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

[@jimmydesouza4375]

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]

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]

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

[@Carrisonfire1]

@@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]

@@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]

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]

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

[@chetmanley1885]

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

[@Atom-Phyr]

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]

@@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]

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]

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

[@Billy-vi8nu]

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]

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

[@real_Greys0n]

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

[@guidomista3570]

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]

You're playing properly then

[@GCarssow]

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

[@Trazynn]

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]

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]

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

[@nickellingham1764]

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]

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

[@Asmodai1234]

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]

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.

[@ciarabo1997]

What ? Stormraven gunship Stormtalon gunship Stormhawk interceptor Gladiator lancer Gladiator reaper Gladiator valiant Impulsor Repulsor Repulsor executioner

[@luckmyst3r986]

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

[@calebbarnhouse496]

I don't think that's the way to do it, because if you do that model becomes a literal must include into your army, the right way to do fortification and flyers would be to make specific missions where they can shine, an assault where the attackers have extra troops but they come in over time while the defender gets to set up terrain specifically to favor them and should pick fortification in there army list because units that don't pay for the abylity to move are not bad options when they don't need to move, and then flyers can be made to work in a behind enemy lines scenario, where every turn the attacking player gets limited to only taking things that his army can deepstrike or fit into transport flyers, as well as flyers with the goal of holding preventing there enemy from taking control of there landing zone

[@vinnythewebsurfer]

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]

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

[@DaThingOnTheDoorstep]

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

[@theadtheogrekiller5629]

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]

@@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]

​@@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......

[@TheWarpForge]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

[@KyraCinderwing]

This is probably the best suggestion I've heard so far. Uppy-downy feels like a good and fluffy way to emulate them doing fast moving strafing runs.

[@vojtadrasner2440]

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]

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]

Same with the Corvus Blackstar 🤷🏼

[@L35L3Y]

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]

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

[@yaribekkering-jr1hq]

i dont get why the tyranid hary is still a flyer, its not even a plane

[@PlasmaPea04]

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

[@sockMonster241]

- 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.

[@sweden4thewin]

Fliers are cool af so they should be playable imo.

[@tarektechmarine8209]

You Win.

[@minkster5054]

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.

[@Flirkann]

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

[@CuriousLumenwood]

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…

[@ZaberFangAT]

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]

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~

[@GrammerPollice]

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]

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.

[@phillipA123]

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

[@FestorFreak]

Well, currently Knights are not well balanced either. Imperial Knights are seen as the worst army in the game competitively, and Chaos Knights are alright, but they play almost exclusively War Dogs. Knights need some work too. Not as much as aircraft, but at least Knights have a better chance of being touched this edition.

[@randomusernameCallin]

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]

I love this idea.

[@AndrBR0]

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

[@henrychurch6062]

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

[@chetmanley1885]

Brother Yeetus Deletus casts you down!

[@jeremiegartner464]

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

[@GFortz]

@@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.

[@ShadowCoH316]

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.

[@Despresso-ht6ce]

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

[@RoyalPurple.Paints]

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.

[@BrownBread-qq2jp]

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.

[@sm901ftw]

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.

[@357Dejavu]

I love my Valkyrie! I don’t use it on the table much though

[@Rhod-wg7yt]

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.

[@stephenrepper8118]

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.

[@laserbeastman7447]

One thing they could do to dedicated anti-air units like the hydra and the obelisk to prevent the whole "get shot off the table before they do anything" problem is give them slightly better anti-ground capabilities while giving them some sort of area denial rule for flyers like "Whenever an enemy AIRCRAFT moves within 18" of this unit, it suffers 3d3 mortal wounds." or something.

[@TikitheHutt]

I foundly remember 7th edition, yes it had it's craziness with invisible deathstars, but IG still had platoons, and you could not take a single tank and replace them with aircraft. I ran an Imperial Navy Pioneer Squadron flavored IG army, with veteran platoons, and 3 Valks, 2 Vendettas and 1 Vulture. Great times.....

[@Feralhyena]

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.

[@FestorFreak]

Maneuverability is definitely the biggest issue. My suggestion: Give aircraft 2 move types, and you declare which you are using at the beginning of your movement phase. Strafe: you get two 45 degree or less pivots during your move, to be used whenever you want during that move and with a minimum 10in movement between pivots Corner: you get one 90 degree (or less) pivot before you move, and another after you move, with a minimum move of 10in and a max of 20in. If you choose to corner, -1 to hit until the end of the turn, and unmodified hit rolls of 3 or less fail. This change maintains the spirit of how strafes work- giving a bit of semi “down time” while turning, but not making them go off board or be entirely useless for a turn, as well as allows bombers to properly target things on the move.

[@DeNaga1995]

For movement blocking just add a template for every box (kill team does this a lot now) and use that whenever an enemy unit wants to occupy that space

[@GFortz]

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]

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

[@spicybarbecue222]

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]

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]

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]

@@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]

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

[@stephenferry3017]

@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.

