Games Workshop AREN'T TRYING to Balance Them - The Plight of Aircraft in 10th Edition...

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 436

  • @jimmydesouza4375
    @jimmydesouza4375 17 часов назад +317

    The strangest thing about fliers is that since they made it so any unit can shoot at them, instead of requiring sky-fire, they're really no different than any other type of vehicle in the game so it doesn't make any sense that they're approached differently balance wise.

    • @tyrodinpainting
      @tyrodinpainting 17 часов назад +62

      I feel like it’s a pretty easy fix tbh. Sky fire get +to hit and normal weapons -to hit. Get rid of flying and just have hover mode but change the rules slightly. Like make it so they can’t be hit by melee and 1 flyer per 1000 pts or something (let’s face it, if there was a melee only army created, that’s their problem. In real life and helicopter wouldn’t land so it can be hit by melee weapons or climbed on by the enemy)

    • @stephenferry3017
      @stephenferry3017 17 часов назад +2

      ​@@tyrodinpaintingthis seems like a good fix. Do you mind if I copy this idea?

    • @Carrisonfire1
      @Carrisonfire1 16 часов назад +32

      @@tyrodinpainting Need to address flamer style weapons too. I've always found it really stupid that flamers were good AA because they auto hit.

    • @v4tomoe
      @v4tomoe 16 часов назад +1

      @@Carrisonfire1could do something like modified indirect fire rules. Just say that 1-3 or 1-4 can’t wound. Not really sure if it’s a good idea

    • @danjones3012
      @danjones3012 16 часов назад +3

      As most aircraft are very weak defensively compared to normal vehicles, they need to give aircraft not in hover mode their -1 to be hit again.
      The buff the night scythe got made it actually useable, although it is the necrons only true transport. Anyone who thinks a ghost ark is a good transport needs to shake their head. GW gave it deep strike and the ability to enter the battlefield turn 1 regardless of any other rules.
      Other aircraft dont need the second part but giving them all deep strike would fix the biggest problem with aircraft.
      With deep strike being something you can zone out, it would not be overpowered at all and would still require proper placement as the next turn it still has to fly straight forward on your next turn if it's still alive.

  • @whichDude
    @whichDude 17 часов назад +196

    I want them to be OK. I got Orks partially because their planes look absolutely amazing

    • @chetmanley1885
      @chetmanley1885 17 часов назад +5

      One Ork plane is ok, not great but ok.
      It's looking fine in my display cabinet though.

    • @Atom-Phyr
      @Atom-Phyr 15 часов назад +5

      I love that they look like Migs from WW2. They weren't that great, but we're simple and relatively easy to mass produce.
      Proper Orky.

    • @whichDude
      @whichDude 15 часов назад +1

      @@chetmanley1885 What aircrafts look good to you? I personally think most outside of Ork planes look pretty bad. Imperium has flying square bricks and goofy dragonflies. Choas has Cold Steel the edge lord dragon. I do like Necrons Cylon Raider

    • @Lowlandlord
      @Lowlandlord 15 часов назад +4

      One of my favourite 40k things is still and old drawing of the inside of a Fighta-Bommer cockpit, and the speed gauge reads Stop, Fast, and WAAAAGH. The Fighta-Bommer is also one of my favourite looking flyers, like something outta WW2, which I fucking love, especially in a space setting. Granted, when I used to smoke I would use a Zippo lighter that had a P-47 Thunderbolt or B-25 Liberator on it. Still need an Avro Lancaster one actually.

    • @Atom-Phyr
      @Atom-Phyr 15 часов назад

      @@whichDude That's the Imperium of Man.
      They'll stick powerful jets to a big metal bawks. Function over form.

  • @Billy-vi8nu
    @Billy-vi8nu 13 часов назад +74

    I’m a noob but this is why I prefer playing with fluffers rather than tournament bros.
    Right now I’m collecting for a Word Bearers army. With the exception of my terminators, it’s going to be a demon themed army. Going to have some possessed, obliterators, warp talons, etc. I don’t even know if that would be powerful but I just like the ideas of thematic armies.

    • @rukeyazu8669
      @rukeyazu8669 12 часов назад +20

      This is the game at its best, and I wish more people built their armies like you.

    • @real_Greys0n
      @real_Greys0n 10 часов назад +3

      @@rukeyazu8669 Very true. Best way to enjoy the game.

    • @guidomista3570
      @guidomista3570 9 часов назад +3

      Make sure to get a Forgefiend or Maulerfiend. Daemon Engines would be great for Word Bearers, and the bonus bits might be nice for attaching to a Land Raider or Vindicator

    • @WeOnlyEatSoup
      @WeOnlyEatSoup 8 часов назад +4

      You're playing properly then

    • @GCarssow
      @GCarssow 6 часов назад +1

      Make sure to bring some Daemon Engines. In addition to having awesome models, most of them are actually quite strong too (especially Forgefiends).

  • @Trazynn
    @Trazynn 16 часов назад +87

    Not just flyers. There's a whole range of models that GW has deliberately made inviable so they no longer have to manage their balance. The Astra Miliatrum Wyvern is a good example. It never receives any changes, it's just a dead unit.

    • @captainweekend5276
      @captainweekend5276 14 часов назад +12

      Actually the wyvern was decent at the start of the edition when it was only around 80 points, it being basically a better HWS w/mortars and passing out -1 to hit was pretty good, it just unfortunately kept getting hit by the indirect nerfs which jacked up the points to make it unviable.

    • @basteala525
      @basteala525 9 часов назад

      You mean Codex Space Marines? (I'll see myself out, lol)

    • @nickellingham1764
      @nickellingham1764 6 часов назад

      you can always change in to a hydra with ease.....to shoot at things in the sky that are very unlikely to be up there anyhow it seems!

    • @pharoahman475
      @pharoahman475 4 часа назад +1

      No Flyers, No Psykers, No Indirect, No Small Squads, No Large Squads, No Weapon Variety, No Customizing Heroes.

  • @vinnythewebsurfer
    @vinnythewebsurfer 16 часов назад +218

    You can tell how bad the competitive brain rot has taken its toll on the game when people are genuinely arguing for LESS variety in a war game. No planes, no fortifications, Psychic abilities and indirect fire being heavily restricted and stripped over flavor. Give it another decade and people will be demanding even more vehicles to be removed from the game.

    • @jimmydesouza4375
      @jimmydesouza4375 15 часов назад +3

      Sad really. Not much we can do about it though, I suppose.

    • @DaThingOnTheDoorstep
      @DaThingOnTheDoorstep 15 часов назад +24

      Slowly devolve the game to just chess... when they can just go play actual chess.

    • @theadtheogrekiller5629
      @theadtheogrekiller5629 12 часов назад +5

      Tbf flyers and fortifications have always been implemented poorly. Psykers imo were never so special and complex to warrant an entire phase. Their powers were either a weird gun, a buff, or a debuff. Now they are either a gun, a buff, or a debuff. The current rules are more interesting then the weird "everything does mortals" simplification and streamlines the game. Disciplines made it so psykers wouldnt even nescessarily have unique capabilities. I like that armies such as 1k sons have a role for every psyker they can take. Some armies need cooler powers, but the bones are good.
      Also old indirect fire weapons and templates were garbage. Guard players took as long as orks to finish a shooting phase XD.
      Faster games means more gaming! I like it. Flyers could be simplified and be able to get charged. Magnus can be charged, angron can be charged, crisis suits can be charged, etc etc. Why do only aircraft get to be immune to melee when we legitimately have other flying units that easily can fly high enough to avoid it?

