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.

Hover will probably give Flyers the ability to stay on the board for a round to drop off their cargo

I don't think they've talked about loading and unloading troops yet.

Something that occurred to me is that the movement range of flyers puts a cap of sorts on the maximum table width. If there's five feet between the two players, then units up against the other player's table edge (an artillery battery, for example) will be out of range of flyers. Make it six feet, and there will be a large chunk of space that's a no fly zone for the each side's aircraft.

Ahh, then I wasn’t just missing it.


I don’t think the table width will be passed four foot for standard, with 6 along the longest edge.
But it’s GW it could be anything until they specific.

Apple fox wrote:
Ahh, then I wasn’t just missing it.


I don’t think the table width will be passed four foot for standard, with 6 along the longest edge.
But it’s GW it could be anything until they specific.

Didn't they already specify it's 4x5?

beast_gts wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Ahh, then I wasn’t just missing it.


I don’t think the table width will be passed four foot for standard, with 6 along the longest edge.
But it’s GW it could be anything until they specific.

Didn't they already specify it's 4x5?

Honestly 4x5 does sound like what was said, but I cannot ember where. I just want the tiles the most based on size >.> I play my game any size I want!

They did say it was 4x5 in warcom, same article that they said its a 3000 pt standard.

Eumerin wrote:
I don't think they've talked about loading and unloading troops yet.

Something that occurred to me is that the movement range of flyers puts a cap of sorts on the maximum table width. If there's five feet between the two players, then units up against the other player's table edge (an artillery battery, for example) will be out of range of flyers. Make it six feet, and there will be a large chunk of space that's a no fly zone for the each side's aircraft.

I thought the same. It seems quite ridiculous that flyers cannot reach the whole table, like in previous editions.

Like you say, Artillery batteries in their deployment zones could be totally safe from most aircraft weapons.

Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Yes, they did say 4x5. But just because GW sets a particular size doesn't mean that players won't change things up. There are a couple of obvious possible reasons for this (and I'm sure other, more obscure ones). The first is that you're getting a group of friends together, each with their own armies, and want to play on a larger table for a massive battle (an epic Epic battle, if you will ). The second is that you design a scenario that turns the table sideways. Battlefront does this in some of its scenarios that feature a clear attacker and defender.

If you put together a battle like either of the above, you're going to need to make adjustments to the fliers.

Yes, they're "home brew", so to speak. But I suspect that both (particularly the first one) will be used from time to time.


Something else that just occurred to me - unless there's a nuance to the rules that hasn't been revealed yet, you're not going to be able to use a flying transport to swoop in on the last turn or two and grab an unguarded objective in your opponent's backfield.

The movement plus range is enough for full board coverage also, so I think it’s fine.
With sight being open to them, it means they can mostly fire at will on anything.

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

One thing I do wish more games did was have most of your army start off the table, with faster units going and coming on first.
You could do a lot of cool things, deployment of air support and drop pods during the opening of the game. The heavy support and titans coming in later in the start to the engagement.
Even if the air units leave after, it would be cool if the opening to the game has a bit of risk reward. With trying to get drop pods down, with also trying to shoot your opponents down.

>.> I can hope right.

Eumerin wrote:
Yes, they did say 4x5. But just because GW sets a particular size doesn't mean that players won't change things up.

we are living im times were people cut off their 6x4 mats because GW said the minimum size is smaller

If they write 5x4 this is set in stone and not gonna change for a majority of players

 Crablezworth wrote:


Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

Apparently it is according to this previous article, under the "flexible army building" section...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/03/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-warhammer-the-horus-heresy-legions-imperialis/

Want a Legiones Astartes army mounted entirely in gunships for an aerial assault? You can do that!

...its probably because they want to ditch Aeronautica and have us play aerial battles with Legions rules instead.

SamusDrake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

Apparently it is according to this previous article, under the "flexible army building" section...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/07/03/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-warhammer-the-horus-heresy-legions-imperialis/

Want a Legiones Astartes army mounted entirely in gunships for an aerial assault? You can do that!

Oh god, you're right... I think/hope a 3000pts force still wouldn't be entirely one unit type as it'd be made up of 2 "armies" /formations... god I hope they didn't ruin this.

