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.

Ammo is fine, but the number had to make sense or they should let the player decide how they distribute their ammunition among the guns, or had to sacrifice hardpoint for it.

The Marauder destroyer in the original AI can fire its main gun 2 times, while the turrets had unlimited ammo, apparently 1000 rounds of ammo for each turret is enough for 12 turns.

With sustained burst and tailing fire rule, you can run out of ammo quickly even if they give you 10-12 shots.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.

The hexes just mean you don’t need awkward maneuver cards. X-Wing’s templates were an improvement over WoW/G’s cards, at least IMO. Hexes are a cleaner solution than either.

Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.

The hexes just mean you don’t need awkward maneuver cards. X-Wing’s templates were an improvement over WoW/G’s cards, at least IMO. Hexes are a cleaner solution than either.

Which is funny when you think about it, because both are downgrades from the earlier Blue Max's/Canvas Eagles' system, which uses hexes with flightpath maneuvers, much in the same way as X-Wing but without any of the uncertainty:



I must admit that, from what I've seen on videos, for me the regular AI system provides too much freedom in how exactly you can perform your maneuver, and selecting a maneuver really limits you very slightly. I personally prefer you having to choose the full maneuver before knowing what the other player is going to do, which also handly removes the need for a IGUGO movement activation.

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Still with the hexes it's obvious they're going for a much more abstracted "game-y" experience this time around, so I get why they didn't do it even if I dislike it.

The hexes just mean you don’t need awkward maneuver cards. X-Wing’s templates were an improvement over WoW/G’s cards, at least IMO. Hexes are a cleaner solution than either.

I don't agree, in either regard. The cards weren't any more or less "awkward" than a ruler and the hexes don't "just mean" not having to use them, the additional layer of abstraction means they have a big impact on how the game plays and how planes maneuver; again, under the new system, the supposedly-focused-on-ground-attack Marauder Destroyer is arguably one of the best superiority fighters, because the combination of hexes functionally increasing maneuverability and unlimited ammo make it easier to keep it nose-on with even enemy fighter craft for more of the game, and it can just blaze away with all weapons continually.

Hexes also affect the feel of the game, giving much more of a boardgame flavour to proceedings. Some folk like that, but personally it's not what I'm looking for from a wargame - if I want to play boardgames, I play boardgames.

 Yodhrin wrote:
The cards weren't any more or less "awkward" than a ruler

Disagree here. They really were more awkward because of how you had to insert the card in the middle of the measurement and line everything up correctly with cards that weren't very well suited for the job. With hexes you get most of the same functionality but with much less ambiguity in where a model is and who bumped which model how far, etc. I have some major problems with how open-ended the maneuvers are and think that it should be more like X-Wing with having to commit to a particular direction, but moving to a hex grid was a major improvement.

Also, supposedly AI 1.0 was supposed to use hexes from the beginning and the cards were an awkward workaround to cope with the fact that GW wasn't willing/able to do the hex grid maps it would require.

under the new system, the supposedly-focused-on-ground-attack Marauder Destroyer is arguably one of the best superiority fighters, because the combination of hexes functionally increasing maneuverability and unlimited ammo make it easier to keep it nose-on with even enemy fighter craft for more of the game, and it can just blaze away with all weapons continually.

That isn't a hex grid problem, it's a problem with GW's incomprehensible unit design choices for it. GW never should have removed the ground attack only rule from the Destroyer's primary weapons, and absolutely shouldn't have given it the ability to deploy ground troops (!!!) or carry AA missiles. A properly designed Destroyer is no better as an AA unit than it was in 1.0.

Hexes also affect the feel of the game, giving much more of a boardgame flavour to proceedings. Some folk like that, but personally it's not what I'm looking for from a wargame - if I want to play boardgames, I play boardgames.

This is an odd statement to make given how many classic wargames were based on grid systems of various shapes.

Destroyer never had "Ground attack rule"

And if anything this game doesn't need, it's more dedicated ground attack unit, save those for epic. Almost everything in 40k is a dedicated ground attack unit, they even said Skystrike missile is rare, because no one use them, and they can just use Hellstrike missile to shoot at aircraft instead.

Chopstick wrote:
Destroyer never had "Ground attack rule"

And if anything this game doesn't need, it's more dedicated ground attack unit, save those for epic. Almost everything in 40k is a dedicated ground attack unit, they even said Skystrike missile is rare, because no one use them, and they can just use Hellstrike missile to shoot at aircraft instead.