[@KahlAlphOrkius]

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"!

[@marauder340]

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.

[@Astandane]

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.

[@ChrisPrice12]

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.

[@paitrynpait9664]

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.

[@EduardoVazquez-hh5tz]

I think that giving planes the ability to land and/or crash would be interesting, a deadly demise large area of effect or being able to place a fortification farther in the board would be cool and useful

[@spencerclark6113]

I think the every-other-turn rulings makes sense for SOME flyers. It's basically a strafing run, so bombers or fighters could swing in for damage and then leave to turn around. But it should probably only be applied to those kinds of flyers for flavor, whereas a dropship with less impactful weapons should probably get a huge rework on the hover mode

[@neilkirkley1500]

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...

[@GungHoSourdough]

I really hope someday soon the Adepta Sororitas gets an airship added to their faction, besides jump packs and seraphim there’s little flying vehicles/infantry and I think it’d be sooo dope to have a decked out, Exorcist style thunderhawk

[@BentJacket]

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.

[@LightandDarknessLion]

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]

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.

[@johnfarscape]

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]

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.

[@iliahgranovsky3400]

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]

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]

@@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]

Melee against a aircraft is just dumb

[@jimmydesouza4375]

@@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]

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

[@ryanbarry5320]

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.

[@Boxfortress]

I love the thematic side of flyers. The Valkyrie was my very first model built and painted, and I have strong hopes the Sisters of Battle will get a Valkyrie adjacent style flyer. I just want to hot drop Dominion and Battle sister squads.

[@vescovinator]

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

[@GungHoSourdough]

I really hope someday soon the Adepta Sororitas gets an airship added to their faction, besides jump packs and seraphim there’s little flying vehicles/infantry and I think it’d be sooo dope to have a decked out, Exorcist style thunderhawk. Also for balancing I think they could just make it so the fliers have a finite amount of ammunition and rockets to shoot over the entire game

[@chickenlegsoutreach]

As someone who uses both Doom Scythes quite often with my Necrons, and Heldrakes sometimes with Chaos, I don't personally feel they are unbalanced at all. They cost a lot of points because they can get behind enemy lines and get at soft targets easily. Opponent hiding something behind that distant ruin? Move 20 inch plus and gun it down, or in the case of the Heldrake breathe and then strike at it. There's a lot of fuss in the community about aircraft but I wonder really how many have even played against them in 10th edition when it comes down to it. They certainly don't win me all of my games, but they don't lose them all either.

[@DaThingOnTheDoorstep]

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.

[@julientabulazero103]

Drukhari Voidraven are very useful to the Drukari because they compensate for their lack of indirect fire when they need to kill an enemy unit that is hiding behind a wall and help generate the pain tokens the Drukhari need to get the ball rolling.

[@tigirus4656]

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.

[@marshaledrek71]

On flyers I think: 1.) They should be strong units. Hit more hard, but also have vulnerabilities to AA units and concentrated ground fire of a heavier nature. 2.) They should be point costed according to their power and whether they can hover. 3.)They should be unable to occupy objectives except for ones that can hover. 4.) There should be a limit of one or two able to be taken based on the point size of the game. The goal is to make them an attractive choice for a list, not an auto-include but definitely worth considering in a list. Unable to be spammed. Appropriately point costed. IS that too tall of an order? lol.

[@brasssnacks8413]

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.

[@darkjack164]

bring in a generic strat, called "Jink" that makes them very hard to hit, but it cant shoot the next turn, or give a generic rule that allows a few units to attack "skyflyers" called "heads up!" or something. Also i dont bother with the gimicy storage, i just mag them, and store them in a magnetic bottom box

[@9ballbreaker]

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

[@Paradukes]

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]

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]

@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]

​@@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.

[@peterpackard45]

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

[@saintmayhem9873]

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.

[@bonitabromeliads]

It'd be really easy to balance fliers. Keep them offensively devastatingly powerful. It takes half their movement to take off, on turn 1 or if they're off the board they can't come in until turn 2. That solves the first turn attack problem. Then any wounds inflicted causes a chance for crash. Like 1 wound mean it crashes on a 6 roll, 2 wounds it crashes on 5 and 6, 3 wounds it crashes on 4 5 and 6, etc.... 6 wounds in one turn will crash any flier. This is realistic because one small shot could hit something vital in a flier in real life. A reroll each turn to see if it can stay in the air, a piloting skill roll. Being in the air isn't as easy as standing, it should require a skill check each turn. Then give every AA unit a rule that the AA automatically fires when a flier comes in range. This will make fliers exciting and risky.

[@DaneJT]

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.

[@Strayed199]

Guard leaf lower was the death knell for flyers.

[@CatCraine]

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.

[@stephensol528]

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.

[@Adept24]

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

[@Flight_of_Icarus]

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.

