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.

NO. This makes about as much sense as making marines have 5+ Armor because Boltguns are AP 5. If you are expecting armored fliers, bring the right tool for the job or accept they'll get their armor saves against what you're using. (And despite my avatar, I don't use flyrants)

For me, if there is an issue, its flyers getting full BS while ground units have to perform Snap shots. It should be consistent between the two.

Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

 Lance845 wrote:
Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

This makes hitting flyers way too easy. If anything non-skyfire weapons should only hit on 6s and have to re-roll all successes, and the flyer should have a re-rollable 2+ cover save. And that's probably being excessively generous to the non-skyfire weapons for the sake of letting you pretend you have a chance of hitting, in reality you shouldn't be able to fire at flyers at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

This makes hitting flyers way too easy. If anything non-skyfire weapons should only hit on 6s and have to re-roll all successes, and the flyer should have a re-rollable 2+ cover save. And that's probably being excessively generous to the non-skyfire weapons for the sake of letting you pretend you have a chance of hitting, in reality you shouldn't be able to fire at flyers at all.

We aren't playing Reality, we are playing 40k

 Charistoph wrote:
Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

I agree with your categories, however I think your intended roles for the harpy and hive crone are the wrong way around.

As with many things in the tyranid codex, something in the design process got fethed up along the way, but the crone is meant to be an aerial supremacy fighter.
Its fluff describes it as one. It's armed with missiles that re-roll to hit vs flyers, and a special rule to improve the strength of its vector strike, which is primarily useful vs flyers.
The drool cannon doesn't fit the rest of its loadout, but schizophrenic rules and weapon options aren't uncommon in this codex.

The harpy on the other hand is a light bomber.
Just about all its weapon options are blasts, and it drops bombs on things it flies over. It's rubbish, but at least it has a fairly clear role.
Aside from that sonic screech rule at least... Previous comment about schizophrenic rules applies.

 CrownAxe wrote:
We aren't playing Reality, we are playing 40k

And in 40k you have dedicated AA weapons and air superiority fighters if you need to kill flyers.

Giving a minus penalty to hit them simply hinders the same old armies yet again.
Orks would need a 7 to hit some flyers while marines would only need a 5+

Also means certain characters could take them out of the sky easily.
Autarch with fusion gun or a few of the phoenix lords would shred them.


If you want to make them easier to hit, it needs to be something that doesn't benefit half the armies while screwing the other half.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" heck bolters can hurt them"

No, they really can't. It's mathematically possible, yes, but so unlikely as to not be a pratical consideration. No one has 500 bolter shots laying around to get into statistically meaningful chances.

Stormravens are overcosted trash, however. They are especially awful with Death from the Skies.

Hurting and killing are 2 different things. You need to remove 1 wound? Go for it.

The point is most guns can hurt them. Most FMC are 280-340pts. Trying to kill 300pts with 20 points a turn is a stupid idea.


.

As far as I can remember, Iam sure that a typical Flyrant (Hive Tyrant, Wings, two sets of TL Devourers, and E-grub) costs only 240pts. Fully decked out Flying Nurgle DP (in CSM), costs around 300pts though (armor, wings, ML 3, Black Mace). Not 280pts to 340pts level.

I am Ok with the current armor save and states of FMC. My past frustration was that by RAW, FMC can claim 4+ cover WITHOUT jinking just by having a toe in ruin EVEN they are in swooping. Thank goodness the draft FAQ now taken this "what the ****" thing out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Personally I think shooting at fliers should not be a flat "Snap shots". It should be something like a -1 or -2 to BS with skyfire negating the penalty.

This makes hitting flyers way too easy. If anything non-skyfire weapons should only hit on 6s and have to re-roll all successes, and the flyer should have a re-rollable 2+ cover save. And that's probably being excessively generous to the non-skyfire weapons for the sake of letting you pretend you have a chance of hitting, in reality you shouldn't be able to fire at flyers at all.

Woah woah woah, calm down there satan

 Charistoph wrote:
Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

Arson Fire wrote:I agree with your categories, however I think your intended roles for the harpy and hive crone are the wrong way around.

As with many things in the tyranid codex, something in the design process got fethed up along the way, but the crone is meant to be an aerial supremacy fighter.
Its fluff describes it as one. It's armed with missiles that re-roll to hit vs flyers, and a special rule to improve the strength of its vector strike, which is primarily useful vs flyers.
The drool cannon doesn't fit the rest of its loadout, but schizophrenic rules and weapon options aren't uncommon in this codex.

