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.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
man the first world problems are strong on this forum.

MANPAD is not a crazy obscure acronym depending on your field (anyone working in or adjacent to tactical response, military, or homeland security is likely familiar with it), but is probably a bit obscure for this forum, especially given the number of ForNAT (Foreign National) posters on the forum.

Something like AA is going to be more immediately recognizable to the painted toy solider community.

Any acronym is easy to know if you work in field it comes from, I work in healthcare and I don’t expect anyone to know the crazy acronyms we use. When people use acronyms like that outside of the environment they come from, you just sound like you’re trying to sound clever.

As people have said, there is no general issue with destroying flyers, there are issues with clearly undercosted flyers, who bring high speed, high damage, relative toughness, and screening out large chunks of the table.

I don't think giving MLs some alternate firing profile changes that very much.

Andykp wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
man the first world problems are strong on this forum.

MANPAD is not a crazy obscure acronym depending on your field (anyone working in or adjacent to tactical response, military, or homeland security is likely familiar with it), but is probably a bit obscure for this forum, especially given the number of ForNAT (Foreign National) posters on the forum.

Something like AA is going to be more immediately recognizable to the painted toy solider community.

Any acronym is easy to know if you work in field it comes from, I work in healthcare and I don’t expect anyone to know the crazy acronyms we use. When people use acronyms like that outside of the environment they come from, you just sound like you’re trying to sound clever.

that sounds like an insecure way to interpret the use of acronyms...especially in a text based form of communication...people don't use acronyms in text to 'sound clever' they do it because they don't want to type a short phrase some times bordering on a whole sentence.

again, google is free to use, people complaining about having to google an acronym are either extremely lazy and entitled, or have an extreme lack of understanding context clues. you don't have to know exactly what an acronym stands for to understand what it means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
As people have said, there is no general issue with destroying flyers, there are issues with clearly undercosted flyers, who bring high speed, high damage, relative toughness, and screening out large chunks of the table.

I don't think giving MLs some alternate firing profile changes that very much.

you are right, i have acknowledged that and came up with a whole fancy little strat that can be used by all AA weapons, which would include missile launchers.

the strat on its own probably wouldnt help much, just because most people aren't putting AA weapons in their armies unless they know for a fact that they're going to have to deal with a lot of fliers.

I'm a bit RFT RN, so I'll try and keep this SAS. LMK if anything is IMHO it might be worth having a LHT about whether this is the right MO for the situation.

AAMOF, I do agree with the OP regarding abbreviations. TBF, if anyone disagrees, the only reasonable response is LMGTFY.

BTT, TBH I think it could be time for some BST so that we don't end up in a rut.

TTYL, all.

I think Anti air systems should rather be activated after the opponent moves their flyers, or some other overwatch mechanic. This could stop your opponent from placing them in your face and blocking movement etc. Also i think flyers have way to much toughness, wounds and armour saves, they should be fragile.

Lastly i don't even think flyers belong in 40k any edition, or should at least have other movement rules. But i guess that ship has sailed, so what you gonna do?

Just play epic armageddon instead, it has better flyer rules and better rules in general.

John, if you’re in such a rush that you don’t have time for full sentences or grammar, perhaps you should wait to post till you do have time?

 vipoid wrote:
I'm a bit RFT RN, so I'll try and keep this SAS. LMK if anything is IMHO it might be worth having a LHT about whether this is the right MO for the situation.

AAMOF, I do agree with the OP regarding abbreviations. TBF, if anyone disagrees, the only reasonable response is LMGTFY.

BTT, TBH I think it could be time for some BST so that we don't end up in a rut.

TTYL, all.

LOLWTFBBQ

While I'm normally all for making sure acronyms are made clear, given the media prominence of the term since Putin invaded Ukraine, I think some slack could be allowed here. Its not like people need to keep going around spelling out Flugabwehrkanone...

Flyer rules themselves need to be rewrote completely, not more ways to kill them, heck my DE dont even want to take Flyers bc they are way too easy for every opponent to kill them and die T1 or T2 doing jack crap, but my Ravagers are same cost, same damage, and can now hide, so why would I even want a flyer? Imagine more Damage into flyers lol, so silly.

So having been a ground pounder in my younger days, I can say with absolute certainty that "Man portable" just means: We're gonna make the two fattest dudes carry these, along with the HMG and ammo. No one below Company level assets is lugging around Stingers and Tows. Air superiority is the Chair Forces' job. We carried the LAws and AT4s in our vehicles/rucks, but those aren't anti-air without an insane level of luck. Also you'd kill yourself firing it upwards due to backblast. Nope. I don't see the point in basic troopers with auto-wounding flashlights needing Anti-aircraft missile launchers. Maybe as HWTs, but not as a standard 1 man one tube type deal.

If we are talking Astartes, they HARDLY need help in that department. They have the Frag Strat, which is honestly one of the best strats they have.

Guard should just be happy with the Quad Bofors they have called a Hydra. That thing slaps flyers off the table with haste.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that sounds like an insecure way to interpret the use of acronyms...especially in a text based form of communication...people don't use acronyms in text to 'sound clever' they do it because they don't want to type a short phrase some times bordering on a whole sentence.

again, google is free to use, people complaining about having to google an acronym are either extremely lazy and entitled, or have an extreme lack of understanding context clues. you don't have to know exactly what an acronym stands for to understand what it means.

Notice that you're now having to type up entire posts defending the use of an acronym that, at best, saved you two characters versus 'anti-air'. And calling people lazy because you couldn't be bothered to type those two extra characters. It would have been one character if you got the acronym right, too, since the S in MANPADS is not plural.

