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.

Being 3 points over in a 100 point AI game is like being 60 points over in a 2000pt 40k game...

If someone told me they were 3 points over I’d make one of my planes an Ace and say, “that’s fine I’m now 5pts over so that’s even.”

Yeah, coming into a fight underpointed is only shooting yourself in the foot, which is okay, whereas going a bit over is less cool. If you're playing with friends, you know roughly how you all prefer to play and so on, asking "hey I went three points over, that cool?" tends to go down pretty well, but if we're talking about how the limit is written to the main rules, the upper limit is the upper limit, full stop.

That of course flies out of the window when talking about narrative scenarios and stuff, but for pitched battles the limit should be written in stone.

so if it is sutch a big deal to go 1-3p over, why was the "10p under" section written in the first place?
should WG just have not included that line and instead written: you must be at exact agreed point limit, no diviation is allowed,??

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Besides, having put some thought in to a list for a pre-arranged game with a preset limit and then your opponent speaks up and say "I'm 5/10/20 points over - is that ok?" Well, no. No it isn't.

It is okay if that's what's written in to the rules, which is what FrozenDwarf is talking about.

It really doesn't matter either way, I don't know why people are getting hung up on it, the rules says you're allowed to be within a 10 pt range, you aren't allowed to go over that range OR under that range, what the range is actually in numerical terms is mostly arbitrary.

I couldn't care less if it said 10pts under or +/- 5pts, the anal people who like to use every last point will just adjust themselves to use every last point within the range.

The nice thing is that we've actually been given a range, so people have no excuse for going either under or over it, it's in the rules.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
so if it is sutch a big deal to go 1-3p over, why was the "10p under" section written in the first place?
should WG just have not included that line and instead written: you must be at exact agreed point limit, no diviation is allowed,??

There is a special rule that apply to two of the scenarios, "Underdog", where if a player has 5p or more less force than the opponent they automatically get initiative in the first turn.
Im a bit surprised that this isnt a general rule that apply to all scenarios but at least in these two scenarios this could make a difference.

Maybe not a huge reason to not max out on points but with time maybe strategies will emerge that utilise this.

While I find its weird they would put a limit on how low you are allowed to go, that isnt really neccessary, but the limit on the high end should absolutely be a hard limit. For pickup and competetive, when playing with friends just do whatever you agree upon.

The lists have a bunch of 1 and 2 point upgrades so you should never really be 3 points short tbh. Going over points usually means you're trying to squeeze something in that the points are trying to prevent. Example: It looks like Imperial players are only supposed to be able to take 4 planes at 100 points as a naked Thunderbolt is 21pts. Taking 5 Thunderbolts at 105 points and telling your opponent it's just 5 points means you've squeezed in more than what the rules designers intended for a 100 point game.

Like I said, if you're 3 points over I'm upgrading one of my guys to an Ace for a reroll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Walls were too thin on the smaller dial I printed so I’m beefing them up and trying again.

That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.

Looking good! Hopefully we get a similar affordable an off the shelf solution. I'm mildly worried if GW does it, it'll cost $50 for 4 counters.

Something weird in Scenario 2 (The Straggler).

The defender begins the game with one bomber that is deployed along one side of the engagement area.

The victory conditions for this scenario states that:

"The defenders bomber is trying to escape. It may voluntarily disengage at any time from any edge of the area of engagement without conceding any victory points. Instead the defender earns victory points equal to the aircrafts points cost."

So...Instant free victory points for the defender? This is a mistake or am I missing something?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.

Looking good! Hopefully we get a similar affordable an off the shelf solution. I'm mildly worried if GW does it, it'll cost $50 for 4 counters.

You know anyone with a 3D printer? I’ll share the file, you just need a pair of 5x1mm magnets.

Also, ive realised you will have to decide on the mission and decide/roll for attacker and defender before building your squadrons for many of these scenarios.

Good think its a farily quick process to build a squadron.

MarkNorfolk wrote:but then that would just be a 105 point game. you've just shifted the upper threshold a bit.

If it helps - just think of it as a 95 point game.


Besides, having put some thought in to a list for a pre-arranged game with a preset limit and then your opponent speaks up and say "I'm 5/10/20 points over - is that ok?" Well, no. No it isn't.

FrozenDwarf wrote:so if it is sutch a big deal to go 1-3p over, why was the "10p under" section written in the first place?
should WG just have not included that line and instead written: you must be at exact agreed point limit, no diviation is allowed,??