The harpy on the other hand is a light bomber.
Just about all its weapon options are blasts, and it drops bombs on things it flies over. It's rubbish, but at least it has a fairly clear role.
Aside from that sonic screech rule at least... Previous comment about schizophrenic rules applies.

Note, this is what it SHOULD be, not what it is. The Drool Cannon is what makes the Crone more of a Bomber type. The idea of the Drool Cannon and its set up doesn't really help with the "anti-Flyer" concept. The rest of the Special Rules could be altered. The Harpy's Weapons can be reassigned to non-Blast Weapons that would more fitting to taking out those Flyers.

But that is more my opinion than anything else. The Drool Cannon can be renamed and reformated to be a proper anti-Flyer Weapon, but it is easier to just convert the Harpy to that than trying to twist the Drool Cannon.

oldzoggy wrote:Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

With stats like that, we should be looking at a FGC rather than an FMC, much like a Super-Heavy Flyer is more likely to have 6+ Hull Points and an Armor Facing over 12.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Much like Flying vehicles, it really depends on the role of the FMC to begin with. A Flyrant is primarily a ground beast that flies, much like the Bloodthirster is. A Hive Crone or Harpy is a different story and more of a "dedicated" flyer providing ground support or anti-flyer duties.

That being said, they haven't had a Flying Vehicle that is above Armor 12 (not counting Super-Heavies, a slightly different consideration), so there is a similar form of a cap there.

FMCs should fall in to one of 3 categories:
1) Super Jump Beast: The Flyrant and Bloodthirster fit this category. They can wreak havok in close combat, have shorter ranged Weapons and use their flight to get in good and messy. These should have very good Armor Saves, but miss out on some of the better Special Rules that other FMCs may be looking at, especially ones that equate to agility.

2) Bombarder Beast: A Beast that focuses more on ground attacks with heavy weapons at range. Right now, the Harpy and Hive Crone fit this description. For all intents and purposes, a light bomber or an Attack fighter. These could have a good Armor Save, but a higher Toughness should be in as much consideration as anything else.

3) Fighter Beast: A Beast that is more dedicated to taking out other Flyers and FMCs and pretty much just harasses ground targets. Sadly, there really isn't a Tyranid match for this that I know of (one of the biggest disappointments with the current codex), and most other races use actual Vehicles for this role. These would have a weaker Save, such as a 4+, but also a lower Toughness Value. However, getting the hits to happen on these guys in the first place should be difficult, and their Special Rules should reflect that. This is what Harpies should have been instead of what they are now.

Tyranids should have an FMC Transport, too, imo, FW has a GMC that drops Gargoyles, I believe, but they should have something in the Storm Turkey or Wolf Boat equivalence.

Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

I know of a T8/9W GMC with a 3++, but he doesn't usually fly because he's got a giant magic artillery cannon staff thing that requires him to not move (and he's a Daemon of Tzeentch so one casting of Cursed Earth and he's got a rerollable 2++)

(Anyone who wants to whine about OPness should remember he's 999pts and illegal in games under 4,000pts)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

With stats like that, we should be looking at a FGC rather than an FMC, much like a Super-Heavy Flyer is more likely to have 6+ Hull Points and an Armor Facing over 12.

Remember the days when FW was designing the Flyers, and AV12 on a Flyer at all was a superheavy-only thing? (And AV higher than 10 on rear armour didn't exist at all?)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

oldzoggy wrote:Why the limits ?

Why can't there be a monsterous flyer with sv2+ T9 10W stats if they want to make some sort of void borne beast that has the habit of devouring space shuttles ?

With stats like that, we should be looking at a FGC rather than an FMC, much like a Super-Heavy Flyer is more likely to have 6+ Hull Points and an Armor Facing over 12.

Remember the days when FW was designing the Flyers, and AV12 on a Flyer at all was a superheavy-only thing? (And AV higher than 10 on rear armour didn't exist at all?)

Sadly, no. I have little Forgeworld access, and had even less before 6th Edition.

Still, I can't totally agree or disagree to that when we have the Storm Turkey flying around as is. Its stats would have to be adjusted to account for a developmental cap on Flyer AV to being SHF as 12, and everyone else has less. Not like that would be a bad thing over all, though. But things like Flakk Missiles and other dedicated AA Weapons would also have to be adjusted.

