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.

dont realy solve the issue for thouse of you who allready has lots of table mats, but purhaps this company can offer something?
https://www.deepcutstudio.com/custom-mats/

they say they can add 2 inch hex grid to all their mats.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
dont realy solve the issue for thouse of you who allready has lots of table mats, but purhaps this company can offer something?
https://www.deepcutstudio.com/custom-mats/

they say they can add 2 inch hex grid to all their mats.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll have to grab one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
dont realy solve the issue for thouse of you who allready has lots of table mats, but purhaps this company can offer something?
https://www.deepcutstudio.com/custom-mats/

they say they can add 2 inch hex grid to all their mats.

Lol they actually make a Aeronautica Imperialis mat with 2in hexes. Its called scorched skies.
Here is the link:

https://www.deepcutstudio.com/product/game-mat-scorched-sky/

 WhiteHaven wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
dont realy solve the issue for thouse of you who allready has lots of table mats, but purhaps this company can offer something?
https://www.deepcutstudio.com/custom-mats/

they say they can add 2 inch hex grid to all their mats.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll have to grab one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
dont realy solve the issue for thouse of you who allready has lots of table mats, but purhaps this company can offer something?
https://www.deepcutstudio.com/custom-mats/

they say they can add 2 inch hex grid to all their mats.

Lol they actually make a Aeronautica Imperialis mat with 2in hexes. Its called scorched skies.
Here is the link:

https://www.deepcutstudio.com/product/game-mat-scorched-sky/

I bought that exact mat!
I made it custom though, 4x4 size with thinner lines at 50% transperancy. Looks great and im loving it!

Deepcut's stuff looks awesome, that would be a pretty good (albeit expensive) solution!

There are Kinkos (in the US) stores that are professional copy/print centers with large format printers, I wonder if those can handle transparent plastic material in addition to paper for creating a hex overlay. There's one down by my GW I'll have to check out.

How are people finding the new version?

I love it and it is really fun, once you get the hang of the maneuvers and fire arc interactions.

The deepcut studios mat is kinda eh, it's the titanicus mat with clouds on it. But due to the airborne nature of AI it looks like the planes are flying too close to the ground. They should have shrank the visuals of the mat, really disappointing lack of effort there. The ground should look far away.

 Thargrim wrote:
The deepcut studios mat is kinda eh, it's the titanicus mat with clouds on it. But due to the airborne nature of AI it looks like the planes are flying too close to the ground. They should have shrank the visuals of the mat, really disappointing lack of effort there. The ground should look far away.

But its great if you wanna portray the action close enough to the ground to make Titans, spires and smokestacks as terrain!

 Thargrim wrote:
The deepcut studios mat is kinda eh, it's the titanicus mat with clouds on it. But due to the airborne nature of AI it looks like the planes are flying too close to the ground. They should have shrank the visuals of the mat, really disappointing lack of effort there. The ground should look far away.

Right now, i think anything is better then nothing, as GW only offers 3x3 cardboard and we dont even know when or even IF GW will release 6x4.

The city mats could be both bad and good. For high alt fights, yea they look off, but for say bombing missions or transport missions, i think they look decent enugh. If you dont want a city fight, mats like frostgrave dont look too bad either on first look.
As for the price, i dont know if it is whitin "normal" price range for a 6x4; 55 euro for pvc, 60 euro for cloth.

ofc a transparent grid overlay would be prolly better, but so far thouse of us that is searching cant find anyone that does it.

Finally assembled my second Thunderbolt, so my starter set is completely built!

Would've been faster if I had not dabbled in some tech heresy and converted my dakkajets to have different wing shapes, started a Tie fight-ork and Phantom from scrap and slowly turning one of the fighta-bommas from the box my brother gifted me into an A-10 (I just couldn't let that Fury autocannon go to waste, right) . AND running out of super glue, so no gluing stuff onto sculpted areas :I Thinking about turning two more fighta-bommas into a huge twin-fuselage monster to use as a Grot-Bommer or Eavy Bommer. I couldn't find pics on the Internet of Grot-Bommers, though, just the grot bombs.


