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.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
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.

My opponent constantly bumped his levels to always be above or below. I.E. Might as well be 6+ to hit because 8/10 times that is what I got.

I need to get a copy of the rules because I have a feeling there are things my teacher didn't tell me about the game.

 Togusa wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
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.

My opponent constantly bumped his levels to always be above or below. I.E. Might as well be 6+ to hit because 8/10 times that is what I got.

I need to get a copy of the rules because I have a feeling there are things my teacher didn't tell me about the game.

Its alternating activations, if he moves a ship up/down, you move your next ship to equal level. And so on.
It isnt possible for either player to constantly stay out of altitude, unless you have an entier squadron that has a higher max-altitude than your opponent. Which will cripple yourself equally so its not a very effective strategy!

To add to my previous reply, I also had problems with the maneuvers, constantly had to twist and turn the cheatsheet to get good grasp of how to move my craft. But its definitely something that will come with experience.
But I agree that it can be a turnoff for new players.
I wish the cardpacks came with each maneuver printed on a card for easy reference.

 Togusa wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
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.

My opponent constantly bumped his levels to always be above or below. I.E. Might as well be 6+ to hit because 8/10 times that is what I got.

I need to get a copy of the rules because I have a feeling there are things my teacher didn't tell me about the game.

The rulebook is floating out there on the internet if you’d like to read the rules before buying anything.

Interesting complaints, I don't necessarily think this a game for everyone, but I actually think it's one of the better rules out there.

 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.

As someone mentioned before, the game is alternating activations, so you should be able to get on the same altitude as your opponent most of the time, making it a 5+ to hit.

The game is designed in a way that planes are not super easy to shoot down, so that things like "tailing fire" becomes important to really boost your chance of shooting down an enemy plane.

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.

You do have to carefully read the rules for movement to understand how the diagrams work. The first game I played being led through by a store manager he was incorrectly using the movement diagrams, but if you actually read the rules and examine the example diagram they give you in the rules, it becomes pretty simple.

After 1 or 2 games it should become pretty instinctive as there's only 6 manoeuvres that can be done with the planes that are currently out, you're basically looking at where the arrows are point. to figure out how tight the manoeuvre is.

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.

You need to exploit the alternate activations and initiative system to ensure you stay at a favourable altitude relative to your opponent.

Squadrons with more aircraft are at a bit of an advantage, but at the end of the day your opponent can only run so far before you're both at altitude 1. The idea with turret armed bombers is that you can still use your fighters to somewhat control your opponent.

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

I definitely agree with that. I think the game would have benefited hugely by staying 6mm scale (instead of going up to 8mm) so that the bases could be smaller and you can fit more hexes on a table. When the table is only 15 to 20 hexes long / wide and aircraft can cover most of that distance in a single turn, it's hard to keep your opponent at the optimal range.

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.

Sounds like you were having altitude issues. Most games I've played so far the shooting has mostly been done at 5+ to hit.

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.

Definitely give it another go and have a read through the rules to make sure your opponent isn't trying to cheat you. Maybe it's not for you, but I found it really fun once I got my head around it, which only took a couple of games because the rules are pretty simple.

The game is all about manoeuvring, you have to out manoeuvre your opponent so that you get the opportunity to throw more dice and improve your chances of blowing them out of the sky.

Is there a wysiwyg requirement for the bombs? If so, are there preferred loadouts?

 Breotan wrote:
Is there a wysiwyg requirement for the bombs? If so, are there preferred loadouts?

I dont think so, guess its each to their own but i wont bother with wysiwyg in this one.

Thanks, Soulless.

I'm willing to do wysiwyg on the noses of the aircraft but the bombs are just too large a matrix for me to be able to deal with.

 Breotan wrote:
Thanks, Soulless.

I'm willing to do wysiwyg on the noses of the aircraft but the bombs are just too large a matrix for me to be able to deal with.

I mean, on this scale you can hardly see the difference of the different thunderbolts at tabletop distance, and youll never see the difference of the wing hardpoints unless you pick up and turn the model around. Going wysiwyg can be fun and thematic but I wouldnt imagine it to become a requirement for this game.

In the other AI thread on this forum someone posted pics of the thunderbolt with the front section magnetised so they could swap out the main weapon between the regular and marauder. Seemed to be pretty easy and quick enough to do, I guess that could be an option if you enjoy tinkering with the models

You don’t even have to magnetise the thunderbolt noses, as the nose slips between the fuselage piece and the wing piece quite easily.

