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.

MarkNorfolk wrote:


Back the day of TRR and height levels. The Golden Age!

Indeed Mark they were The Good Old Days, when even casual games of Warhammer 40,000 were introduced by Leonard Sachs. How he just appeared out of nowhere would always impress us.

I have a Voidraven. You can, once per game, drop its bomb on a unit that you fly over. Given that the movement instructions for flyers are that you move first and can then pivot 90 degrees afterwards - how are you ever meant to use this on anyone? Surely any competent opponent is going to see that coming and think nope I'll move to the side a bit?

I love the Avenger Strike Fighter, I have no actual use for it, but I still want one.

But can someone explain to me why GW thinks I'm going to be flying multiple planes in formation? That's the only explanation I can think of for this rule:

Fiery Vengeance: Once per turn, in your opponent’s Shooting phase, when another friendly ASTRA MILITARUM unit within 6" of this model is destroyed by an attack made by a unit that can FLY, one model from your army with this ability can use it. If it does, after the attacking unit has finished making its attacks, that model can shoot as if it were your Shooting phase, but when resolving those attacks it can only target that enemy unit (and only if it is an eligible target).

 Quixote wrote:
I love the Avenger Strike Fighter, I have no actual use for it, but I still want one.

But can someone explain to me why GW thinks I'm going to be flying multiple planes in formation? That's the only explanation I can think of for this rule:

Fiery Vengeance: Once per turn, in your opponent’s Shooting phase, when another friendly ASTRA MILITARUM unit within 6" of this model is destroyed by an attack made by a unit that can FLY, one model from your army with this ability can use it. If it does, after the attacking unit has finished making its attacks, that model can shoot as if it were your Shooting phase, but when resolving those attacks it can only target that enemy unit (and only if it is an eligible target).

Reading that it’s returning fire against something that flys. So an opponent flyer strafes a nearby tank, you take vengeance and light up the guy who did it. Nice rule for an air superiority fighter. If you don’t knock it out of the sky before focusing on ground targets, it’s going to gun you down after your attack run.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
I love the Avenger Strike Fighter, I have no actual use for it, but I still want one.

But can someone explain to me why GW thinks I'm going to be flying multiple planes in formation? That's the only explanation I can think of for this rule:

Fiery Vengeance: Once per turn, in your opponent’s Shooting phase, when another friendly ASTRA MILITARUM unit within 6" of this model is destroyed by an attack made by a unit that can FLY, one model from your army with this ability can use it. If it does, after the attacking unit has finished making its attacks, that model can shoot as if it were your Shooting phase, but when resolving those attacks it can only target that enemy unit (and only if it is an eligible target).

Reading that it’s returning fire against something that flys. So an opponent flyer strafes a nearby tank, you take vengeance and light up the guy who did it. Nice rule for an air superiority fighter. If you don’t knock it out of the sky before focusing on ground targets, it’s going to gun you down after your attack run.

My issue is that it only has a 6" range, and if you are zooming across the tabletop... what else are you going to end your turn next to... in a Guard army?

Yup. That’s a problem with flyers.

To maximize it you would leave a spot in your battleline to park the flyer and provide air cover. But it’s a big base, and needs to keep moving.

How to you abstract “we’ve got a CAP up, deal with it before ground attacks” with the way 40k is structured?

It’s one reason people don’t like flyers. They just don’t mesh well with the rules/scale of 40k.

 Nevelon wrote:
Yup. That’s a problem with flyers.

To maximize it you would leave a spot in your battleline to park the flyer and provide air cover. But it’s a big base, and needs to keep moving.

How to you abstract “we’ve got a CAP up, deal with it before ground attacks” with the way 40k is structured?

It’s one reason people don’t like flyers. They just don’t mesh well with the rules/scale of 40k.

Well, I am building a small (for guard) army... and I have already ordered a Valkyrie (since I can't find a Taurox)... I might go all-in and put 3 Valkyries on the table.