    • @jimmydesouza4375
      @jimmydesouza4375 12 часов назад +26

      @@theadtheogrekiller5629 "Psykers imo were never so special and complex to warrant an entire phase."
      Early editions they were, and they were in WHFB right up until the end of it (and are again in TOW from what I have heard).
      40k comes from FB, so the psychic phase is a carryover.
      Also if you want faster games dumbing down 40k is silly. Killteam exists. THAT is meant to be your "faster 40k." In the same way that if you want slower and more dramatic 40k you have epic.

    • @madlarkin8
      @madlarkin8 12 часов назад +11

      ​@@theadtheogrekiller5629 I've spent more time in tournaments arguing over how many models were ACTUALLY under the template than about any other 40k subject. Templates can exist, but they should be binary; either a unit is affected by a template and it gets the full attack number or it isnt and doesn't.
      And deciding which direction the scatter die arrow is ACTUALLY pointing? Forget about it......

  • @luckmyst3r986
    @luckmyst3r986 16 часов назад +52

    I really want to see GW have another shot at aircraft and fortifications
    Seeing AoS have a free faction specific fortification looks fun and flavourful. Maybe an army in 40k could choose between a free fortification or free flyer and have different utility for each

  • @vojtadrasner2440
    @vojtadrasner2440 17 часов назад +74

    Honestly, Valkyrie would be best if it lost Aircraft keyword, and it was just a Wave Serpent-equivalent. Maybe give it deep strike, and be done with it. Same with Heldrake - but keep it as just as a fast flying monster.

    • @Trazynn
      @Trazynn 15 часов назад +4

      It's also a weirdly large model compared to everything else. I would love for the guard to have a mode modest, slower flying transport lander.

    • @Beta-f8e
      @Beta-f8e 14 часов назад +2

      Same with the Corvus Blackstar 🤷🏼

    • @L35L3Y
      @L35L3Y 13 часов назад +1

      The Valk would be decent with a minor points reduction and two shots with Hellstrike missiles and giving 1 ap to the rockets. That's all it needs, really, but making it equal to the Blackstar would be even better.

    • @shaggnar2014
      @shaggnar2014 11 часов назад

      ​@Trazynn my problem is the small flyers look really dumb normally

  • @Asmodai1234
    @Asmodai1234 11 часов назад +20

    I think it's telling for the future of aircraft that, in nearly a decade since they came onto the scene, we haven't had Primaris one for Space Marines.

    • @basteala525
      @basteala525 9 часов назад +4

      That's an interesting point, and kind of sad if so. the fliers look nice.
      But then...other than the Predator and Land Raider and kinda/sorta the Rhino (The Impulsor isn't really much of a Rhino OR Razorback...), there haven't been many primaris equivalents yet.

  • @sockMonster241
    @sockMonster241 13 часов назад +15

    - Jink as a core stratagem (1CP, only hit and be hit on a 6 until opponents next shooting phase, unless a weapon has the anti-aircraft keyword or something)
    - A global -1 to hit for all aircraft
    - Move the turn they come on the board
    - Weapons with less than 24" of range can't shoot at them. How am I hitting a jet with a flamer??
    That would fix it for me. Adjust points as needed. If they need to be expensive, so be it. Better than not existing on the table at all.

  • @Flirkann
    @Flirkann 17 часов назад +32

    A real shame when thematically, certain factions are supposed to make dramatic use of Orbital Insertion, arriving in the nick of time with Ride of the Valkeries playing in the background

  • @TheWarpForge
    @TheWarpForge 14 часов назад +17

    Best way to balence: Remove the Aircraft Keyword. Just let them be vehicles with the Fly Keyword. If they need anything to amke them "Flyers" just give them the uppy-downy rules.

    • @gundricsgamesandhistory.9450
      @gundricsgamesandhistory.9450 9 часов назад

      I like the uppy downy idea. Or they could start off table and be placed in your movement phase until your following command phase, so they have a whole turn as a potential target. Also give them speeds, which you declare in the command phase. Slow gives you the best to hit chance (4+) but makes you have a 6++. Medium gives you 5+ to hit and a 5++ save and fast gives you 6+ and a 4++. As a flyer you cannot gain any benefits from command re rolls or stratagems.

    • @craigkenny37
      @craigkenny37 6 часов назад

      Simple and effective, i like it. I do think that the current uppy-downy rules right now might be a bit strong for them, so maybe they can only uppy or downy in you own movement phase.
      I saying that, i think the uppy-downy rules in general might be a bit too strong, so maybe the game might benefit from them all changing to only done in the movement phase, but there might be exceptions for things like enhancements or epic heroes with this rule.

    • @Husker5454
      @Husker5454 5 часов назад

      Its funny you mention this , one of the only somewhat competitive flyers in the game are the Necron Doom scythe and Night scythe running in hypercrypt so you can up and down them constantly and avoid using the stupid minimum 20* move .

  • @PlasmaPea04
    @PlasmaPea04 17 часов назад +17

    I think the best way to balance flyers would be to just make them normal vehicles like how AOS handles the kharadron overlords skyvessels.

  • @sweden4thewin
    @sweden4thewin 17 часов назад +17

    Fliers are cool af so they should be playable imo.

  • @minkster5054
    @minkster5054 17 часов назад +20

    I'm hoping they dont get rid of flyers all together. Not that anything will stop me using my 5 valkyries, because it looks so damn cool. I always take my hydra too, in case my opponent has their own flyers. Fly and anti fly should be in the game for sure. BTW, waiting for the votann Gyrocopter with fingers crossed and a lot of hope.

  • @RoyalPurple.Paints
    @RoyalPurple.Paints 17 часов назад +11

    I don't get why they don't just cap them at 12" move and remove all the aircraft stuff. It's not fair to have such cool models blatantly thrown to the wayside. Maybe have a strat that gives one the 20"+ move speed, or not at all. There's loads of options that could be done to change them up, they're just not being acted on.

  • @ZaberFangAT
    @ZaberFangAT 17 часов назад +27

    6:18 I get what you're trying to say, but an assault marine with jump pack is one of the situations where you specifically CAN get an aircraft in melee - units with the Fly keyword can charge and be selected to fight Aircraft

    • @bouncymischa
      @bouncymischa 13 часов назад +2

      I always remember the time (back in 8th edition, I think) when I had a Necron Lokhust Lord with a pack of Acanthrites tagging along all charge my brother's Thunderbolt as it was making strafing runs. Fun times~

  • @phillipA123
    @phillipA123 15 часов назад +8

    If we can balance an infantry unit and a knight I think we can do better with flyers. My opinion is make them more expensive but with better stratagems. They shouldn't be the bread and butter of any army, but doing cool stuff with cool models should be the driving force behind design

  • @GrammerPollice
    @GrammerPollice 2 часа назад +1

    The multiple flier tax suggestion made me think of something. What if every unit had their own specific "spam tax", different for each unit? For example, a primaris intercessor squad might be 0, while assault marines might be 5, and sang guard 10. The more elite a unit is supposed to be, maybe add a slight tax to spamming them. Maybe certain detachments could remove these taxes for themed units.

  • @TheCoincidence
    @TheCoincidence 17 часов назад +18

    There is likely a way to balance flyers reasonably. But they're also likely intentionally becoming vestigial, or way out of focus when all these armies now in the game could use extra variety in ground units.

  • @spicybarbecue222
    @spicybarbecue222 18 часов назад +67

    i think they realised that aircraft was a mistake. they will probably remove all the upie downie stuff next editon too if not before as this was also clearly a mistake

    • @stephenferry3017
      @stephenferry3017 17 часов назад +19

      Back in 4th and 5th edition, they were mostly a forge world thing. An extra set of rules for hard core people. I like them and I would like to use them, but I admittedly play casual games.