My problem is I was going to airbrush a camo scheme on my Imperial aircraft, and doing that I won’t be able to get the Camo pattern to match if I’m swapping out noses.

On the Orks I don’t like the aesthetic of the beaky Dakkajets, so I’m considering hacking the noses off the beaks to make them look more like the traditional mig15-esque Ork fighters. Doing so will mean losing the nose guns off the aircraft, hopefully no one takes issue with that.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You don’t even have to magnetise the thunderbolt noses, as the nose slips between the fuselage piece and the wing piece quite easily.

My problem is I was going to airbrush a camo scheme on my Imperial aircraft, and doing that I won’t be able to get the Camo pattern to match if I’m swapping out noses.

On the Orks I don’t like the aesthetic of the beaky Dakkajets, so I’m considering hacking the noses off the beaks to make them look more like the traditional mig15-esque Ork fighters. Doing so will mean losing the nose guns off the aircraft, hopefully no one takes issue with that.

I’m thinking the exact same thing.

Other than plane for plane, at this scale things are so tiny or otherwise hard to see (under wing bombs etc), one would hope the vast majority of players don’t enforce strict WYSIWYG.

Long as I can tell what I’m facing, such as a Thunderbolt or a Thunderbolt Fury, what exactly it’s packing under its wings can be declared from game to game.

So for Fightas, if you conversion work removes the guns, but it’s otherwise still clearly a Fighta? What is the actual difference to me as your opponent?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


On the Orks I don’t like the aesthetic of the beaky Dakkajets, so I’m considering hacking the noses off the beaks to make them look more like the traditional mig15-esque Ork fighters. Doing so will mean losing the nose guns off the aircraft, hopefully no one takes issue with that.

why would they?
all of the dakka jets has guns on the wings. remove the entire front if you so wish but the planes still has guns aslong as you dont remove thouse on the wing aswell.

as for missiles/bombs, you only see the tip of them anyways so aslong as you make it very clear before the game starts, what plane has what, it aint a problem. (maybe make a token system on the base for easier track of what plane uses what)

I think tokens on the bases or cards are easier to see than tiny little WYSIWYG ordinance under the wings. The biggest thing is making it clear to your opponent and to you what is armed with what. If I have equally good shots at two bombers, one who's dropped his ordinance and one who hasn't, I need to be able to tell which is the better the target.

This is one thing I love about AT, looking across the table I can very clearly see what your Warlord or Reaver has!

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I think tokens on the bases or cards are easier to see than tiny little WYSIWYG ordinance under the wings. The biggest thing is making it clear to your opponent and to you what is armed with what. If I have equally good shots at two bombers, one who's dropped his ordinance and one who hasn't, I need to be able to tell which is the better the target.

This is one thing I love about AT, looking across the table I can very clearly see what your Warlord or Reaver has!

fosho

They should've made a flight terminal ALA Titanicus.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I think tokens on the bases or cards are easier to see than tiny little WYSIWYG ordinance under the wings. The biggest thing is making it clear to your opponent and to you what is armed with what. If I have equally good shots at two bombers, one who's dropped his ordinance and one who hasn't, I need to be able to tell which is the better the target.

This is one thing I love about AT, looking across the table I can very clearly see what your Warlord or Reaver has!

fosho

They should've made a flight terminal ALA Titanicus.

That would have been nice!

So, now that the game's been out a little while and people has been able to actually play it, what's the general feeling? Is it any good?

I've been watching some actual play videos and it might be me, but I'm feeling it a tad lacking, tbh. I come from Blue Max/Canvas Eagles and X-Wing, and the general feeling I got from what I've seen is that maneuvers are kind of waaaaay too flexible, at least for my tastes. Choosing a specific maneuver limits you not much at all and most of the actual decisions on the movements are made while you're actually moving; that kind of bothers me because I personally prefer the uncertainty.

I've also heard grumblings about the general to hit chances, and that it ends up being more of a game of "hunting for 6s" than of actual strategy. Plus, the limited size of the core's playing zone seems to favor the orks a bit much.

So... what are people's opinions on the game?

 Albertorius wrote:

So... what are people's opinions on the game?

We are quite getting into it - the game is more hunt the 5's than 6's, and the manoeuvres give a nice amount of flexibility while still limiting options. We are about to dive into a full campaign!