[@stevezturner7052]

I'd say. One aircraft allowed per 1,000 points. ( Rational could be that there is an air battle going on, would make sense. And that only the odd aircraft can slip through to the battle field for support. ) Could also add some form of air battle. Eg. If both sides have one aircraft, they could 'cancel' each other out. Maybe some kind of airpower stat. 2d6. Highest role wins, that aircraft can strafe the battlefield. Drawn score, means no aircraft arrive that turn. As there both locked in air battle at that time. From comments, any unit could shot at them using the minimum 24" range weapon rule. Hard to hit for sure, but allow most players a chance. Could add some AA type units, some already exist in stories and lore. So not beyond the abilities to implement. Aircraft should be useable. There guns should be able to chew up infantry. Bombs should be able to take out vehicles. No one should be allow to just walk out the way! That just stupid. In terms of cost, they may be expensive. Depends on how you adjust various factors. If there are expensive in points so be it. They alpha strike should be good for that. We have other models, be them 12ft demons or tanks that can do massive damage. So it is not like this isn't in the game already. With the changes mentioned, it would add more interest and variation to the game. Players now able to choose. Bring an aircraft? Bring AA? Just adds to the possibilities. Also allow bigger battles. Imagine borrowing the idea from MTG. Two headed gaint, two players on the same side V 2 other players. 4,000 point per team. One could bring a regular army the other could bring aircraft.

[@jonathandoherty9082]

I have a doom scythe and a helldrake for my necrons and chaos, not entirely to use but mostly cause they look great next to the rest of the army. But it would be cool to be abke to use them and know theyd actually be useful

[@torgranael]

Well that's sad. Some of my friends just got into 40k a few months ago. One of them bought a helldrake, and another got a stormraven.

[@AntiEyeglassman]

You can play 12 airplanes in orks in a 2k game

[@maximusest40kwarfare73]

these and fortifications will go legendry, im afraid to keep buying stuff, 40k feels like a 3 yearly subscription service the moment, but a thousand pound a year subscription where you will loose units and have to endure roller-coaster balance rides every 3 years, thanks for the upload.

[@nichodemus10]

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.

[@chrisbeau76]

As long as Knights exist in 40k, I dont see why fliers are being ignored. There are some decent Aircraft still. Dark Angels have the Nephilim Jet Fighter which is often overlooked. Since it has the Ravenwing keyword it has a 5++, its special rules give it a -1 to be hit and it gains -1 to be wounded by models shooting it that have the fly keyword. It has a 36" with 10 Heavy Bolter attacks on its main gain called the Avenger Mega Bolter at Str 5, AP -1, Damage 2 with Sustained Hits, Blacksword missiles with Anti-Fly 2+, a Twin Heavy Bolter with Sustained Hits and twin-Linked. It also has access to Hover and only costs 195. It literally has almost every defensive ability short of having any Feel No Pain. Also it can swap out its Avenger Mega Bolter for Nephilim Lascannons which only has 2 attacks but its damage is D6+1. The Necron Doomscythe has one of the best ranged attacks in the faction via the Heavy Death Ray which has a range of 36", 3 attacks, Str 16, AP -4 and D6+1 with sustained Hits D3 in addition to Twin Tesla Destructors the same range as the Heavy Death Ray, Str 8, 6 attacks, AP0, sustained Hits 2, twin-linked and damage 2. However, its points cost is 230 points and it has no defensive abilities which makes it trash.

[@danhill99]

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

[@LEHR231]

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.

[@Boxfortress]

Rules wise I wonder if tying flyer strength into stratagems would help mellow things out... Make the datasheets look middling but the stratagems give them some kind of super charge? Also have flyers able to pivot only a max of 90° at the start of their move phase?

[@recapdrake]

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

[@justinbarnes8834]

I would like flyers to be used only in a hover role and disappear off board the minute they want to change role. Zooming flyers can be represented by say a stratagem that has limited use per game to represent strafing or bombing.

[@viktorgabriel2554]

The reason is simple movement is king

[@tryhard40k77]

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

[@snakehorde]

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

[@mentok1]

My poor robo-dragon. I love the model so much I still run it. It is especially fun against my friend's Tau force. So many fly units to anti-,

[@dylanvodden1369]

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.

[@ciel66]

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.

[@frankieh]

I started my Necrons in 5th so I have a pretty sweet squadron of murder croissants. Miss actually using them.

[@SpencaD]

Feel like a great solution would be that if a flyer shot, it can be melee' until next turn

[@sadlerbw9]

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.

[@cylondorado4582]

I only recently got back into the game, and back when I used to play they were in Apocalypse games only.

[@eldenwarden9673]

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

[@firebat36]

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?

[@hti5795]

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

[@zit1432]

Was fun to play heldrake vs 0 enemies with fly keyword

[@Jonathan-yu9ui]

Is there any chance we can get a 2000 point list with a few versions for space marines? Stuff like an armor/vehicle heavy, and infantry focused, and some balanced compostions.

[@firebat36]

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.

[@ChrisKCook]

One thing that will tell us if they are ignoring Flyers is if the FW 'Astra Militarum' (Navy) flyers when the codex comes out..