from A-10s to F-16s, F/A 18s, even Mirages. Some of my sister Platoons received support from B1s and B52s. Furthermore, we recieved insane amounts of indirect assets, from mortars (of all sizes) up to 155s. Some operations within my Squadron received HIMARs Rockets (fired from 60 odd KM away), MICLICS, and Canadian MBT support.

I'm not saying that some of these elements can't be available, but you're not going to have the equivalent of an A-10 doing figure-8's and loitering at 30 feet above the ground or F-16's engaging within effective range of small arms and infantry carried RPG's and the like, while those heavy rocket launchers are 60km away and not advancing with you in direct support a couple hundred feet behind, and your company commander is probably not out there challenging enemy leaders to duels.

.

Maybe my problem is that I don't look at the table top distances as being "exact" to scale. Take the bolter for example...single shots at 24" An M4 can effectively engage targets from 300-500m with well placed shots through an ACOG (a future rifle would be far further), where as rapid fire marksmanship (not full auto, rapid fire semi auto) is probably good up to 200m. Same goes for tank fire, an M1 shooting HEAT can engage targets at roughly 3km, Sabot, up to 5km. (Leman Russ regular cannon versus the tank hunter one, essentially). Or a 155 shooting targets at 10km versus a Basilisk. So to me, the distances in the game are not to scale with the size of the models. Otherwise bolters have a range of like 30 feet, and main battle tanks 100 feet, which is ridiculous. So a flier moving 18-36 inches works.

Plus if all indirect assets were exactly like real life, they would all be off table, which would be boring game wise. If I just said "My basilesks and meduas are over on the other table, you can only kill them with your arty, wha kind of game would that be? It's more fun to have them on the table, same goes for fliers. Those are assets that fit the scale of the game, with some small fudging for fun.

Edit: Also, we had a Kiowa pilot get hit by AK47 fire (essentially snap firing), and a PLT can bring Stingers and effectively engage air targets. It's not like it's impossible, and could get easier in hte future...

Fliers are disproportionately devastating when used properly against appropriate troops and ground vehicles, but are lightly armoured and vulnerable to other aircraft and specialist ground-to-air and air-to-air weaponry.

Now, am I talking about 40K or real life conflicts?

anonymou5 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

anonymou5 wrote:

I hate to bring "real life" into a conversation like this, but imo, the sense of scale is fine. I was a Scout Platoon Leader in Kandahar in 10-11. My 20ish man PLT (29 on paper, but with mid tour leave and WIA it hovered around 20) received more fire support than you would believe. Our typical engagement was against 1-3, 3-6 man TB elements, and we rarely were without Kiowa or Apache support. Furthermore, we received fast mover support all the time, ranging from A-10s to F-16s, F/A 18s, even Mirages. Some of my sister Platoons received support from B1s and B52s. Furthermore, we recieved insane amounts of indirect assets, from mortars (of all sizes) up to 155s. Some operations within my Squadron received HIMARs Rockets (fired from 60 odd KM away), MICLICS, and Canadian MBT support.

I'm not saying that some of these elements can't be available, but you're not going to have the equivalent of an A-10 doing figure-8's and loitering at 30 feet above the ground or F-16's engaging within effective range of small arms and infantry carried RPG's and the like, while those heavy rocket launchers are 60km away and not advancing with you in direct support a couple hundred feet behind, and your company commander is probably not out there challenging enemy leaders to duels.

.

Maybe my problem is that I don't look at the table top distances as being "exact" to scale. Take the bolter for example...single shots at 24" An M4 can effectively engage targets from 300-500m with well placed shots through an ACOG (a future rifle would be far further), where as rapid fire marksmanship (not full auto, rapid fire semi auto) is probably good up to 200m. Same goes for tank fire, an M1 shooting HEAT can engage targets at roughly 3km, Sabot, up to 5km. (Leman Russ regular cannon versus the tank hunter one, essentially). Or a 155 shooting targets at 10km versus a Basilisk. So to me, the distances in the game are not to scale with the size of the models. Otherwise bolters have a range of like 30 feet, and main battle tanks 100 feet, which is ridiculous. So a flier moving 18-36 inches works.

