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.

 BrookM wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

BrookM wrote:@casvalremdeikun: You forgot the Valkyrie / Vendetta.

I guess I never saw those pop up. What roles did they have?

They're both transports, so I'd say attack flyers, as they can do gak against other flyers.

So there isn't an actual established role for either?

The only other one listed that has a pretty clear cut role is the Dark Eldar Razorwing Jetfighter, which is most certainly a Fighter.

 BrookM wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

BrookM wrote:@casvalremdeikun: You forgot the Valkyrie / Vendetta.

I guess I never saw those pop up. What roles did they have?

They're both transports, so I'd say attack flyers, as they can do gak against other flyers.

There should have really been a fourth type for transports, something like a "dropship" classification.
But nope, can't have things be making sense.

Attack flyers are for ground targets yes? Well, that's what the Valkyrie and Vendetta are for, they are gunships after all.

 BrookM wrote:
Attack flyers are for ground targets yes? Well, that's what the Valkyrie and Vendetta are for, they are gunships after all.

Works enough for me. I think that seems pretty clear cut.

The lines of separation(with adjustments for Orks...) are probably going to be anything with the word Fighter in its name becomes Fighter, anything with the name Gunship or has a Transport capacity is an Attack Flyer (which means the Stormfang is likely an Attack Flyer, not a Bomber), and anything with the word Bomber in the name is a Bomber. Seems simple enough.

Attack Flyer is such a weird term. Should have just called them Multiroles because that's what they're called in real life.

The Valkyries/Vendettas would likely not be classed as true proper aircraft flight aircraft today but used more like Helicopters and other VTOL craft. Which should be its own classification of gunship which gets bonuses against tanks and other single targets of opportunity. Where as bombers should be great at area of effect attacks. Gunships would get crazy bonuses against troops as well. Gunships would be very vulnerable to fighters and multiroles big time and might not even be equipped to fire at them. Also weak to anti-air of any kind since they lack speed to evade so should never be there to get it. There are helicopter gunships in real life that have anti-air missiles which are usually used against other gunships and if need be aircraft but its certainly not a role they excel at.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

Indeed. It seems like they will be redoing the Flyer rules so that Flyers no longer chose when they want to use Skyfire. So if a Fighter is equipped with a bunch of Skyfire weapons, they will be snap-shooting them against non-Flyers or Skimmers. Attack Flyers and Bombers may come with some Skyfire weapons, but they will face the same issue as a Fighter when using them against non-Flyers or Skimmers.

To me, there are a number of flyers that would make sense as Fighter-Attack units. Both the Stormtalon and Stormraven would make sense as F/A.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

Indeed. It seems like they will be redoing the Flyer rules so that Flyers no longer chose when they want to use Skyfire. So if a Fighter is equipped with a bunch of Skyfire weapons, they will be snap-shooting them against non-Flyers or Skimmers. Attack Flyers and Bombers may come with some Skyfire weapons, but they will face the same issue as a Fighter when using them against non-Flyers or Skimmers.

To me, there are a number of flyers that would make sense as Fighter-Attack units. Both the Stormtalon and Stormraven would make sense as F/A.

I hope that isn't the case. The Dakkajet for example isn't all that great of a fighter (can only glance AV12) while its actually a decently good ground attack vehicle due to strafing run and long range being able to get reach on some backfield targets that most Ork shooting wouldn't be able to get at effectively.

 Vankraken wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

Indeed. It seems like they will be redoing the Flyer rules so that Flyers no longer chose when they want to use Skyfire. So if a Fighter is equipped with a bunch of Skyfire weapons, they will be snap-shooting them against non-Flyers or Skimmers. Attack Flyers and Bombers may come with some Skyfire weapons, but they will face the same issue as a Fighter when using them against non-Flyers or Skimmers.

To me, there are a number of flyers that would make sense as Fighter-Attack units. Both the Stormtalon and Stormraven would make sense as F/A.

I hope that isn't the case. The Dakkajet for example isn't all that great of a fighter (can only glance AV12) while its actually a decently good ground attack vehicle due to strafing run and long range being able to get reach on some backfield targets that most Ork shooting wouldn't be able to get at effectively.

