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.

According to FW the missles and rockets for the Vulture are not included (don't think the cradles even were made) and are pictured for reference. I happen to also be missing a set of punisher cannons. GW is sending the cannons which is nice but not actually having the cradle weapons especially for their price is rather annoying to put it mildly.

Kinda not supprised.
They prolly banked on that we players would have spare bits from other planes.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Kinda not supprised.
They prolly banked on that we players would have spare bits from other planes.

Lol I would agree specifically if the bits used in the pictures were the same ones but they had special weapon cradles holding 3 each. Pity they look nice but I honestly can't say I'm surprised like you said. Annoyed though lol.

I was looking at the stats over Avenger vs Thunderbolt, i cant see any valid reason to select avenger over thunderbolt. Might have a bit more frontfacing firepower when upgraded, but if you want that, just get a valkyrie..

Is there any hidden reasons to use the Avenger??

The Avenger can slow down to 1 speed and has 1pt better handling which would be useful in low altitude scenarios. Whether that’s enough to offset the disadvantages even in that very specific role, I don’t think so. The thunderbolt has better firepower and 1 additional structure point with an extra point of throttle thrown in for good measure.

I haven’t played any games with the new models, but from my experience with Dakkajets, firepower and structure points are the most important stats, but the AI rule writers don’t seem to agree. For example, in the end a Barracuda and a Tiger Shark are very similar, the barracuda more agile but the Tiger Shark has 3 extra structure For only 3pts more, so I think on the table you’d almost always take the Tiger Shark over the cuda.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Kinda not supprised.
They prolly banked on that we players would have spare bits from other planes.

The odd thing is that bits from other imperial planes don't even fit on the vulture. The design of the connecting points is different and I've have to cut them off to make my double rocket pod vulture.

Doesn't look really thought through to me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The Avenger can slow down to 1 speed and has 1pt better handling which would be useful in low altitude scenarios. Whether that’s enough to offset the disadvantages even in that very specific role, I don’t think so. The thunderbolt has better firepower and 1 additional structure point with an extra point of throttle thrown in for good measure.

I haven’t played any games with the new models, but from my experience with Dakkajets, firepower and structure points are the most important stats, but the AI rule writers don’t seem to agree. For example, in the end a Barracuda and a Tiger Shark are very similar, the barracuda more agile but the Tiger Shark has 3 extra structure For only 3pts more, so I think on the table you’d almost always take the Tiger Shark over the cuda.

Yea, kinda the samereasoning i came up with, that 1 hullpoint would be more important then the tiny difference in handling, and with just one numbervalue in difference between the damage of the weps like i said i saw no reasons for the Avenger.
Its sad realy, both of the new fighters are great visual models, just made usless by the existence of the Thunderbolt.

As for the tau, we realy need the Remora drones asap. You can dump a huge amount of points in the cudas and sharks making them to a point worth their points difference, but nothing to protect that investment with!
Simply too early to play them.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The Avenger can slow down to 1 speed and has 1pt better handling which would be useful in low altitude scenarios. Whether that’s enough to offset the disadvantages even in that very specific role, I don’t think so. The thunderbolt has better firepower and 1 additional structure point with an extra point of throttle thrown in for good measure.

I haven’t played any games with the new models, but from my experience with Dakkajets, firepower and structure points are the most important stats, but the AI rule writers don’t seem to agree. For example, in the end a Barracuda and a Tiger Shark are very similar, the barracuda more agile but the Tiger Shark has 3 extra structure For only 3pts more, so I think on the table you’d almost always take the Tiger Shark over the cuda.

Yea, kinda the samereasoning i came up with, that 1 hullpoint would be more important then the tiny difference in handling, and with just one numbervalue in difference between the damage of the weps like i said i saw no reasons for the Avenger.
Its sad realy, both of the new fighters are great visual models, just made usless by the existence of the Thunderbolt.

As for the tau, we realy need the Remora drones asap. You can dump a huge amount of points in the cudas and sharks making them to a point worth their points difference, but nothing to protect that investment with!
Simply too early to play them.

I dunno about Remoras, I'm looking forward to some models simply because I think they'll be cool models, but I'm not sure they're worth it. They're roughly half the points of a Tiger Shark, with roughly half the capacity to deal damage, but only 1 structure point while the Tiger Shark has 5.

