 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 8th, 2010 01:45 pm |
|
Hey all,
Thanks to all who used flyer in this big game and dealt with the rules in the state they were in. having other players use flyers in this game made me realize the rules aren't all that in sync with how we play them.
If anyone has/had and questions/issues with how the flyers played, please post feedback here.
I do have Jedly's issue with the section on embarking/disembarking from flyers in flyer mode.
If there is anything about the flyer rules that people wanted to bring up, feel free to put them here.
I also noticed a potential issue in that the flyers really tended to hug the table edge for most of the game. I don't know if this is all that bad, but I may consider finding a way to make them all portions of a game board.....we'll see.
Thanks!
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
crterry
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1160 |
| 40k Armies played: | Deathwing, Ravenwing, Salamanders, and Witchhunters |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 8th, 2010 06:21 pm |
|
I still think if we're going to do ferrying rules or build scenarios around drop pods or flyer landings, we need to come up with landing zone/safe perimeter rules.
I thought more about the shooting at drop pods rule, and I think that needs to be thought through more.
I'd like to see clarification of the six foot rule/flyers which go to skimmer mode.
I'd also like a defined section on how assault ramps figure into deployment of landed troops.
____________________
D-Company: Drinkers who game, not gamers who drink!
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 8th, 2010 07:20 pm |
|
crterry wrote: I still think if we're going to do ferrying rules or build scenarios around drop pods or flyer landings, we need to come up with landing zone/safe perimeter rules.
I thought more about the shooting at drop pods rule, and I think that needs to be thought through more.
I'd like to see clarification of the six foot rule/flyers which go to skimmer mode.
I'd also like a defined section on how assault ramps figure into deployment of landed troops.
PM me with more specifics and I'll take a look at them, as it is hard to tell what is meant by items such as
"I thought more about the shooting at drop pods rule, and I think that needs to be thought through more."
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, just trying to get clarification.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
joe
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 177 |
| 40k Armies played: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 01:26 am |
|
I think that having flyers and anti aircraft really added a lot to the game on this level. It was great to see planes flying around shooting getting shot at and dropping bombs and troops.
I have played with our flyer rules a few times (although not anywhere near as big of a space or game size) and think they work pretty well and are actually close to the Apoc rules as written. I am not saying that they don't need revision or clarification or that they can't be made better I just want to make sure that we don't go changing them just because they are new to the majority of players in the group and that they may need more play test time as is before they get muddled with.
|
Stormcaller56
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 723 |
| 40k Armies played: | Wolves, Marines, Nids |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 08:03 pm |
|
Admittedly, i cannot be objective regarding shooting at drop pods. That being said, i am not sure why, at this point, this is a question. I dont have my marine codex with me, but are pods even considered flyers?
I think they are treated differently in the rules than say, a vulture, a maurauder, a fighta-bomma, etc. I dont recall ever seeing specific rules stating they could be shot at.
just askin...
____________________
Death From Above!
|
crterry
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1160 |
| 40k Armies played: | Deathwing, Ravenwing, Salamanders, and Witchhunters |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 08:17 pm |
|
My concern would be the turn sequence involved, especially with second wave pods.
____________________
D-Company: Drinkers who game, not gamers who drink!
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 9th, 2010 10:29 pm |
|
Stormcaller56 wrote: Admittedly, i cannot be objective regarding shooting at drop pods. That being said, i am not sure why, at this point, this is a question. I dont have my marine codex with me, but are pods even considered flyers?
I think they are treated differently in the rules than say, a vulture, a maurauder, a fighta-bomma, etc. I dont recall ever seeing specific rules stating they could be shot at.
just askin...
 They are not flyers by game definition. The idea of Drop pods being ablre to be shot at is something I have gotten feedback from other on and was pondering this when Planet strike came out. Planet strike introduced interceptor weapons which operate similarly to our AA weapons.
Admittedly, this rule creates a small penalty for Drop pods without adding an advantage(other than the inherant advantages of using a drop pod). This is not dissimilar to the rather strict penalties we have applied to our flyer rules. D- Company has nearly always prefered this slightly more complicated ruleset despite it giving an unfair disadvantage to flyer users.