 Albertorius wrote:
So, now that the game's been out a little while and people has been able to actually play it, what's the general feeling? Is it any good?

I've been watching some actual play videos and it might be me, but I'm feeling it a tad lacking, tbh. I come from Blue Max/Canvas Eagles and X-Wing, and the general feeling I got from what I've seen is that maneuvers are kind of waaaaay too flexible, at least for my tastes. Choosing a specific maneuver limits you not much at all and most of the actual decisions on the movements are made while you're actually moving; that kind of bothers me because I personally prefer the uncertainty.

I've also heard grumblings about the general to hit chances, and that it ends up being more of a game of "hunting for 6s" than of actual strategy. Plus, the limited size of the core's playing zone seems to favor the orks a bit much.

So... what are people's opinions on the game?

This is my feeling, generally “meh”, after reading the rules (starter and the Rynn’s World book). I come from the same background of Blue Max, etc., and was underwhelmed. I will likely use the models to play AI v1, or will work up some other mod. I likely won’t play it straight from the box, particularly with unlimited ammo for most weapons.

This was a release I was really looking forward to, and I’m fairly disappointed, although the models are rather nice (the only saving grace for me). Even though I will be unlikely to buy anything else.

 Albertorius wrote:
So, now that the game's been out a little while and people has been able to actually play it, what's the general feeling? Is it any good?

I've been watching some actual play videos and it might be me, but I'm feeling it a tad lacking, tbh. I come from Blue Max/Canvas Eagles and X-Wing, and the general feeling I got from what I've seen is that maneuvers are kind of waaaaay too flexible, at least for my tastes. Choosing a specific maneuver limits you not much at all and most of the actual decisions on the movements are made while you're actually moving; that kind of bothers me because I personally prefer the uncertainty.

I've also heard grumblings about the general to hit chances, and that it ends up being more of a game of "hunting for 6s" than of actual strategy. Plus, the limited size of the core's playing zone seems to favor the orks a bit much.

So... what are people's opinions on the game?

Ive not played much, only a 2 games using the starter.
My feeling so far though is similar to yours about the maneuvers. It feels weird to say it but I would like for them to be more limited.

Im torn on the simple tohit/wound rules, on the one hand I like that they are quick and easy but on the other hand it feels like most weapons are just the same.

I just dont know how I feel yet, need more and bigger games. Currently im enjoying the heck out of painting the models though!

I fell like, at the very least, you should have to select "R" or "L" when choosing maneuver, even if the rest stays the same.

It seems like a downgrade from the previous version, which was really one of GW/FWs most tactical games.

Pretty much what I expected to happen! The scale change really bothers me to an irrational degree, even if it didn't with Blood Bowl.

That being said, I look forward to the expansions and will consider upgrading my forces based on what comes next. I always have AI v1 and no one can take it away from me, so why not make room for AI v2?

 Easy E wrote:
It seems like a downgrade from the previous version, which was really one of GW/FWs most tactical games.

Pretty much what I expected to happen! The scale change really bothers me to an irrational degree, even if it didn't with Blood Bowl.

That being said, I look forward to the expansions and will consider upgrading my forces based on what comes next. I always have AI v1 and no one can take it away from me, so why not make room for AI v2?

I pretty much a agree with all that. It’s been quite a few years since I last played the original AI, but I don’t remember it turning in to a clusterfeck with a mess of planes in the middle of the table trying to hurl as many dice as possible at each other like seems to happen in this one.

Also the scale change really hurts the gameplay. The scale change in BB didn’t actually affect the game, but in AI the planes (or more importantly, the bases) have gotten bigger and the gaming area smaller, you don’t have the space to do long high speed sweeping attacks across the battlefield.

I think maybe the game needs some more “to hit” modifiers and bring back ammo limits to encourage outmanoeuvring your opponent even if it takes several turns, rather than just trying to keep them in your fire arc every turn so you get to throw more dice. Tailing fire is a good idea but it’s not worth giving up turns of shooting to strive for it.

On the plus side the hex movement really speeds up how the game is played and in a good way, the boards are just too small and due to the scale increase I think they’ll always be a bit too small (even a 4’ wide board isn’t big enough when the hexes are 2” big).

And I do love the models, have already bought a bunch and plan on buying more when they come out.