Perhaps the Dakkajet's new data sheet will change that.

I hope fighters are not required to snap shoot at ground targets... if so my razorwing will be retiring I am guessing it is actually an attack flyer since it has a nose splinter weapon and 4 anti-infantry missiles lol.

Seriously though, my guess is that fighter is the best role now, able to do engage any target, while attack is slightly worse and bomber is straight pigeon holed. That said, maybe the more specific your role the better special rules you get.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I hope fighters are not required to snap shoot at ground targets... if so my razorwing will be retiring I am guessing it is actually an attack flyer since it has a nose splinter weapon and 4 anti-infantry missiles lol.

Seriously though, my guess is that fighter is the best role now, able to do engage any target, while attack is slightly worse and bomber is straight pigeon holed. That said, maybe the more specific your role the better special rules you get.

Fighter is probably going to be the best role because they are trying to sell more kits, and they are the newest ones. I kinda hope that Attack Flyers are more F/A than just strickly A.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I hope fighters are not required to snap shoot at ground targets... if so my razorwing will be retiring I am guessing it is actually an attack flyer since it has a nose splinter weapon and 4 anti-infantry missiles lol.

Seriously though, my guess is that fighter is the best role now, able to do engage any target, while attack is slightly worse and bomber is straight pigeon holed. That said, maybe the more specific your role the better special rules you get.

Fighter is probably going to be the best role because they are trying to sell more kits, and they are the newest ones. I kinda hope that Attack Flyers are more F/A than just strickly A.

You never know though. What if fighters snap fire at ground targets, this would make sense especially against infantry. No way a crimson hunter is going super sonic and hitting that lone marine 3 out of 4 shots on average~

 Red Corsair wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
I hope fighters are not required to snap shoot at ground targets... if so my razorwing will be retiring I am guessing it is actually an attack flyer since it has a nose splinter weapon and 4 anti-infantry missiles lol.

Seriously though, my guess is that fighter is the best role now, able to do engage any target, while attack is slightly worse and bomber is straight pigeon holed. That said, maybe the more specific your role the better special rules you get.

Fighter is probably going to be the best role because they are trying to sell more kits, and they are the newest ones. I kinda hope that Attack Flyers are more F/A than just strickly A.

You never know though. What if fighters snap fire at ground targets, this would make sense especially against infantry. No way a crimson hunter is going super sonic and hitting that lone marine 3 out of 4 shots on average~

It would be a massive change for something like the Dakkajet as it had the strafing run rule to increase accuracy against ground targets. Also funny enough that all 3 Ork flyers are supersonic.

Also worth noting that all the Ork flyers and the Stormtalon are 404 on GW's US website

So let's get this straight.

In order to fix the current massive, ludicrous imbalance between flyers and FMCs (in that flyers don't come on til turn 2+, then don't usually have any weaponry that can get through FMCs 3+/2+ armor saves and Jink and usually FNP, let alone have a hope to kill them...because you get one turn then FMCs which ignore flyer facing rules can just follow behind you and shoot you until you're dead...and damage you do means nothing because FMCs dont have a damage table to impede rather than kill them)

GW is removing skyfire from 2/3rds of the flyers in the game, and most of the flyers that DO have a wing and a prayer (heh) of harming an FMC.

AND, it seems like they're being completely exempt from the new "Flyers get to shoot each other down before they show up" phase, so that gives no advantage to flyers at all, and FMCs remain the absolute last word in complete air superiority.

Way to change the state of the game, GW. >.>

the_scotsman wrote:
So let's get this straight.

In order to fix the current massive, ludicrous imbalance between flyers and FMCs (in that flyers don't come on til turn 2+, then don't usually have any weaponry that can get through FMCs 3+/2+ armor saves and Jink and usually FNP, let alone have a hope to kill them...because you get one turn then FMCs which ignore flyer facing rules can just follow behind you and shoot you until you're dead...and damage you do means nothing because FMCs dont have a damage table to impede rather than kill them)

GW is removing skyfire from 2/3rds of the flyers in the game, and most of the flyers that DO have a wing and a prayer (heh) of harming an FMC.