    • @LordOffal
      @LordOffal 17 часов назад +6

      I think you could have them work in big games like apocalypse and balance them in that but standard 40K is a skirmish game based on old fashioned historical military games.
      What would be fun is having a secondary layer on a board which, in game modes that allowed it, would be a layer of battle.

    • @attemptedunkindness3632
      @attemptedunkindness3632 17 часов назад +7

      @@stephenferry3017 I started in 7th but even then bringing an aircraft to the table wasn't blowing any minds unless you're talking mantas in which case eff you.

    • @stephenferry3017
      @stephenferry3017 17 часов назад +2

      @@LordOffal but Apocalypse is defunct now. I feel like the rules for aircraft are not great either.

    • @stephenferry3017
      @stephenferry3017 17 часов назад +2

      @attemptedunkindness3632 yeah in 5th and 6th, they weren't too bad and the rules weren't awful. You made sure to have anti-air around because they could be deadly.

  • @CuriousLumenwood
    @CuriousLumenwood 13 часов назад +5

    I got a Hemlock Wraithfighter to round out my wraith-only eldar list. I don’t regret it, cuz it’s funny and I painted mine like the SR-71 Blackbird, but man…

  • @henrychurch6062
    @henrychurch6062 17 часов назад +47

    Why would you bring Helldrakes when a dreadnaught can just throw a statue at it?

    • @chetmanley1885
      @chetmanley1885 17 часов назад +6

      Brother Yeetus Deletus casts you down!

    • @jeremiegartner464
      @jeremiegartner464 14 часов назад

      Soulforge. Use the walk through walls strat. Sneaky anti fly 2 from 20" away. Through a wall

    • @GFortz
      @GFortz 13 часов назад +1

      @@jeremiegartner464 They fly anyway, so that point's kinda moot. Sweeping the Baleflamer along the ground, giving them an out-of-phase attack on a target they pass over - now THAT would be a Heldrake I'd put points into.

  • @iliahgranovsky3400
    @iliahgranovsky3400 17 часов назад +32

    I just dont see the point in making aircraft different in any way from tanks?. They have bases. They have 20 inch movement and they have guns. Theres no need for weird flight rules. Just make them the same as any vehicle. The models are cool on their own

    • @jibjibs9401
      @jibjibs9401 16 часов назад +1

      Exactly, is melee hitting fliers really so unacceptable in the game? There’s plenty of stuff that already doesn’t make the most sense.

    • @Evil0tto
      @Evil0tto 16 часов назад +18

      @@jibjibs9401 Gotta disagree. There needs to be some at least basic real-world grounding in 40K, even if the game itself has plenty of silliness. Troops aren't ordered to do bayonet charges against helicopters and jets.

    • @OverlordZephyros
      @OverlordZephyros 16 часов назад +9

      Melee against a aircraft is just dumb

    • @jimmydesouza4375
      @jimmydesouza4375 16 часов назад +3

      @@OverlordZephyros Melee just in general is dumb when the opponent has science fiction weapons that can deatomise MBTs in an instant from several miles away, as in 40k.

    • @jeremiegartner464
      @jeremiegartner464 14 часов назад

      This would be bad against most big flyers because lone of sight rules. Nowhere to hide them.

  • @AndrBR0
    @AndrBR0 16 часов назад +3

    You can make aircraft to be able to come out of reserves more than 1” and at the end of opponent's turn you must place it back in reserves, to represent strafing runs. Also, "counts 12” away for weapon range and all other rules" would be nice rule

  • @randomusernameCallin
    @randomusernameCallin 13 часов назад +3

    I am all for specialty points. Points that you can only spend on one type of unit like fliers, fortifications and even mission units.

    • @L35L3Y
      @L35L3Y 13 часов назад +2

      I love this idea.

  • @marauder340
    @marauder340 14 часов назад +2

    On one hand, I get the grief caused by good aircraft rules, but on the other hand, that's exactly what air superiority is.
    That said, I think the rules should make them meaningful when taken but only in limited amounts. A once per battle strafing/bombing run kind of mechanic might work and you'd still need to use the model to represent its path of attack. While it's uninteractive to most things, let the enemy get free overwatch or something with every gun that has a range of 36" and up, native stats for anti-fly profiles so that there's some counterplay. You have a chance to do something impactful once with aircraft, enemy has counterplay unless they really forego such shooting, and it's not repeatable except maybe in special or specific cases so that it doesn't get oppressive.
    Transports could drop off their personnel the turn they come in, but must remain stationary and treated like hover to represent landing to let units disembark. Following turn they have to fly off the board. Could feel like pseudo deep strike plus temporary extra guns that can be shot down.

  • @LDZMarder
    @LDZMarder 15 часов назад +1

    1. No meele for Aircraft and no base restriction for ground units (aka if there would be no base for the aircraft model)
    2. Bring back popup attacks for hover mode units. Each hovering model that pop up attacks above ruins is being seen other wise LOS restrictions apply for both.
    3. Units shooting fast moving flyers get a -2 to hit if they cant get a clear LOS on a airplane no malus if its a anti air unit. No malus if its a hovering units that is doing a pop up attack. A -1 to hit if its clear LOS.
    4. Hovering units can be attackt in meele (meele is also shooting in close combat at point blank range not just punching)
    5. Flyers cant hold objektives or take them. They are just fier support.
    6. No announcing of fly paths so units can be moved out of the way. The unit shows up on every second turn, theoretically. Put unit on its turn on egde of the board, say in its own turn where is leaving. If the enemy has any kind of reactive movement he can do it as per rules. If he has any kind of reactive shooting let him do it. Other wise move and drop bombs and should you stay on map because movement did not let you leave the map recive return fier in the enemys turn.
    7. Aircraft can meele other circraft
    8. massive explosions and carnage, i demand scater dice or rules for that to see where a aircraft drops and how many friendly or enemy or both units it takes down while crashing. No escape for transports no emergency disembarkation. If its a aircraft with no hover roll 2d6 to see how far its flys in its designated path and then see if it drops out of sky on any one head. Roll for EXPLOSIONS!!!! 4D6 for mortal wonds!

  • @Rhod-wg7yt
    @Rhod-wg7yt 3 часа назад

    Quick idea for better rules.
    - 24" move standard.
    - Melee attacks against allowed at half attacks and no AP. But attacker gets a 3" + d3 move off the flyers base.
    Units with fly ignore this. Jump/grav units ignore the AP debuff.
    - No minus to shooting against.
    - Bin hover/fly mode.
    Just make them more simple, but buffed against melee.

  • @paitrynpait9664
    @paitrynpait9664 11 часов назад +1

    the old skimmer rules for them in 5th when they introduced them was about as good as it could get because they werent invulnerable in the skies but I never thought they belonged in regular games of 40k just like titans, aka knights didnt.

  • @johnfarscape
    @johnfarscape 10 часов назад +1

    There is another game system, where flyers have to make a strafing run, you position them on the table at the end of your own turn, the enemy get their turn as usual, and can shoot the flyer if they wish, then the flyer operates as usual in your own turn, but conducts its shooting as it moves along a straight line, then leaves the board, and returns the end of your following turn, its simple, but means the flyer is only attacking every other turn, to represent it circling around.

    • @kevindecock6707
      @kevindecock6707 9 часов назад

      To me, that sounds like what a flyer should feel like. Also, I would give the weapons that can hit flyers the "ground to air" statictic. So only those can fire at a flyer.