:"Flexible Army Building
Armies in Legions Imperialis revolve around ‘Formations’. Each Formation is essentially an entire Horus Heresy – The Age of Darkness army, giving you lots of freedom in how you build your force. Want a Legiones Astartes army mounted entirely in gunships for an aerial assault? You can do that! Solar Auxilia super-heavy tank company? Yep! There’s a myriad of options and more to come in the future, allowing you to build the grand army of your hobby dreams."

But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

 Flinty wrote:
But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

Ya I'm really hoping that is the case, like with the more mehanized tank stuff still hopefully needing mechanized infantry ect. I'm trying to stay optimistic in that none of the options will be too immersion-breaking. I think it's just having to read the word formation gives some of us ex 40k players a mild panic attack, at least in my case

 Flinty wrote:
But an airmobile army isn’t just one type of unit. It carries a lot of infantry and walkers, and possibly tanks as well if there is a unit similar to the thunderhawk transporter available.

Naturally, but what they said in that article is that you'll also have the option to take a whole army of just Gunships. Nothing but Gunships.

Speaking of which, Cablezworth can make an Apocalypse-Now style video of nothing but...GUNSHIPS!

Well all gunship army is possible there is few negatives that should balance it out.

Flyers can’t engage in close combat, can’t hold an objective, and can’t block enemy movement.

Also unless flyers has "hover" it goes back to reserve. I suspect that if you end up with no models on the table at end of the turn you lose!

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well all gunship army is possible there is few negatives that should balance it out.

Flyers can’t engage in close combat, can’t hold an objective, and can’t block enemy movement.

Also unless flyers has "hover" it goes back to reserve. I suspect that if you end up with no models on the table at end of the turn you lose!

That would be so funny.

Gw hasn't had such a rule long time outside　practice scenario

Epic SM used a percentage system to work out mounting and disembarking from vehicles. If you'd used 50% of your movement to reach a vehicle then it would only have 50% of its movement left once you had embarked and you couldn't embark and disembark on the same turn. This was generally thought of as being a bit clunky and the community version afterwards changed it so it was just a 5cm cost to embark/disembark.

So GW could do something like this, or perhaps we'll have rules like 'quick board', 'fleeting exit' and 'experienced crew' to make the game more complicated, but without adding any tactical depth

 Crablezworth wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Why would anyone's army be made up entirely of one unit type in a combined arms wargame? Really hoping that's not a thing.

Because of people doing this sort of thing in 40k I should imagine.. you're right, one of the main features of Epic as a system is 'combinef arms, and the scale allows all sorts of aspects of battle on a tabletop. Having an entire 'drop pod army' or similar would be unlikely I think, basing it on any previous Epic editions.

Those flyer rules seem similar to Epic 40,000.


I still get a laugh at how a 28mm game gets flyers so wrong, while an 8mm game gets flyers correct.

Guess it is to do with the target audience.

 stonehorse wrote:
Those flyer rules seem similar to Epic 40,000.


I still get a laugh at how a 28mm game gets flyers so wrong, while an 8mm game gets flyers correct.

Guess it is to do with the target audience.

That and the expense of the models. Flyers still aren’t suited to 40K, but they do do an exist, so…necessary heavily abstracted evil, I guess.

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Even the Ace Combat games make liberal use of ground troops.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Those flyer rules seem similar to Epic 40,000.


I still get a laugh at how a 28mm game gets flyers so wrong, while an 8mm game gets flyers correct.

Guess it is to do with the target audience.

That and the expense of the models. Flyers still aren’t suited to 40K, but they do do an exist, so…necessary heavily abstracted evil, I guess.

I think its more about the amount of real estate available. At epic scale, you can reasonably show an attack run. On a 40k board, flyers should really just be pushed all the way across in one turn, maybe with a little brush under the model to sweep affected troops off the edge of the board...

Even in epic it's comn, end of turn awaY

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
Starting off as reinforcements, and not being able to secure objectives, is going to be interesting if one's army is only made up of aircraft.

Even the Ace Combat games make liberal use of ground troops.

I never got around to that series, which is strange because I like Namco games.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, an all-aircraft army is what a previous warcom article had mentioned.

I took that to mean an AirCav or Air Mobile army, infantry mounted in fliers.

Well, I shall leave it for others to make of it what they will. I've no desire to run an entire army of aircraft outside of Horizon Wars and have no stake in it.