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.

fresus wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
The big question in my opinion is "Do they start in reserves?" if they do they're totally worse than 7th edition flyers.

The sunshark doesn't seem to have to.

What makes you say that?

Can't you just bring in reserves when ever you like? Not seen any mentions of rolls or anything. If that is the case, starting in reserve is not a bad thing at all.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
The big question in my opinion is "Do they start in reserves?" if they do they're totally worse than 7th edition flyers.

The sunshark doesn't seem to have to.

What makes you say that?

In this thread, Verviedi posted the sunshark's datasheet and Gordon Shumway a link to pretty much all the T'au datasheets and rules, so unless I missed something, the sunshark starts on the table.
Other flyers might behave differently though.

fresus wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

fresus wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
The big question in my opinion is "Do they start in reserves?" if they do they're totally worse than 7th edition flyers.

The sunshark doesn't seem to have to.

What makes you say that?

In this thread, Verviedi posted the sunshark's datasheet and Gordon Shumway a link to pretty much all the T'au datasheets and rules, so unless I missed something, the sunshark starts on the table.
Other flyers might behave differently though.

Keywords Strike Fighter and Vehicle make me think it's liable for rules that force you to buy a landing pad to have it on the board in the first turn.
Maybe I'm being pessimistic but I'd rather be proved wrong as a pessimist.

The strike fighter keyword is actually "Ax3 razorshark strike fighter", which is the name of the unit. Every unit in the game seems to have its name as a keyword. It's not a general keyword that will trigger general rules like infantry or fly.
Also, GW said that a unit is not allowed to start in reserve, unless stated otherwise on the datasheet. And the datasheet also explains how the unit enters the board. So It's certain that the sunshark can start on the board.

It doesn't mean that other flyers will behave the same though.

 Peregrine wrote:
Wow that's stupid. Supersonic fighter jets fighting in melee, aircraft that have to stay within an invisible box or instantly explode, and flyers are just barely harder to hit than any other unit. The more I see of 8th the more I'm convinced it's another spectacular failure of a game and needs to die ASAP.

This is why you have Supersonic fighter jets fighting in meele:

 Galas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Wow that's stupid. Supersonic fighter jets fighting in melee, aircraft that have to stay within an invisible box or instantly explode, and flyers are just barely harder to hit than any other unit. The more I see of 8th the more I'm convinced it's another spectacular failure of a game and needs to die ASAP.

This is why you have Supersonic fighter jets fighting in meele:

Exactly!

Oh man, now I'm curious if Ork jets are gonna have better melee rules than other flyers. It'd make sense!

Hmm, now that I think about it, with weapons being priced separately and lascannons being 25 each, the Vendetta is going to cost an arm and a leg. Certainly more than 170, since its six lascannons will be 150 by themselves.

Considering that at even moderate flight speeds touching each other in flight would destroy both aircraft.
It just ends up being kinda derp, Really they should go and look at how some other games have done aircraft.

The table size is not to small from aircraft in 40k, But they are using rules that just make it feel so small for them.

VTOL aircraft like Valkyries seem fine in 40k, it is when you get to the actual fighters that the scale falls over a bit.

I think one thing to factor into it is I don't think wounds are purely physical in 8th anymore. They also represent your Plot Armor, which is why Reboot Girlyman is able to have nearly as many as a Predator even though logically even a primarch would be subject to the chunky salsa rule. Reboot has a lot of plot armor, so he has a lot of wounds.

Similarly, logically aircraft should be armored in aluminum foil and go down to a single good missile hit. Which is kind of true in 7th, but offset by Hard to Hit making everyone BS1 against them.

Hard to Hit has been nerfed into the ground, but a lot of the protection it granted has been transferred to the extra wounds that aircraft are getting.

 Trickstick wrote:
VTOL aircraft like Valkyries seem fine in 40k, it is when you get to the actual fighters that the scale falls over a bit.

You can simply have the fighters make attack runs over the board, for the size of games you do not even need to have them simulate the fights outside the table. Assume that on the players turn they have been able to break free and offer there support on the ground.


You could even have large scale aircraft that fire down on the table by each turn moving them around the edge of the table, from side to side in order. To represent larger aircraft with large cannons that fire down but are much slower.

You know, that mention of off-board attacks makes me wonder how the Master of Ordinance is going to work in 8th. What with templates and scatter dice not being a thing anymore.

If I had to guess, the Master of Ordnance will shoot at -1 to hit but be more expensive.

 Trickstick wrote:
VTOL aircraft like Valkyries seem fine in 40k, it is when you get to the actual fighters that the scale falls over a bit.

They should of just given everything magic space future vtol in the fluff and be done with it.