  • @Paradukes
    @Paradukes 17 часов назад +9

    I think they need to rework flier rules to be a genuine threat, but on top of that they then need to cap them in some way - either by restricting numbers or points. Honestly the best option might just be to make the rules an optional extra - make it clear they aren't intended for tournament play, unless the TO's explicitly allow them, which would mean they wouldn't be dominating the competitive scene.

    • @tommytymesaame6624
      @tommytymesaame6624 16 часов назад +3

      Thats litterally legends. Technically unless your TO says otherwise legends units are tourny legal according to gw its just that all TOs say otherwise. So to have them in matched not tourny play itnwould be the same effect as legends and let be honest a legends unit isnt a unit

    • @Paradukes
      @Paradukes 16 часов назад

      @tommytymesaame6624 you're not wrong, but I was thinking of a new category: not legends (which is where things go to die) but a category of optional extras that still get rebalanced and updated. Living Legends, if you will. I'd stick fortifications in there too, as they're another one they don't want at tournament tables.

    • @banishedpest115
      @banishedpest115 13 часов назад +2

      ​@@Paradukeswhich is what they should do with legends, but they have made it clear they don't care to support things with rules like that if they aren't mainline, so the point is moot.

  • @neilkirkley1500
    @neilkirkley1500 13 часов назад +1

    Right here's my suggestion for flyers, have them not behave like any of the ground based units at all.
    On your turn the flyer enters the board, you place it anywhere and can drop bombs on any unit that is in-between that point and your deployment zone, you then shoot as normal on your opponents turn they can shoot at it but it can only hit on a 6, and maybe that -12" to range on weapons shooting at it like it used to have, on your next turn it does not move but exits the board again after your shooting phase. Rinse and repeat.
    Although that seems strong, it could easily be balanced with low T and W for the flyers so they could be dropped with dedicated anti armour shots but they're hard to hit, like a fucking plane would be...

  • @Astandane
    @Astandane 6 часов назад

    I've recently bought a Night Scythe simply because it looks cool, and it'll go in my list partly for that :)
    I think an interesting approach: An aircraft could move as it currently does, but at the end of it's movement, can decide to hover rather than leave the board. At that point, until the next movement phase, all enemy ranged weapons gain +1 to hit against it, but there is no melee potential. This way, they can be given strong weapons, but balanced out with a risk/reward mechanic.

  • @GFortz
    @GFortz 13 часов назад +1

    I mean... it's called Close Air Support for a *reason*. Modern tactics give us plenty of examples where aircraft is not the bulk of the force, but ratcher provide ground units with stuff like covering and/or suppressing fire.
    The way I see it, datasheet rules would be the way to go, as it puts a natural cap on the amount of fliers you'd take in a given list. Soup up the bombers' ability (think the Sun Shark, but with like double the dice to play around with and/or applying to *all* units they pass over) and then give the CAS type units abilities that actually impact the board like flushing targets from cover, reducing their movement or applying hit roll penalties.

    • @firebat36
      @firebat36 7 часов назад

      Biggest thing is the scale issue. Fast movers still being on the board after a bombing run is pretty funny.

  • @ryanbarry5320
    @ryanbarry5320 12 часов назад +1

    It definitely needs fixing. It’s such a shame because flyers could really be such a cool part of the game if they just massaged the rules and made it a fun dynamic.. Like they could do something where all flyers turn one have to do a bombing run and then turn to do a strafing run and then turn three go into dogfight mode where they are treated like a regular unit, for each of the turns, there are specific rules for what they do, but they don’t actually appear on the table until three.

  • @aldraone-mu5yg
    @aldraone-mu5yg 8 часов назад +4

    As much as I love the designs, aircraft that large don't really belong in a ground combat game.

  • @ChrisPrice12
    @ChrisPrice12 3 часа назад

    I think Dropzone Commander had the best rules for jet aircraft. Roll to see it they come in, set up the model on a table edge, then they made an attack on models/units that were under a straight line across to the table to the opposite table edge. Anything that could intercept fire would roll to do so.

  • @BentJacket
    @BentJacket 6 часов назад

    The rules for fliers in Legions Imperialis would actually be perfect for 40k. Give them small ranges and start off board. Place them anywhere at the start of your turn. They do their thing and then stay there until end of enemy turn. Remove if alive and repeat. Behold proper CaS, with a flyer zooming over head.

  • @sm901ftw
    @sm901ftw 17 часов назад +1

    GW buffing Necrons again (especially the Doomsday Ark) and leaving the Doomscythe at 230 points kinda drives the point home for me. The Scythe already has enough drawbacks over competitors that it'd be a tough sell if they were the same cost. An extra 40 points for the privilege of arriving late isn't remotely competitive.
    On the other hand, the Nightscythe is a good example of them turning things around. It may not be competitive still, but it's very fun.

  • @stephenrepper8118
    @stephenrepper8118 6 часов назад

    As you pointed out, the basic issue is, if they're good, you take loads, if they're bad, you take none. In a world with no force org chart mechanic its hard for them to point them in a sweet spot. Also, lots of the improvements in balance between range and melee in recent editions has come from terrain and obscuring. Like woth indirect, its hars to gauge how much of a premium to charge for thag, doubly so as different terrain layouts will make that more or less valuable. For example, its quite easy to imagine pointing a predator, a gladiator and a storm speeder fairly for their unique combinations of dmg, defence and speed, but how much more should a similarly gunned aircraft cost? On a terrain dense map with poor shooting lines, arguably a lot, on a relatively open board with long lanes, very little. I do think for both aircraft and indirect they need to thinl abt debuffing effects rather than just raw dmg, something akin to hit modifiers, causing battleshock tests, movement debuffs, or old style pinning test mechanics. You then write the rules to be less directly damaging but have valuable consequences on the flow of the game on the ground.

  • @Feralhyena
    @Feralhyena 9 часов назад

    The biggest challenge to balancing them is choosing where to be abstract and where to be realistic. Some of the Aircraft Transports should have the Dedicated Transport rule, particularly the Valkyrie and Nightscythe, for basic Lore reasons, even if that only gets implemented at the Detachment Rules level. I feel the Lone Operative rule would up the survivability of the Unit type in a way that makes sense narratively. Some rules for upping the maneuverability of non-Hover Aircraft, say, letting them double turn at the cost of either CP and/or a Battleshock test, would make them better off in comparison to their Hovering analogues.

  • @CatCraine
    @CatCraine 7 часов назад

    One of the "fantasies" I enjoy about wargaming is having a combined army on the field. I love seeing tanks, infantry, and air support all on one board. The change in 10th to have characters join in as part of a unit was a masterful change, which is why it's baffling that fliers (and fortifications) are so poorly implemented. Doubly so because Legions Imperialis implemented them well.

  • @Despresso-ht6ce
    @Despresso-ht6ce 8 часов назад

    I think flyers would be great for suppressing infantry units, giving them malus to either their move or their hit roll (making you choose to either duck behing cover and lose some movement as you have to stop yourself while you're being shot, or trying to run out of sight but being inaccurate as you do). That would probably be best, but it would also depend on each army (i doubt an helldrake would do something like that). Also i like what they did with necron aircraft ability, either you give the flyer better crit or you get a malus which is great balance imo

  • @BrownBread-qq2jp
    @BrownBread-qq2jp 7 часов назад

    Instead of them having a locked flight path, maybe you could use a protractor and the flyer can turn and continue flying at maybe 30 degrees left or right. This would give them a larger threat range and limiting to effectiveness of moving troops out of the way.

  • @LightandDarknessLion
    @LightandDarknessLion 8 часов назад

    When I first started back in 8th, I bought a Stormraven, Stormtalon, and Stormhawk because they looked cooler to me than Rhinos or Land Raiders.
    That quickly changed when they were either focused down or contributed next to nothing to the battle, and losing so many points turn 1 never felt good.