Got for it! The rules might be a little clunky, but they are thematic and fun.

EDIT: Slightly Off-Topic.

Does anyone here know anything about AirCav?

I was wondering how close the paint scheme of the Valkyries should be to the Tempestus Scions/Aquilons.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Couldn't there be a rule that will allow units to ignore the base for movement purposes, much like Titanic units ignore non-Titanic unit's bases?

The issue is it still takes up space and a lot of the bases are simply larger than a lot of units can even move through. Assuming we're talking the shorter width of the base at 92 mm (about 3.6 inches) a 40 mm based model (1.6ish inches) needs to move more than 5 inches to cross a flyer base meaning it nearly needs to start its activation base to base to make it. If a flyer parks itself just a bit away, the unit is blocked from moving. If the unit has any members in a second row or anything like that, they're blocked in and have to walk around. That's what role these things end up serving and what GW can't figure out a solution for.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Couldn't there be a rule that will allow units to ignore the base for movement purposes, much like Titanic units ignore non-Titanic unit's bases?

The issue is it still takes up space and a lot of the bases are simply larger than a lot of units can even move through. Assuming we're talking the shorter width of the base at 92 mm (about 3.6 inches) a 40 mm based model (1.6ish inches) needs to move more than 5 inches to cross a flyer base meaning it nearly needs to start its activation base to base to make it. If a flyer parks itself just a bit away, the unit is blocked from moving. If the unit has any members in a second row or anything like that, they're blocked in and have to walk around. That's what role these things end up serving and what GW can't figure out a solution for.

What if you could ignore the base all together, and allow models to end their turn on the base?

Ehhh... on second thought you would need to leave the base bare, and plus some people don't enjoy their opponents putting their models on their own.

This is a good question to ponder... well off to work!

 Quixote wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Couldn't there be a rule that will allow units to ignore the base for movement purposes, much like Titanic units ignore non-Titanic unit's bases?

The issue is it still takes up space and a lot of the bases are simply larger than a lot of units can even move through. Assuming we're talking the shorter width of the base at 92 mm (about 3.6 inches) a 40 mm based model (1.6ish inches) needs to move more than 5 inches to cross a flyer base meaning it nearly needs to start its activation base to base to make it. If a flyer parks itself just a bit away, the unit is blocked from moving. If the unit has any members in a second row or anything like that, they're blocked in and have to walk around. That's what role these things end up serving and what GW can't figure out a solution for.

What if you could ignore the base all together, and allow models to end their turn on the base?

Ehhh... on second thought you would need to leave the base bare, and plus some people don't enjoy their opponents putting their models on their own.

Exactly. You will certainly not be putting your model on top of mine.

My thought of the day:

What if Flyers that are NOT in HOVER simply place a small token of where they are and remove the model until the next turn.

 Quixote wrote:
My thought of the day:

What if Flyers that are NOT in HOVER simply place a small token of where they are and remove the model until the next turn.

The difficulty there is convincing people to pay hard earned cash for a model that spends most of its time on the shelf *even when you're using it*.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
My thought of the day:

What if Flyers that are NOT in HOVER simply place a small token of where they are and remove the model until the next turn.

The difficulty there is convincing people to pay hard earned cash for a model that spends most of its time on the shelf *even when you're using it*.

Good point... back to the drawing board.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
My thought of the day:

What if Flyers that are NOT in HOVER simply place a small token of where they are and remove the model until the next turn.

The difficulty there is convincing people to pay hard earned cash for a model that spends most of its time on the shelf *even when you're using it*.

This was a major flaw with the FW rules.
You could easily play most things with the flyer rules without owning a model. Not such a great result if your GW & your business is centered on selling models....

ccs wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
My thought of the day:

What if Flyers that are NOT in HOVER simply place a small token of where they are and remove the model until the next turn.

The difficulty there is convincing people to pay hard earned cash for a model that spends most of its time on the shelf *even when you're using it*.

This was a major flaw with the FW rules.
You could easily play most things with the flyer rules without owning a model. Not such a great result if your GW & your business is centered on selling models....

