40K: Death from the Skies in Tournaments – A Problem

99120101152_AdeptusAstartesStormHawkInterceptor01

Reecius here from Frontline Gaming to discuss some of the challenges facing us with Death from the Skies in tournament play!

 

Death from the Skies offers us official new rules and a new phase for flyers in Warhammer 40,000. While that unto itself is exciting, it leaves us in a weird position for organized play. Why do I say this? Because it is an incomplete rule-set and a book that not everyone has. There are a TON of Flyers that are not in the book (assuming you use Forgewold units as we do in the ITC and most tournaments these days do) and adds an entirely new phase to an already very long game. What is the overloaded 40k TO to do?

Abuse Puppy already wrote a great review of the book over at Frontline Gaming, which you can read, here, so I won’t go into the nuts and bolts of it. What we’re going to talk about is actually implementing the book.

fire-raptor-iw

 

First off, the biggest issue: where are all the other flyers?

I am sure in time Forgeworld will release an updated Aeronautica Imperialis (or what have you) with updated dataslates, but until then, what do we do? Use the old rules? Make up classifications for the missing Flyers and assign them new stats? Then you would be in a situation with players using different rules for the same types of units or we make up new rules as a community to cover the gap. Neither is very appealing.

What about the Dogfighting phase?

Is it worth it to use in tournament play or no? Do we choose to omit a fairly random phase and the reserves modifications that come with it, or do we try to squeeze another time consuming phase to tournament 40k where games already go right up to the hilt?

 

voidraven-2

Rules Problems

Many flyers losing Skyfire is also a bit rough for some armies. That reduces their AA to close to nill, or actually zero in some cases. This makes fighting things like FMCs who are very popular in the meta a bear and really alters some lists. Do you think this is good or bad for the meta?

Or how about Fighters losing BS when firing on ground targets? Some “Fighters” like the poor Razorwing, are just absolutely awful against other flyers and really get hurt badly by this when they are already not so good in an already not so good army. Another victim is the Ork Dakkajet which is so much better against ground units, and now going to BS2 vs ground targets…you’re not going to see them on the table and they just barely usable before. Strength 6 Skyrifre quite simply does not cut the mustard. The Night Scythe also suffers when it was already not an optimal choice losing Skyfire. What we see is that flyers got pretty much worse across the board, but gained the ability to do a few neat tricks when the meta was already experiencing a dearth of flyers apart from a few outstanding choices (many of which, humorously, are not in the book, lol). These rules, while characterful, overall reduce the efficacy of a unit type that was already struggling.

valkyrie_v02

 

Two Steps forward One Step Back?

Flyer Wings are fun, and certainly mitigate the weaknesses mentioned above. They are quite powerful and as GW has been doing, encourage you to buy LOTS of flyers to gain special rules benefits. These to me are a lot of fun, and the benefits are quite powerful. Ignoring Cover, bonuses to BS and Jinking, etc. are handed out like candy to help make your flyers better on the table. Are you a fan of the Wings? Do you think having to stay in formation to gain the benefits offsets the nerfs to flyers in general? As a player that uses 3 flyers in my Astra Militarum army, I can tell you from experience I almost never have them in “formation” as I am better served having them come in from different attack vectors. I do not know how frequently I would actually gain the benefits. How about you?

Lastly, we have the Air Superiority Detachment. This is cool and provides some powerful benefits, not the least of which is the +2/-2 to reserves. That alone will force a great deal of lists to change as any reserves style army, of which there are a lot, would be nearly obligated to add a flyer to avoid having their entire army strategy shut down. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so, personally. If you build an outflanking or Deep Striking army and have been having fun with it, this one rule almost negates your army unless you shoehorn a flyer into it. Again, not the end of the world, but wow, what a big meta impact. Is it worth it?

 

What do you think?

Is Death from the Skies something that is usable in a tournament setting at this point in time or no? Is it more suited for casual/narrative play, or can we make it work in an organized setting? Should we require EVERY player at a tournament to have both the BRB and Death from the Skies? That’s getting not only expensive bu cumbersome to lug around.

 

thisweeksad2
  • xNickBaranx

    Adopt the book. Disallow the missing flyers until they get their updates. And if you feel the new phase bogs down play, lower the standard points value to something more manageable. Playing at 1500 points isn’t the end of the world.

    • Severius_Tolluck

      Heck, since everything keeps going down in points, the old 2000 is hte new 1500… honestly. So you are basically bringing near 2500 points to the table, and people wonder why it takes longer. I agree though, keep the points to a sweet spot if you don’t want a long game.

    • Koszka

      I love lower point competitive games. It makes higher tier builds more difficult to construct. Granted, many can still be created, but fighting with 350-600 point less really hurts certain builds.

      I also feel like some of the often thought under powered codexes (IE: Dark Eldar, Orks, scions) work better at lower point games.

      • Muninwing

        the last 3 games i played were 750s, and they were a ton of fun. it’s not necessarily a need to play with a ton of stuff, extra options, huge formations. it can be fun.

    • Shiwan8

      Want to see better games with the present rule set? Announce that anyone using more than one IC/psyker in a unit or uses IC from a codex with a unit from different codex automatically loses 20% of the points they would otherwise have in the end of a tournament. The only problem this leaves is the top dex spaming.

      • Nameless

        could be kind of rough on tzeench theemed armies (chaos sorcerer with thousand sons) along with mono grey knights.

        in addition the Indpendent characters and psykers might not always be in the same unit, or might change units as the game progresses. would breaching the clause even for one turn be worth the same penaty?

        • Shiwan8

          I’m not saying it’s a perfect system. It’s not even a good one really. It’s still a better one than any of the major ones seen in last few years.

          Frankly, Tzeetch themed CSM armies have no reason to even participate in tournaments. GK is getting a hit though.

          I’m suggesting that something like this is used only if a better system is not found. Anyway, almost all of the problems this game holds in it can be summarized to deathstars, spams, allies and units that would be better suited for apocalypse games. Unless a comp targets these elements in hopes of eliminating them the comp is mostly meaningless and really should not be in use at all…imo. Not saying that pseudohammer with super friends etc. absurdity could or should not be fun for someone. I just think that most of us would rather play a game that is unit based strategy/tactics in stead of deathstars and titans derping ariound the field.

    • Nameless

      warning for personal bias: I am reasonably displeased by the lack of incusion of the Vendetta in the death from the skies book, seeing as it is printed in the guard codex is 95+% the games workshop kit and with the fact that the Valkaire’s missles still don’t work in any sensable fashion.