Disagree strongly. One of the biggest strengths of AI 1.0 was its focus on realistic scenario objectives and roles for its units, and dedicated ground attack aircraft are part of that. Fluff-wise they should have minimal AA ability, and that's what the rules should represent.

Why hexes?

Nice and precise movement.

 Peregrine wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Destroyer never had "Ground attack rule"

Disagree strongly. One of the biggest strengths of AI 1.0 was its focus on realistic scenario objectives and roles for its units, and dedicated ground attack aircraft are part of that. Fluff-wise they should have minimal AA ability, and that's what the rules should represent.

Alright, I think looking at the new rule for too long had my memory mixed up.

The original AI isn't short of Ground attack unit for the Imperium, all of the aircrafts are or can be used as ground attack, meanwhile how many can be effective in the air? Thunderbolt, Lightning, Thunderhawk, and maybe Destroyer if you can steer the unlimited ammo turret (for some reason) to where you want to shoot. (it's dumb)

Ehh no I don't think this game need more ground attack unit, maybe attacking the ground (in an air combat game) would be more interesting if they made tiny tanks and tiny soldiers instead of fake bunker door, and called it Epic.

Chopstick wrote:
The original AI isn't short of Ground attack unit for the Imperium, all of the aircrafts are or can be used as ground attack, meanwhile how many can be effective in the air? Thunderbolt, Lightning, Thunderhawk, and maybe Destroyer if you can steer the unlimited ammo turret (for some reason) to where you want to shoot. (it's dumb)

Well yes, that's the point. AI 1.0 represents how real-world air combat works, with separation between air superiority fighters and ground attack aircraft (and some multi-role aircraft/configurations that can do both). It's absolutely intended that not all units in your list are capable of engaging air targets effectively because you're supposed to be using your air superiority fighters to escort them to the ground targets that are the mission objective. Stop thinking of AI as a boring "line up your units and slaughter each other until one side is dead" and start thinking of it as a simulation of real-world air combat and tactics, where destroying enemy aircraft is just a means to an end and you can accomplish the mission without a single air to air kill.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I must admit that, from what I've seen on videos, for me the regular AI system provides too much freedom in how exactly you can perform your maneuver, and selecting a maneuver really limits you very slightly. I personally prefer you having to choose the full maneuver before knowing what the other player is going to do, which also handly removes the need for a IGUGO movement activation.

This is very much true. We had alot of testgames last night in our gaming club, and initially we thought that we had misread the rules. Truth ist that the Maneuvre #5 for example allows the Dakkajets to just turn in almost any direction, fly an arbitrary length from there, and then reorient in whichever way they like. Starting out somewhere aimed at the middle of the Board, they can always bring aim to bear to anywhere on the board - there is not actually any subtlety or forethought necessary, because you have 3 different directions to chose from initially, then turn around and have another 3 directions to continue on in, and both moves you can divide up whichever way you want.

Frankly its ridiculous; all use should be used on the thick arrows, or be divided as one likes on the higher maneuvres which move turn move, but: you shoulld not be allowed to divide up your movement between up to three segments. Add to that a throttle of one or two and the option to go down a level of hight and you can regularly also go as fast as you wish.

Intuitively, it feels like the Board needs to be significantly larger than the one in the Starter Box, by a very large margin - imperials find it almost impossible to get into the medium range band, and orks otoh find it trivial to stay within minimum distance.

IMO the solution to the maneuver problem is that you should have to commit to the maneuver number and which arrows you're going to use, with the only choice being at what point you execute each turn. That gives you a bit of flexibility in fine-tuning your position and keeps some advantage to moving second, but doesn't let you arbitrarily teleport to any hex on the table once your target has committed. The only problem I haven't figured out is how to track the maneuver choice since something like X-Wing's maneuver dials doesn't really have space for so many maneuvers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The cards weren't any more or less "awkward" than a ruler

Disagree here. They really were more awkward because of how you had to insert the card in the middle of the measurement and line everything up correctly with cards that weren't very well suited for the job. With hexes you get most of the same functionality but with much less ambiguity in where a model is and who bumped which model how far, etc. I have some major problems with how open-ended the maneuvers are and think that it should be more like X-Wing with having to commit to a particular direction, but moving to a hex grid was a major improvement.

I honestly don't get how folk can see it that way(the awkward bit). Everything you just said also applies to rulers/tape measures, yet there's no suggestion that AT, 40K, Necromunda etc would be better games for being switched to a hex map because range measuring is just too "awkward" and unwieldy.