CMIAW But didn't Flames of War suffer from the same problem?

 Quixote wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
My thought of the day:

What if Flyers that are NOT in HOVER simply place a small token of where they are and remove the model until the next turn.

The difficulty there is convincing people to pay hard earned cash for a model that spends most of its time on the shelf *even when you're using it*.

This was a major flaw with the FW rules.
You could easily play most things with the flyer rules without owning a model. Not such a great result if your GW & your business is centered on selling models....

CMIAW But didn't Flames of War suffer from the same problem?

It still does.
With the exceptions of helicopters in the Team Yankee version you don't need to spend a dime on aircraft models. (That dime could be used as the aircraft token)

 Quixote wrote:
EDIT: Slightly Off-Topic.

Does anyone here know anything about AirCav?

I was wondering how close the paint scheme of the Valkyries should be to the Tempestus Scions/Aquilons.

Valkyries are owned by the Navy, specifically the Aeronautica. But sometimes if a squadron has been operating with a regiment for a while they adopt the same colouration.

So you can do either.

[quote=Mad Doc Grotsnik 816209 11742276 a00f106df055e9a8133247b13632ffbf.png]I agree with Wyldhunt.

I love the models, and consider them some of GW’s best.

But they’re just entirely outside the scope of a 40K battle, and require a level of abstraction I just don’t find appealing.

Even if they were the killer unit for an army, or just the perfect support for my preferred list? I wouldn’t take them.

They worked better when GW wasn’t focused on smaller boards, less units, and quicker games. They’re less practical in small boards which is where 40K keeps going. Pretty soon any titanic units won’t be viable.

GW needs to start supporting Apocalypse again where flyers would be perfect. They put out some rules in 9e but never touched them again and haven’t bothered giving us any for 10e which is just laziness on their part.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
They worked better when GW wasn’t focused on smaller boards, less units, and quicker games. They’re less practical in small boards which is where 40K keeps going. Pretty soon any titanic units won’t be viable.

GW needs to start supporting Apocalypse again where flyers would be perfect. They put out some rules in 9e but never touched them again and haven’t bothered giving us any for 10e which is just laziness on their part.

10th feels like the Tournament Edition, where changes are made bases on how armies play in regimented tournament settings.

Maybe if people start bringing flyers with them to tournaments GW will finally start looking at them seriously. Until then, models that don't see regular tournament play, I assume will eventually dissipate into the Mists of Legends.

Dirk Reinecke wrote:

 Quixote wrote:
EDIT: Slightly Off-Topic.

Does anyone here know anything about AirCav?

I was wondering how close the paint scheme of the Valkyries should be to the Tempestus Scions/Aquilons.

Valkyries are owned by the Navy, specifically the Aeronautica. But sometimes if a squadron has been operating with a regiment for a while they adopt the same colouration.

So you can do either.

Thanks!

I might just paint them up in the same colors, but in different ways, like use the Scions' accent color as the base for the Valkyries...

So they feel like the same force... the Avenger will be painted differently as its close air support and not a regular part of the unit.

not sure if I've mentioned yet in this thread, but one of the things we've done for narrative is fight two games on two different table at the same time. Flyers can travel between tables, and depending on the specific narrative, sometimes artillery from one table can hit the other.

Fun stuff, but not for the tourney crowd.

I've been against flyers since they were introduced by Forgeworld. On the one hand, air support is obviously going to be huge in a game like 40K if we're being "realistic". But on the other, it just doesn't work well in the confines of a game played on 6' by 4' boards with armies of 28mm figures. And since the figure sizes have gone up and the boards shrunk, that's even more true today.

Flyers should be doing strafing runs and then gone, like the old Orbital Bombardment rule from the Daemonhunters codex. But the problem is that this is a miniatures wargame and so we want to play with our miniatures! The flyers themselves are fun display pieces, showing off the bonkers design sensibilities of 40K vehicles in their boxy glory. But they're just too big and the large flyer bases are too much of an issue for gameplay. Skimmer tanks were already a pain in the backside before we had to deal with full blown flyers.

