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 hope the new rules are only for the dogfight phase and we can just toss the book out and ignore it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hope the new rules are only for the dogfight phase and we can just toss the book out and ignore it.

I wish people would do that for the majority of GW releases.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hope the new rules are only for the dogfight phase and we can just toss the book out and ignore it.

I wish people would do that for the majority of GW releases.

Haters going to hate.

I'm relaly looking forward to the new rules and think it will add something to the game. As usual, the Most Important Rule and Forge the Narrative come into play. Don't want to use the rules? Don't. Just want a flier campaign? Sorted.


One thing I hope they sort is bomber and attack fighter ability to hit under them without worrying about the 22.5 degree firing arc downwards...

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hope the new rules are only for the dogfight phase and we can just toss the book out and ignore it.

I wish people would do that for the majority of GW releases.

Why are you here?

I might like these rules the only obvious problem is that Ork fliers are kinda bad compared to most other fliers I hope they fix that.
Instead of giving them poor agility and just buffing eldar fliers some more

 oldzoggy wrote:
I might like these rules the only obvious problem is that Ork fliers are kinda bad compared to most other fliers I hope they fix that.
Instead of giving them poor agility and just buffing eldar fliers some more

I'm anxious to see if they are going to be tweaking the current rules and point costs or just adding the new attributes.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hope the new rules are only for the dogfight phase and we can just toss the book out and ignore it.

I wish people would do that for the majority of GW releases.

Right up until GW release a new edition (which could be next month for all we know ) and write all that stuff in to the new rulebook.

What if flying mc's lost the hard to hit rule? Suddenly they aren't head and shoulders above regular flyers...

I hate the new imperial flyer as usual. Still holding out hope the guard will get a proper fighter jet

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What if flying mc's lost the hard to hit rule? Suddenly they aren't head and shoulders above regular flyers...

Never gonna happen.

So I was wracking my brain trying to figure out how exactly are they gonna manage to screw CSM with these rules. And then I realized - Dreadclaws are flyers.

Man goes in the flyer. Flyer goes in reserve. Man goes in reserve. Stormhawk's in reserve. Well fairwell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So I was wracking my brain trying to figure out how exactly are they gonna manage to screw CSM with these rules. And then I realized - Dreadclaws are flyers.

Man goes in the flyer. Flyer goes in reserve. Man goes in reserve. Stormhawk's in reserve. Well fairwell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

We're gonna need a bigger Dreadclaw.

We have one, it's called a Kharybdis.

I am more worried about the Hellswan. If it will be a fighter, it will maybe get screwed....
Since I obviously don´t have a fighter in my list, I better build a whole lot more quadgun-tarantulas.....

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What if flying mc's lost the hard to hit rule? Suddenly they aren't head and shoulders above regular flyers...

Never gonna happen.

Why not? They aren't faster than fast skimmers or jetbikes, they can gain a cover save from being in area terrain (meaning they are atnleast as low as knee high grass) and would still gain jink and the better movement they do now. Hell, they are already able to be targeted by templates with skyfire (with as many of those you see around...)

Let them charge the turn they drop and keep their skyfire/ vector strike and suddenly they have a niche within the game somewhere between skimmer and actual flyers.

One single sentence in the rules of this supplement does all of that.

What I am concerned about with this supplement is that it is going to allow people to remove models before they even see the table. No one (okay maybe some weird people) likes to pack up all their models, travel down to the store, arrange a game, then not get to put their painted models on the table because they were "shot in reserves".

The phase looks like it will put even more emphasis on list building rather than maneuvering and tactics. It speaks about how the players role off to determine attacker and defender, performing a time consuming steps, then doing damage (probably by something like giving the attacker a shooting phase against the defender or similar). This removes the ability of models to maneuver away from combats they do not like or make use of intervening terrain. I fear that it will not account for weapon facing (reasoning that the attacker must have gotten behind the defender), removing the disadvantages conveyed by having fixed weapon facings (an making the new Space Marine fighter even better).

Hopefully they won't grant advantages to an army that has flyers in reserve over those that don't (making bringing flyers and taking part in these dogfights necessary) so that I can safely ignore this supplement.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What if flying mc's lost the hard to hit rule? Suddenly they aren't head and shoulders above regular flyers...

Never gonna happen.

Why not? They aren't faster than fast skimmers or jetbikes, they can gain a cover save from being in area terrain (meaning they are atnleast as low as knee high grass) and would still gain jink and the better movement they do now. Hell, they are already able to be targeted by templates with skyfire (with as many of those you see around...)

Let them charge the turn they drop and keep their skyfire/ vector strike and suddenly they have a niche within the game somewhere between skimmer and actual flyers.

One single sentence in the rules of this supplement does all of that.

It won't happen because it would reduce the strength of MCs, and we know that GW won't ever do that.

If GW made FMC's lose Hard to Hit then Tyranids would drop out the competitive scene like they did to Marker lights in 6th.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What if flying mc's lost the hard to hit rule? Suddenly they aren't head and shoulders above regular flyers...

Never gonna happen.

Why not? They aren't faster than fast skimmers or jetbikes, they can gain a cover save from being in area terrain (meaning they are atnleast as low as knee high grass) and would still gain jink and the better movement they do now. Hell, they are already able to be targeted by templates with skyfire (with as many of those you see around...)

Let them charge the turn they drop and keep their skyfire/ vector strike and suddenly they have a niche within the game somewhere between skimmer and actual flyers.