Also, supposedly AI 1.0 was supposed to use hexes from the beginning and the cards were an awkward workaround to cope with the fact that GW wasn't willing/able to do the hex grid maps it would require.

A lot of the original Star Wars films effects were bodge jobs and workarounds, that didn't affect my enjoyment of them, and "I'd always intended it be this way" didn't really excuse some of Lucas' more...interesting changes in the special editions. Sometimes having to abandon part of an idea you had due to external constraints results in a better end product than you'd have gotten otherwise; for me, that would apply to AI.

under the new system, the supposedly-focused-on-ground-attack Marauder Destroyer is arguably one of the best superiority fighters, because the combination of hexes functionally increasing maneuverability and unlimited ammo make it easier to keep it nose-on with even enemy fighter craft for more of the game, and it can just blaze away with all weapons continually.

That isn't a hex grid problem, it's a problem with GW's incomprehensible unit design choices for it. GW never should have removed the ground attack only rule from the Destroyer's primary weapons, and absolutely shouldn't have given it the ability to deploy ground troops (!!!) or carry AA missiles. A properly designed Destroyer is no better as an AA unit than it was in 1.0.

That change fixes the Destroyer, not the broader trend I was trying to illustrate by bringing it up(apologies if that was unclear). The base Marauder and similar larger, heavier planes still remain too maneuverable due to the compressed play space and the way moving through hexes affects your rate of turn, and too capable of engaging superiority fighters on the latter's own terms. I shudder to think what playing against nuAI Eldar is going to be like if they play up the maneuverability aspect of the faction.

Hexes also affect the feel of the game, giving much more of a boardgame flavour to proceedings. Some folk like that, but personally it's not what I'm looking for from a wargame - if I want to play boardgames, I play boardgames.

This is an odd statement to make given how many classic wargames were based on grid systems of various shapes.

Classic != widely played these days(or even vaguely recently). Literally the only hex-based wargame I've ever seen actually being played in the UK in 25 years of being in the hobby(and most of that not in GW's but clubs etc) was Battletech(who's use of hex grids was a holdover from its initial incarnation as a boardgame), and even that was uncommon. Historicals, GW games, and the games that hoovered up people frustrated with GW games were 99% of what I saw played over here, and they were all almost universally based on "freeform" systems that used widgets or rulers to measure distance and turns. Every game I've personally played that's used a map grid has been a boardgame of some description, so that's what I associate them with primarily, hence why I said it's not what I'm personally looking for from a wargame.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the solution to the maneuver problem is that you should have to commit to the maneuver number and which arrows you're going to use, with the only choice being at what point you execute each turn. That gives you a bit of flexibility in fine-tuning your position and keeps some advantage to moving second, but doesn't let you arbitrarily teleport to any hex on the table once your target has committed. The only problem I haven't figured out is how to track the maneuver choice since something like X-Wing's maneuver dials doesn't really have space for so many maneuvers.

no, the solution is that you must use all your movement on the long arrows inbetween the start and end hex, or in the high maneuvres which have starthex, inbetween hex, endhex and two long arrows inbetween, then you are permitted to distribute it as you wish. From the Endhex, the short arrow should ONLY indicate your possibilities for final orientation - but NEVER permit to keep moving to use "unused" movement".

 archont wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the solution to the maneuver problem is that you should have to commit to the maneuver number and which arrows you're going to use, with the only choice being at what point you execute each turn. That gives you a bit of flexibility in fine-tuning your position and keeps some advantage to moving second, but doesn't let you arbitrarily teleport to any hex on the table once your target has committed. The only problem I haven't figured out is how to track the maneuver choice since something like X-Wing's maneuver dials doesn't really have space for so many maneuvers.

no, the solution is that you must use all your movement on the long arrows inbetween the start and end hex, or in the high maneuvres which have starthex, inbetween hex, endhex and two long arrows inbetween, then you are permitted to distribute it as you wish. From the Endhex, the short arrow should ONLY indicate your possibilities for final orientation - but NEVER permit to keep moving to use "unused" movement".

