_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy

_________________
You know, if you can sort of muscle your way past the gag reflex, all kinds of food possibilities open up!

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Hi,

sorry for digging this one out, but I think that there is a slight flaw to the alternative flyer rules that destroys the original intend. We tried the alternative flyer rules last time and were, in general, very pleased with how they work. They make sense and flyers lose their "überty".

Nice Job!

However, regarding transports, they get even better with the new rules, since now infantry gets a whopping -3 to hit when targetting landing transports:

-1 for snap fire
-1 for hard target
-1 for evasive pattern

which virtually destroys infantry capabilities to kill transports:

Dark Reapers now hit a landing transport on a 6+, devastators on a 8+ (!)

Looking at Zaps original roundup in this thread, the evasive pattern has gone, but it is in the alt flyer rules on the wikiwikiwar.

Simple solution: Let's get rid of the evasive pattern, imho we would then have the perfect flyer rules.

cheers sanjuro

Please do bother! its great and I love them! I just dont want to clutter them up with my comments!

yes please... the air rules just doesnt work that well imho, the -1 & -25cm for high alt worked great as they were

So long as bombers (Harridian) don't have to survive until the Advance Fire phase to drop their pay load. That was too easy to gun down in SM2.

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to roll up this process again. I think the alternative flyer rules are mighty fine, and I am happy that a playable solution has been found. By reactivationg this thread I just wanted point to a possible glitch (infantry worse now vs. transports), not start a new discussion on the topic.  

cheers

sanjuro

Yeah, you certainly have a point....-3 is pretty harsh.  I'm happy to remove the Evasive Pattern -1 if people think this is a good idea.  However, I do note that this would mean a unit with AA would suffer no penalties against a landing transport.  Are we sure this is what we want?  Again, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, just wondering what people think.

_________________
Fire bad, tree pretty - Buffy

I need to think on this one, airpower is a tricky subject. Off the top of my head though... how about air transports use chaff or similar to disrupt AA as they land. This would only effect AA units as Evasive did before...(the description is a stretch for Orks and Tyranids though).

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

Hi!

Infantry SHOULD be next to useless taking out aircraft. I real life, unless the unit has some specialized equipment (stingers or similar weapons) to even be able to engage them and then its mostly useful against VTOL's, less so to fast flying units).

S most infantry hitting on very high numbers (or even dark reapers hitting on 6's), is, in my view the way it should be.

You need DEDICATED AA units to take on air units and anything close to equal terms. Otherwise what would be the point?

Its the players choice not to spend on dedicated AA and try to "pass by" with infantry. But the opponents fliers should be able to punish such an opponent and only real lucky shots would get through.

I believe much more thought and care should be given to make sure that dedicated AA units ARE effective versus aircraft. Infantry's proper role is versus ground units, not easily shooting down aircraft.

My two cents.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

I agree with primarch.  Infantry SHOULD have a hard time shooting down aircraft with anything other than dedicated AA weapons.  -3 for Infantry isn't too harsh IMO.

If you think your opponent might take aircraft and you don't bring either your own air cover or AA to take care of them/threaten them, too bad for you.  I'm no soldier but I am confident that a unit of soldiers with assault rifles, an MG and perhaps an RPG or LAW will have next-to-no-chance at taking out that F-23 that is strafing their position with rockets and MG fire at 200-300kph.

_________________
You know, if you can sort of muscle your way past the gag reflex, all kinds of food possibilities open up!

I agree, Infantry should have a hard time shooting those buggers down.

But when testing, I just got the impression, that it has become HARDER now to kill flyers off.

and I would consider a 7+ for a marine stand with missile launcher hard, but 8+

Standard rules give me the hunter and devastators to kill flyers:

snap fire at transports: devs: 7+, Hunters 6+ (this in combination with the crappy -1 tsm makes shooting them down quite a hard job)

Alternative rules, same scenario, shooting at a landing flyer:

Hunter: 6+, Devs: 8+

and a Warhound with 2 Quake cannons on FF would also hit on a 6+.

You see where I am aiming at?

I like the evasive pattern as well, but I don't think flyers should become harder to hit.

Keep in mind, that landing transport can only be shot at in the movement phase, giving them effectively always a -1 to hit because you have to use snap fire. I like Warheads idea, using evasive patterns only on AA units.

cheers sanjuro