  • @BushSage
    @BushSage 11 часов назад

    A quick band aid I thought of for my games are a Core Stratagem
    1 CP Ace Piloting: Command Phase: Pivot an Aircraft up to 90°.
    Plus doubling the dice dropped for a bombing run because using so much positioning for barely any damage once per game is absurd.

  • @tigirus4656
    @tigirus4656 4 часа назад

    My platonic ideal for a flyer is just to be a glorified pointed shooting attack, kinda like the old pay for orbital strikes from the old 4th ed daemonhunters codex. The flyer would be cheap-ish and very easy to kill so that if it gets hit by a stray missile or lascannon it goes down, additionally they *have* to fly off the table next turn. So the general mentality is you pay like 40 points or whatever for a razorwing, it shows up turn 2 shoots its guns at whatever, your opponent gets a chance to shoot at it, then it flys off the table turn 3 to repeat the process turn 4 or 5 when you need them. I like the idea of them as a way to pay for the ability to shoot one thing wherever you want on the table once per game, kinda like a disposable resource for dealing with hiding units or lone ops.

  • @Flight_of_Icarus
    @Flight_of_Icarus 6 часов назад

    My thoughts about how to balance them mostly are about making anti aircraft guns a lot more viable and versatile. In real life these kinds of AA guns were also great against infantry and light vehicles. Flak guns in modern armies are often still taken as they're great against infantry and technicals, or repurposed civilian trucks.
    Make AA guns strong enough to be taken generally, like even without facing down aircraft they could be great against elite infantry and light vehicles. Give them overwatch against Aircraft specifically, within range, and you can make aircraft powerful again without breaking the balance much.

  • @peterpackard45
    @peterpackard45 11 часов назад +1

    the valkyrie is the most fluffy part of my all scions army, i dont mind it being weak in meta

  • @hendrikmoons8218
    @hendrikmoons8218 7 часов назад +1

    GW defenition of Flyers: Things that we sell for a premium, are heroes in the books, but YOU, the costumer, will experiance them as a toy on the flyer stand. For you, will not use them unless you are all but guarentied to lose.
    My experiance with them, as a player since 1990 is simple. They s*ck har/y M*nk/y blls. Do not buy, unless you love the model.
    They used to be playable to 1 edition over powered to the laughing stock of your colection.
    EDIT: for those not knowing them peshky flyers could be op, I remember 'Helldrake spam'. Where if you went to toornaments, a quater of the players there would have between 3 and 6 on da board.

  • @ShadowCoH316
    @ShadowCoH316 10 часов назад

    I wouldn't have said this 3 months ago, but after playing Space Marine 2 I can't imagine building a CSM army and NOT putting a Heldrake on the table. What a cool monster and model. I never really liked the idea of flyers being in the game before but I can guarantee that's just because since I got back in (the end of 8th) the rules just didn't support flyers in a good way.
    As much as I want flyers to be relevant I have a hard time imagining a scenario where they're good enough to take and not either so good as to be mandatory or so mediocre as to still not make much of a splash. If anyone has any interesting ideas for how to make flyers work (and fortifications for that matter) you should try pitching those to GW somehow if only to give them some ideas.

  • @vescovinator
    @vescovinator 13 часов назад

    I like the idea of having your flyer pop in, rain some hate then fly out it's effectively doing stafing runs. Maybe make it a hard cap if 1/1000 pts again, come in turn one and see where it goes from there

  • @LordNerfherder
    @LordNerfherder 17 часов назад +6

    The answer to this is even more obvious. Where are the new flier and fortification models? There you go. Most already have a flier or two. They are working on shelving all of your fliers so they can sell new models. Same as wraithknights.

    • @LordCrate-du8zm
      @LordCrate-du8zm 17 часов назад

      That's nonsense. Fortifications make sense, they're just buildings you pay money for. But Flyers? Where else will we find these iconic units?

    • @MrShukaku1991
      @MrShukaku1991 11 часов назад

      ​@@LordCrate-du8zmin the sky fighting the other aircraft instead of shooting the ground troops.

  • @eldenwarden9673
    @eldenwarden9673 15 часов назад +1

    IN THE GRIM DARKNESS THERE IS ONLY WAR!
    But no planes please - GW

    • @firebat36
      @firebat36 7 часов назад +1

      We literally have multiple weapons that can make a planet not exist. Why the fuck does the game mostly model on the ground D-Day style battles?

  • @saintmayhem9873
    @saintmayhem9873 10 часов назад

    I think you should get to overwatch at an off-the-board flyer for free while it flies across the board once per movement phase. Let them fly edge of board to edge of board, with a free overwatch for the enemy to shoot at them. Have them simply run strafing runs but also incur an amount of fire commensurate with as close to a 50/50 trade-off as you can manage.
    Ultimately the real problem is how do you represent their location above the battlefield without it also changing where people can physically place models on the table. Maybe some sort of peripheral that you can clamp to the gaming table you're playing on with the ability to physically hold the model in the air over the board? Spring-tension posable arm that can hold up those models would be fairly unwieldy I expect though. It would be neat tho.

  • @9ballbreaker
    @9ballbreaker 13 часов назад

    I got into deathwatch recently. The corvus is basically the mandatory now given the faction being gutted. And it's such a good model, so I'm ok with it being useful but pricey. But it's hover mode is the saving grace since I've used it now more like a gun platform sticking close to the kill teams like a drop zone clearance

  • @DaThingOnTheDoorstep
    @DaThingOnTheDoorstep 15 часов назад +1

    Sucks because some factions (coughDrukharicoughcough) have barely any models to put into lists that some of the cooler things are getting squatted. I also really want a Guard army with Valkyries, maybe even Avenger Strike Fighters.

  • @DaneJT
    @DaneJT 5 часов назад

    IMO, units that can be set to fly or hover, should have the option to switch between. could have it as a once per battle thing
    Take a Heldrake, Fly's in turn 2, then turn 3 movement phase, switches to Hover and then gains +1BS due to now being more stationary and an appropriate OC.

  • @UochRS
    @UochRS 17 часов назад +4

    hot take: the helldrake can't be gotten rid of and is now more iconic than 90% of chaos vehicles
    "THAT ABOMINATION IS MINE"
    "...holy terra..."

    • @yhormthemidget
      @yhormthemidget 16 часов назад +2

      Helldrakes are awsome. Yeah, stuff like Angron or Morty are cooler, but I have yet to see anyone who looked at a decently painted helldrake and was not thoroughly impressed. They are peak Chaos. Also huge... that model is a display case queen.

    • @UochRS
      @UochRS 14 часов назад

      @@yhormthemidget yeah frankly if i want something that fits nicely into a corner to be part of a diorama it might genuinely be the helldrake.

  • @firebat36
    @firebat36 7 часов назад

    Even RTS video games have issues balancing air units, and they usually dont act like an actual air unit would in a war. It wouldnt be cool to not have a unit to field, but spending the points on a bomber giving you the ability to call in an airstrike / bombing run would be more thematically realistic. Either every aircraft acts like a helicopter / hovercraft, or in the far future of war, we only have the slowest airframes.

  • @brasssnacks8413
    @brasssnacks8413 12 часов назад

    A core element of the Tau is the caste system. We don't have any Earth or Water Caste to put on the board, so I hate that what little Air Caste we have isn't viable.