For the Tau, it really seems like Tiger Sharks are going to be the backbone, basically similar to how Fighter Bombers became the backbone of many Ork squadrons due to the Dakkajet being too easy to swat out of the sky.

But if you look too hard at the balance of different aircraft a few things look wonky. Anything with 2 structure points looks pretty weedy next to anything with 3+ structure points like Thunderbolts, Valkyries and Tiger Sharks, especially with the low firepower of some of those 2 structure point aircraft.

Look at the Lightning next to the Thunderbolt Fury, on average the Lightning needs 5 full turns of shooting to down a Fury, but the Fury only needs 1 turn (on average) to down the Lightning. The Lightning is more manvoeuvrable, but that big of a discrepancy is pretty hard to overcome with the couple of extra manoeuvre options.

EDIT: Maybe if we get a Manta in the future the Remoras and Barracudas will become more useful, since the Manta will likely have a big slab of structure points making it more viable to take low-structure support aircraft. Similar to how I think taking an Eavy Bomber makes Dakkajets more viable.

Well you cant expect a scout class to be too strong now can you?

They fill the part that is missing from tau currently; cheap short range fokused aircraft. I intend to use my drones as either escorts for the sharks, or as distraction. That they have jinx might help things too.

I guess my point is they need to be a lot cheaper. At roughly half the firepower but one fifth the structure points of a Tiger Shark, they in turn need to be a lot less than half the points cost of a Tiger Shark to make them worth taking. Otherwise you're just getting the same damage-per-points at a lot less endurance-per-points. Rather than taking them as escorts for Tiger Sharks, you'd be better off just taking more Tiger Sharks, the only disadvantage I can see is having less models and the person with more models gets an advantage in letting their important aircraft move after their opponent has moved theirs.

The games I've played were about maximising structure points and firepower. Damned near everything else was secondary.

well, i think we know know the next big wave is going to be orks as they gave us prev of a plane that is not in the current books: The Mega Bommer.

Warning, Resin kit, aka Forge World!








It is realy great that orks gets a new toy, but is the game ready for "super sized" planes??

What's the problem with a bigger plane? It costs about as much two or three smaller ones, which alone isn't too bad, and it still only takes a single hex. I doubt it's warping the game to be about air whales, as it will still be hammered to bits by a flock of nimbler gunboats.

It is just the 10 structure that feels out of place on a single plane.

I don't think there's any problem with it being structure 10, at first glance it doesn't look to have a lot of firepower given its high points cost. It has lots of individual guns but all the 1-1-0-5+ guns are so puny I think people will forget to even shoot them, the 2-1-0-4+ guns are a bit better bit still pretty unlikely to do any damage. The flak cannon is the only thing with a bit of punch.

I think if anything it's going to end up acting like a focal point for scenarios. Like doing a canyon run where that's the target.

I'm glad they made it speed 5... though unfortunately the Eavy Bomber is speed 4 so any epic bomber formations will be broken up. Hopefully they errata the Eavy Bomber to be speed 5 because I always felt that was just a little bit too slow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just had a dig through the old Aeronautica rules (Forge World ones) and the Manta was 14 structure points and 96pts, the Chaos Harbinger was 12 structure points and 64pts. Back then structure points weren't given out as freely as they are now (all fighters were 2 structure pts, even the Thunderbolt and Fighta Bommer, and the Marauders only had 4pts).

I want to see thunderhawks! Wish stuff like the Vultures and mega bommer were not resin but ohh well.

Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.

Maybe with the Mega-Bommer out, they will release the harbinger for Chaos when they come out? I hope so.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.

Not to mention that they don't even give you all the weapon options they show for the Vulture.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.

I thought specialist games basically was a FW operation which was given some plastic casting resources to make it more mainstream.

But yeah, given 2 puny Vultures cost as much as they did, the Mega Bommer I'm sure will hit the wallet hard. If it's not completely insane I'll get one, but I have my limits, I've spent close to $1000AUD on this version of AI and now I'm starting to get a bit more cautious with what I buy (skipped the Avengers, Grot Bommers and Vultures).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Yea idk why they want to involve FW for all their specialist games, dont they have enugh to do with 30k?
One thing is for shure, the mega bommer is going to be super expensive.

I thought specialist games basically was a FW operation which was given some plastic casting resources to make it more mainstream.