      • Haighus

        Wait, the Vendetta isn’t in the book? That is stupid!
        At least the Hellstrike missiles got a slight boost in the recent FAQ changes- they can both be fired simultaneously without causing one of the missiles to Snap fire. This was not clear before. Means any other weapons are Snap firing still, but not as bad as before.

        • Nameless

          Yeah, the offical responce on the facebook page went a long the lines of: we don’t make a vendetta moddel, so won’t be provideding any rules for one going forward.

          I had heard about the faq saying that, but I was unable to find any reffernces myself. Hopefully once they publish a pdf version rather than randomly sized pictures posted on face book I’ll be able to search for it.

          • Haighus

            I definitely read the ruling about ordnance weapons in one of the FAQ pictures, but I can’t remember which one… so it does exist… somewhere. Agree the pictures are not helpful.

          • bobrunnicles

            But Forgeworld, which IS GW, does make a Vendetta conversion kit, of which I have several. I guess it will have to be relegated to a FW expansion book or something. Dumb.
            How they could make the Valkyrie kit with all it’s myriad options and not include three TL Lascannons on the sprue still amazes me to this day.

    • SilentPony

      That seems like the attitude that sums up everything wrong with 40k. Don’t spit, swallow it and pretend you enjoy it.

      I know my local GW owner has said he won’t be using the new flyer book

      • memitchell

        If you think being crude is cool, you should stay Silent.

        • SilentPony

          You sure you’re old enough to be on the internet little one?

          • rtheom

            Nah, memitchell is right.

          • Tiernoc

            That’s pretty tame so far as even these comment sections go. If memitchell can’t address the points raised and gets hung up on the phrasing instead, why should his opinion carry weight?

          • rtheom

            Because anonymity does not grant the right to be uncivil. Tame or not, his language was still vulgar, which was still not necessary. I don’t believe he had a problem with the points raised by SilentPony, just the phrasing itself. Memitchell’s opinion should not carry weight because he asks others to use more respectable language? I find it quite the opposite. If you need to use gross language to express your opinion, you’re not supporting the idea that they are backed by intelligent though.

          • Tiernoc

            You are correct that anonymity doesn’t confer any rights, except that a person may be more likely to not censor themselves, however it completely misses the forest for the trees.

            The initial point (as I think we both agree) was that GW has a particularly … callous … disregard for their customer base, and SilentPony wasn’t ambiguous or subtle in his post. Memitchell didn’t like the wrapping paper of the argument, and chose to address that rather then the substance of his argument.

            We can agree or disagree about the presentation of an argument, but I would argue that substance is far more important to intelligent discourse than style.

            I completely disagree with you though with regards to a civil tongue being some sort of prerequisite to intelligent or reasoned thought.

          • rtheom

            So… your assumption is that Memitchell was trying to discount SilentPony’s argument by telling him that his vulgarity was not appreciated? I don’t see that stated anywhere in Memitchell’s post. Perhaps they were, but that is certainly not what I read into that.

            As for a civil tongue, it is not a prerequisite for intelligent or reasoned thought, but crass statements are often made and viewed as emotional statements, not reasoned statements. SilentPony may very well be an intelligent individual, I’m not saying that he isn’t, but he is not showing it by saying what he did, nor in his follow up insult to Memitchell.

    • Pyrrhus of Epirus

      the people have voted on this issue and decided on 1850 for tournament play. Feel free to run your events at 1500 with these rules.

      • Chris. K Cook

        The people? So a committee decides how I run MY tournaments?

        In Communist Russia Tournament plays you!

      • denzark

        What/who are these ‘the people’?

        • Koonitz

          Who are you calling “the people”?

        • Pyrrhus of Epirus

          The people who vote for ITC rule changes, every 3 months. Are you not aware how in north american warhammer scene the ITC ruleset is used by the vast majority of tournaments and the rules are voted on?

          • denzark

            Ummm, I am aware of the ITC. I am roughly aware of how it functions – some committee made up of god knows who empowered by god knows who gets together god know when, someone makes a subjective decision, and then there is a vote.
            But I was not aware that the god knows who’s were so special and well known that they were given the generic nomenclature of ‘the people’ and everyone else would know who you were on about.
            In the interest of accuracy, brevity and clarity – the ABC of effective writing – I suggest you simply use ITC in the future – less letters.

          • The votes on ITC rules are open to the public, since this is an article from the founder of the ITC about what they think of the new supplement, “the people” meaning ITC participants certainly have spoken, and voted for 1850

          • denzark

            Given the author introduced himself as ‘Reecius from Frontline Gaming’ as opposed to ‘Reecius founder of ITC’ and given that ‘Internet personalities’ is not my Mastermind specialist subject, how am I supposed to know what group of 40k wunderkind he may or may not represent beyond what he states in his opening gambit?

          • Your awareness of it doesn’t change the appropriateness of referring to “the people” when it comes to the ITC vote for 1850 over 1500.

        • Drpx

          The people of me, my friends, and the guy who runs our gamestore that agrees with us.

      • Haighus

        Yeah, seems to be a largely North American thing to play larger games- I’ve regularly seen European posters talk about playing 1500pts, rather than 1850.

        • Shawn

          Interesting Hiaghus. I’ve played both lower point and higher point games. I’ll admit, while I do enjoy the smaller point games, I do like high point games more. You can bring more expensive toys and it better simulates an epic 41st Millienium battle. And yes, I’m American.

          • My favorite games are in the 2500-3000 point range, personally

        • We were mostly playing 2k before 6th/7th so it’s a step down for most of us

          • Haighus

            I’ve always played mainly 1500pts games, with 2000pts being a rarity and maybe a bigger game (3000pts+) once or twice a year. Same amongst my gaming group. This was since 5th Edition. I’m in the UK. I just find it interesting how there does seem to be a difference in playstyles across the Atlantic.

          • Shawn

            It is interesting. Gives you a bit of insight of the metas, what people consider balanced casual play, and the level of competitiveness of each. I’ve played several different games and only one other tabletop wargame before 40k and never did I ever hear of waac, until I hit 40k. There seems to be a competitiveness among Americans, especially in the tournament scene that seems to border on the insane.
            Disclaimer: These are mainly personal observations and never claim to know the facts regarding a game’s customers competitives, or state of mind.

    • Zingbaby

      I prefer 1500. I am just here waiting for Charon to show up and blame this on ‘narrative players’ somehow.