Same thing applies to FMCs, though, too, which is why I put in the thought that certain FMCs would have a stat and Special Rule setup to reflect what their actual design goal is/should be, much like there is a difference between the Storm Talon, Storm Turkey, and Marauder.

Honestly, I'm more or less satisfied with FMCs as they are now, they got balanced quite a bit in 7th - save for one point, detailed later.

But as for the OP's original question, if ALL FMCs had a max of 4+ armor, most AA out there would wound on 2+s, ignoring armor. That's a pretty bad time. And 3+ armor is far from invincible, it's just decent.

My biggest remaining complaint about FMCs is their 360 deg firing arc. When they are flying, I think they should be limited in firing arc just like flyers.

Because when using flyers, especially non-hovering ones, you have to plan your strafing runs and act on whatever targets you can pivot to actually target. it takes some skill and planning.

With FMCs, you have limitations on which direction you may fly, but this effectively is meaningless. They can fire at anything, anytime, with no limitations other than range.

For example - flying over an AV14 battlewagon and shooting its rear armor of 10 is not only unfair, it doesn't really make logical sense, unless maybe the FMC did a head first dive bomb while firing.

So, in short, 3+ saves on FMCs don't bother me. Having no limitation on firing arcs, which takes all the planning and skill out of using flyers, does. Because being hard to hit should come with some drawbacks, and with flying vehicles it does. With FMCs, it does not.

Then new rules would need to be set up to consider the arc of the weapons in question. Aren't those questions bad enough for Eldar Vehicles and Imperial Knights already?

Albeit, if everything was on square bases, it would be pretty simple to define. But everything is either on circles or ovals, and arcs can be rather relative at that point.

Furthermore, if they are good enough for Swoopers, why not for Bikes, Cavalry, regular Monstrous Creatures, or even just Infantry?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:


For example - flying over an AV14 battlewagon and shooting its rear armor of 10 is not only unfair, it doesn't really make logical sense, unless maybe the FMC did a head first dive bomb while firing.

From most of the military lore I've read (up to the Gulf War), this replicates the fact that most military vehicles have weak top armor; they expect most incoming fire to be from ground level, and thus to save on weight aren't heavily armored against attacks from above. I believe there is even a missile system designed to use this tactic - when the missile gets close to the target, it rockets skyward and then dives for the vehicle's weakly armored engine plate from above. I think it's the Sagger missile that does this.

There's more than one system that does that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_attack

 Peregrine wrote:
No. But for fluff reasons they should have their rules significantly adjusted. They should keep their immunity to assault when in flyer mode, but get shorter movement distance (9-18" IMO, shorter than true aircraft but a bit faster than walking MCs) and lose the "snap shots only" rule. These are giant lumbering birds, not fighter jets coming in on a strafing run at 200+ mph. They should have the improved mobility of a flying beast, but they shouldn't be any harder to hit than any other huge and slow target.

Pretty much this, stripping away the whole Snap Shot thing might be a bit strong but even a +1 to hit 'large targets' would help, but since GW thinks dice modifiers are too much faff (but are willing to have six varients of the same USR) that ain't going to happen

Also all Missle and Rocket launcher weapons should have Skyfire by default, but gotta sell them flyers

Die modifiers are hard to balance on a D6.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many FMCs have an armour save of 2+ or 3+? AFAIK it's Flyrants and Daemon Princes. Is there anything I'm missing?

All FMC have 3+ saves, Daemons can use many rules to get a FMC a 2++, but you kill the Pink Horrors/Herald and that doesnt happen. Fateweaver is the only OP FMC and thats jsut b.c the Grim ward. (spelling).

And this is blatantly wrong. I can name at least 2 FMCs without a 3+ save. Harpy, Hive Crone. Daemons do not come standard with armour saves (except possibly the Daemons of Khorne, haven't looked at the codex in a while).

I was talking about NONE have a 2+ save. sorry worded it poorly. My english is bad.

Martel732 wrote:
Die modifiers are hard to balance on a D6.

I don't disagree, but would it be any less 'balanced' (like GW cares about that) than the existing myriad re-roll effects, its too early to do hard sums...

 Stormonu wrote:
From most of the military lore I've read (up to the Gulf War), this replicates the fact that most military vehicles have weak top armor; they expect most incoming fire to be from ground level, and thus to save on weight aren't heavily armored against attacks from above. I believe there is even a missile system designed to use this tactic - when the missile gets close to the target, it rockets skyward and then dives for the vehicle's weakly armored engine plate from above. I think it's the Sagger missile that does this.