I am looking at changing the rule so that instead of being destroyed, a unit in a destoyed drop pod takes the regular damage and is forced to go to ground on the turn it is shot down. I am also likely adopting the interceptor rules so that an AA weapon could use the black skies rule(what the rule is called) on turn one given that half od all drop pods would deploy then.
All in all, this is not a huge overall game effect. It requires that a player has weapons classified as AA weapons and that these weapons give up their regular shooting in turns to go into this "overwatcch" mode. This is something that has been in the D-Co flyer rules design philosophy for some time now(about 3 years) and was deliberately introduced slowly to manage the the possible hysteria it may cause.
The rule makes sense. if an enemy force had AA capabilities and saw a flotilla of drop pods come hurtling down from space, it makes sense they would use these assets to shoot then down. why would they NOT make the effort. That's like a sam site not shooting down an incoming missile because it's not an A-10 thunderbolt. In one case the ordnance is Hi explosives, in our case the payload is a more dangerous squad of space marines.
The overall game effect is minimal. We don't see a whole lot of AA weapons on the table (this year being an exception as we created terrain weapons to make up the point spread.) If a player has a handful of hydra AA type weapons, he might shoot down one or two before they hit planet side if they dedicate themselves to Overwatch fire. The more allocates to AA, the weaker his conventional combat strength will be. The checks and blances seem pretty decent ot me.
Optionally, we could scrap the D-Co flyer rules and go back to the GW apoc flyer rules. I have suggested this in the past, but have been unnoficially voted down. I would hate to think that D-Company was keen on using these rule only on the condition that they were negatively affecting only those players using flyers (which most people don't field)...and that it suddenly become troublesome when these more flavor enhancing rules when they start to mildly affect a broader group.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
crterry
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1160 |
| 40k Armies played: | Deathwing, Ravenwing, Salamanders, and Witchhunters |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10th, 2010 12:17 am |
|
I think the GW flyer rules are actually simpler than our rules.
I'd prefer, if I had the power to make it so, have a D-Company version of an FAQ that addressed house versions of the GW rules.
____________________
D-Company: Drinkers who game, not gamers who drink!
|
Stormcaller56
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 723 |
| 40k Armies played: | Wolves, Marines, Nids |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10th, 2010 01:17 am |
|
thank you for this eloquent explanation. it certainly clarifies your perspective on shooting at pods.
my one question is the comments regarding the fact that if AA weps were dedicated to overwatch (in particular, on turn 1), this would reduce the overall firepower of the force that deployed them. that may be so, but since the incoming pods would be the only legitimate targets for these weps on turn 1, how is this a disadvantage for the defenders? what are they REALLY giving up, at least on turn 1? and after turn 2, they will have no pods to shoot at anyway.
how often to normal flyers enter on turn 1? i have not seen it. therefore, the AA CAN be dedicated to shooting at pods with little effect on the overall firepower of a force.
other than that issue, i understand your reasoning. by the way, i feel the GW flyer rules are TOO simplistic. my vote would be to refine what we have now. well done, mr derling.
____________________
Death From Above!
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 10th, 2010 12:31 pm |
|
Stormcaller56 wrote: how often to normal flyers enter on turn 1? i have not seen it. therefore, the AA CAN be dedicated to shooting at pods with little effect on the overall firepower of a force.
this is a valid point, though one i'm not terribly concerned with. I will give it some thought though.
CTerry wrote: I think the GW flyer rules are actually simpler than our rules.
they are ALOT simpler and are generally better for the flyer user.
CTerry wrote:
I'd prefer, if I had the power to make it so, have a D-Company version of an FAQ that addressed house versions of the GW rules.
I'm not sure what this part means. Are you saying you want a D-Company FAQ to explain problems with the GW rules? The GW rules played as is don't really need much in the way of an FAQ. they just aren't very thematic. Explain your thoughts to me as though I were a child.(not just the man-boy I really am.)
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Current time is 03:53 am | |
|
|
|
|