PS: In part I had to convert the Dakkajets because two of them had their cute Little guns snapped off on the sprue :( I contacted Gw, they said to contact the seller, Wayland hasn't responded for a week after receiving pics, but I guess cut off rockets work well enough as guns :/

think we sadly can more or less expect that AI releases will be in utter snail pace.
only today did we get the first official grot bomber picture, but ofc no release date.......... and that it is a kit that uses the same frame as the eavy bomber....

at this point i am tempted to say; play the original if you got the planes.

Model question. I was building my Eavy Bommers and noticed that there are four kustom big shootas on the sprue but there's no option to "buy" them for the model in the rules. Am I missing some variant that uses them?

 Breotan wrote:
Model question. I was building my Eavy Bommers and noticed that there are four kustom big shootas on the sprue but there's no option to "buy" them for the model in the rules. Am I missing some variant that uses them?

Any ork aircraft can take them, it’s a 3pt upgrade, they’re one of the upgrades listed prior to the aircraft rules themselves.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
...they’re one of the upgrades listed prior to the aircraft rules themselves.

Thanks not sure how I missed that. :(

Played my first few games this past weekend and absolutely loved it. Gonna order the deep cuts mat asap but all in all that will be about 100$ and with Christmas so close that will most likely be Jan. Got 10 planes done so far with 4 more thunderbolts on the way.

I still have some questions, notably two that came up tonite.

In "bombing run" (mission 6) there is nothing restricting where the defenders ground assets is set-up. In other missions its mentioned that they are set-up within 6 hexes of the defenders edge, think this is the same in mission 6?


The rules for reserves are weird and I can see no reason or advantage whatsoever to keep any aircraft in reserves. They still deploy along the same table edge as the rest of the aircraft, and do so on an unspecified turn, making them unreliable.
Should the insane happen and they havent deployed when the game is over, they count as destroyed.

Can someone please tell me im missing something or what the reason would be to ever keep any aircraft in reserves?

Soulless wrote:
I still have some questions, notably two that came up tonite.

In "bombing run" (mission 6) there is nothing restricting where the defenders ground assets is set-up. In other missions its mentioned that they are set-up within 6 hexes of the defenders edge, think this is the same in mission 6?


The rules for reserves are weird and I can see no reason or advantage whatsoever to keep any aircraft in reserves. They still deploy along the same table edge as the rest of the aircraft, and do so on an unspecified turn, making them unreliable.
Should the insane happen and they havent deployed when the game is over, they count as destroyed.

Can someone please tell me im missing something or what the reason would be to ever keep any aircraft in reserves?

On the question of reserves, I could a benefit in a scenario with ground targets and bombers. If you have bombers and the enemy has ground targets, the enemy may well completely ignore your fighters in order to quickly remove the aircraft that can threaten their ground targets. If your bombers are in reserve, the enemy has turns where they either fight the targets that aren't going to be able to destroy the objectives, or just sit there eating shots from your fighters. It may even force the enemy to expend limited weapons like air-to-air missiles.

Then, you can introduce your bombers and try a quick bombing run after the enemy may be damaged, or out of position. You do risk not having enough time to fully utilize your bombers, but the bombers released so far can often release multiple bombs on one run, so often one good bombing run is all you need from a bomber.

Da Butcha wrote:

Soulless wrote:
I still have some questions, notably two that came up tonite.

In "bombing run" (mission 6) there is nothing restricting where the defenders ground assets is set-up. In other missions its mentioned that they are set-up within 6 hexes of the defenders edge, think this is the same in mission 6?


The rules for reserves are weird and I can see no reason or advantage whatsoever to keep any aircraft in reserves. They still deploy along the same table edge as the rest of the aircraft, and do so on an unspecified turn, making them unreliable.
Should the insane happen and they havent deployed when the game is over, they count as destroyed.

Can someone please tell me im missing something or what the reason would be to ever keep any aircraft in reserves?