  • @sadlerbw9
    @sadlerbw9 6 часов назад

    Ok, buckle up cause I'm going on a rant!
    Fliers have a number of major and minor problems. The major problems, IMO, are the following:
    1. They require a significant word-count investment into extra rules to allow them to violate or ignore many of the basic movement, engagement, line-of-sight, and terrain rules. The rules either need to be shorter, or need to use that space to make rules about what Aircraft CAN do, not what they CAN'T do.
    2. The model kits themselves tend to be very large and have issues physically fitting into several areas of standard terrain layouts, especially if you have multiple aircraft in both players armies.
    3. The need to physically place aircraft on the game board does a poor job of simulating the use of aircraft in a 40k battle, and requires several unrealistic mechanics for no other reason than to allow the model to be placed on the game board with the ground units.
    4. Historically, whenever an Aircraft unit has been good enough to be included in a competitive army, it has not been a fun or interesting challenge for opponents playing against it. Basically, when aircraft have been good, it has been precisely because they ignore large swathes of the core rules of the game, and the games featuring tons of aircraft have not been fun because of their lack of interactivity with so much of what the game does.
    If Aircraft are ever going to be a 'good' part of the game, then all of these issues will need to be addressed to some extent. As far as I'm concerned that means Aircraft can't be fixed with points, and will likely continue to have costs that are too high to keep them out of the competitive space until we see an entirely new set of rules for aircraft. I do have some ideas for how to change things to address several of those major issues, but I'm not sure it fixes all of them. Here are some of my suggestions for what could be done with Aircraft:
    1. Aircraft are no longer placed on the game board unless they happen to be a troop transport and have the Deep Strike ability. Aircraft may not shoot on a turn they deep-strike. Reusing the deep strike rules to handle troop transports should save on required special rules text, and taking the models off the board should get rid of several of the undesirable situations like the base of a flying aircraft still being usable for move blocking, and aircraft being forced to leave the board without attacking because there isn't enough open space for their base along a valid flight path. Also, all of a players aircraft units that are not in reserves are returned to reserves at the start of a players command phase. The beginning of the Movement phase would also work, but Command phase felt cleaner.
    2. All Aircraft start the game in reserves, and Aircraft units may not be activated in any phase until turn 2. There are other ways to deal with the early alpha-strike issue, but this works and doesn't require much wording to accomplish.
    3. During the movement phase, an Aircraft can do one of the following: Deep Strike (only if it is a Transport and has the ability), return to reserves, Attempt a ground strike, attempt a dogfight. The first two work pretty much just like the standard rules unless there is some corner case I've forgotten, and the last two are new. As a note, while on the board after a Deep Strike, there are no special line-of-sight, engagement range, or other rules. The Aircraft can be shot at like it was any other vehicle. It can be charged/melee'd, and can melee back just like any other vehicle as well. To attempt a Ground Strike, the aircraft's model is placed at any point beside the game map, touching the edge of the map. Next a token is placed on the board indicating the point the aircraft will attempt to strike. This token is removed at the beginning of the aircraft's next command phase when it returns to reserves, or if it is destroyed. (We will get to the actual shooting in a minute.) An Aircraft attempting a dogfight may select any enemy aircraft that is NOT in reserves, and is placed as close to that aircraft as possible without touching the edge of the game map. This 'near the enemy' mechanic is really only to help remember which aircraft is being targeted without having to put them on the actual game map, and could easily be done with a different mechanic. This also an excuse to still use the Aircraft models rather than abstracting them away completely.
    4. During the shooting phase, an Aircraft may do one of two things: First, an Aircraft that placed a Ground Strike token in its previous movement phase may perform a Ground Strike. If it does, it may shoot with any or all of its ranged weapons using the normal shooting rules with the following changes: It is considered to have line-of-sight to any models within 6" of its ground strike token and is considered to be in range of those models for all of its ranged weapons. Any model within 1" of, or occupying, any terrain feature is considered to have cover from Ground Strike attacks. Normal terrain rules do not apply. This lets you re-use most of the shooting rules and makes terrain matter, but in a simplified way without needing to make some sort of abstracted line-of-sight system. Second, an Aircraft that Attempted a Dogfight in its previous movement phase may make a Dogfight attack. The attacker is considered to have line of sight and be in-range of its target Aircraft only, and may otherwise make ranged attacks against that target using the rest of the normal Shooting rules. If the target of a Dogfight Attack Attempted a Ground Strike or made a Deep Strike during its previous movement phase, the attacker gets +1 to-hit on any ranged attacks against that target. After an attacker performs a Dogfight attack, its target may make Retaliation attack if it was not destroyed. A Retaliation Attack is identical to a Dogfight attack with the following change: if the unit making the Retaliation attack made a Deep Strike or attempted a Ground Strike in its previous movement phase, it gets a -1 to-hit on any ranged attacks against its target. Basically, dogfights are reciprocal like melee with the attacker going first by default, but it favors the attacker if the target was trying to drop off troops or make a ground strike.
    5. A unit that makes an Attempt to Ground Strike move in its last movement phase is considered visible to and in range of the ranged weapons of any units within 12" of its Ground Strike token as long as that token is on the board. This lets some units outside of the strike area shoot back at the Aircraft that made the Ground Strike. The basic tradeoff I'm going for here is that Aircraft will be able to select a target area and the units inside of it won't be able to escape without using some sort of reactive move, but in exchange units from a larger area are able to shoot back at the Aircraft. The 6" and 12" for the strike area and shoot-back area are negotiable. They could be bigger, smaller, or whatever. What matters is the idea that more units can potentially shoot back than the aircraft can target (can't wipe out all possible return fire), and the Ground Strike target area is small enough that a unit with a reactive move has at least a chance of getting out of that area when it gets targeted (Aircraft have a targeting advantage, but escaping the attack isn't impossible.) I don't think the entire board should be able to shoot back at Aircraft that make ground strikes, but they should face return fire from more than just the units they target.
    That is the core of what I propose. Basically, get aircraft physically off the board as much as possible, but allow them to still interact with the ground map through a strike mechanic and return fire opportunities. Give them an advantage in picking targets, but make it unlikely that they can position things in such a way that no one can shoot back at them if they kill their target. Try to work with the existing shooting rules if possible, but get rid of all the weirdness of trying to re-use the movement and terrain rules that ground units have to deal with. Make Aircraft a sideshow that can add flavor to the ground game, but don't need to physically be on the map to do it, or be capable enough to overshadow the ground game.
    There may be other things that should be added for some more nuance or balance beyond my core ideas. For example, maybe making attacks against aircraft from ground units should take a -1 to-hit unless they have anti-fly? Maybe there needs to be another 'move' option that lets an aircraft pull an enemy aircraft out of reserves to attack it without needing to wait for it to exit reserves on its own first (right now, someone either has to deep strike or ground strike before any dogfighting can happen. Players might want a way to start a dogfight without someone hitting the ground first?) Maybe there needs to be some sort of lag so you can't do back-to-back ground strikes every turn? Maybe Aircraft should still be allowed to shoot when they Deep Strike? Maybe weapons with anti-fly should be able to shoot at aircraft that are dogfighting? There are lots of tweaks that could be made, but I think fundamentally taking Aircraft off the board, and treating them just like any other unit in the limited times when they are on the board gets rid of the feeling of being in the way, or always a step behind that they have now without making them all-seeing death machines that ignore all tactical positioning. Of course, this is just my opinion.
    Oh, and should anyone be interested in using the ideas in this post, I claim no rights or interests in these proposed game designs and provide them at no cost, irrevocably, and in perpetuity for any use or derivative work by any entity.

  • @hti5795
    @hti5795 11 часов назад +1

    I feel this, I recently got a heldrake as one of my first models literally because it was cool 😂. It feels so underpowered for its point cost that it feels like I almost don't want to bring it because its just very weak

  • @snowbush7990
    @snowbush7990 12 часов назад

    The problem with Air Craft is that they are the most mobile units in a game that HINGES on positioning
    They can't really be blocked movement-wise so you can't screen them, meaning that, if the other player goes first, they can zip a heavily armed flyer in the back and delete a heavy hitter.
    So they then had to start making them start off the board, and raising points to try and nerf them.