Plus if all indirect assets were exactly like real life, they would all be off table, which would be boring game wise. If I just said "My basilesks and meduas are over on the other table, you can only kill them with your arty, wha kind of game would that be? It's more fun to have them on the table, same goes for fliers. Those are assets that fit the scale of the game, with some small fudging for fun.

Edit: Also, we had a Kiowa pilot get hit by AK47 fire (essentially snap firing), and a PLT can bring Stingers and effectively engage air targets. It's not like it's impossible, and could get easier in hte future...

The problem with 40k is that this kind of scaling functions really poorly due to the 28mm scale. For 15mm games like Flames of War it works a lot better when the biggest, heaviest tank on the field is the smaller than a Thunderfire cannon, it has trouble working when the same thing is sized like a hardcover textbook. Not only is it wonky visually, but room to maneuver becomes impossible and distances become increasingly easy to attain simply due to the size of the models if nothing else.

And sure, sometimes aircraft may come under fire from infantry weapons, but not routinely or with any sort of consistency, and certainly not stuff like Fighter-bombers.

Trying to fit all this in on top of rules for challenges, squad leaders able to pick out individual targets with pistol shots, etc becomes really messy.

 Miraclefish wrote:
Fliers are disproportionately devastating when used properly against appropriate troops and ground vehicles, but are lightly armoured and vulnerable to other aircraft and specialist ground-to-air and air-to-air weaponry.

Now, am I talking about 40K or real life conflicts?

The problem with 40k is that the flyers aren't always lightly armored and the ground to air weaponry isn't particularly effective against many of these or widely available.

The OP has some good points, but as to the notion that fliers ruin the game, spamming fliers ruins the game.

The same is/was true with rhino rushes.

That said, stormravens are pretty much the most powerful fliers out then, and GK having them is pretty much just matt ward kicking you in the nuts. They are stupid, should have rear armor 10 or something, but nah it needs to be super stupid.

I know a local guy at my store that runs the stupid 2x10 death cult spam (with gakky models btw) and a few other things, including allied nercons (that scrub) and the death cults are both in a storm raven.

I don't like playing him and I avoid him, but in tournament settings I cannot do so, so I simply find a way around him. Allied eldar with runes of warding, lots of multiple units, other things.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Simply put, they are poorly designed, and stand apart from the rest of the game as being decisively powerful, and boring to use.

For me it isn't that they are poorly designed, but that GW did nothing other than offering up the old ADL with quad gun to balance all forces with real flyer defense from the get go. Thus, those lists that have flyers from White Dwarf or new codecies, get a bonus that forces that don't have no real defenses against or ability to use their own of. That just is stupid. How hard would it have been to add an entry to each FAQ at least giving a couple units in each force the ability to deal with flyers without having to roll a 6? Not hard at all, but they didn't bother to do it. That is the only real complaint I have against flyers.

As things stand you have some armies that can go: Oooo lookie what I have and you aren't going to be able to easily touch and you don't have anything like it. Hahahahahaha! That just is dirty pool to me and something that should have been addressed at the get go. Players winning lots of games with multiple flyers againsts books that only have the ADL defense are really lame. I am the only player in my regular group who doesn't have any kids. As such I am the only one who still buys GW minis with some regularity. I have 3 flyers: 2 chaos (1 heldrake and 1 hell blade) and 1 DA (haven't decided which I am building yet), but I pretty much never use them in games because my opponents don't have any flyers at all, or play lists that have no option for flyers at all. It is a matter of respect for the rest of the folks in my group who are also good friends. I could probably field both my chaos flyers in one force against them and gloat about how they can't touch them, but what is the point? That isn't fun for everyone....just for me...

Skriker

And sure, sometimes aircraft may come under fire from infantry weapons, but not routinely or with any sort of consistency, and certainly not stuff like Fighter-bombers.

Trying to fit all this in on top of rules for challenges, squad leaders able to pick out individual targets with pistol shots, etc becomes really messy.