    • I would much rather play a larger game than add another phase. Optional is optional, big events should definitely treat DFTS as though it never came out

  • Orodruin

    Don’t use the rules until FW releases an erratum for the supplement, would be my vote.

    • SilentPony

      But then it all gets over-written in 9 months when 8th comes out.

      • Orodruin

        Well that’s just bidness as usual.

        • Muninwing

          unless it gets the same treatment as Escalation/Stronghold and just becomes part of the rules next time.

          not like GW cares about balance. they’ve been phoning in the game portion of their products for half a decade plus…

  • Dave Scammell

    Ignore it as the obvious rules-test-run that it is and wait for 8th edition to drop before incorporating the (hopefully fixed and/or improved) rules.

    • Dave Scammell

      It’s too full of guff in its current form of being haphazardly slapped onto the core rules, hopefully it’ll be tidied up and properly incorporated for the next edition. The old flyer rules needed tweaking to refine their role, they weren’t overly unbalanced or anything, they just needed a bit of work to bring them back into the game. If anything, this new book serves to take them out of the game even more. The rules need a seamless integration rather than an awkward shoehorn, and that’s not what we’ve got yet.

      • Shawn

        Please clarify. I’m not seeing what your saying. At least the Imperial flyers are the same with just 2 new stats: Agility and Pursuit. These rules aren’t over balancing and easily incorporated into regular 40k games. Only the ITC dominated tournament scene, seems to be all bent out of shape over these rules.

    • ZeeLobby

      Or just ban fliers, super heavies and GMC and have a much better gaming system all around.

      • disqus_CktyL7rKWJ

        yeah, and no formations! and no xenos! and 5th edition rules convolution…oh wait this is Horus Heresy ;P

        • ZeeLobby

          Haha. Nah, HH has all of those things above, which is fine. I just think it’s funny that GW slowly crept Apocalypse into regular 40K and hoped that nobody would notice. I miss men fighting in the trenches, instead I get to play:

          • Chris. K Cook

            LoW =/= Apoc. Get over it or go play 5th ed.

          • ZeeLobby

            I already stopped playing, thanks. Just waiting for them to reverse the idiotic decision. I also didn’t say LoW anywhere up there did I? Super Heavies, GMC and fliers were ALL apocalypse prior to coming to 40K.

          • Chris. K Cook

            And now they are LoW. Get over it.

            How dare we have choice. Badwrongfun!

          • Shiwan8

            Is it a choice if you force your opinions to others?

          • Chris. K Cook

            No one is making YOU use any of the tools that GW has offered. why do you insist that they be taken away from us?

          • Shiwan8

            I’m not. I’m saying that you forcing your opinion on others and using psychological abuse to coerce them to agreeing with you is not you giving them much of a choice. We are all here just voicing our opinions after all and immediately when you do not agree you start to use shaming tactics and such.

          • ZeeLobby

            Sometimes that’s the only weapon they have. Sad really :/.

          • Shiwan8

            Fortunately they present their skill set early on. It would be pretty disappointing to think that the conversation was had by two like minded people and at the end the truth would be revealed.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Again we are into Shimnny land where you contradict your self and accuse others of doing what you are doing.

            Shamming tactics? From the guy who sreams at anyone who has a different opinion and tells everyone how they should be playing the game?

            Do you need your safe space?http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12b4de282be935baa558bf72d526e1e073ccceb2144678b5021c2ee615f38e5c.jpg

          • Shiwan8

            Like I said, immediately when someone does not agree you result to psychological abuse. The sad thing is that only works on people to whom your opinion of them matters. I doubt that you find such people here.

          • Chris. K Cook

            I’m psychologically abusing you am I Buttercup?

            You poor wilting flower you.

            Better retreat to your safe place. http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12b4de282be935baa558bf72d526e1e073ccceb2144678b5021c2ee615f38e5c.jpg

          • Shiwan8

            Just calling it what it is. The situation is still the same, you have no means to even begin to upset me. You may continue to try, but it will ultimately be utterly futile. The situation is pretty much the same as if a 2 year old child was trying to upset an adult, you just can not succeed.

          • ZeeLobby

            Your inability to space words concerns me. That said, I don’t care whether they’re LoW or not. LoW has NOTHING to do with my concern. I’m not sure why you keep harping on it.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Badwrongfun is one word.

          • Shiwan8

            Dictionaries seem to generally disagree with you.

          • ZeeLobby

            Must be a modern day tweener. Twitter tells them what is a word and what isn’t.

          • Shiwan8

            That….that is almost scary.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. scary but true. My wife is a teacher, and when you see a hashtag in a students response on a test, it’s the most horrifying thing imaginable.

          • Shiwan8

            Epic, just epic. And then they wonder why the average level of intelligence is declining.

          • ZeeLobby

            I could blab on for days. Most of it is just that when a child pops out of the womb these days, the father immediately hands him/her a smartphone.

          • Shiwan8

            I don’t think it’s the father who does that. He’s not around enough to influence a kid like that in most cases.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha, true, sad but true.

          • Muninwing

            hey, at least that’s an option for some. i teach in a poverty-stricken rural environment, and the “digital gap” is a huge problem… but will be an even bigger one for these same kids in another generation.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I guess most kids at my wife’s school just get Boost/Cricket/etc. phones. It’s not like we have any new educational programs to teach them out to use said devices smartly though…

          • Skathrex

            This is what has been said for more than 2k years…

          • Shiwan8

            And yet it’s actually a new thing. “Everything was better in the olden days” is not really the same as “people are too stupid to know how to write and too cowardly to own their actions”.

          • Skathrex

            Not really, because that too, has been said for quite some time now. Even Sokrates said something similar somewhat 2,5k years ago. People are not stupid, they are young. And the written and spoken language is evolving. “Too cowardly to own their actions” is a pure nature thing. Many people shift blame, for as long as humans exist.

          • Muninwing

            the new guard are always scary to the old guard.

            read up on the teachers who thought that the ballpoint pen would create a learning apocalypse in the 50s. they were in the minority, but they were pretty vocal.

            even a little over a decade ago, there was worry that “netspeak” — what younger people used to communicate via messenger programs (before texting supplanted them) was going to ruin literacy, because the new way of writing words would become pattern and they would never learn proper english.

            obviously it didn’t happen either.

            lots of immature people don’t know how to responsibly handle their tech. nothing new there, aside form what tech.