Have we gotten any word on whether or not ongoing reserves is a thing?

I've seen the new rules for deepstrike-type deployments (how they have to arrive by turn three or something along those lines), but have we gotten any confirmation that there will or will not be ongoing reserves?

Honestly asking because it's hard to keep up with all this.

EDIT: Autocorrect kills me...

ERJAK wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
VTOL aircraft like Valkyries seem fine in 40k, it is when you get to the actual fighters that the scale falls over a bit.

They should of just given everything magic space future vtol in the fluff and be done with it.

They do not have to do that, they just need think about the rules and how they will function. It should not be that much to ask, No other company seems to have issues like GW with just writing rules.

Apple fox wrote:

You can simply have the fighters make attack runs over the board, for the size of games you do not even need to have them simulate the fights outside the table. Assume that on the players turn they have been able to break free and offer there support on the ground.

You could even have large scale aircraft that fire down on the table by each turn moving them around the edge of the table, from side to side in order. To represent larger aircraft with large cannons that fire down but are much slower.

The problem with this from GW's perspective is that it removes the ability for units on the table to interact meaningfully with flyers. Which, yeah, from a realistic perspective, makes sense. But from a player perspective, it's demoralizing for both the opponent (who can't do anything about it) and the player (who sees their beautiful models reduced to the role of tokens).

Not saying you're wrong or that either is better, but that's likely what's driving GW's decisions.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

You can simply have the fighters make attack runs over the board, for the size of games you do not even need to have them simulate the fights outside the table. Assume that on the players turn they have been able to break free and offer there support on the ground.

You could even have large scale aircraft that fire down on the table by each turn moving them around the edge of the table, from side to side in order. To represent larger aircraft with large cannons that fire down but are much slower.

The problem with this from GW's perspective is that it removes the ability for units on the table to interact meaningfully with flyers. Which, yeah, from a realistic perspective, makes sense. But from a player perspective, it's demoralizing for both the opponent (who can't do anything about it) and the player (who sees their beautiful models reduced to the role of tokens).

Not saying you're wrong or that either is better, but that's likely what's driving GW's decisions.

Indeed - they have lots of flyer models to sell - just making them a token fro airstrikes means they are less likely to sell, having them make attack runs dodging Ork stormboyz, hordes of gargolyes or Spore mines sounds like more fun.

And of course Dark Eldar pilots are known to use their wings as weapons......anyone who has played mercenaries or GTA or watched various films will recall using rotor blades as melee weapons

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

You can simply have the fighters make attack runs over the board, for the size of games you do not even need to have them simulate the fights outside the table. Assume that on the players turn they have been able to break free and offer there support on the ground.

You could even have large scale aircraft that fire down on the table by each turn moving them around the edge of the table, from side to side in order. To represent larger aircraft with large cannons that fire down but are much slower.

The problem with this from GW's perspective is that it removes the ability for units on the table to interact meaningfully with flyers. Which, yeah, from a realistic perspective, makes sense. But from a player perspective, it's demoralizing for both the opponent (who can't do anything about it) and the player (who sees their beautiful models reduced to the role of tokens).

Not saying you're wrong or that either is better, but that's likely what's driving GW's decisions.

The thing is other games manage to do this without to much issue, and the models looking nice will benefit from better rules. It could bring more immersive and make the games feel more in line with what the universe should feel like from a natural point.
Weapons for anti air can fire as they zoom over, They could fly low for cover and possibly hit tall buildings.
You can do a lot with them without having to give them that many rules if you separate how the different craft enter and exit the battlefield.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

You can simply have the fighters make attack runs over the board, for the size of games you do not even need to have them simulate the fights outside the table. Assume that on the players turn they have been able to break free and offer there support on the ground.

You could even have large scale aircraft that fire down on the table by each turn moving them around the edge of the table, from side to side in order. To represent larger aircraft with large cannons that fire down but are much slower.

The problem with this from GW's perspective is that it removes the ability for units on the table to interact meaningfully with flyers. Which, yeah, from a realistic perspective, makes sense. But from a player perspective, it's demoralizing for both the opponent (who can't do anything about it) and the player (who sees their beautiful models reduced to the role of tokens).

Not saying you're wrong or that either is better, but that's likely what's driving GW's decisions.

Indeed - they have lots of flyer models to sell - just making them a token fro airstrikes means they are less likely to sell, having them make attack runs dodging Ork stormboyz, hordes of gargolyes or Spore mines sounds like more fun.