  • @salamanda550
    @salamanda550 12 часов назад

    I dont play Guard but the fact that Valkyries suck always rubbed me the wrong way. Like, the coolest thing ever is the bits in Halo, dropping a squad of Marines out the back of the Pelican and a Warthog for them to rally around, and Guard feel like they SHOULD do stuff like that, Chimera and Shock Troops dropping out to reinforce a beleagured gunline.

  • @stevecatpatrick8056
    @stevecatpatrick8056 13 часов назад

    What drives me insane about flyers is that they can be fixed simply by giving them hover and removing the aircraft keyword (Since we are obviously talking about aircraft and not any unit with fly, especially with the Nerf fly took in 10th edition). I don't care if they don't"feel like" aircraft when I would be able to play them then, because they sure don't feel like I'm playing an aircraft when they're not on the table. All of the game is abstraction I'm not particularly miffed with melee being able to hurt aircraft. Even with hover they would in general be paying a premium for their mobility and so would be a little more costly for their other stats anyways.
    They are some of GW's best models and I would love to play them. GW has settled on probably the worst possible policy with shadow banning units via horribly over pricing them. It's super toxic towards their new players, I was that person a couple years ago who got into it and snagged and ork plane and a heldrake and a Valkyrie and yet they sit there still not painted because they aren't going to see the table anytime soon despite them being some of my favorite models. As it is there are so many units that are left to wallow in unusability that it looks like there are lots of options to play but once you start removing those shadow banned units You see there really isn't nearly as many as you thought: aircraft, fortifications, forgeworld, Plus a number of things that dominated in one of the last two editions that they have decided to never adjust enough to ever see a single one in a competitive list (think disco Lord which they waited all of 10th edition to slightly reduce him from absolutely ridiculously overcosted to just absolutely overcosted). I'm a person who always prefers to play the slightly offbeat thing in an army instead of what they put front and center as the most obvious thing, It's just always what ends up catching my eye. GW's policy has meant I have a lot of useless models that they sell as usable but never balance or point as usable.
    All I want is GW to give every flyer hover and then point them to the reasonable point where they may not be taken in competitive but you aren't actively hurting yourself taking them and you might see the odd one show up in competitive once in awhile. I think the dakkajet Is the best example right now, It takes a lot of setup but you can do it in speed freaks and one of them produces pretty good results for its points. Now the detachment sucks But that's its own issue.

  • @nichodemus10
    @nichodemus10 8 часов назад

    I think with the simplification of rules Flyers are really tough to balance. It would be interesting if the added complexity to the Flyer rules including firing arcs, minimum movements, and one pivot before movement (limited in arc by flying speed). It would be cool, but GW (and me) seems to want to get away from cool factor over complexity.

  • @Adept24
    @Adept24 11 часов назад

    I've always liked aircraft and enjoy using them in games, the Drukhari have the best model in the Voidraven, the Aeldari, T'au and Imperial Guard look amazing as well, but the Marines look especially ridiculous

  • @HaeravonFAQs
    @HaeravonFAQs 13 часов назад

    Fliers are cool, it's just kind of hard to balance them within a 2000 point game. A lot of other aspects of the game don't interact well/fully with them, they're generally expensive (points-wise) and their flavor is generally not as good as the infantry units. Maybe in 5000 point games having an air wing would make more sense, or in matches specifically designed for aerial combat to the exclusion or reduction of everything else, but both of those are unfeasible for various reasons.
    They're fun models, but not fun to actually play with.

  • @TheThewhatnow
    @TheThewhatnow 13 часов назад

    I think the main problem is that buffing them is not a linear process. If you buff them so running one is decent, then spam is almost always broken. If you buff them so spamming them is viable, then different matchups can be wildly swingy and running a single unit is complete trash. You really need to remove the option of spam, and slant them more into utility or buff/debuff so that they stay useful but not game-ending if the opponent can’t deal with them.

  • @Tehstampede
    @Tehstampede 9 часов назад

    I can't say if GW regrets flyers, but I sure as hell do. Flyers have no place in the scale normal 40k lives in; Apocalypse or a flyer-centric game type would be the only appropriate scales for these types of units.

  • @TheFlyingNostril
    @TheFlyingNostril 13 часов назад

    The solution is simple. Limit flyers to one per 1000 points. Then, release 3-5 MORE flying units per faction, and release a new game mode that is flyers only.

  • @danhill99
    @danhill99 17 часов назад +2

    I really would love at least A faction that can use them.

  • @joshuaaspinall5524
    @joshuaaspinall5524 13 часов назад

    They should make a 3-4k separate game on a massive board with flyers and fortifications supported and remove them from the core game. It's nice for veteran players or group playing special/narrative events to have an option for progression. I don't think they work with the current design philosophy of standard 40k.

  • @dylanvodden1369
    @dylanvodden1369 10 часов назад

    I never got into flyers. And I've only played a couple of games against them. But in my very limited experience, the flyers were either untargettable and basically ignored, or I took anti flyer weapons and shot it out of the sky before it could do anything. I like the idea of flyers, but I wouldn't miss them if they left.

  • @stephensol528
    @stephensol528 12 часов назад

    I wish they would proliferate more anti-air weapons into already existing kits and have it act like armor in a game another fun thing to think about when making a list adding in anti-air. I think there are enough weapons that fit the profile i.e heavy bolters can gain such a keyword or types of missiles and such.

  • @cieloganay1632
    @cieloganay1632 11 часов назад

    It would be cool if flyers were just good and not broken. This would make AA a fun thing to bring in every list just for the fluff especially with alot of AA being fairly cheap so it would make a big impact in lists, also with most AA having fairly long range guns can provide a little fire support to the rest of the army if there isnt any Air targets.

  • @KahlAlphOrkius
    @KahlAlphOrkius 12 часов назад

    21:34 I would argue that da boyz getting shot out of an "invisible canon" or from a "jumbo tellyporta" to attack an aircraft with their power claws would be an epic thing to envision and certainly on theme.
    "Let's krump(le) dat flyin' ting Boyz!"
    An dat waz how mah claw got da name "Da Drake Dekapitator"!

  • @recapdrake
    @recapdrake 11 часов назад

    I would love a one aircraft per army rule, the Ravenwing dark talon is one of the things that drew me to dark angels, and to find out that literally none of the Ravenwing units are good is disappointing

  • @enricocarlini5363
    @enricocarlini5363 15 часов назад

    Aircraft are just like titans, cool models you can build/collect, and if you reaaally wanna play, you get some (bad) rules
    If GW really wanna fix them my tips would be
    1- they dont deserve to be in the same Toughness/wounds range of tanks. In reality (ok 40k is pretty far from reality) aircraft can be damaged from a lot of weapons who dosn't even scratch a tank. Other than been logic, that's wuould adress the "they just come in and nuke everything able tu hurt them" issue.
    2 An anti-aircraft support stratagem could help too. I mean, i can have some anti aircraft support from out of the battlefield
    3 on a more general note, imho Warhammer could be reeeally imporved if they just make a rule to give us a "hitting big stuff is easier than hit little stuff" effect.
    Shioting infantry from an aircraft should be less effective (would be realistic) but aircraft should be a real threat for huge veicles (realistic too) that should be easy to hit and should have to rely on thougness/armor to resist.
    The same could be helpful to help balancing infantry weapon, should be deadly, but hard to lock on small target.
    Something like a target size at range, with
    -1 little (gretching, ratlings)
    +0 regular (standard infantry)
    +1 to hit on small veichles
    +2 to hit on big veichles/tanks
    And real anti-tank weapon with just bad to hit stats, to make them useful only on bis stuff and aircraft bad "to hit" too, i mean, i can have adcanced tech, but i'm still flyng...

