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.

You realize that 4 ML devs have less than a 50/50 of cracking a Rhino, right? Why would any good player waste fire on that when there are better targets?

Hunter and stalker aren't that good either. If I needed anti air and had to pick from Codex SM, then I'd probably go for storm talons.

Imperial armour provide some decent alternatives for many armies.

If your heavy support isn't too crowded, then the tarantula hyperios sentry guns are a nice cheap anti air unit. 3 guns for 105 points. W2 T6 3+ save make them quite durable. Only BS3, but have TL vs flyers, making them more accurate than flak missiles.
The missile are str 8, and they get interceptor, which is a major issue with the flak missiles.

Mortis and contemptor mortis can also do a good job, with 2 TL skyfiring lascannons.

A Stalker squadron would be a thing, but not a single Stalker.

I disagree. They still have crippling problems which adding more tanks doesn't solve.

They are still only str 7, which really struggles vs the heavier flyers.

And most importantly, they have no interceptor. There is nothing stopping those vendettas just flying on and taking your tanks out before they even get to fire.

Without interceptor they are vulnerable to the units they are supposed to counter, yet offer practically nothing vs non-flyers due to firing snapshots.

You realize that 4 ML devs have less than a 50/50 of cracking a Rhino, right? Why would any good player waste fire on that when there are better targets?

yes its a 50/50 chance but if only 2 hit the rhino,its gone anyway due to hull Pts

so under 6th & hull pts the ML devs percentage of hits have doubled

you can usually take out 11-12 armoured vehicles ,which is 75% of most vehicles on the battle field

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
There is nothing stopping those vendettas just flying on and taking your tanks out before they even get to fire.

Let's be honest, an AA tank shooting down a flyer the moment it arrives before it even gets to fire is just as whack as the flyer taking out the AA tank before it can fire at the flyer. 40k is just a bad game of rock paper scissors and having or not having Interceptor doesn't change it either way.

I must agree with lord_blackfang

40k is getting as bad as lawyers arguing in court

with this rule counter acting that rule, & so on

is there any need for nearly every troop type having its own special rule

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
There is nothing stopping those vendettas just flying on and taking your tanks out before they even get to fire.

Let's be honest, an AA tank shooting down a flyer the moment it arrives before it even gets to fire is just as whack as the flyer taking out the AA tank before it can fire at the flyer. 40k is just a bad game of rock paper scissors and having or not having Interceptor doesn't change it either way.

Most strategy games effectively come down to rock paper scissors.

However, when you are purchasing a unit for the sole intention of anti air, a unit which forsakes all other duties to deal with this one task, and then gets blown up by the unit it was supposed to counter before it even gets to fire, something is clearly wrong with it.
In the case of the hunter and the stalker, they are like paper to rock, but the rock just suckerpunches them before the game even starts.

Consider flak devastators for anti air vs a heldrake, and then tell me interceptor doesn't change anything.

If both armies can wipe out units before they get to act, then there is at least some kind of balance.

The above poster is spot on. A vendetta glances a stalker on a 3+ and gets a +1 to its pen roll. The stalker glances the vendetta on a 5+. You might get lucky and take it out but the Vendetta has a better chance of wrecking the tank.

You would be better off getting a Stormraven for your AA purposes.

I just feel that a missile launcher seems more versatile. They won't be the best option every time but, if your trying to build a competitive list they have a solution for most things your facing: infantry, vehicle, or air.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
I disagree. They still have crippling problems which adding more tanks doesn't solve.

They are still only str 7, which really struggles vs the heavier flyers.

And most importantly, they have no interceptor. There is nothing stopping those vendettas just flying on and taking your tanks out before they even get to fire.

Without interceptor they are vulnerable to the units they are supposed to counter, yet offer practically nothing vs non-flyers due to firing snapshots.

I see what you are saying. S7 is fine against SR, but against Helldrake/Vendetta, you are fighting a losing battle.

rockgod2304 wrote:
yes its a 50/50 chance but if only 2 hit the rhino,its gone anyway due to hull Pts
....
you can usually take out 11-12 armoured vehicles ,which is 75% of most vehicles on the battle field

Rhinos have 3 HPs, but still...

SMs do seem to be short on good AA choices, but they do also have their own flier gunships.

Flakk Missiles are about 10 points overcosted...

Even still, I don't think I'd take them.

The only Devs I take are Lascannon Devs.

And that's only because Tigurius needs a place to stand where he can buff everything else.

EDIT: Flakk Missiles make Missile Launchers 25pts each, and they are already a terrible buy at 15pts. I mean, if you are going to spend that much, just get the Plasma Cannon and get the AP2 for your marine killing needs, since that's what the Missile Launcher is going to shoot 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, the Plasma Cannon is still better for killing the gribblies, and if it's a tank, why aren't you shooting it with Multi-Meltas or Lascannons?

And, hell, an Aegis Line w/ Quad Gun is 70pts cheaper than a 5man Devastator Squad w/ Flakks, and instead of being 5 3+ armor saves, it gives your entire deployment zone a 4+ cover save and 4 TL interceptor shots at the same Strength and AP as the Flakk missiles. And, one of your worthless bolter guys who are holding an objective can even fire it instead of requiring 5 non-scoring power armored models!

The AP 3 on krak missiles is a total kick in the jimmies that the weapon just can not overcome.

So here's a fun comparison.