          • Shiwan8

            While that is true, the present day version of things that were 2500 years ago is that people do not learn or grow up. There is no need to. Actually there is a huge movement persecuting people that actually leave the state of mental infancy.
            Back then (few hundred years ago and before that) being an idiot and refusing to “get a grip” would often lead to death and almost without exception to some kind of real trouble. People that were 20 or so in the 70s and beginning of 80s are the main reason we have these present day problems. At that time those people did not yet have power and now they and their offspring/pupils do…which is the plaque of modern day western countries. Those people are leading the way and thanks to them we have precious gems like big C and the like.

          • Skathrex

            While I agree with the point, that growing up isn’t needed anymore, because it is not life threatening not to do so. This has nothing to do with intelligence or use of language. There was always a language of the youth and some parts of it changed the “normal language” and some parts just died off.
            The problem you are mentioning has to do with social issues not intelligence.
            Sorry for asking, but whats the big C?

          • Shiwan8

            “Yo dawg” is not a problem in spoken laquage in everyday situations. It’s a problem in exams, official documents etc.

            Big C is a local troll who just does not see his own actions as what they are but will absolutely burst in to full super sayan rage if he gets treated the same way he treats others.

          • Skathrex

            You mean Chris. K Cook?

            Its only a problem till “Yo dawg” becomes part of that language, but I agree at the moment its not the wisest choice to use “yo dawg” but there have always been smart and dumb people, not connection to youth or Twitter

          • Shiwan8

            it’s about percentages. 10% idiots is botter than 50%.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Not all words are in dictionaries.

          • Shiwan8

            All valid ones are.

          • Muninwing

            the issue isn’t “choice” — it’s what assumed inclusion (which is also the opposite of choice, just also the opposite outcome of that removal of choice) does to the playability of the game.

            it’s why so many people talk about “the meta” — it’s the game within the game, that you end up playing if you want to have a fun game, and all the made-for-you (if you want to not get steamrollered) decisions that used to seem like options.

          • Chris. K Cook

            So your new hobby is kvetching here?

            That must be fun and fullfilling

          • ZeeLobby

            I comment on most articles. Sorry if I enjoy discussing miniature wargaming. Maybe you should stop looking at BoLS 40k articles as “your” articles and start seeing it as an open forum.

          • Muninwing

            if you can’t keep up, that’s nobody’s fault but yours. whining about it is just sad.

          • Shawn

            Men can still fight in the trenches. You just need to look out for unwanted aircraft. And in a universe where space travel is possible and interplanetary visitation, flying aircraft and flying warmachines are a distinct possibility.

          • ZeeLobby

            But I havent SEEN men in the trenches on the tabletop since 5th. What I do see is scatbikes, Imperial Knights, space marine bikes, thinderwolves, grav-centurions, screamerstars, and WKs. There’s no denying that troops on foot are pretty useless these days…

          • Shawn

            While I haven’t faced thunderwolves or scatbikes, I kind of know what you mean. Although, I like MSU simply because you can’t kill everything in 5 turns most days. Now if they had actualtrench warfare type games, that could be cool, but I like assaulting too much, lol.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. Assaults are a critical aspect of trench warfare. They’ve just made shooting armies ridiculously powerful to the point where assault requires the use of deathstar and psychic shenanigans. I dream of one day having an army composed of jump pack assault Marines, but that’s. Laughable option right now… and GW does little to try and fix it. They make a sensible move with one codex and completely ignore it the next. Through 6th and 7th I’ve had more lists invalidated than any other edition.

          • Shawn

            What lists and for space marines? I know what you mean though. Way too much shooting and way too much high strength high ap weapons. And there is no fathomable reason for one faction to have a ton of D weapons, other than the eldar codex designer doesn’t like to lose with his precious space elves.

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean denialists like to credit GW with that decision as an answer to deathstars, but it’s SUCH a bad answer, haha. I can’t believe that’s really why they added them. But running assault against Tau, Eldar, Necrons and SMs is pretty laughable. Especially now that SMs can move terrain around the table psychically. When you face 3 knights, each with the 12 shot gattling gun, which due to psychic powers, do not need line of sight to shoot at a target, and ignore cover, and then the player can move the terrain your hiding in towards his knights so he can assault you. I mean that’s just ridiculous… It just makes me scratch my head in horror…

          • Shawn

            I see what you mean. I’ve only used the technomancy discipline, and haven’t had very many games, since they dropped. I do think it provides some useful tools against crap that frustrates me, like demonkin and demons, eldar and tau, so they aren’t all compeltely obliterating me. Got to make them work for that “W” after all! LOL.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, it’s that “lets add more to beat specific OP builds” attitude that’s led GW down this path. Instead of you know, simply toning down Eldar/daemonkin/tau rules…

          • Shawn

            Agreed. I’ts an arms race for 40k with those factions on the top. At one point, I thought about using CSM rules for plague marines, just so I could have a couple of Iron Hands units with 5 up FNP. Now I get it with the Fist of Medusa Strike Force, along with PotMS for all my vehicles. Imagine a squadron of vindicators moving 12″ and then shooting it’s Apoc sized S10 Ap2 Ignores Cover blast. Scare the bejeezes out of scat bikes for sure! LOL.

          • ZeeLobby

            I just don’t see them making it though. not with ranged D at the Eldar player’s disposal. They’d have to survive 2 maybe even 3 turns of shooting. With luck i can see it happening, but I’ve seen Eldar lists tear through much tougher armor in that many turns. Again, it’s like it would be such a great answer, but it just falls short to the Eldar toolbelt. And then turning that same unit on Orks feels like the most negative game experience ever for your opponent.

          • Shawn

            Well, that is a 48″ threat. Park on 12″ deployment, roll 12″, then shoot 24″, but I know what you mean. I’d have to go first, just to pull it off. After that’s itls kill the vindis. But with PotMS I can shoot at different targets, I think. I’d have to double check.

            I’ll admit it though, I hate losing to ork hordes simply because they have more bodies to chew threw and then the nob with the power klaw shows up and destroys the unit. Then have the player complain that my marines are too tough. Doesn’t matter if you got 30 boyz to one unit and a couple of nobz with power klaws.

          • ZeeLobby

            But Ork hordes are still manageable for most armies. There’s a way to deal with them, and lists that definitely do. Not necessarily the case with Eldar. I’d also argue that you really have a 36″ threat range. Usually you ignore deployment, as your opponent can deploy at the back of his zone as well. That said, If I played you, and you got first turn, I would let you deploy your vindis, which would need to be in formation, and then I’d pocket deploy in each corner, or to whatever side is away from them. Even more frustrating, all I would need is one shield generator and that large blast would do absolutely nothing but take a point off it.