Wanna talk about how my TDY turned PCS when the COS 86'd his SDR on the FIS and got PNG'd by the HC as 'not DoS'? Maybe about how my C4ISR PoR facilitates IPB OAKOC for a BTN TOC's S2 with the CEMA X-FN WG? It's extremely lazy and entitled to expect others to decipher unfamiliar acronyms so that you can save a few keystrokes.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Also i think flyers have way to much toughness, wounds and armour saves, they should be fragile.

40K's got a problem there in that there's no good representation of evasion as a mechanic, and the system breaks terribly if you can stack to-hit penalties. We could go back to having aircraft only hit on 6s except with dedicated AA weapons, but then that leads back to the issue of them being a very binary thing- either the enemy has no AA and you run roughshod with a flyer-heavy force, or you get swatted out of the sky by massed autocannons, and listbuilding hard counters like that aren't much fun to play.

More fundamentally, as I said before durability is not really the problem. -1 to hit isn't that big a difference (except for Orks) and most flyers are basically just flying light tanks. The problem is that an army with a lot of flyers can get them up the board turn 1, position them to block your army, and prevent you from getting to the progressive objectives that you need to control to win. If they've got the first turn then you don't even get an opportunity to shoot first, and more importantly because most anti-tank weapons have decent range (or reliable delivery systems), there's strong incentive to use your flyers this way since they're not any more survivable when used more conservatively. And of course they can shoot while doing this.

They're functionally tanks that can deep strike turn 1 while ignoring the 9" limit. Of course that's going to be a problem if used en-masse, and nerfing their durability doesn't really fix things short of making flyers just unusably fragile altogether.

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
that sounds like an insecure way to interpret the use of acronyms...especially in a text based form of communication...people don't use acronyms in text to 'sound clever' they do it because they don't want to type a short phrase some times bordering on a whole sentence.

again, google is free to use, people complaining about having to google an acronym are either extremely lazy and entitled, or have an extreme lack of understanding context clues. you don't have to know exactly what an acronym stands for to understand what it means.

Notice that you're now having to type up entire posts defending the use of an acronym that, at best, saved you two characters versus 'anti-air'. And calling people lazy because you couldn't be bothered to type those two extra characters. It would have been one character if you got the acronym right, too, since the S in MANPADS is not plural.

Wanna talk about how my TDY turned PCS when the COS 86'd his SDR on the FIS and got PNG'd by the HC as 'not DoS'? Maybe about how my C4ISR PoR facilitates IPB OAKOC for a BTN TOC's S2 with the CEMA X-FN WG? It's extremely lazy and entitled to expect others to decipher unfamiliar acronyms so that you can save a few keystrokes.

 Gitdakka wrote:
Also i think flyers have way to much toughness, wounds and armour saves, they should be fragile.

40K's got a problem there in that there's no good representation of evasion as a mechanic, and the system breaks terribly if you can stack to-hit penalties. We could go back to having aircraft only hit on 6s except with dedicated AA weapons, but then that leads back to the issue of them being a very binary thing- either the enemy has no AA and you run roughshod with a flyer-heavy force, or you get swatted out of the sky by massed autocannons, and listbuilding hard counters like that aren't much fun to play.

More fundamentally, as I said before durability is not really the problem. -1 to hit isn't that big a difference (except for Orks) and most flyers are basically just flying light tanks. The problem is that an army with a lot of flyers can get them up the board turn 1, position them to block your army, and prevent you from getting to the progressive objectives that you need to control to win. If they've got the first turn then you don't even get an opportunity to shoot first, and more importantly because most anti-tank weapons have decent range (or reliable delivery systems), there's strong incentive to use your flyers this way since they're not any more survivable when used more conservatively. And of course they can shoot while doing this.

They're functionally tanks that can deep strike turn 1 while ignoring the 9" limit. Of course that's going to be a problem if used en-masse, and nerfing their durability doesn't really fix things short of making flyers just unusably fragile altogether.

What he said.

Flakk profile for Missile Launchers:
Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm a bit RFT RN, so I'll try and keep this SAS. LMK if anything is IMHO it might be worth having a LHT about whether this is the right MO for the situation.

AAMOF, I do agree with the OP regarding abbreviations. TBF, if anyone disagrees, the only reasonable response is LMGTFY.

BTT, TBH I think it could be time for some BST so that we don't end up in a rut.

TTYL, all.

I couwd nowt undewstand a wick of thawt. I twy tuwu use the unabweviated vewsion once, awthough maybe thawt iws even wowse.

 catbarf wrote:
They're functionally tanks that can deep strike turn 1 while ignoring the 9" limit. Of course that's going to be a problem if used en-masse, and nerfing their durability doesn't really fix things short of making flyers just unusably fragile altogether.

'Member when flyers didn't start on the table?

 Gibblets wrote:
Flakk profile for Missile Launchers:
Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT.

Just buff krak missiles.

 Gibblets wrote:
Flakk profile for Missile Launchers:
Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT.

So you want SMs to be firing on a CANNOT miss profile?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
Flakk profile for Missile Launchers:
Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT.

So you want SMs to be firing on a CANNOT miss profile?

BS 3+ with a -1 to Hit for Hard to Hit and +2 to Hit for weapon ability is hardly a CANNOT Miss Profile. Unmodified 1s always miss after all and BS 2+ is hardly unheard of.

 alextroy wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
Flakk profile for Missile Launchers:
Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT.

So you want SMs to be firing on a CANNOT miss profile?

BS 3+ with a -1 to Hit for Hard to Hit and +2 to Hit for weapon ability is hardly a CANNOT Miss Profile. Unmodified 1s always miss after all and BS 2+ is hardly unheard of.

that and if youre not bringing AIRCRAFTs, its such a bad weapon profile