BS4 with flakk vs Helldrake

2/3 * 1/3 * 2/3 = 4/27 HP stripped
2/3 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 2/3 = 1/81 chance of destruction.

Snapshot with multimelta at half range:

1/6 * 11/12 * 2/3 = 11/108 HP
1/6 * 5/6 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 5/108 chance of destruction

If you get a TL mm, you are better at shooting down flyers by wildly firing it into the sky.

The lack of interceptor isn't a problem for flakk devs, they weren't really going to kill anything anyway.

Martel732 wrote:
The AP 3 on krak missiles is a total kick in the jimmies that the weapon just can not overcome.

Oh yeah? How about the AP4 on the flakk missiles, can't even take out FMCs.

Mostly a bad pricing decision I think. Should be 5 PTS to add Flakk to an existing ML, or 10 points to take an ML that only has Flakk missiles.

Should make Flakk an option for all the missile platforms really.

I was just assuming that everyone knows that flakk is horrible.

Honestly as bad as they are, -5pts might be more appropriate to compensate for the chance you forget how bad they are and waste your shooting for that unit.

Yeah, I think MLs should probably be free as well, since there is the opportunity cost of taking a space marine and a heavy slot for the devastator squads.

To be honest, ive now grown into the idea of bringing down an aircraft with another one.
If i buy dev's, i take lascannons for the range and damage output with a few spare bodies to take wounds.

If i take a heavy in a tac squad, its usually a heavy bolter though just to boost the units shooting at troops.
Although, the tac squad usually splits and melta guy and fist sgt go in the razor to hunt.

Other than that, i dont usually bother with flyers.
Heldrakes and vendettas are a real bitch for damage, but most of the others you can just ignore or snpashot them to death anyway.

 Jackal wrote:
To be honest, ive now grown into the idea of bringing down an aircraft with another one.
If i buy dev's, i take lascannons for the range and damage output with a few spare bodies to take wounds.

If i take a heavy in a tac squad, its usually a heavy bolter though just to boost the units shooting at troops.
Although, the tac squad usually splits and melta guy and fist sgt go in the razor to hunt.

Other than that, i dont usually bother with flyers.
Heldrakes and vendettas are a real bitch for damage, but most of the others you can just ignore or snpashot them to death anyway.

Those are the only two truly cost effective flyers, yes. SRs are overpriced junk.

Nah, nightscythes are extraordinarily efficient fliers too. Perhaps not as heavily armed, but they spank the pants off of any other codex's transport vehicles.

 Neorealist wrote:
Nah, nightscythes are extraordinarily efficient fliers too. Perhaps not as heavily armed, but they spank the pants off of any other codex's transport vehicles.

Sorry, forgot about them. Yeah, add them to the list. SR still sucks, imo, though.

Flakks should come by default for free on missile launchers. Paying what you pay for a single shot autocannon is bollocks.

Missile launchers could also do with some sort of representation for a guidance system such as automatic twin-linking and forcing cover saves to be rerolled, and honestly the Hunter-killer could also do with said benefits.

They are said to be missiles, which implies some sort of guidance, and not rockets. Of course this would give people even more reason to whine about longfangs and Tau seekers.

Hmm, I feel an urge to go to proposed rules for some reason.

Flaks are to air as kraks are to tanks and frags are to infantry.

i.e. they aren't designed to take out the big bads, they are there to take out the flying mooks such as Dakka jets.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
There is nothing stopping those vendettas just flying on and taking your tanks out before they even get to fire.

Let's be honest, an AA tank shooting down a flyer the moment it arrives before it even gets to fire is just as whack as the flyer taking out the AA tank before it can fire at the flyer. 40k is just a bad game of rock paper scissors and having or not having Interceptor doesn't change it either way.

Most strategy games effectively come down to rock paper scissors.

...
...

I disagree with this. It's the other way around. Games that work as paper/scissors/stone are by definition strategy games of a fairly limited scope.

You pick a strategy -- paper, scissors or stone -- and if you guessed right you win. There's no tactics involved.

Ironically, paper/scissors/stone is very precisely balanced. Whatever you pick, you have a 1/3 chance of a win, a 1/3 chance of a loss, and a 1/3 chance of a draw. Ignoring the psychological dimension -- though there certainly is one -- it's basically random. That's why it is often used as a way of settling minor arguments, much like tossing a coin, and you normally play best of three. The same game is played in Japan as "Jan/Ken/Pon".

There is a wargame that uses paper/scissors/stone for the combat resolution system, but I can't remember the name.

A more interesting type of strategy game presents you with a variety of options and you try to select the best one, which will depend on your variable start position and then develop or change as the game moves along.

40K is not a strategy game, as such. It's a tactical game of platoon level skirmish warfare. Strategy enters into it because the more striking imbalances in some codexes make your selected army and powerful units or combos arguably more important than the actual tactical play on the tabletop. Once you've chosen your list you're stuck with it, though you can hope to mitigate a bad start by using tactics, adaptability and luck.

A famous designer once said that a game is a series of interesting choices. In a strategy game, if you cannot choose and change your strategy as the game plays out, it's a bad game.

nareik wrote:
Flaks are to air as kraks are to tanks and frags are to infantry.

i.e. they aren't designed to take out the big bads, they are there to take out the flying mooks such as Dakka jets.

This. They're the primier example of TAC. You pay for the ability to deal with anything but with lowered effectiveness.