            Just for discussion sake, when I say Eldar I mean 6ish 3-man scatbike squads, 2-3 WKs, 2 farseers, a shield generator, and the rest filled with warp spiders. It’s very brutal, and I’ve played, and lost, against it several times with Tau. Then I look at my DE and CSM, and am just like, you would have no chance, haha.

          • Shawn

            Yeah, I faced a similar list in a CAD tourney. And it’s good that there is a counter for that apoc blast. There should be counters. Of course, now that I know grav will take down a void shield generator, I’ll be prepared next time. Oh and if you pocket deployed in each corner, away from line of sight, that’s still a good thing for me. The apoc blast is still a one time, situational thing as once people see it it becomes a priority, or they hide in the corner, so I can’t get the blast off. Either way, I’ve effected the way you play in some small way. I call that a win. 😉

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I’d be more concerned about being cornered if I couldn’t take out your vinidis in the bottom of Turn one, and if my minimum movement for my units wasn’t 12″. If Eldar weren’t mobile, it’d be less of an issue. And do you mean taking out void shields by rolling 6s to glance with grav? That doesn’t seem like all that great of a solution. I don’t know. Obviously we would have to play it out :D. But I’ve never seen a good Eldar player struggle vs SMs, unless it’s really not a SM list (Knights, deathstars, etc.)

          • Shawn

            I think that’s how the errata went for grav and void shields glance on 6, but the omniscope allows a reroll, so not impossible 😉 It’s been great chatting with you Zee. I got to get ready for work now. Later.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha, as always Shawn. Have a good day!

          • Shawn

            Thanks Zee. It wasn’t a bad day at work, just a long day.

          • Muninwing

            buffing blasts would have hampered deathstars.

            screwing with coherence rules would have hampered deathstars — if the dead models make the unit out of cohesion, there could be something past “move back in during your next move”

            nerfing ATSKNF would have hampered many of them.

            adding overwatch is interesting, but needed to be handled judiciously. so predictably, GW botched it.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right?! So many options, and they went with the dumbest one possible. “Lets just add weapons that remove anything from the table based purely on luck!”

        • Chris. K Cook

          Neuterhammer! Lets butcher the game back into the blkandfest that was 5th!

          • ZeeLobby

            You say neuterhammer, i say normalhammer.

          • Chris. K Cook

            It’s old hammer dude. If you want to play 5th more power to you. Go play it. Stop trying to make the rest of us do that.

          • vlad78

            If only GW stopped making the rest of us play 7th.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Yes their jackbooted stormtroopers kick down the door and seize all the old editions for the rulebook burnings.

            They then hold a gun to our heads and make us all play 7th ed. Oldhammer is punishable by assignment to the FW Resin mines…

            Or maybe you can just play what you want to play with others who want to play that?

          • vlad78

            Oh come on, you perfectly know it’s more difficult to find players for an older edition of the game than the one currently supported by GW. Furthermore all editions had flaws and players have preferences. 5th was at its core the best one imho but the codicies were awful.

          • Chris. K Cook

            But no one is FORCING anyone to play any edition.

          • vlad78

            Are you adding anything useful at this point? ;p

          • Muninwing

            you keep using the technicality of the appearance of choice as a justification. this is not honest.

            sure… my local club went back to playing WHF 6th, instead of AoS. “rank and flank forever!” was a popular enough saying that they ordered t-shirts. if i don’t like what GW has dumbed the game down to, i have options.

            but many people don’t.

            it’s not unlike why things like “minimum wage” exist. should you be paid a living wage for doing a living wage’s work? sure. but if that law was removed, you know that it’s a responsibility that those opposed are just waiting to not have to live up to anymore.

            by releasing a new edition, GW changed the appearance of the game. if you can find like-minded people, you can play how you want. if you cannot — and depending on circumstance, this might be a big deal — you are forced to either stop playing, or concede to playing in a way you do not (ideally) want to play.

            it’s not the choice you claim it is, because it’s more complicated than that. i just can’t tell if you’re wilfully ignoring it, or if you’re blind to the concept.

          • ZeeLobby

            You can only play old systems for so long, and good luck getting new players to play 5th. For now we’ll just continue to introduce 7th to newcomers and watch them switch to other game systems. GG GW.

          • Chris. K Cook

            You mean you aren’t allowed to play more than one game?

          • ZeeLobby

            it’s hard to play a game when no one else wants to play it, which is more commonly becoming the case locally.

          • Chris. K Cook

            That is true. And is my argument for them not messing to much with the scale for epic.

          • ZeeLobby

            Finally. We agree that 40K is losing players because of this silliness! Thank you for finally realizing it. I really doubt re-releasing epic will somehow spring new GW games to life. They’re pushing hard for that nostalgia trio to bring back the seasoned players who started with their systems. The people who actually get new players interested in their games rather than verbally abuse them. Basically they want more of us back and less of you.

          • Shiwan8

            You know how some people need expensive shiny/big/otherwise very noticeable status objects to feel worthy?

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I guess that’s the case. GW should just start releasing knights in solid gold.

          • Shiwan8

            Make no mistake, there are enough of these people in the world that they would get 100 sold easily, especially if they were numbered copies.

          • daonemdt

            Lets just go back to 4th edition better yet.

          • Chris. K Cook

            Or you just play whatever edition you want and let the rest of us play what we want?

          • Shiwan8

            Could you, please?

          • Chris. K Cook

            That’s what I’m doing. I like 7th. I don’t rage at people for liking other editions. I talk about my dislike for them and my puzzlement at why you’d butcher 7th to be more like them.

            The people that demand that the new edition be like old ones rather than just play the old ones are the people that are forcing their opinions on others.

            Folks like you.

          • Skathrex

            I had this discussion many times with folks in my old gaming group. People who played Warhammer since 2nd or 3rd.
            Sometimes its fine to hang on to memories and think of the past, but as it was said in GoT. “Its fun to swin in the Ocean, but if you stay in that ocean you will drown.”
            We had the diffrent stages of people. The oldest one didn’t want to play with named Characters, because it wasnt allowed back in the day. One didn’t want to play with FW. Gues which Edition the Tyranid player wanted to play? And then there was ne “fairly” new player (3 Years, who didn’t have a problem with all of it, but wanted to play his Wraithknights (Ianden player).
            As for myself I could play with all of them, because I had no Problem with restrictions. And everytime one of them lost, they would talk about the “good old times”. Times change, and I for one don’t want to be the old guys talking about the “good old times” while ignoring the “good new times”.
            Yes there where good things in the old times, and some where better, but many where way worse (ask a person of colour or women).
            So don’t try to change the things back, learn from the old and the new.