And of course Dark Eldar pilots are known to use their wings as weapons......anyone who has played mercenaries or GTA or watched various films will recall using rotor blades as melee weapons

Nothing is stopping them from adding rules like that , and they would not just be a token for a airstrike. SO much can be done with good rules like that, as well as extending outside the battlefield for the narrative, and adding in the second dimension. If the rules pan out it may end up as flyers just making a sedate circle around the battlefield, Its not that exciting to have a bunch of Ork Stormboys make a risky assault if the fighter looks like its got a pilot on something derping him out.

I also tend to buy more models for games that are good and fun to play.

theocracity wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Wow that's stupid. Supersonic fighter jets fighting in melee, aircraft that have to stay within an invisible box or instantly explode, and flyers are just barely harder to hit than any other unit. The more I see of 8th the more I'm convinced it's another spectacular failure of a game and needs to die ASAP.

This is why you have Supersonic fighter jets fighting in meele:

Exactly!

Oh man, now I'm curious if Ork jets are gonna have better melee rules than other flyers. It'd make sense!

and with this inspiration I am going to go home and model 3 little deffrollas for my dakkajets because it seems hilarious (obviously not going to be rules useable but I will be laughing about it for months

Going by what it seems like, I get the feeling that the devs are intentionally making the rules in such a way that Flyers would become impractical to field at certain scales, possibly as a soft ban on them in lower point games. I'd imagine anything with a 90 turning radius and 20" minimum movement would essentially be circling the board most of the time rather than actually engaging anything.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Going by what it seems like, I get the feeling that the devs are intentionally making the rules in such a way that Flyers would become impractical to field at certain scales, possibly as a soft ban on them in lower point games. I'd imagine anything with a 90 turning radius and 20" minimum movement would essentially be circling the board most of the time rather than actually engaging anything.

Are they changing the board size for different point levels ? But I do not want to see the rules make flyers like that :( WIll look really stupid with more than one on both sides on the little tables.

Board Sizes generally change with point levels unofficially. Trying to play a 2000 point army on a 4x4 table would make it extremely crowded, while a 1000 point army on a 6x4 or 8x4 table would take too long in some cases. Hence a "soft ban", not an explicit one but an implicit one.

If all flyers had something like 20" minimum movement and can't touch the edge of the board, then even at 6x4 table size I would feel like manouvering to actually face something would be hard, let alone practical or effective.

fresus wrote:
The strike fighter keyword is actually "Ax3 razorshark strike fighter", which is the name of the unit. Every unit in the game seems to have its name as a keyword. It's not a general keyword that will trigger general rules like infantry or fly.
Also, GW said that a unit is not allowed to start in reserve, unless stated otherwise on the datasheet. And the datasheet also explains how the unit enters the board. So It's certain that the sunshark can start on the board.

It doesn't mean that other flyers will behave the same though.

These could still be a blanket rule that all models in the Flyer FOC slot start in reserve.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Board Sizes generally change with point levels unofficially. Trying to play a 2000 point army on a 4x4 table would make it extremely crowded, while a 1000 point army on a 6x4 or 8x4 table would take too long in some cases. Hence a "soft ban", not an explicit one but an implicit one.

If all flyers had something like 20" minimum movement and can't touch the edge of the board, then even at 6x4 table size I would feel like manouvering to actually face something would be hard, let alone practical or effective.

We used to play on a 6x4 for every game, with only 8x4 or more for the ultra rare apoc games. Outside of little GWs i have never seen a 4x4 table for 40k as even at 1000 points my army would be squished into the 4 foot table in 7th.

Me and my friends played almost exclusively on 4x4 boards. it was the right size for 1000 points before the power creep that made every army a horde compared to their old selves (back in 3rd edition a Hormagaunt costs 9 points, with less rules, and it was still a swarm unit).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Me and my friends played almost exclusively on 4x4 boards. it was the right size for 1000 points before the power creep that made every army a horde compared to their old selves (back in 3rd edition a Hormagaunt costs 9 points, with less rules, and it was still a swarm unit).

it was 6x4 for us back in 3rd, and wasn't really a issue and was great to be able to spread out a bit as well.

ahh, caught up in off topic. So.

at this point i do think we need to find out more, but right now i think the Rules for flyers in 40k are a bit meh.

Hmm, though if vehicles not having facing also means vehicles won't have firing arcs, the contortions you'll have to do to keep the flyer on the table won't really affect its ability to engage the enemy. Well, except for with short-range weapons.

I never even saw a 6x4 table until 5th edition.

We prefered the smaller table, as it gave us a lot of terrain density and led to the action almost immediately. The few times I played on a 6x4 table it was 1500 points or up, and even then more than a few units ended up trudging the board doing nothing more than throw angry words at each other (either due to bad deepstrikes or their transports got sniped from the get-go).