# Flyers in 40k?



## ThunderBolt (May 30, 2007)

should flyers be introduced into the game? foregeworld sells flyers for most of the available armies, with 'experimental' rules, but why shouldnt they be introduced properly into the tabletop game?


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

It might be hard to make a model that actually represents it...that you can place on the board somehow?

You obviously cant put it on the board and say "its 20,000 feet up."

Also, how would they be shot at? New rules would be created, as it is hard to hit a jet when you have a pistol, even a howitzer for that matter. :lol:


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Its nice idea but its not really practicle for the reasons that Anph stated- hence the 'experimental' rules. 

That said if anybody I played wanted to use a flyer I wouldn't have any problem with it, execpt to demand one for myself.


----------



## matty570 (Jun 14, 2007)

Personally I think some flyers could be introduced with some success, such as guard valkries and vultures. Essentially just better armed skimmers/hoverers?

However, the argument of how you could represent a super heavy bomber on a the tabletop is a little dubious since it would be flying far too high to be concerned with a space marines bolter?


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

The rules for flyers are in the Imperial Armour books and to the best of my knowledge just require your opponents permission prior to use. 

I have seen several used at the UK Campaign weekends. They always look very impressive and can be seen across the hall on their giant flying bases.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Oh, well i've never seen the IA books in person.

Have you read the rules?

What are the...general methods in which a flyer is used--especially how is it represented?


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

well heres what i know, which admittedly isnt a lot - they generally have very thin armour, but ground troops need a 6 to hit them.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

Yeah i imagined that! 

That makes me think of AA guns, and that makes me think of a fortress that can be taken.

Perhaps, eventually Codex:Siege 

Damn that would be cool if they figured out how to do it. Shit, i would work on that if i was on the GW design team.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

it would add a whole new element to the game, that's for sure.

not sure i want an Eldar Pansy Class bomber up my asswhen i'm having enough trouble trying to beat down the little pointy eared bastards on the ground though...


----------



## stormshroud (Apr 27, 2007)

Well I have always seen them represented with the FW models and on their own custom bases.

They generlly make strafing runs over the battlefield, although some (Valkarie and Vulture) can hover like a helicopter. They are harder to hit and increase the range.

IA3 has lists for drop troop lists that have valkaries in place of chimeras. I plan on building my next IG regiment around the drop troop principle, just need to save a few £££'s for a pair of Valkaries and a Vulture first.


----------



## maximus2467 (Jun 14, 2007)

i used to have a vulture from fw, i liked the idea of flyers but unfortunately it didn't really affect the game too much in my favour. the rules regarding them ere something like you had to roll for it every turn to see if it would come on. you needed six to hit it and the range was something like an extra 12" to your spotting distance as i recall and i think they had a different damage result table. i'd welcome them into the mainstream game if they were just cheaper.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

With plastic kits, i'd say they be somewhere around $50 for a vulture/valkyrie.


----------



## maximus2467 (Jun 14, 2007)

that would be ok but as they are at the mo you need to have them in squadrons for them to be effective and at £65 a pop theyre just not feasable.


----------



## Anphicar (Dec 31, 2006)

My main question is how they are represented--Do they have massive "flyer" bases that are similar to the ones on Reacers/Raiders?

If they do,i assume troops can go under them as they are "way in the sky," right?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

I don't think the IA rules as is really represent flyers all that well but I would LOVE to have them integrated into the game in some way. Just one more level of detail for those who want it.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> Just one more level of detail for those who want it.


And therefore it isn't going to happen under current management. I somehow doubt that they would remove armourys but put in flyers.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

They removed armouries because those could be folded into the codex options to make it more streamlined. It's not less complex, it just fits better with how they wanted the codex to look. Whether you agree with how the codex looks is a matter for another day.

Flyers are, quite simply, too non-interactive to be a mianstay of 40K. You think Eldar vehicles are bad? Flyers would be much worse. There's just something incredibly annoying about a vehicle that can do plenty to you, but you can't even hit without a specialised piece of wargear. Transport options would possibly be fine, because of the opportunity to hit them for that one brief turn they spend on the ground, but that does mean that buying the transport effectively lets you deep strike with perfect accuracy and no real risk. Like drop podding, but even worse. Gunships, though would be right out. They wouldn't be that powerful ingame, but they'd just be really irritating.

They're fine as Forgeworld. That way, you're probably never going to see one, and when you do, the novelty factor overrides how irritating they are.


----------



## Antioch (Dec 27, 2006)

I am not looking forward to the Apocalypse business or any fliers or what not because they're messing with the scale. The fact that Marneus Calgar can be seen with a microscopic contingent of run of the mill Ultramarines strikes a wrong chord with me. 40k to me is a small section of the battlefield where the grunts and the workhorses of armies are duking it out for just that part of a much larger war. Throwing in baneblades and rules for three monolith destructocon just does not fit in my mind.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that fliers just don't work too well the way 40k is set up. I could see transport ships working, but that's about it.


----------



## black chaplain (May 14, 2007)

well in the latest white dwarf in the sneak peek section, in the upper right corner you can see the wing of what looks like some kind of imperial craft (lighting, thunderbolt?) anyway thats all i know could be there just for show though


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

apocolypse is not the same as the skirmish sort of games of 40k. its supposed to represent battles of 'apocolyptic' proportions


----------



## Antioch (Dec 27, 2006)

cccp_one said:


> apocolypse is not the same as the skirmish sort of games of 40k. its supposed to represent battles of 'apocolyptic' proportions



In my mind, changing the point value of a game does _not_ change the scale of the game in its entirety. Epic and 40k are different games for a reason.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

yes, true, however apparently there are new rules etc. the apocolypse book is supposedly the same size as the BGB. probably similar to epic but in 40k scale.


----------