          • Shiwan8

            Other than you I have yet to see anyond raging here. Seriously, your hostility towards other participants who do not agree with you is beyond anything this place has otherwise seen.

            The fact is that GW has a very good brb already done but it’s spread out on multiple editions. 5th edition transports, 6th edition monsters, 7th edition psychic system, 6th edition psychic powers, all the different deployment templates over the editions, new flyer rules, present day vehicle rules and so on. It’s there but GW refuses to just gather it all to a single edition. All the different editions as stand alone rule sets are biased and thus inherently grossly out of balance.

            This is why people try to make the game good by taking what is good and kicking what is not. You are openly hostile towards anyone who does not support your opinions and the project this to other people like they’d offended you in a way that somehow justifies your actions. It is not I or the ones not happy with current edition that are forcing you or others to go by their will. It is you that tries to silence anyone that does not agree with you.

          • Muninwing

            sounds like you’re assuming what is not included in this conversation, because of your own past baggage.

            you have every right to play 7th, and complain about 5th. but the right is in the voicing of your preferences.

            to then whine about other people doing the same — because the specifics don’t agree with your preference — is basically you doing the very thing that isn’t happening here, that you’re accusing others of doing.

            really, the only cure is for you to just get over yourself.

          • Drpx

            My Necrons and mounted Tau say yes please.

          • Chris. K Cook

            With derpy abstract line of sight? no thanks but you can go play it.

          • Muninwing

            it wasn’t hard to figure out. you need to note what terrain is anyway, the knowing how it operated in game was handled in that step.

            do you really feel like you need a laser pointer (like the one GW made) just to deal with play? that’s more complicated, not less. unlike how you represent it.

          • Breaker

            My Templars will ride again! 😀

      • Dave Scammell

        I don’t personally mind flyers, heavies and gargantuans. They do all have their place in the game (even if the latter two do look a bit daft in small-scale games). But they do feel, again, a bit slapped onto the game rather than integrated into it, hence the feeling many have that they’re their own separate thing and shouldn’t necessarily be in the game at all in many cases.

        • ZeeLobby

          Well, which i think is a concern we both share. They do feel slapped on. The problem is GW isn’t going to take the time to integrate them tightly. They will always feel slapped on. I would love for them to prove me wrong, but honestly, looking at their history, I just can’t see that happening.

          • Shawn

            How do the rules feel “slapped on” Zee? Do you own a copy, or at least read a copy of DFtS? I think this is one of the best supplements that have come out. These rules replace the flyer rules for 40k and, as far as I’m concerned, better reflect skyborne warfare.

          • ZeeLobby

            I was referencing their rules in general. Faction A has 4 supplements and 8 possible allies. Faction B has 1 Ally and a supplement half the size of the others. Faction A gets a NEW supplement plus 2 new psychic disciplines on top of the 8 already available to them. Faction B gets nothing. Faction A gets a new flier on top of the 4 already available to them. Faction B’s 2 fliers get nerfed.

            There is no logic or reason behind these changes. The company doesn’t do focus groups or play testing. They simply slapped things together and threw them on the shelf.

            Observe other companies, let’s say PP for example, and Minions recent release of Blind Walker. The Blind Walker served several purposes. It gave Gators another Heavy warbeast which they were lacking, it gave Caliban a channeling unit he sorely needed to be more relevant. It provided synergies between several other units that rarely saw the table. It wasn’t a great unit competitively, but it served a purpose and was added in an attempt to fill a gap.

            Do ANY of GW’s releases sound like this? Did SMs really need another flier and 2 new psychic disciplines? Did any of these additions help redefine their purpose/strengths? No, they were “slapped on”.

        • Shawn

          I’m not seeing it Dave. Are you saying this because you’re an old vet and flyers are relatively new, as far as the history of 40k goes? Aerial warfare is very much a part of every war from WWI on, so including them in a meaningful way into 40k seems to be most appropriate. I own Death From the Skies, and from what I’ve read, it just adds a new, colorful element to 40k that can be played separate all by itself, or easily incorporated into campaigns or any game.

          • Muninwing

            no, i get what he means.

            if flyers are suddenly a part of the game, then whoever has the best (or the best AA) is going to dominate… like GK and Necrons in early 6th.

            if flyers are now changing, but only the ones that have new rules — and there is no indication of what to do with the flyers that are not included — then there’s no compensation for this in the army list.

            if flyers are now changing, and those changes nerf what needed a buff, then how will that alter how armies play?

            on the other hand…

            if full balance and integration is in any way remotely on the table… how are points changed or options considered or the like in order to balance the game?

            if you’re not covering the rules for everyone, or if you’re not actually adjusting for effectiveness, then it’s another wildcard that will create issues, not a simple on/off switch.

            really, GW needs to do a wholesale redo of a lot of rules — and more than rules, of point-prices. so many problems with the game would be fixed if they implemented a well-tested point-algorithm.

  • snakechisler

    Currently it looks to be a standalone book, FMC’s don’t have an entry there forgeworld flyers aren’t in at all & the big rub to get you some more ignores cover take 3 flyers.
    We have the reserve manipulation shenanigans how are the auto Deploy forces treat are they exempt coz they don’t role, if your playing against Grey Knights just take 3 fliers and shut down the Nemesis strike force?

  • disqus_CktyL7rKWJ

    may as well ban everything BUT flyers and make it a stand-alone game.

    • ZeeLobby

      And then release a 8′ x 8′ realm of battle table!

    • Chris. K Cook

      Tell me you know that that was an Epic Scale game right?

      • Dave Scammell

        Well, that would help with needing space for the whole ‘play a round of combat off the board’ thing.

    • Shawn

      Well you could play it that way, for sure. No problem with that. But, for some reason, the majority of players balk at any new rules, and rules that concern flyers for some reason.