The problem is that normal aircraft don't get to do this because they have to follow the normal LOS and firing arc rules for vehicles. Only FMCs get to magically fly one direction and shoot out their butt into rear armor. If 40k went back to the 5th edition rules for flyers, where all attacks from flyers automatically hit side armor to represent the weaker top armor, it would make a lot more sense. But as it is it just makes FMCs better than flyers, like MCs are better than tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
From most of the military lore I've read (up to the Gulf War), this replicates the fact that most military vehicles have weak top armor; they expect most incoming fire to be from ground level, and thus to save on weight aren't heavily armored against attacks from above. I believe there is even a missile system designed to use this tactic - when the missile gets close to the target, it rockets skyward and then dives for the vehicle's weakly armored engine plate from above. I think it's the Sagger missile that does this.

The problem is that normal aircraft don't get to do this because they have to follow the normal LOS and firing arc rules for vehicles. Only FMCs get to magically fly one direction and shoot out their butt into rear armor. If 40k went back to the 5th edition rules for flyers, where all attacks from flyers automatically hit side armor to represent the weaker top armor, it would make a lot more sense. But as it is it just makes FMCs better than flyers, like MCs are better than tanks.

Fliers hitting side Im fine with.

FMC better than tank....No that argument is so bad we arnt even going to talk about it (we cant even compare them there are way to many variables), BUT if you said MC vs Dreadnought. Then yeah I say MC are better.

I wish to express my surprise at the results of this thread.

To my mind, two things were illustrated by this thread:

1. Most people disagree with my proposal.

2. Most people, at least, in terms of in-thread participation, agree with me that there's a problem.

I'm also amused to note that Peregrine, who usually opposes me apparently simply based on the principle that I must be opposed, has seemed, though of course disagreeing with me, to propose a harsher nerf than I have.

I simply recommended that MCs be capped at 4+ armor. This means that my flakk missiles, which cost 39 ppm (14 ppm for the devastator marine + 15 ppm for the missile launcher + 10 ppm for the flakk missile upgrade), hit on 3s, potentially reroll misses, wound Flyrants on 3s and ignore armor.

Peregrine has proposed that MCs keep whatever armor they want, but lose the hard to hit rule.

This means that my krak missiles, which cost 29 ppm (14 ppm for the devastator marine + 15 ppm for the missile launcher), hit on 3s, potentially reroll misses, wound flyrants on 2s and ignore armor.

Really, I have to express my annoyance at the fact that so many of you seem to have answered the OP with one of three responses:

1. 4+ armor sucks.

2. Flakk only costs 10 ppm.

3. Get the right tool for the job!

I answer:

1. 4+ armor may or may not suck. But FMCs don't just rely on armor for durability. They rely on the hard to hit rule for durability. Any non sky-fire weapon only has a 1/6 chance, per shot, of hitting an FMC.

You can't ignore this fact when determining whether a 4+ armor save "sucks" for an FMC.

Given the fact that most weapons in the game can't reliably hit FMCs, even 4+ armor is pretty decent.

2. Flakk does not only cost 10 ppm. Flakk costs: 1. cost of platform + 2. cost of missile launcher + 3. cost of flakk upgrade.

3. Flakk is the right tool for the job. Flakk is to fliers as melta is to vehicles.

 Traditio wrote:
I'm also amused to note that Peregrine, who usually opposes me apparently simply based on the principle that I must be opposed, has seemed, though of course disagreeing with me, to propose a harsher nerf than I have.

No, I oppose you because you're almost always wrong. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is your time. FMCs (and MCs in general) need to be nerfed to bring them in line with vehicles, and FMCs fluff-wise need rules that make them more like jump infantry than air superiority fighters.

3. Flakk is the right tool for the job. Flakk is to fliers as melta is to vehicles.

No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

I'm actually willing to grant what you are saying here. Yes, the lascannon should be better against AV than the krak missile, and the plasma cannon should be better than the frag missile.

Nonetheless, the krak and frag missiles remain a good "all around, jack of all trades" option for 15 ppm. Flakk is basically the same thing. The problem that I see is that the SM player pays a premium for flakk, but he doesn't actually get the results that he otherwise would have expected for a krak or frag missile.

Krak missiles are worth their points unless you're facing up against AV 14 or 2+ armor. Frag missiles likewise can be worth their points.