But yeah, given 2 puny Vultures cost as much as they did, the Mega Bommer I'm sure will hit the wallet hard. If it's not completely insane I'll get one, but I have my limits, I've spent close to $1000AUD on this version of AI and now I'm starting to get a bit more cautious with what I buy (skipped the Avengers, Grot Bommers and Vultures).

Vultures are too much of what I like for me to have passed on them. Funny though when I got them they were missing a set of punisher cannons. FW sent me another full set rather than just the guns. So all in all I paid nearly the same for 4 as I would for any fighter.

So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

IMO, the game is...decent. Not much more or less. Personally Im disappointed as I had expected much more but that is probably a mistake on my end.
Id say its a rather dull game with huge potential.

The best part of the game is building and painting the models, they are nothing short of amazing!

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

I have a group of 4 people I play with and I love the game personally. 2 orks players, 1 tau (maybe a second 1 ork player was thinking of picking them up), and 1 Imperial player (me). Never played the original. I bought a 6x4 mat from game mat eu I think and that helped with bigger games for sure.

@Togusa:

It's a quickfire alternating actions dog fighting game where players try to keep track of where and how fast both sides' planes are going while maneuvering to keep in optimal ranges, denying their opponent the chance to do the same. Hitting is hard but planes usually can't take too many hits either. As with historical war, the best scenarios are those where you're trying to do something else than simply beating the snot out of the other guy: transporting troops, conducting bombing runs, chasing important targets, busting dams and what not as the defenders desperately scramble to intercept.

In comparison to older AI, X-Wing and such it is pretty forgiving (you can decide which direction you turn after already commiting to a maneuver, as an example) which rubs some folks the wrong way, but that's easy to homerule if more challenge is desired.

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

It plays okay but not great.

Games are fast to play and you can get through a few in an afternoon, but I find it lacks depth and too easily turns into a clusterfeck in the middle of the board.

GW are pushing it more as a scenario driven game, which is kinda good on the one hand, but on the other hand the way the game plays often the best way to win a scenario is just to try and wipe out the opposition regardless of what the actual objective might be.

Unfortunately as someone who played the original AI game from FW, this one feels like a downgrade. Compared to the original AI, GW made what looks to be some minor changes but fundamentally altered how the game plays, where the original game required you to think several turns in advance and over the course of a game you would only shoot down a small portion of the enemy aircraft which forced you to focus on objectives, the new rules mean you're usually only thinking as far as the next shooting phase and wiping the opponent off the table is a realistic strategy whilst ignoring objectives.

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.

The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?

 Togusa wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.

The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?

no, not offical GW, but you can get a 3rd party ork plane inspired by the AC-130. If you go 1 page back you can see it.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.

The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?

no, not offical GW, but you can get a 3rd party ork plane inspired by the AC-130. If you go 1 page back you can see it.

I wonder if they'll expand the aircraft then with this game?

Oh also, I got to play it with a friend tonight. I found it to be rather enjoyable, not perfect but a fun little game.

 Togusa wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
So I walked into my local GW store this past weekend, intent on buying "something" out of boredom. Walked out with a Box of Thunderbolts, a Box of Marauders, and a box of Destroyers.

These kits are amazing. Each one was an absolute joy to build and once I got them all put together and primed, I just sat there looking at them thinking "God these are awesome."

So.

How...how does the game play?

Kinda summs up everyones impression, the models are solid 10/10, the game itself 6 or 7/10 (if you are looking for a good GW game but dont want to go into the main 3, look at titanicus)
The game is not bad, it is just not IMO properly done.
Treat it as a spin-off game suitable for situations where time is limited or for the times you simply dont want a "serious" game to play, just roll some dices.

The models are absolutely gorgeous. The more I look at my Marauders the more I keep thinking that an AC-130 equilevent in 40K would be sick! Rapidfire Battlecannon, Punisher Gattling Cannon, Maybe like a Quad-las or Autocannon? Lol, do they even have something like that in 40K fluff?

no, not offical GW, but you can get a 3rd party ork plane inspired by the AC-130. If you go 1 page back you can see it.

I wonder if they'll expand the aircraft then with this game?

Oh also, I got to play it with a friend tonight. I found it to be rather enjoyable, not perfect but a fun little game.

Yeah, it’s a fun little diversion but it does lack the tactical depth of the original. Literally; there used to be nine altitudes. Though the hex grid does remove most of the arguing about position, I miss the freedom of the 1st edition.
I wonder if there’s a market for replacement dials marked 0-9…