Disagree strongly. That makes the maneuver system really awkward since there are a lot of maneuvers that you can't perform anymore but does nothing to fix the problem of not having to commit to a maneuver until after your target moves. Even if the turn is always in the final hex you still have your choice of which bold arrow to move along initially and which facing to set at the end of the maneuver. You can still make the choice between "go left, end facing backwards" and "go right, facing forwards" depending on what your target does. And that's way too much freedom allowed from a system that is supposed to make you commit to your move before you see what your target is doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I honestly don't get how folk can see it that way(the awkward bit). Everything you just said also applies to rulers/tape measures, yet there's no suggestion that AT, 40K, Necromunda etc would be better games for being switched to a hex map because range measuring is just too "awkward" and unwieldy.

The only reason those games wouldn't work is that they have the vertical element represented by actual model position and not by abstract elevation stats. You can't play 40k on a hex grid because the terrain prevents you from using the hexes. If you magically create a hex map that can overlay onto terrain then yes, 40k would benefit immensely from using one.

That change fixes the Destroyer, not the broader trend I was trying to illustrate by bringing it up(apologies if that was unclear). The base Marauder and similar larger, heavier planes still remain too maneuverable due to the compressed play space and the way moving through hexes affects your rate of turn, and too capable of engaging superiority fighters on the latter's own terms. I shudder to think what playing against nuAI Eldar is going to be like if they play up the maneuverability aspect of the faction.

But, again:

1) This isn't a hex grid issue. The hex grid represents the same maneuvers that you can do with the old cards. In fact, the hex grid makes aircraft less maneuverable because you have to move in full-hex increments instead of arbitrary fractions of an inch. If any aircraft have ended up being more maneuverable it's only because GW did the equivalent of taking the old cards and adding several new position options to each card (and then giving bombers access to 2-3 more cards). If you translate the old cards directly to the hex grid you eliminate this problem.

2) The maneuverability of large aircraft only really matters because GW screwed up their stats. Who cares if a bomber gets a bit more maneuverable if all of its weapons except for weak defensive turrets (which don't really care about position anyway) are literally unable to shoot at other aircraft? Put the air to ground rule back on the Destroyer's primary weapons and it is no longer engaging air superiority fighters effectively.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I honestly don't get how folk can see it that way(the awkward bit). Everything you just said also applies to rulers/tape measures, yet there's no suggestion that AT, 40K, Necromunda etc would be better games for being switched to a hex map because range measuring is just too "awkward" and unwieldy.

It likely would.

As a long time BTech player, I can tell you that hex maps take the ambiguity out of measurement. There's no possible argument over moving something a little too close if everything is done with hexes. In BTech movement, range and LOS is binary. You either are or you aren't. There's no middle ground with mis-measuring or true LOS or any of that nonsense.

It helps the game quite a bit.

Chopstick wrote:
Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?

That sounds like BS to me, because at the moment the biggest board they’ve released is 3x3, but bases have grown so a 3x3 now would have probably been a 2x2 back with the original AI bases. A 2x2 poster doesn’t cost much to print, even as a 1 off if you aren’t shifting enough to buy bulk.

Maybe if they release an 8x4 board I might believe that.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?

That sounds like BS to me, because at the moment the biggest board they’ve released is 3x3, but bases have grown so a 3x3 now would have probably been a 2x2 back with the original AI bases. A 2x2 poster doesn’t cost much to print, even as a 1 off if you aren’t shifting enough to buy bulk.

Maybe if they release an 8x4 board I might believe that.

But they've already admitted that the starter set board is not a full-size board, and it's (supposedly, I didn't buy the starter set) cheap paper that won't last more than a game or two. To properly support the game you need to commit to higher quality full table sized hex grids and that's a much more expensive item that GW can't produce in their own factory.

 Peregrine wrote:

Well yes, that's the point. AI 1.0 represents how real-world air combat works,

I knew this would bring up, in real world they develop a lot of variations of interceptor(and other thing),this game isn't heavily favor ground attack craft because it's realistic, it's because they were from 40k/epic, which is a ground combat game.

However these realistic combat knowledge didn't apply for the other. Tau seem doing fine shooting at aircraft with the Ion cannon (on their hulky aircraft) and unguide missile. Most of Tau and Eldar weapon don't suffer from the "ground attack" curse, so they can both be an air or ground attack crafts.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Didn't they already said they were originally going for hex board but don't have budget to print one?

That sounds like BS to me, because at the moment the biggest board they’ve released is 3x3, but bases have grown so a 3x3 now would have probably been a 2x2 back with the original AI bases. A 2x2 poster doesn’t cost much to print, even as a 1 off if you aren’t shifting enough to buy bulk.