AND, it seems like they're being completely exempt from the new "Flyers get to shoot each other down before they show up" phase, so that gives no advantage to flyers at all, and FMCs remain the absolute last word in complete air superiority.

Way to change the state of the game, GW. >.>

Long story short is we don't quite know yet.

We know Flyers are getting a new phase of their own, where they can seemingly still affect things that aren't Flyers. It could very well be that Fighters are going to be able to put down FMCs during the Flyer phase.

Also, GW is removing the native Skyfire from the Attack and Bomber classifications. That means that you don't just automatically get Skyfire for being a Flyer anymore, but that doesn't stop weapons from being rejigged to have Skyfire.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

The turrets may get Skyfire, but I'll bet they're still just Big Shootas, so only strength 5 and useless against all imperial flyers. I mean why should the imperium have to obey the same rules of physics as the rest of the races and have to sacrifice heavy armour for the ability to get off the ground?!

Perhaps the changes only apply to the Dogfight phase and Flyers function like always in the other phases of the game. So Bombers suck at shooting other flyers in the Dogfight phase, but can shoot FMCs with the best of them in the Shooting Phase.

Afterall, it isnt like FMCs are flying at speeds like Flyers or probably anywhere as high as them.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

The turrets may get Skyfire, but I'll bet they're still just Big Shootas, so only strength 5 and useless against all imperial flyers. I mean why should the imperium have to obey the same rules of physics as the rest of the races and have to sacrifice heavy armour for the ability to get off the ground?!

You do know that there are new stats being added to the Flyers, right?

"Pursuit" is a thing--and apparently the Eldar Flyers have the highest of it. The blurb associated with Pursuit has a Dark Eldar Razorwing Jetfighter being able to move 17 to 29 inches instead of the "normal" 12 to 24 inches.

Here's the associated image:

How is being able to flat-out a little further useful since flatting out isn't useful to begin with? I don't think I've ever used the flat out option because why would I?

mercury14 wrote:
How is being able to flat-out a little further useful since flatting out isn't useful to begin with? I don't think I've ever used the flat out option because why would I?

Pfft you assume they actually rigorously playtest the game. The nerve!

 buddha wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
How is being able to flat-out a little further useful since flatting out isn't useful to begin with? I don't think I've ever used the flat out option because why would I?

Pfft you assume they actually rigorously playtest the game. The nerve!

Playtesting aside they should be able to just eyeball that.

On a side note I talked to FW customer service about their flyers being updated with pursuit and agility values. Their response? "No we're not aware of any plans to do that at this time".

mercury14 wrote:

 buddha wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
How is being able to flat-out a little further useful since flatting out isn't useful to begin with? I don't think I've ever used the flat out option because why would I?

Pfft you assume they actually rigorously playtest the game. The nerve!

Playtesting aside they should be able to just eyeball that.

On a side note I talked to FW customer service about their flyers being updated with pursuit and agility values. Their response? "No we're not aware of any plans to do that at this time".

That might just be the veil of secrecy. Can’t admit to anything until it’s out. I’d not be surprised if they had a PDF ready to go day 1

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

I could see Tail Gunners not having Skyfire in general, but possibly having some special rule for a flyer in Pursuit mode (or whatever it's called).

So that way, you don't actually track Altitude (no matter how sensible that might be), but your tail gunner can shoot up people tailing him, but not just randomly shoot up anything behind the plane (because it might be at a different altitude).

I still am a fan of the old flyer system (you move across the whole board). If GW is going to put out a whole book on flyers, go ahead and give them different speeds (from Kopta/Land Speeder hovering to supersonic jet speeds), throw in some altitude bands (so the bomber way overhead is a bit less vulnerable than the guy clipping the treetops), and expect most of them to enter and leave combat airspace more frequently.

Overall I think flyers were in much less a need of retooling compared to FMC's. I really hope they address FMC's next as they are a pretty big fluff up IMHO.

360 firing arch

12" min move

Able to toe in cover while swooping

Able to choose skyfire OR normal firing

Zero restrictions on psychic powers while swooping

Actually benefiting from assaulting the turn after being grounded

The list goes on I am sure.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Overall I think flyers were in much less a need of retooling compared to FMC's. I really hope they address FMC's next as they are a pretty big fluff up IMHO.