There is nothing wrong with playing uneven points or an unequal # of planes. War isnt fair and that's the fun of it.

Should pick mine up next week and cant wait.

Soulless wrote:
Something weird in Scenario 2 (The Straggler).

The defender begins the game with one bomber that is deployed along one side of the engagement area.

The victory conditions for this scenario states that:

"The defenders bomber is trying to escape. It may voluntarily disengage at any time from any edge of the area of engagement without conceding any victory points. Instead the defender earns victory points equal to the aircrafts points cost."

So...Instant free victory points for the defender? This is a mistake or am I missing something?

Well it sounds like you jump off the map for some free victory points but then a quarter of your force is gone. It can risk sticking around to help fight the rest of the enemy then disengage.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Soulless wrote:
Something weird in Scenario 2 (The Straggler).

The defender begins the game with one bomber that is deployed along one side of the engagement area.

The victory conditions for this scenario states that:

"The defenders bomber is trying to escape. It may voluntarily disengage at any time from any edge of the area of engagement without conceding any victory points. Instead the defender earns victory points equal to the aircrafts points cost."

So...Instant free victory points for the defender? This is a mistake or am I missing something?

Well it sounds like you jump off the map for some free victory points but then a quarter of your force is gone. It can risk sticking around to help fight the rest of the enemy then disengage.

True but gaining VPs for it while at the same time denying the opponent those VPs feels a little strong.

Depends, with more than a quarter of your force gone you'll have a harder time scoring the rest of the victory points. It's an idea...


Anyone done the math on grot rokkits? I think I'm going to just paint my other Destroyer as a freshly-looted grot bomma but I've never found one trick Ork weapons to be worth a damn in all these years.

Soulless wrote:
Also, ive realised you will have to decide on the mission and decide/roll for attacker and defender before building your squadrons for many of these scenarios.

Good think its a farily quick process to build a squadron.

yes, but it allso means you need to have a diverse hangar to bring to the games, as you are assembling the formation on the "fly", unless the scenario and att/def is agreed upon in advance.
tbh, dont see any issue witht that tough, these kits are not that expensive, nor do they take mutch space in your travel case.

I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.

Just a thought; you could have triangular tokens to sit on the two unmarked triangles of the hex base, to indicate this.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

Soulless wrote:
Also, ive realised you will have to decide on the mission and decide/roll for attacker and defender before building your squadrons for many of these scenarios.

Good think its a farily quick process to build a squadron.

yes, but it allso means you need to have a diverse hangar to bring to the games, as you are assembling the formation on the "fly", unless the scenario and att/def is agreed upon in advance.
tbh, dont see any issue witht that tough, these kits are not that expensive, nor do they take mutch space in your travel case.

I dont think its an issue either, just that I noticed it and it is different from most other games ive played!
I enjoy the idea that players bring their "hangar" to a game and build their squadron on site, depending on the scenario at hand!

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.

The attachment points are so tiny, I don't know how you'll be able to magnetise them. I'm not even sure the wings are thick enough to sink a magnet in to.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I might magnetize the missiles to the wings or 3D print missile tokens to make it clear what things are armed with. This is one game I’m not terribly interested in spending too much money on.

The attachment points are so tiny, I don't know how you'll be able to magnetise them. I'm not even sure the wings are thick enough to sink a magnet in to.

go oldschool, go blu-tack!
the bombs/missiles has no weigh to them so blu-tack has no issues holding them in place.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
It works but at 40mm a side it’s not too much smaller than an AI base. I’ll probably shrink this down tomorrow but the 5mm magnet provides enough friction to keep the indicator in place when it’s turned over. .

Add a small hemisphere to the underside of the pointer needle and corresponding divots at each position. That'll make it more positive and everyone likes that positional click.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
It works but at 40mm a side it’s not too much smaller than an AI base. I’ll probably shrink this down tomorrow but the 5mm magnet provides enough friction to keep the indicator in place when it’s turned over. .

Add a small hemisphere to the underside of the pointer needle and corresponding divots at each position. That'll make it more positive and everyone likes that positional click.

I don't totally trust my printer with lock-and-key things like what you describe (it kinda dribbles so there'll be bits of plastic in the wrong places) but my little 25mm dials hold just fine from the friction of the magnet. I could instead add little pegs that stick up, that might work.

Here's the file if anyone is interested in printing them.
https://www.tinkercad.com/things/i1gysCD7oW1

Ive found two instances in the Rynns World book that suggest the game is played in the typical manner.