40k is essentially Platoon level combat. Platoon level combat involves tanks, indirect fire, and air assets (and, even in real life, can involve a brutal fight to the death, although obviously not as common as it is in the game--I'll allow some artistic liscense)

And there are plenty of platoon level assets available today that can effectively engage aircraft of all sorts. So it doesn't take a lot of suspension of disbelief for me to think that an assault rifle with 40k years of development could occassionaly damage a fighter bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZPU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSHK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_systems

It's messed up as DE, some armies are even worse at AA though. There's no TL weapons in our book, and just look at the Vendetta vs the Voidraven.

Vendetta: 3 Twinlinked S9 AP2 weapons with the option to hover, and carry men inside. And it's in a fast attack slot. We all know how good the armor on the sucker is too.

Voidraven: 2 (non-twinlinked) S9 AP2 weapons. Less armor, can't hover, costs more points.

Sound reasonable? Yup......... The problem isn't so much the idea of flyers.. The problem is it was tacked on and then they made everything try to fit the new rules, and it just doesn't work. (and then for some reason they decided to make the Heldrake super overpowered).

Paitryn wrote:
If there ever was a "golden age" for 40k i would say its probably 2nd ed where everyone talks of funny nastolgic stuff they did in that edition.

For me the golden age was 3rd edition where GW took its first stabs at actually starting to put controls and limits on what was included in a given army on the table. The FOC was a beautiful thing to me after too many games of 2nd equating to people taking a couple of the units from the army they "claimed" to be playing and then padding the army with a bunch of high level special characters, primarily eldar, but also a few others like inquisitor lords in termie armor with displacer fields were common too. That just got annoying and boring after a while. It seemed impossible for people to be hones about it either. I loved once the Force organization chart came into being. You actually HAD to take troops units and an HQ to start. Then you could add in others, BUT they were limited to how many, so you could no longer have an army with 8 units of elite troops in it or a half dozen special characters from another codex. So if you wanted access to those eldar special characters you actually had to *play* eldar.

Not surprisingly I also was very happy when 2nd edition Space marine came out and it put no small amount of controls on force construction so you no longer showed up to play with your force of tanks and infantry supported by a titan to find out you were facing a force that composed completely of titans and that most of your army was going to be useless in the battle because of it.


I do have to agree with Kronk, though, that it is pretty sweet that Forge World are doing the Horus Heresy books and minis now.

Skriker

For me, the "golden age" was fifth edition, despite the horrendously stupid Sisters "codex" that barely deserves the name.


But since I have basically ignored sixth edition, I'm not one to judge. I'm waiting for a few more codices to come out in sixth before I bother judging the edition as a whole.

 Blue Falcon wrote:
DE don't have twin linked weapons....

But it just goes back to my point that in past editions ALL player chosen armies were valid in this game and victories should have more basis on player skill rather than who has more fliers.

I do agree, to an extent. I brought one flyer in my first game of 6th ed 40k, and wrecked plenty with it (Doom Scythe lolz). However, it was against Tau, and he got a lucky shot with his railgun, so the fun only lasted so long. The next game my opponent brought two Stormtalons, both of which got blown out of the sky the turn they came on the board by my Forgefiend and Quad-gun.

I think luck now has too much to do with the game. Rolling for Warlord traits, rolling for psychic powers, rolling for this, rolling for that... it's a bit silly now and even though this is a game of dice the fact that one player can get a warlord trait that greatly benefits their army (night fighting for a melee army) while the other gets one that does nothing (Stealth in ruins on a table with no ruins) is terrible. The traits are not balanced, though that can be house ruled to let each player pick their traits.

As another 25+ year player (started when RT came out), I feel compelled to respond to this thread.

RT was a hot mess, and wasn't all that fun to play, but it was cool and very different. Alot of people consider 2nd Edition the proverbial "Golden Age" because that is when the game took shape, introduced individual codices for each army, brought in new armies, introduced plastic minis and generally had a good deal of polish. Hell, even White Dwarf was a great hobby magazine at that time.