One single sentence in the rules of this supplement does all of that.

It won't happen because it would reduce the strength of MCs, and we know that GW won't ever do that.

Let's not pretend MCs and FMCs haven't been nerfed since 6th. Smash got made worse and Melee FMCs were made utterly terrible unless you have a psyker with Invisibility or other way of buffing its survivability.

They may not be massive nerfs, but they're nerfs (and really, MC's don't need a nerf in general, vehicles need a buff).

 Frozocrone wrote:
If GW made FMC's lose Hard to Hit then Tyranids would drop out the competitive scene like they did to Marker lights in 6th.

On the flip side of this, if they leave FMCs the way the are and take away Skyfire from non-Fighter flyers, Flyrants will be unkillable to a good number of armies.

The Voidraven lost skyfire. According to thedarkcity news and rumors and someone who has an advanced copy. Eldar formation of fliers is good Dark Eldar one isn't. There is a generic flyer detachment that anyone can use.

Looks like its as cheaply made rules as we all expected. Move along nothing to see here.

 Gamgee wrote:
The Voidraven lost skyfire. According to thedarkcity news and rumors and someone who has an advanced copy. Eldar formation of fliers is good Dark Eldar one isn't. There is a generic flyer detachment that anyone can use.

Looks like its as cheaply made rules as we all expected. Move along nothing to see here.

Of course the Eldar one is good. Nothing about that is suprising. Hopefully my Stormtalons won't suddenly become useless as AA, otherwise I will probably be needing to get a squadron of Stalker tanks.

 the Signless wrote:
What I am concerned about with this supplement is that it is going to allow people to remove models before they even see the table. No one (okay maybe some weird people) likes to pack up all their models, travel down to the store, arrange a game, then not get to put their painted models on the table because they were "shot in reserves".

The phase looks like it will put even more emphasis on list building rather than maneuvering and tactics. It speaks about how the players role off to determine attacker and defender, performing a time consuming steps, then doing damage (probably by something like giving the attacker a shooting phase against the defender or similar). This removes the ability of models to maneuver away from combats they do not like or make use of intervening terrain. I fear that it will not account for weapon facing (reasoning that the attacker must have gotten behind the defender), removing the disadvantages conveyed by having fixed weapon facings (an making the new Space Marine fighter even better).

Hopefully they won't grant advantages to an army that has flyers in reserve over those that don't (making bringing flyers and taking part in these dogfights necessary) so that I can safely ignore this supplement.

Couldn't agree more.

GW were doing so well lately. But like an old drunk who's not been to an AA meeting in two weeks, they've fallen off the wagon with this book I fear.

Any word on the Nephilim from anywhere? I just want the dogfighter from the fluff to actually exist rules wise, instead of being better as a ground attack craft

 Rygnan wrote:
Any word on the Nephilim from anywhere? I just want the dogfighter from the fluff to actually exist rules wise, instead of being better as a ground attack craft

I suspect it will be classed as a Fighter as it is the Nephilim Jetfighter. However, don't expect it to get any sort of buff.

Dare I say it, but I am looking forward to this, it could be an interesting sub game. BUT the storm hawk(or whatever the main space marine centre piece flyer is called) looks like a piece of poo. (I'm an ig or harlequins player, so I'll have to see what turns up)

 Gamgee wrote:
The Voidraven lost skyfire. According to thedarkcity news and rumors and someone who has an advanced copy. Eldar formation of fliers is good Dark Eldar one isn't. There is a generic flyer detachment that anyone can use.

Looks like its as cheaply made rules as we all expected. Move along nothing to see here.

The rumour on TheDarkCity is an unsourced quote with nothing but the vaguest info in it.

Leggy wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
The Voidraven lost skyfire. According to thedarkcity news and rumors and someone who has an advanced copy. Eldar formation of fliers is good Dark Eldar one isn't. There is a generic flyer detachment that anyone can use.

Looks like its as cheaply made rules as we all expected. Move along nothing to see here.

The rumour on TheDarkCity is an unsourced quote with nothing but the vaguest info in it.

Well actually...


Now, that doesn't mean that the Voidraven will be devoid of Skyfire weapons, it's just that no longer will things have Skyfire simply from being a Flyer.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Leggy wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
The Voidraven lost skyfire. According to thedarkcity news and rumors and someone who has an advanced copy. Eldar formation of fliers is good Dark Eldar one isn't. There is a generic flyer detachment that anyone can use.

Looks like its as cheaply made rules as we all expected. Move along nothing to see here.

The rumour on TheDarkCity is an unsourced quote with nothing but the vaguest info in it.

Well actually...

Spoiler:

Now, that doesn't mean that the Voidraven will be devoid of Skyfire weapons, it's just that no longer will things have Skyfire simply from being a Flyer.

Yeah, the TheDarkCity rumour isn't about Skyfire. It's about Eldar and Dark Eldar formations. I'll quote it:

Ihave seen an advanced copy of the supplement, and can confirm what it has for Dark Eldar: not much. Both Eldar and Dark Eldar each get their own flyer-only formation. The Eldar one is decent, the Dark Eldar one not so much. However, the book will also include a generic flyer detachment that can be used by any faction, and that one seems like it will be more useful to the DE.

From www.thedarkcity.net/t13785-a-little-more-info-on-death-from-the-skies

Eff - really assumed the battle report portion of the WD would have leaked by now : ) ... the rumour sites are really teasing this one out for those clicks!