The first is the part about "preparing the game" (p.9) that deals with AoE size. While the segment does mention hexes of 2", it also states various sizes of AoEs but mentoned in feet x feet.
Wouldnt it be better to state a width and height in hexes?

Then, at p.52 in the segment about "Landing zones" it states "...and will specify a distance in inches from this marker within which aircraft must land."

I wonder when they decided to move to hexes. I prefer hexes so its all good, just wish the book didnt have these mistakes!

Anyone planning on using planetary assault tiles to make a custom board?

I got to play the game for the first time last night, and here are my thoughts.

First, what the hell is with the hit/dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.

The movement diagrams are just downright confusing for a new player, I would have much preferred the movement system from X-wing, a lot of the time I noticed my opponent and I were just sitting there turning the graphs ten ways to sideways trying to figure out the correct way to move something.

Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.

The board feels way too cramped and tight, really think it needs to be double the size given the scale of the aircraft.

I don't like how you can go base to base contact either, with no issue. No rules for collisions? No ramming? I would really like to see some kind of rule that states you must remain x hexes from an enemy model.

The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.

I am going to play it again tonight, but so far I am not impressed with it and will probably end up passing on it as a game.

The models on the other hand, now those models are absolutely amazing. My desire to build and paint is very strong with this release, I like how simple they are to build and how good they look when painted. They are a little delicate (unexpected) A- For the Miniatures, C so far for the rules. Compared to AT, I think it's a bit of a letdown.

What is the hex count on the map? For example, # of hexes x # of hexes.

 Togusa wrote:


The board feels way too cramped and tight, really think it needs to be double the size given the scale of the aircraft.

The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.

i think these 2 points is basicly the same.

imp is mid range (5-7 hexes) or long range (8-10 hexes), imp is simply not ment to fight short range.(if that can be avoided when you have orc fighters rushing towards you, is a different topic)
thing is, you will not get these kind of ranges on a small board, prolly not even on a 4x4. you moust likely need a 8x4 board to get the moust out of imp, orcs on the other hand is short range.
i supect that games will be very one sided untill we get the other armies air units in the game.

it was prolly not the best move to have orc and imp as factions in the 2player box considering how very different their playstyle is.

Some small issues:

 Togusa wrote:

First, what the hell is with the hit/dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.

You hit on fives, not sixes. It’s only sixes if they’re on a different level.

 Togusa wrote:
Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.

Top turrets can also fire sideways (i.e. on the same level) so just go down to match them. And if you’re at alt.1 and they try to hide below, they die; either because they crashed like a doofus (no take backs, remember) or they landed and turned themselves into a sitting duck.

 Togusa wrote:
I got to play the game for the first time last night, and here are my thoughts.

First, what the hell is with the hit/dmg system? Why don't the planes have different BS? Having everything hit on a 6+ is just stupid. For 6 turns we just sat there throwing dice at each other and accomplishing nothing.

The movement diagrams are just downright confusing for a new player, I would have much preferred the movement system from X-wing, a lot of the time I noticed my opponent and I were just sitting there turning the graphs ten ways to sideways trying to figure out the correct way to move something.

Top gun turrets are worthless, your opponent is just going to stay below you, which is what my friend did all night last night. The "firing arcs" are annoying as gak and I was hoping for full 360 shooting al a 40K. No dice there though.

The guns on the imperial side (can't speak for orks) feel incredible weak. Again, given you will spend 90% of the game hitting on a 6+ makes any attack rolling less than 3 dice worthless. Laser cannons are worthless, fired them a total of 8 times last night, 1 hit, 1 damage.

Correct me if im wrong.

Basic "to hit" is 5+. You only get 6+ if shooting through different altitudes, or shooting at a stalling/spinning ship.
This does give imperials an advantage as their ships typically have higher service ceiling and thus can stay at an altitude the orks cannot reach so they can dictate the accuracy of shooting throughout the game. But the modifier goes both ways.

Weapons with "up" or "down" firing arcs (turrets etc) can still target ships that is at the same altitude so you shouldnt have much problems getting their shots off tbh.

I havent played enough to comment on how things are balanced or not but I, for one, find it kind of fresh to see a game where things seem to have some survivability to them. I prefer it if total annihilations is an uncommon thing.
I do wish there were a bit more to shooting and damage than currently but the little experience I have so far at least have been positive and im eager to get a few "real" games played before I make a final judgement.