BUT, what the nostalgia freaks tend to forget is that 2nd edition introduced some pretty broken armies almost from the start. Space Wolves with their 100% terminator armies coming out first really messed up the power scale for those people that had to rely on the army lists that came in the boxed set. Imperial armies always included assassins, and Chaos Marines were extremely annoying to play against. Heavy weapons in 2nd Edition were grossly overpowered (2nd ed. Assault Cannons anyone?), and each army devolved into character deliver systems. And who can forget some of the oh-so-broken wargear items, such as the virus and vortex grenades. Overwatch rules pretty much ensured the game moved at a crawl as nobody moved and everybody went into overwatch. The idea of the assault army was limited to Tyrannids and that's about it. Oh, and games often took about 8 hours at 2,000 points.

To me, 3rd Edition was a step up. Assault armies were now viable (hell, they were OP), and Orks finally played like their fluff since RT described. I rarely lost a game with my Orks in 3rd, but that was because Rhino Rush tactics were so grossly broken. But this edition really streamlined things and helped individualize each army, since there was no longer a shared wargear pool. Psykers and characters took a backseat to rock hard elite and horde units. But the game was fun, and best of all, fast. Going from 8 hour games to 3 hour games was a huge, huge improvement.

I stopped playing when 4th came out because, well, life happened, and just recently got back into 40K with 6th edition. I can honestly say, I am having a blast with 6th. Sure, some armies are broken, but that's not 6th edition's fault, thats the codex using rules from a previous edition. Flyers in moderation are fun, and luckily, none of the guys that play in my group are big into spamming units. My feeling is the game had to evolve to maintain interest. It brings back elements of 2nd edition into the 3rd-5th mix, with characters and psykers back in the forefront and a new version of overwatch. Heck, they are even bringing in some of the old 2nd edition wargear (I saw those fields in Codex: Dark Angels). Not sure if I would call this a new golden age yet, but my friends and I are having fun, and that's all that matters to me.

If you think about it, though, the only codexes that now don't have access to a flier or any sort without Forge World are Battle Sisters, Space Wolves and Eldar.

Everyone else now has fliers either in their codex or via Death from the Skies (I'm not 100% certain about Black Templars though).

If you allow Forge World, then that means that everyone has at least one flier or flying monstrous creature, and while two Dark Lances may not be up to the same level as three twin-linked lascannons, the problem then lies with the Imperial Guard codex specifically and not with the game as a whole.

Admittedly, I am counting the new Tau codex since it's only a month away, but even so that should tell you something: The "overpowered fliers" issue has been addressed except for Vendettas. Everyone has at least two AA choices and, since that AA choice is a flier half the time, it is only all the more awesome.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Everyone else now has fliers either in their codex or via Death from the Skies (I'm not 100% certain about Black Templars though).

Templars got some fliers in Death from the Skies and already had the Storm Eagle (FW).

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The "overpowered fliers" issue has been addressed except for Vendettas.

Right.

And let's face it... Vendettas have NEVER been balanced, with or without the Flyers rules.

I've won two tournaments with no fliers or flier defense.

The winner of both the NOVA Open and Invitational had no fliers.

The winner of the Colonial GT had no fliers.

The winner of the Bay Area Open had no fliers.

So, what was that you were saying about needing fliers?

Bao winner had a blood thirster i do believe.

 DarkCorsair wrote:
I've won two tournaments with no fliers or flier defense.

The winner of both the NOVA Open and Invitational had no fliers.

The winner of the Colonial GT had no fliers.

The winner of the Bay Area Open had no fliers.

So, what was that you were saying about needing fliers?

I don't know about the first two since I don't know what played but the last had Flying MC's.

You should read what you quoted, I said there was no Golden Age of 40k and you are carrying on about a Golden Age of GW. In any event I dont even agree with you that it (Golden Age of GW) was the time you said it was. For me it was earlier when GW still supported space marine and titan legions. Around here the heyday of whfb was 5th edition even though I like the later editions better. I have every Man O War fleet so my own viewpoint about the Golden Age is different than yours. You define the WD of that time and the bitz service as very important, for me neither were all that important. I started collecting WD at issue 100 and always found the magazine to be variable from month to month, until the last several years where it is always crap.

Okaaay, you don't agree with me. That's fine. There are less insulting ways of saying that, you know.