I think megabattles and multi-table narrative games is probably the best place for them, and I think that about superheavies as well. If you're playing on a 12' by 8' table, well, then flyers make a bit more sense and fit a bit better in the scale of things. But GW wanted to sell a lot of their kits, so they dropped sensible recommendations like that and made them core. Now you can't take that away because people have made entire armies around it, and it's not nice to take people's toys away.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I agree with Wyldhunt.

I love the models, and consider them some of GW’s best.

But they’re just entirely outside the scope of a 40K battle, and require a level of abstraction I just don’t find appealing.

Even if they were the killer unit for an army, or just the perfect support for my preferred list? I wouldn’t take them.

I just do the "representative" thing in my head. That single model represents multiple flyers coming in and out of the zone. The wounds don't represent damage to the flyers so much as the potential for damage making Air Controllers less comfortable sending in flyers until they just stop (0 Wounds)

Another reason people don't like flyers is that fairly recently they were somewhat overpowering - thus why they're nerfed so hard now - last edition you were limited to two total, let alone a rule of three.

I've played Empire Earth were planes are very slow compared to their real world counterpart, so it doesn't seem off to me lol.

I am mixed on fliers. what I like is that they add a dynamic strike bomber to the mix which I like but they are cumbersome to move around and store, and who can and can't shoot them is a weird discussion.

I'm all in for transport helicopters like flyers or paratroopers!

I'm just gonna put this out there....

30k doesn't have a problem with flyers and they work very well in that ruleset. How 40k deals with them on the other hand is a fecal sample from the garden of Nurgle after vespid vindaloo night but that's a self manufactured problem by GW.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I'm just gonna put this out there....

30k doesn't have a problem with flyers and they work very well in that ruleset. How 40k deals with them on the other hand is a fecal sample from the garden of Nurgle after vespid vindaloo night but that's a self manufactured problem by GW.

What's the difference between the games?

Starting in reserves is limiting.

Tables are smaller, aircraft are faster, pivoting after movement instead of before forecasts movement to the enemy.You cannot end movement on top of most terrain pieces. Your opponent is likely able to place models in such a way that you cannot end your move on the table, so you're forced off the table.

There is no defensive benefit against ranged units, there is a defensive downside as it is visible to basically all enemy units while most units get to hide and snipe one or two enemy units at a time on a table with tournament terrain. Flyers being able to see units back is irrelevant when they are arriving from reserves since you can arrive somewhere where it can see a target.

It's not great at controlling enemy movement because opponent's can move through it and it takes a few turns to get where it needs to be to block any kind of movement.

Even if GW made them free they still would not be fun, because you basically never get to "woosh" and fly 20+ inches with it and you rarely get to go "dakka dakka dakka" because your aircraft is never on the table. It is a very safe design because they were frustrating to play against in previous editions. GW did fix things somewhat for transport aircraft, which aren't the complete joke they were.

Being able to block movement with them isn't something most would enjoy, although an aircraft helping with controlling where you want your enemies going seems fair enough to me in abstract a base that cannot be charged by most or moved through was gamey I will admit. Pivoting in the previous turn makes it so your opponent can start to move a different dirrection in preperation or shoot you down before you ever land where you want to block movement.

I think a benefit against ranged weapons as well as the cover/visibility downside to being above it all would be nice, subtract 12" from the range of all enemy weapons targeting them unless the firing model has FLY and is within 12". I don't get to hide behind ruins, you don't get to shoot me with your infantry's melta guns or flamers.

They need to have a lower minimum movement and pivot before movement to fit with how crowded tables are this edition, assuming you are playing on the minimum tournament standard with enough terrain. I can justify lack of lateral movement with imaginated vertical movement, my Night Scythe is diving, performing manouvers or gaining altitude, not just zooming at super sonic speeds directly forwards.