      • Muninwing

        “for some reason”

        i was fine with them. but i play DA, and Mortis Dreads are fluffy for me.

        in fact, the 6th ed debut summer campaign near me saw flyers get ditched early. my dreads took them out before they could do anything more often that not, and an IG player did the same. so that local meta saw them underplayed.

        after awhile, people saw how the wrong flyers are far less useful. they can be ok, but are not necessarily worth their points (like the Nephilim in 6th, for instance).

        i like the idea of doing something new with them. i just want a complete product, not this slipshod cramming that isn’t fully integrated nor remotely fair or balanced.

  • Davor Mackovic

    *edit* Frack it.

    • Malisteen

      most tournaments didn’t use escalation. I never went to one that used cityfight or planetfall, or the previous version of death from the skies. There’s plenty of precedent for ignoring these sorts of offshoot rules.

      Especially ones like these that make the game worse, take longer, invalidate existing units, etc.

      • Koonitz

        The Escalation rule where a victory point is earned for every 3 hull points/wounds stripped off a SH/GC is actually pretty standard in, if I recall correctly, ITC rules. As was/is the bonus to stealing the initiative if you do not have one and your opponent does. I’m not sure what else would be in Escalation worth using (beyond the special missions).

        Oh, the Warlord traits table when facing off against a SH/GC, which was also in play the last local tournament I went to that used ITC rules.

        Those Escalation rules actually help to bridge the gap when facing off against SH/GC.

  • Davis Centis

    How about it applying only if at least one of the two players in a game decide to bring the book, and only flyers with rules in the book can participate in the new phase? That way, you get 3 situations:
    #1 – Neither player has the book. The rules don’t apply, and any players with Flyers get what they paid points for.
    #2 – Both players have the book. The rules do apply, and any players with Flyers get what they paid points for.
    #3 – One player has the book, and the other doesn’t. The rules do apply, and this is the risk you took in bringing Flyers without the book.

    Also, I personally think the game should be 1500 points as well. I know there was a vote, but frankly, I think people are wrong. Another poster said it right, 1500 points is like the old 2000 points, while 1850 is like 2500 points. No wonder the games take so long!

    • Shiwan8

      Likely the best idea I’ve seen in months in here.

    • aspsnake

      1) come to a tournament with an attack flyer
      2) see your opponent has a book and flyers
      3) say ‘damn it!’

    • Joe Dom GA

      So If neither player brings teh BRB then we don’t need rules! brilliant!

      • Davis Centis

        Technically speaking, this is true. If you specifically play that you don’t have any rules, then without the BRB you are not playing 40k. When no game takes place, why are you signed up for the tournament?

        • Joe Dom GA

          then you just play 40K calvinball.

          • Davis Centis

            You mentioned Calvinball! My bolters gain an extra letter!

    • Skathrex

      For Tournaments its a bit difficult, because you are expectet to bring the Rules.
      For casual play I will do it exactly like that. I will use the new Rules (except Dog Fight) and if my opponent wants to Dog Fight, he better bring the book.
      As for FW Flyers, I would just play them with the old Rules (when not using Dog Fight)

  • Malisteen

    more complicated rules hassle in a game that absolutely does not need that, rules that make a unit type that is already rarely used worse, unless you run a bunch of them, when it’s so much easier just to cut from ‘maybe one sometimes’ to ‘none’, especially if you’re reducing game size to account for the extra time wasting that comes with the aforementioned rules hassles. a dozen units rendered unusable while waiting to be adapted to these rules….

    All in all, I think tournaments are way, way better off ignoring this one.

  • Lord of Deeds

    First I acknowledge how this supplement along with AoD poses significant challenges for TO’s and tournament participants on managing the various rules interaction in a tournament setting where you have an arbitrary time limit and trying to maintain a consistent game setting, e.g. terrain.

    Having said that I am not sure I follow some of the rationale for what is obviously Reece’s preemptive op ed to disallow the book and influence ITC votes accordingly. “Because it is an incomplete rule-set and a book that not everyone has” is an especially weak argument. You could make the same argument for Angels of Death. Also, there have been plenty of other occasions where rules updates for Forge World units lagged behind their GW counterparts, so again, not sure how strong that argument holds. Likewise, changes to the rules effectively nerfing particular armies leaving them really short handed in particular phases of the game is nothing new and continues to leave some armies on the outside looking in in terms of competitive ITC builds. Also another weak argument is having to carry around another book. I don’t choose to play this game predicated on how many books I believe I need or don’t need to carry. Also, if really an issue it’s not like GW doesn’t already offer a solution to that with e-pubs.

    With regards to the dog fight phase being fairly random, not sure you can make that conclusion given how often flyers are ignored currently as Reece himself points out. If GW’s objective with this supplement is to increase purchases and corresponding interest and use of flyers in games, then the dog fight phase could become anything but random.

    I think with the way the book is written you either allow it or disallow the whole thing. You can’t cheery pick. It would seem easier to then just disallow the book, but if you do, you disallow two official GW units, the new space marine and ork flyers which I think would be unprecedented in competitive play as I can’t recall the last time an official GW unit was not allowed in competitive play.

  • SilentPony

    Who at GW thought the one thing 40k was missing was even MOAR rules?!

  • AWatcherInTheDark

    Better start using it, in less than a year you will have to anyway just like you had to accept Lord of War or other “expansions” last time.

    • Drpx

      I bought that Manta, I deserve to use it.

    • The 8th Ed rumors are talking about a redesigned, slimmed down 40K, somehow I’m not worried that will mean adding yet another phase

      • AWatcherInTheDark

        Every time someone said “big change” or “simplified” from 5th to 6th or 6th to 7th it wasn’t the case. So I will believe it when I get the book until then I expect more of the same.

  • memitchell

    “Hey, they have all new rules for fliers! If we want, we can have them dog fight each other in a separate phase. Isn’t that cool! I love that GW adds new stuff to their games that gives you more things to do with your toys.”

    “No, new stuff is bad. Especially for tournaments. Unbalanced, and too time consuming.”

    “I don’t play in tournaments. Besides, why incorporate extra stuff in tournaments if it’s unbalanced, too time consuming, and optional?”

    “I don’t know, but I’m agin’it, anyway.”

    • An_Enemy

      I’m confused…if you don’t play in tournaments why are you here complaining about tournament runners and their decisions?

      • Andrew Thomas

        that’s the joke.

        • memitchell

          The point of the parable is not wanting new fun stuff is counter-intuitive. Except with the tournament crowd. Ironic that the most avid 40K players don’t want new 40K stuff. It’s not a life changing observation.