Making a comment with supporting reasons as to why I think that way isn't exactly "carrying on".

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DarkCorsair wrote:
I've won two tournaments with no fliers or flier defense.

The winner of both the NOVA Open and Invitational had no fliers.

The winner of the Colonial GT had no fliers.

The winner of the Bay Area Open had no fliers.

So, what was that you were saying about needing fliers?

I don't know about the first two since I don't know what played but the last had Flying MC's.

Ah, well I suppose that counts. Well, regardless, the point is still the same. I do agree with the OP that fliers are a tad bit unbalanced, but you certainly can play competitively without them.

To the OP, since he plays DE - one of the top finishers at the Colonial GT was playing Dark Eldar with no fliers, although he did have a Quad Gun. List mostly centered around a large beast squad, a 20 man warrior squad, and some Taloi. Not quite sure exactly how it worked, but it was pretty good.

I agree that flyers are a little silly, and maybe GW did get carried away, however flyers do add a nice dynamic, and if flyers are so all important, how come armies like Space Wolves still have a chance to win if they run a pure SW list? It's called list building. Or focusing on your objectives. I only have 1 flyer, and my flyer does survive most of the time, and i do have fun games. I can basically ignore flyers xcept those friggin Hell drakes and their bale flamer.

The OP, and no offense, but the OP just sounds like your having a bit of a whine. Yes, there is some OP sh*t out there, but i believe that once most codices have been upgraded to 6E that need to be upgraded it will take some time. What GW could have done was release a few more codices more quickly. It will take time but 40K will balance out IMO. btw, i was looking at the X Wing, is it good? I am a student so don't have much money to spend on GW, so something that allows fun but doesn't break the bank sounds good.

But back to the point, to me, this is b*tching on about the 6th ed, when the real problem that is produced in your statements is the prices. Now I don't want another "I hate GW! but i will still keep buying their stuff" thread, but it was said that $50+ codices and expensive prices was stopping you from getting flyers. Granted, flyer trolling can be a fast tracked way to get a boring game, but again, it does add a dynamic, and there are ways to counter them. 6E to me does produce a need for tactics against some armies. and REAL tactics. Nuff said.

I've been playing 40k since Rogue Trader, I've worked for GW and I've been a fan of the 40k background for most of my life and IMO, the Golden Age of 40K was 2nd Ed.

So much lore, so much free reign over what armies we could build and so much freedom to play how we wanted to play.

Towards the end of 2nd Ed we had great games like Necromunda, Gorkamorka and Epic.

We have never had it as good as then.

3rd ed for me destroyed 40k. The rules, while streamlined, were poor. The character of each army had changed greatly with the loss of the movement stat and the inclusion of rigid army structure.

4th ed was worse - I stopped playing when 4th ed was released and came back for 5th ed which was better, but still not great.

6th ed for me is a good attempt to return to the lore filled days of 2nd ed. For me, it's a happy medium. Some lore, some of the reason why I played came back, but still, it's missing that creativity that we as gamers haven't had since 2nd ed.

For 7th ed, I would like to see the return of the movement stat. My friends and I have tried the game with the old movement stats from 2nd ed and it makes the game insanely tactical and instantly makes some armies fast like they are in the fluff.

Just try it.

Puscifer wrote:


For 7th ed, I would like to see the return of the movement stat. My friends and I have tried the game with the old movement stats from 2nd ed and it makes the game insanely tactical and instantly makes some armies fast like they are in the fluff.

Just try it.

It makes a game of dominant static gunlines into a game of only static gunlines.

If it helps at all you can ally in some Eldar to get a Farseer and either war walkers or hornets with pulse lasers then use precognition to basically make them twin-linked and shoot the fliers out of the sky but short of that you're in the same boat as everyone else and this boat is sinking

You do realize if you cross the board, which as a DE player should be easy, and you space out properly, and you get within 18 inches of the other player's table edge, he has to either over fly your army or hover, allowing you to shoot as normal to the enemy.

It's like the old rhino rush.Tactics....use them.

6th ed is good. With less randomness it would be great.

Flyers are good if used in moderation.

WD is practically garbage these days.