Maybe if they release an 8x4 board I might believe that.

But they've already admitted that the starter set board is not a full-size board, and it's (supposedly, I didn't buy the starter set) cheap paper that won't last more than a game or two. To properly support the game you need to commit to higher quality full table sized hex grids and that's a much more expensive item that GW can't produce in their own factory.

The 3x3 board I was talking about was the Rynn's world board which is the bigger board that GW sells separately.

The starter set board is only 2.5x2.5.

That's why I reckon it sounds like BS, saying they couldn't make a big enough board 12 years ago when to make an equivalent sized board to what they've released now would have only been 2x2'.

(granted I think even 3x3 is too small and I'll be buying a 6x4 mouse mat style board at some stage, 3x3 is the best GW has given us so far)




Most my criticism of the current incarnation of AI is because I REALLY want it to do well so that it actually gets expanded. At the end of the day I can go back and play with my old planes using my old rulebooks and even make up my own rules to play by (though unfortunately I don't have an Imperial squadron in old scale ). But it'll be so much nicer if enough people pick up AI that I can go down to the local gaming shop and play a game.

Chopstick wrote:
I knew this would bring up, in real world they develop a lot of variations of interceptor(and other thing),this game isn't heavily favor ground attack craft because it's realistic, it's because they were from 40k/epic, which is a ground combat game.

Where are you getting the idea that the game heavily favors ground attack aircraft? Every faction in AI 1.0 had air superiority fighters in addition to the ground attack aircraft. The game had ground attack aircraft because that's the role those units had fluff-wise and it fit with the realistic objective-based scenario design.

However these realistic combat knowledge didn't apply for the other. Tau seem doing fine shooting at aircraft with the Ion cannon (on their hulky aircraft) and unguide missile. Most of Tau and Eldar weapon don't suffer from the "ground attack" curse, so they can both be an air or ground attack crafts.

I'm not sure where you get this idea from. The primary Tau bomber (Tigershark AX-1-0) has the air to ground rule on its main weapon. I'll grant that Eldar get to cheat and shoot aircraft with their "bombers", but they're more like oversized fighters than true bombers and pay an extremely high point cost for it.

Chopstick wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Well yes, that's the point. AI 1.0 represents how real-world air combat works,

I knew this would bring up, in real world they develop a lot of variations of interceptor(and other thing),this game isn't heavily favor ground attack craft because it's realistic, it's because they were from 40k/epic, which is a ground combat game.

However these realistic combat knowledge didn't apply for the other. Tau seem doing fine shooting at aircraft with the Ion cannon (on their hulky aircraft) and unguide missile. Most of Tau and Eldar weapon don't suffer from the "ground attack" curse, so they can both be an air or ground attack crafts.

Old AI wasn't linked to 40k/epic rules, so I don't really get what you mean by that.

I never played Tau, but I considered Eldar a special case where they make their aircraft so manoeuvrable that even their bomber aircraft are competent fighters. Looking at the Tau rules (remembering I've never actually played with them) it seems that fixed guns on bombers were also "ground attack" weapons, the ones that weren't look like turrets or drones? If they did have big fixed guns on slow moving aircraft they probably should have been made ground attack too.

But it makes zero sense that a Marauder destroyer would be a better fighter than a Thunderbolt. Maybe a better rule would be to make the Marauder guns -1 to hit against aerial targets or some such. On the flip side Eldar aircraft could be +1 to hit to represent their manoeuvrability.

If there's one gripe I have it's that manoeuvrability doesn't really mean much.

While this is certainly a fascinating debate, perhaps it should migrate to the Specialist Games forum at this point?

Quite so yes, let's keep this one for news and rumours.

Here's some new vs old.

The Thunderbolt is a bit bigger, but the Fighta Bommer seems quite a bit bigger, or maybe it's just my eyes.



Also the old bases vs the new bases.



Not trying to start a scale debate, just posting for those interested in it.

Are the bases very hard to disassemble for painting purposes?

 Manchu wrote:
Are the bases very hard to disassemble for painting purposes?

Honestly, just throw some blu-tac over the dial's indicator and you'll be fine.

What’s the size of the old AI base (hex side to hex side)? The new one is 2” I believe.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Are the bases very hard to disassemble for painting purposes?

Honestly, just throw some blu-tac over the dial's indicator and you'll be fine.

I guess that’s the plan if disassembling them runs a high chance of breaking them but otherwise I would prefer to disassemble.