On the question of reserves, I could a benefit in a scenario with ground targets and bombers. If you have bombers and the enemy has ground targets, the enemy may well completely ignore your fighters in order to quickly remove the aircraft that can threaten their ground targets. If your bombers are in reserve, the enemy has turns where they either fight the targets that aren't going to be able to destroy the objectives, or just sit there eating shots from your fighters. It may even force the enemy to expend limited weapons like air-to-air missiles.

Then, you can introduce your bombers and try a quick bombing run after the enemy may be damaged, or out of position. You do risk not having enough time to fully utilize your bombers, but the bombers released so far can often release multiple bombs on one run, so often one good bombing run is all you need from a bomber.

True, you could potentially find a benefit this way but IMO its VERY unlikely and far to risky.
To begin with your leaving part of your squadron to fight outnumbered and likely overwhelmed. Then, when your bomber(s) eventually arrive its unlikely they will get anywhere within range of the targets without the opposing squadron intercepting them.
Since the defender gets points not only for destroying enemy ships but also for any remaining structure points on the targets, I just dont see any situation where this would feel like a good idea.
It only feels like it would cripple myself.

If the craft arriving from reserve could enter through any edge of the area of engagement (like any typical outflanking in other games) I would see the benefits, but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc

Given bombers are relatively tough, it seems more useful to have them on early so the enemy has more targets to shoot at, and you can muster more shots per turn.

Soulless wrote:
...but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc

I get that feeling with a lot of the game. Bombers, for example, are actually far less efficient at bombing than fighters. Where a bomber is slow and will take a few turns to reach the target, you can equip fighters with a couple of bombs each and their speed means you can hit the targets much earlier. Meanwhile, a bomber, the Destroyer, is one of the most effective aircraft at air to air.

In the old version of the game those effects were balanced by fighters not being able to carry a significant bomb load and weapons like the Destroyer's fixed guns were labelled as "ground attack" so you couldn't shoot down enemy planes with them. They doubled (or more) the bomb load that fighters can carry which has made them more effective bombers than the actual bombers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Given bombers are relatively tough, it seems more useful to have them on early so the enemy has more targets to shoot at, and you can muster more shots per turn.

Soulless wrote:
...but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc

I get that feeling with a lot of the game. Bombers, for example, are actually far less efficient at bombing than fighters. Where a bomber is slow and will take a few turns to reach the target, you can equip fighters with a couple of bombs each and their speed means you can hit the targets much earlier. Meanwhile, a bomber, the Destroyer, is one of the most effective aircraft at air to air.

In the old version of the game those effects were balanced by fighters not being able to carry a significant bomb load and weapons like the Destroyer's fixed guns were labelled as "ground attack" so you couldn't shoot down enemy planes with them. They doubled (or more) the bomb load that fighters can carry which has made them more effective bombers than the actual bombers.

I hadnt even thought about that, but it agrees with the only bombing run mission ive played where the fightaboomers caused a lot more damage far easier than the eavy bomber could. Contributing to this is how rediculously openended the maneuvers are, very rarely does it feel as If the choice of maneuver mattered much as you can usually get in a good position for any situation no matter what.

I love air and space combat games, and am very much in love with this game. But im unsure if the ruleset in its current form can hold me interested for more than a few games. :/
They really need to get an errata up, and start to talk about competitive play.

I want the xwing of 40k, with all the brilliance of its ruleset and mechanics but without its token orgy and supercombos.

Soulless wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Given bombers are relatively tough, it seems more useful to have them on early so the enemy has more targets to shoot at, and you can muster more shots per turn.

Soulless wrote:
...but right now it feels like it was tacked on without any afterthought.
Which isnt unlikely since we still have segments in the rulebook describing measuring inches from targets etc

I get that feeling with a lot of the game. Bombers, for example, are actually far less efficient at bombing than fighters. Where a bomber is slow and will take a few turns to reach the target, you can equip fighters with a couple of bombs each and their speed means you can hit the targets much earlier. Meanwhile, a bomber, the Destroyer, is one of the most effective aircraft at air to air.

In the old version of the game those effects were balanced by fighters not being able to carry a significant bomb load and weapons like the Destroyer's fixed guns were labelled as "ground attack" so you couldn't shoot down enemy planes with them. They doubled (or more) the bomb load that fighters can carry which has made them more effective bombers than the actual bombers.

