the problem is that in 4.2.3: " Aircraft can
shoot at other aircraft either when making a flak attack
(see 4.2.4) or when attacking as part of an interception
action."

then in 4.2.4:"AA weapons are designed to fire defensively against an
attacking enemy aircraft, and may therefore shoot
immediately after an enemy aircraft formation makes an
approach move but before it makes its attack. This is
called a flak attack. Note that aircraft carrying out a
ground attack mission that are armed with AA weapons
may shoot at enemy interceptors that fall within the AA
weapon’s fire arc.

So if we take it that "flak attack" means firing against another aircraft, then 4.2.4 restricts this to either:
1) interceptions
2) CAP (which is an interception, essentially)
3) aircraft carrying out ground attacks, which can then fire at enemy intercepters falling withing its fire arc. Given that intercepter isn't a unit type, why would you interpret this as meaning "any enemy aircraft"? The name refers to an action, not a unit type. Would it not be more logical therefore to assume the intent of the rules is to restrict aircraft to aircraft AA to units being directly attacked or attacking?

It seems illogical to jump from this to "flying aircraft are mobile AA units that can throw an air umbrella over large swathes of the board". If we're going to fudge the distinction between ground AA and air AA in such a way, what else do we need to fudge over? -1 to hit if the aircraft have already made a move?

The way i readit is:
Aircrafts can shoot only with their AA weapons at enemy aircrafts if:
- they Intercept/CAP enemy aircraft
- they carry out a Ground Attack and are being Intercepted/CAPed by enemy aircraft.

Merely being on the board after their action and waiting for the disengageing move doesn't allow aircraft to shoot AA at enemy aircraft who happen to pass by their fire arc.
This is only allowed for ground AA.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

I would agree BL, if only because it provides a better analogue of air-combat.

To me, having aircraft set up in 'Red Arrow' like formations on the board to provide a form of mobile AA is inappropriate at best - but this is a game, and if the rules are clearly stated and everyone knows them; then either way is workable.

I've always read it as BL does.

It seems that the lack of a vertical measurement is complicating things here. Ground AA volume of control is contained within a cylinder of radius - AA range and infinite height. Anything flying through this cylinder, at any time, can get hit provided you do not fire at the same thing twice.

Aircraft on the other hand would have a cone of control with a 45 degree arc in front of the aircraft with a length equal to the AA range. Compared to the volume of control of ground AA, this is a much smaller volume and would only be able to be applied to an enemy aircraft that was purposefully attempting to dogfight with the defender.

Yet it appears that many folks play that aircraft CANNOT fly outside the AA range of the aircraft on the way to the target of interest. This converts the Aircraft volume of control into a wedge shape with an infinite height as well.

What pilot would choose to fly through an enemy aircraft AA firing arc when it can be easily flown under or over? As a pilot I can fly right or left of the enemy aircraft and stay out of danger but not over?

Limiting Aircraft AA to dogfight engagement/range only is much more "realistic" and makes play faster.

_________________
~Laserwolf

Yes, we know, the game was intended to be played in the 2000-5000 points range...

Not only it's more realistic, but it's what is actually written in the book.

Guys

While I absolutely agree with you all, that defensive Aircraft AA fire should be restricted to enemy aircraft that are attacking it, please note that these views are at odds with what Neal wrote.

In any event I do think this should be clarified in the FAQ. What can we do to get this sorted out ASAP?

You are essentially asking the NetERC to move on something in a short amount of time

I daresay if I look in the sky I may see a pig fly by

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Nealhunt may read the rule in an other way, but I did never find any ambiguity in the book rule. Be it the most usual way to read the rule, I would still see it as ridiculous (come on, really ? Planes hanging in the Air having pot shots at stuff ? Really ?).

I am surprised to see that the majority ever read it that way, first because it is written in quite a specific way (see mattthemuppet post), but specially because the way you interpret it doesn't make any sense and looks like quite a distortion of the rule. I could imagine how a player using lots of bombers could try to abuse a borderline interpretation to have them double as AA coverage, but why anyone would let his opponent run away with that escapes me.

I would happily forget the FAQ and claim reference to the rulebook itself at any occasion.

sees that opinions are directly polarised - umbrella and non-umbrella - and evenly spread. People may be tilting their RAW readings towards how they perceive how things should be from a realism point of view, or from a simplicity point of view, or maybe not.

If neil's reports are true then it would certainly appear that the 'fathers' of epic (playtesters and army champions etc) seem to have believed that umbrella was intended.

One question though, would it significantly effect points values of air units and balance if umbrella was ruled out?

yes, my marauders zoom around, and then all aircraft striking in approximately the same zone can get blasted by the marauders. Ridiculous.

Given the duration of a turn, this just look stupid. You don't get "shots of opportunity" at fighters sharing the same cubic kilometre. You have a few turrets for immediate defence, and even as such, IRL it was notoriously difficult to hit any attacking fighter from a bomber turret, let alone "target of opportunity". The effect of turrets was more to deter close range attack than anything else.

This rule effectively makes turreted bombers viable in Air defence, while they should be useless. There is a reason why Fighters exist even in the real world, and it's not activation count.

Well, let's read the book again as Mattthemuppet suggested :

"Aircraft can shoot at other aircraft either when making a flak attack (see 4.2.4) or when attacking as part of an interception action."
and :
"AA weapons are designed to fire defensively against an attacking enemy aircraft, and may therefore shoot immediately after an enemy aircraft formation makes an approach move but before it makes its attack. This is called a flak attack. Note that aircraft carrying out a ground attack mission that are armed with AA weapons may shoot at enemy interceptors that fall within the AA weapon’s fire arc."

then later : "Ground units that are armed with AA weapons can shoot at enemy aircraft as they move past them."

This is not even the same sentence for Aircrafts and ground units.
Not only bombers as AA is ridiculous, but Bombers as AA while carying a ground attack mission ?

You'll have to find something better than "target of opportunity" to convince me.

I am baffled to discover that people have been using Marauder bombers as "30cm diameter flak umbrella that bomb stuff" all that time.

Do you really think the rule is saying that we should consider that the aircraft is actually "zooming around" the bombing zone for the entire turn ? I thought that the whole point of having "off board" aircraft rules was to avoid such silliness.