To me it feels like you shouldn't really be going past 100 points on a 3x3 table, 4x4 might be okay for 150 points. The more planes you run the more of a clusterf it becomes and the same becomes true IMO for any game like this, including X wing ( I still prefer 2-4 ships per side in X wing matches). I do kind of like the simplicity of the game, especially the to hit/wound system. A lot of other games like Necromunda require too many rolls to accomplish anything, and then you have to make cool checks and it's just too much for me.

The hex based movement reduces the room for error, as opposed to people fudging their measuring or using templates to move which can get fiddly. I really think if they release a 4x4 board though the game will open up a lot more.

edit: the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release. The sustainability in a gaming group of a game like this with only two factions isn't very good. I can probably help local interest get going for a few months but at a certain point people will want to play something else if there isn't a proper lineup of options.

 Thargrim wrote:
the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.

To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...

SamusDrake wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.

To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...

I don't think we'll see a third until feb/march next year. November this year is the eavy bommer and possibly grot bommer, december doesn't really see many significant releases. At best I think we'll see a new faction announced before the end of the year, but not released.

 Thargrim wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.

To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...

I don't think we'll see a third until feb/march next year. November this year is the eavy bommer and possibly grot bommer, december doesn't really see many significant releases. At best I think we'll see a new faction announced before the end of the year, but not released.

If we see a third faction anytime before next September, I'll be very surprised. We've still got the Avenger and Lightning from the Imperial Navy not to mention the Fighta, Wazbom Blastajet, Burna-Bommer, and Blitza-Bommer for the Orks (I expect the Burna and Blitza will be a combo kit).

When a third faction does get released, it will either be Guard or a new set with two new factions such as Guard and Chaos.

 Breotan wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
the game also desperately needs a couple more factions, which I hope don't take too long to release.

To be fair they've only just released the game and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least a third faction this side of Christmas. It seems more likely to be a question of which faction they'll go for next...

I don't think we'll see a third until feb/march next year. November this year is the eavy bommer and possibly grot bommer, december doesn't really see many significant releases. At best I think we'll see a new faction announced before the end of the year, but not released.

If we see a third faction anytime before next September, I'll be very surprised. We've still got the Avenger and Lightning from the Imperial Navy not to mention the Fighta, Wazbom Blastajet, Burna-Bommer, and Blitza-Bommer for the Orks (I expect the Burna and Blitza will be a combo kit).

When a third faction does get released, it will either be Guard or a new set with two new factions such as Guard and Chaos.

If they really think they could drag two factions out that far i'd be surprised, it kinda contradicts what was said in the twitch stream. Scout craft for the current two factions were mentioned, if I remember correctly. And something about new factions arriving sooner than you think. When it comes to the word soon though I am not inclined to believe it will line up with my idea of soon, which is less than four months or so. But the rulebook has a lore paragraph that more or less alludes to five factions, being imperial, orks, necrons, chaos, tau. To me that was too on the nose and i'm thinking we might not see eldar until much later if at all. To be honest I have no interest in seeing the burna bommer, blastajet whatever, cause in this game rules wise i'm not sure they stand out as different enough in terms of their mechanics at this scale. The basic dakkajet already rolls 8 dice at close range, what are they going to do with the burna bommer then? I don't expect to see those (they look like basic variations of the same craft). I do expect to see the lightning, and weak light scout craft for each faction though.

Has anyone thought of using the titanicus bunkers, etc for AI?

I picked up the starter set earlier this week and have the Dakkajets built (minus the bombs/missles). I too hope additional factions come sooner rather than later. The initial releases definitely nickel and dimes us from the start, but I am content to build the basic planes and add on to two or three of the factions later on (mostly play WH with my two boys).

The models look great and I like the rules at a glance, but I'd like to see some better maps and more fleshed out roles. It currently feels like a beta release with an entry cost of at least $90, but I knew that going in. I think AI will really "take off" once roles like transports come into play to spice things up.

It would have been nice to get the Ork and Imperium Cards with the starter set given the cheap paper mat, but I may end up picking those up if we enjoy the base game. I'd also like to see GW release the individual model rules online as the rule books only cover Ork/Imperium and I feel that offshoot games like this are the perfect candidates for "free rules." Having to drop $30-$40 to use a new faction will kill all of the interest I currently have.

I hope to have everything built by the weekend to get a few games in, then I will give some updated thoughts.

Honestly speaking, the starter is...thin. Too thin to really be a standalone game, and too annoying for boardgamers, which should have been one of the main targets.

Things as they are, this will only be of interest to people already invested in GW, I think.