I hadnt even thought about that, but it agrees with the only bombing run mission ive played where the fightaboomers caused a lot more damage far easier than the eavy bomber could. Contributing to this is how rediculously openended the maneuvers are, very rarely does it feel as If the choice of maneuver mattered much as you can usually get in a good position for any situation no matter what.

I love air and space combat games, and am very much in love with this game. But im unsure if the ruleset in its current form can hold me interested for more than a few games. :/
They really need to get an errata up, and start to talk about competitive play.

I want the xwing of 40k, with all the brilliance of its ruleset and mechanics but without its token orgy and supercombos.

It sounds like the old version of AI is what you want.

It's unfortunate, but I think most of the changes to AI have been for the worse. At first I liked the idea of a hex board, but in reality it's too restrictive in that you can only turn in increments of 60°. But then on the flip side of being too restrictive, they made the manoeuvre options too open, so it doesn't make enough difference which manoeuvre you pick.

The old manoeuvre system was similar in that in total you had to move 2x your current speed in inches and at some point in that move you had to execute your manoeuvre, but most of the manoeuvres now you to make a 2nd turn at the end of the move where as the old system that was it, once you executed the manoeuvre you just had to move straight forward until you moved up the rest of your speed. The manoeuvres also interacted with your speed and altitude, some you could only do while climbing and you'd lose speed, others fixed you to a certain altitude and so on.

It made the game more about positioning, where as now it just feels like your objective is just to get guns on targets as many turns as possible, which isn't hard to do.

Still waiting for GW to release other armies. Orks and Hummies do not ring my bell unfortunately.

We really need to stop being surprised by half-assery from the GW rules team.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
We really need to stop being surprised by half-assery from the GW rules team.

Not surprised, just disappointed. They already had a solid game with the FW rules, a direct copy/paste would have worked out better than some of the ill considered changes, and would have required less work from GW.

 Blooddragon1981 wrote:
Still waiting for GW to release other armies. Orks and Hummies do not ring my bell unfortunately.

This is starting to make me antsy too. I actually love Orks and basic Imperials. Both are in my top-five factions. But… when there's NOTHING else for them to fight, and I can't get my Drukhari in there too, despite Eldar being an obviously great choice for the game, it feels pretty dang lacklustre and unfinished. I can understand leaving out more esoteric sub-factions like Grey Knights or Custodes or whatever, and leaving out armies like Tyranids or AdMech that don't use fast-moving aircraft, but a two-army game with such a limited range of unit choices just isn't very Warhammer to me. At least Titanicus has the excuse of being set in the Heresy, and that only the Imperium has actual titans, and that (maybe paradoxically?) "one faction you can customize a lot of different ways" feels a lot less restrictive than "two factions".

It's pretty new, just give it time.

I love it and just want to have more variety for others that could give 2 scheiss about Navy & orks.

need to pick up more dakka jets & grot bommerz

In a perfect world, I'd want the game to feature:

- Imperial Navy
- Orkz
- Adeptus Astartes
- Heretic Astartes
- Craftworld Eldar
- Drukhari
- T'au Empire
- Necrons

Tyranids would be cool in theory, but I just can't see their flyers maneuvering in an airplane / dogfight sort of way, and the rules are 100% built around that. Like a harridan would never stall out trying to gain altitude! Keeping it smaller and focused only on the factions that really do use actual planes would also make it easier to keep the game supported, profitable and balanced.

Edit: It occurs to me they could actually do this simply by adding three expansion boxes, maybe with a campaign for each - Space Marines vs Chaos Marines, Crafworlds vs Drukhari, T'au vs Necrons.

What flyers do chaos marines have?

Marines are low on my list, I know they’re the most popular in 40k but in terms of flyers they mostly suck. Out of many flyers the only half decent ones are the FW ones, which from my understanding are mostly 30k era rather than 40k.

I thought it was posted a few months back on a twitch stream with Andy Hoare that GW plan on adding a total of five factions into the game, but only if there is enough interest. Eldar were mentioned.

Write up was here:

https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/4130