360 firing arch

12" min move

Able to toe in cover while swooping

Able to choose skyfire OR normal firing

Zero restrictions on psychic powers while swooping

Actually benefiting from assaulting the turn after being grounded

The list goes on I am sure.

To be fair, in the context of a 40k game, FMC's should probably be more efficient than mechanical flyers anyway. Just the nature of a biological flyer it'd make for a better "close support" option.

If you're going to scale realistically most of 40k's mechanical flyers, they should operate more like they used to in Epic 40k, you have a flyer phase where they just zoom from one side of the table to the other and then vanish until the next turn. Even some of the close support options (Valkyries and whatnot) would be at a much larger stand off range rather than hovering directly above enemy troops where they'd be susceptible to small arms fire. It'd be an oddity for them to come within 0.5km of the enemy.

Both basic flyers are gone from the website, BTW.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Both basic flyers are gone from the website, BTW.

Now you can panic-buy.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would a bomber's tail gun (like the one on the new Orky thing) not have Skyfire?

We don't know that it is lacking Skyfire on the tail gun.

We know that Skyfire is no longer a native option for all of the weapons on flyers that aren't Fighters.
We also know that there are updated profiles for the currently existing Flyers; which could include their weapons(the Ork Supa Shoota, which is the tail mount on the new Ork Mek Bomber is the same as the turret on the Ork Burna Bommer) being updated.

The turrets may get Skyfire, but I'll bet they're still just Big Shootas, so only strength 5 and useless against all imperial flyers. I mean why should the imperium have to obey the same rules of physics as the rest of the races and have to sacrifice heavy armour for the ability to get off the ground?!

You do know that there are new stats being added to the Flyers, right?

"Pursuit" is a thing--and apparently the Eldar Flyers have the highest of it. The blurb associated with Pursuit has a Dark Eldar Razorwing Jetfighter being able to move 17 to 29 inches instead of the "normal" 12 to 24 inches.

Here's the associated image:

Well isnt that hilarious, because with the Supersonic special rule the Razorwing can Flat Out 36" anyway, not that anybody would remotely want to in a normal game.

So far I'm not seeing anything from DftS as being worth while and as a DE player they would have to seriously rejig our flyers points and weapon loadouts, since the fighter is a better bomber and the bomber is a better fighter, to make this remotely useful.

 Peregrine wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I mentioned earlier, as they have Ravening pilots, they 'should' get on the elite end of pursuit and agility stats, so the Nephilim may actually be quite the fighter.

Let's hope not. Space marines shouldn't be the best at everything. If they have to get a fighter I guess I can live with it, but it should be a low-tier unit that you only take because you don't want to have allies. The Imperial Navy should get the best fighters, the ones you take when you want a serious air superiority option.

I was talking about one particular Space marine fighter that only the Dark Angels have. Not all of them, as I tend to agree with you somewhat, they would at least be equal in some capacity at least anyway, the imperial navy and marine fighters. The Navy being slightly slower but having equal armour and superior guns (either in volume, power or both), whilst the marines have better agility (super human after all) but less weapons as a trade off, or more close range weapons at least, which shows with the assault cannons on the hawks, whilst fliers mitigate the distance required, they are still short range, especially on longer boards, so could require a chase to get those in range against other fast craft.

The Navy should always flat out have better bombers though, and it doesn't look like any marine one is going to be rivalling that any time soon.

Also, it's not as if the Nephilim has amazing weapons on it, which is why the better stats for the pilot are both fitting and will make it more viable as an option at least, which it needs as it's quite a cool model, I think so anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Last point.


I wonder what role if any deep strike has for some aircraft now. It would be very apt and fitting fluff wise if certain aircraft could say intercept enemies by deep striking right into a dog fight.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
The only other one listed that has a pretty clear cut role is the Dark Eldar Razorwing Jetfighter, which is most certainly a Fighter.

I'd say it's more of an attack craft. I think the Raven would be the best example of a true Dark Eldar fighter.