  • @garathminis5108
    @garathminis5108 15 часов назад

    When they where introduced in 6th ed, they broke the game.
    People where fielding Necron armies with 6 Croissant transports , costing 130 pts each.
    You could only hit them on 6...unless you had sky fire. Which not a lot of models had.
    That's why they where removed.

  • @Atom-Phyr
    @Atom-Phyr 15 часов назад

    The ever increasing reduction in board size doesn't help.
    We still like to play on a 6'×4' table so you have a bit of room to manoeuvre.
    As a guard player with a few Baneblade variants it sucks if you know you're going to get stuck in the deployment zone.
    I feel Knight armies suffer from this too.
    If feel like the Astronautica game is intended to full the gap. Bit like how HH is where all the first born will end up.

  • @Azakamak2401
    @Azakamak2401 10 часов назад

    I've said to a friend recently that, while I understand that balancing a game with this many moving parts is not easy, the solution to something that's overpreforming *cannot* always be nerfing it into the ground.

  • @Pers0n97
    @Pers0n97 12 часов назад

    Flyers were perfectly fine and had a place at the time they were introduced, a time where vehicles required specific weapon to be taken down and baffields and armies were larger.
    But since GW keep dumbing down the game to the point of making vehicles just "big infantry" and have constantly shrunk the game size, turning it from wargame to skirmish sized, then yeah, flyers are now out of place, and they aren't alone.
    Transports are also pretty pointless now because of how small the battlefields got and how the change in vehicles rules have stripped them of their original function (being immune to anti infantry guns), and on a broader side, most vehicles are now pretty out of place and pointless since they have lost that rock paper scissor factor that made them an important part of any army builds.

  • @tryhard40k77
    @tryhard40k77 11 часов назад

    My friend plays necron flyers in hyper crypt and he honestly just kicks my butt Everytime it’s 3 doom or night scythes can’t remember which one.
    But hyper crypt just invalidates the flyer restrictions

  • @BillWD
    @BillWD 12 часов назад

    I think it was either a short-sighted mistake to include flyers in the 40k game to start with or a calculated decision to make more money, never intending them to be that playable. I kind of feel the same about knights armies. Sorry anyone who collects them.
    Now we have them, I think they have to remain casually useful and not competetively so.
    I have a Corvus Blackstar which looks amazing and a goofy looking Tyranid Hive Crone/Harpy.
    Maybe small fighters and transports could be useful but huge aircraft like the Tau Manta be removed?
    I'm not a fan of any model removal from game, again, this coming from a Deathwatch and Beasts of Chaos collector. I am also really not a fan of how GW operates as a company.

  • @TheInsaneupsdriver
    @TheInsaneupsdriver 17 часов назад +1

    LOL i'm almost done my 40k Scale Eavy Landa that's over a meter long. i have no rules but worked out the points cost for 10th, it's 2750 points for the thing. Pretty sure it's majorly imbalanced. GW really dropped the ball starting with when they got rid of 4.1 instead of just building on it. they're as bad as wizards of the coast.

  • @snakehorde
    @snakehorde 6 часов назад

    I wish the hell drake could choose to land like a massive pterodactyl and engage in melee land troops or immobilize flying opponents...

  • @Avera9eWh1teShark6
    @Avera9eWh1teShark6 15 часов назад

    They seem to want to relegate flyers and super heavies to 3,000 point games as vehicles like the Crassus and Peaetor also seem to have this issue. This is entirely due to GW being so focused on tournament play that fun units arent allowed to be played at a reasonable points level.

  • @No_nameOG
    @No_nameOG 16 часов назад

    Why not just add an aerial combat game mode? We have boarding actions and skirmish rules, so there is a precedent for it. Then you can even make more plastic flyer models and have a new dedicated game just for them.

  • @henrychurch6062
    @henrychurch6062 14 часов назад

    When you think about it, the games portrayal of flying units is just silly.
    A living Sci-Fi space jet-plane empowered by the Chaos Gods... that flies around at about 40 MPH.
    (A guardsman moves 6 inches. A Heldrake moves 30 inches, or 5x the speed of a guardsman. An athletic and trained human runs at about 8 MPH. The moped I had in high school is faster than a Heldrake)

    • @turret2380
      @turret2380 14 часов назад

      Because flyers are already added and they are having a hard time to even balance the game without flyers, the easy way for them is to just heavily nerf them and put them aside. The alternative is removing them outright but that would be really unpopular.

  • @kevinishki
    @kevinishki 8 часов назад

    This game will be so incredible when they learn about military operations and apply that to the game. Aircraft could be so fun, same for indirect

    • @firebat36
      @firebat36 7 часов назад

      The most realistic way to model both of these is to not have any models and just the ability to make an area in the game map take a shitload of area damage. Our artillery and aircraft should not be near the fictional battle on the table.

  • @mega__miss6309
    @mega__miss6309 13 часов назад

    I got my heldrake then found out just how bad it can be. It feels like almost 200 points of not that much. Give it an ability to do a scorching run like it does in Space Marine 2 and I’ll bring it everytime. My proposition is at the end of movement phase the Heldrake rolls 3 dice and the total is how many inches it can scorch from where its base is and each unit hit must make a roll and depending on that roll is how many mortal wounds they take (1 is 2, 2-5 is 1 and 6 saves)

  • @rutherfordappraisal258
    @rutherfordappraisal258 6 часов назад

    What if GW’s game design team believe that the aircraft rules are so perfect that it’s actually the aircraft models they balance the entire rest of the game off of? It’s true. It explains why they haven’t had a single points change this edition. Trust me, the less you think about it, the more it makes sense.
    (I’m saying this as a CSM player who not only has 2 Heldrakes, but also took the time to paint the damn things, so I have to rationalize this somehow).

  • @I2dios8
    @I2dios8 16 часов назад

    As much as I would like to never return to the days of early 9th, where most aircraft could reliably delete a good third of an army in the first turn, I don't think the answer is to intentionally relegate flyers to C tier or worse for all of 10th, and potentially beyond. I mean, it's not like they're even a unique problem, GW constantly make this "first strike" mistake with all sorts of units and factions, like with Eldar at the start of 10th. It's not like flyers can't be balanced, it's just GW not willing to put forth the effort.

  • @joshsmith1179
    @joshsmith1179 11 часов назад

    "Regret". Interesting word... I'm don't know if they regret them, but I think they are having such a hard time with the rules they just don't care any longer. It's too bad. I like the models for my Tyranid fliers a lot

  • @LEHR231
    @LEHR231 9 часов назад

    I think it could be more of a thing like in bolt action- have a ground unit that can call them in and use the model to help direct how targets are attacked. idk.

  • @claytonleal7947
    @claytonleal7947 11 часов назад

    Just get rid of the fly rules, balance then as if they are any other vehicle but with deep strike and let them come outa reserves with non-deep strike units if they can carry them and points cost them appropriately

  • @runeh3022
    @runeh3022 15 часов назад

    Luckily the Drukhari flyers are a bit of an exception. The models are way to cool to not have on the tabletop (and the Drukhari roster isn't all that deep to begin with), so those being viable at least is good.

  • @cyberjonesy
    @cyberjonesy 9 часов назад

    Flyers are basically artillery + extra steps. Balance around these types of units is very finicky because it can go from really overpowered to completely useless.