Flakk missiles vs. FMCs? Different story.

At the end of the day, I'm not demanding that big of a nerf.

I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

 Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

I'm actually willing to grant what you are saying here. Yes, the lascannon should be better against AV than the krak missile, and the plasma cannon should be better than the frag missile.

Nonetheless, the krak and frag missiles remain a good "all around, jack of all trades" option for 15 ppm. Flakk is basically the same thing. The problem that I see is that the SM player pays a premium for flakk, but he doesn't actually get the results that he otherwise would have expected for a krak or frag missile.

Krak missiles are worth their points unless you're facing up against AV 14 or 2+ armor. Frag missiles likewise can be worth their points.

Flakk missiles vs. FMCs? Different story.

At the end of the day, I'm not demanding that big of a nerf.

I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

Yes. A single missile is never going to accomplish much on it’s own. Frag/krack/flack, does not mater. A stronger argument would be “I want the 4xMLs in my dev squad to have a credible chance of shooting down an un-jinking flyrant.” Even Melta, a specialist tool that’s good at it’s job, requires 4-5 shots to reliably kill a tank. This is a flexible number, depending on your definition of reliable, and can be reduced with buffs/special rules. Forcing a unit to jink is basically a mission-kill for a turn. Sure, it can still move and snap shot, but it’s combat effectives is drastically reduced. It’s not quite the same as shooting it down, but pretty close. The game is not that long, and taking something out for a turn can sometimes be just as important as killing it.

Flack missiles are overpriced. I don’t think anyone is arguing against that. Of the marine AA options, they are the bottom of the barrel. They do have a few perks though. They are flexible; the classic ML advantage. Not just in the fact that you have multiple ammo options, but in deployment. They can be taken on a huge number of units, so fitting some into your list is almost always possible. They are also ubiquitous. Any marine player probably has a number of them in their collection.

If the root of your problem is that you want flack missiles to be viable, work to fix them. Making broad sweeping changes to a whole class of things is a lot harder to do and keep things balanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I'm also amused to note that Peregrine, who usually opposes me apparently simply based on the principle that I must be opposed, has seemed, though of course disagreeing with me, to propose a harsher nerf than I have.

No, I oppose you because you're almost always wrong. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this is your time. FMCs (and MCs in general) need to be nerfed to bring them in line with vehicles, and FMCs fluff-wise need rules that make them more like jump infantry than air superiority fighters.

3. Flakk is the right tool for the job. Flakk is to fliers as melta is to vehicles.

No it isn't. Flakk is to flyers as krak is to vehicles. That is, it's a marginally effective weapon whose primary value is the ability to engage multiple target types with its various fire modes. Missile launchers should never out-perform specialist weapons in a particular role, and should never be at the top of your priority list when you're picking a weapon with a specific target in mind. The anti-flyer equivalent to melta should be dedicated AA units like the Hydra and air superiority fighters like the Thunderbolt or Barracuda.

Would you be opposed to the idea of instead of nerfing MC and FMC to be in line with vehicles, we do the opposite and buff vehicles to be more in line with MC and FMCs?

Also this entire thread is pointless because a proven and highly effective way of dealing with flyers is as follows

Buy the iccurus las canon 85 points (Twin linked, sky fire, interceptor)
Buy vindicare assassin (150 points)
Put assassin on las cannon
firing at BS 8, hitting on 2s re rolling to hit on 4.
Can hit the thing before it even gets on the board.
once its dead, hop off and shoot the rifle for the rest of the game.

Option 2

Buy quad linked iccurus las canon from the vengence weapon batterys 75 points (2 shot, twin linked, 3 HP, hitting on 5s, sky fire, interceptor, 14 AV all around)
put in the corner, let it do its job.
Buy another if you want to be safe

The thing you need to remember is this, if you dedicated even 200 points toward AA, and that AA only takes out a 150 points model say, it still is going to make up its points, because now you dont have a flyer removing your points from the board.

 Traditio wrote:


I just want hive tyrants to have to jink when I shoot them with a 39 ppm model.

Is that so much to ask for?

And this is the problem with every single one of your proposed rules threads. You hone in on a single model. Decide that one thing must be the reason why that model wrecks your day, and then propose some sweeping change to the game with the intent of targeting that single unit.

Relentless was the devil. Now it's 3+ armor on hive tyrants.

The issues go deeper and these proposed rule changes don't fix things.