          • There’s a reason the rules are optional, some of us don’t find dogfights interesting and find the new phase cumbersome and annoying. Doesn’t mean we are tourney players

          • memitchell

            What about the poor souls that like them? I’m not defending them, just saying, as an optional way to play with your toys, their inclusion is a good thing. GW should be applauded for creating new stuff (as long as it is optional, thematic, and not OP-ish). Except for Tau, which belong in a different game and different anime/Power Ranger universe. Personally, I find the idea of aircraft in any tactical game silly. For any squad, since the invention of aircraft, being spotted, singled out, and attacked by anything from a bi-plane to a Thunderhawk is game over, man. In the 30K/40K Lore, that’s true of Titan’s, too.

          • There’s nothing stopping people from using them, but I’m not paying $50 for a supplement that makes the game less enjoyable

  • Kolobius

    What pisses me off about this is that not even 1 month ago I had just finished assembling and painting 3 fliers each for my 3 armies. A HUGE investment. And then this book drops and I might as well throw those models in the trash.

    • Andrew Thomas

      Why? Were they all Bombers?

    • generalchaos34

      having 3 flyers seems like it would be a plus with the new formations and wing leaders, I know Im going to have some fun with my Valks/Vendettas if I can give them +1 BS and drop some troops in

    • daonemdt

      Which flyers if you dont mind me asking?

    • Koonitz

      I’m sorry that your modeling and painting investment to get several cool models painted up and looking great has gone to waste because their rules changed.

  • denzark

    I fail to see how everyone not having the book is a problem – very few people have every opponent’s codex and IA books (except for cheeky drop-boxed copies from our Russian friends).

    • An_Enemy

      Except this is closer to a Rulebook than a codex since it adds a phase, new rules, and changes units.

      If one person showed up with the 6th edition book and one person showed up with 7th it’d be a problem yes?

      Because I’ve actually played someone that insisted 6th was just like 7th and he kept trying to use the wrong rules and argue with me about it the whole time. A rules issue would come up, he’d pick up his 6th edition book, and I’d sigh and shake my head. Just like if I showed up with my pre-DFTS flyers and my opponent kept trying to tell me my flyers don’t have skyfire or suffer a -1 to hit ground targets.

    • Tirelion

      So buy it 40k is pay to play, that’s how it is.

      • Or, better, don’t use the optional rules (just like tournaments didn’t use dogfights when DFTS came out) and then no one has to buy it!

        • Tirelion

          Except they are not optional. They replace the rules from the core book. Did you even actually read the suppliment or are you just forming opinions based on the incomplete information from others who probably didn’t read it either?

          • Since I’m not buying it, I’m not reading it. Not using it. It’s an expansion, I have no interest.

          • Tirelion

            Then you better not use any flyers or you will be cheating, as almost every flyer lost skyfire or has -1 bs at ground targets. You better not use a rule you don’t have anymore on your flyers, unless your play group is cool with cheating I guess.

          • I play Daemonkin, my only flyer is a baleflamer drake, so this has no effect either way, but i never use it because i don’t like drakes and there isn’t a good use for it in the slaughtercult.
            But really I think the more players who reject the expansion the better.

          • Tirelion

            Doesn’t affect your drake? Your drake can now make break turns on a roll of a 1-4 to make a 90 deg turn to stay on target. It no longer has skyfire, but can be taken in pairs for any Chaos ally. When taken as a pair or “Wing” one drake can be declared the leader and has a chance at being able to use his daemon forge every turn, or gets twin linked. Most of the flyers in the game lost skyfire, making the drake far more survivable than it was. Yep no changes to your drake at all. This is what you get when you make comments without knowing what you are talking about.

          • The Heldrake has a flamer, it can’t target flyers anyway. I’m aware of all the rules in DFTS, it’s what made me aware it’s something I think makes the game worse, and I won’t be buying or using it. If someone insists on playing with it, they can find someone else to play against, I’m not wasting $50 on a book that makes the already mediocre gameplay of 40k worse.

          • Tirelion

            Glad I won’t ever give you a game then.

    • Koonitz

      Because this isn’t something that “one person can use, the other doesn’t have to.” The rules are meant to be used by both people in a game.

      Basically, if you bring an army with a Stormraven and Death from the Skies, and I bring an army with a Stormraven but no Death from the Skies, does that mean I can out-and-out ignore the dogfight phase and still skyfire with my Stormraven, but you can’t, because you’re using Death from the Skies?

      Your idea of brushing off only works if the person who doesn’t have Death from the Skies doesn’t have any flyers in the first place.

      It’s one thing to not know your opponent’s army. It doesn’t prevent you from playing him. It’s another to not know rules your army has to also abide by. Especially when you have the rulebook and don’t expect/aren’t aware of any changes a secondary book caused to you.

  • Andrew Thomas

    What do I think? That people are lazy, and refuse to read things completely. Consider: the Dogfight Phase will really only comes up once or twice a game, baring bad Reserve rolls or moving off of the field. Flyer Wings are not Squadrons, and don’t obey the same Coherency rules, so if you want/need to, you can have your planes fan out. ITC could draft a comp for Forgeworld flyers until the release something more official. It’s not that complicated.

  • daonemdt

    I love it for one. It can’t really be said its complicating the game more since its not really adding rules. Its replacing the vehicle flyer rules and besides the patterns and dogfight phase, its not adding much. Dogfight phase is really simple and takes less than a couple minutes at most. The patterns are really useful. Some say that the patterns would be hard to put into practice most of the time but they forget to take into account the new braking test allowing a extra 90 degree turn during movement. While some armies dont have good flyers the flyer wing detachment allows me to take dark angel flyers alongside my Guard army. Having a flyer in reserve when your opponent does not ( minus 2 to their reseve roll) would mess up alot of deepstriking armies, like non skyhammer drop pod armies The book opens up alot more possiblities.

    • generalchaos34

      I agree, plus while I am not a huge fan of allies I do not see a problem with borrowing a small wing of flyers for my guard. Some flyers are simply better for no good reason and I do not see why guardsman cant call in an airstrike from a passing wing of stormtalons ( or better yet, get some fun out modelling guard stormtalons out of Apache models!)

    • daonemdt

      The dark angel nephilm is probably best all around flyer now. Finally worth its points cost.

  • Silverbeast

    And whats your advice to a Nid player? Shoud she/he buy this book? Without allies? Thanks no.

    • Tirelion

      This book makes nids better by removing skyfire from 75% of the models that kill nid FMCs. This book is actually very good for nids.

  • Jared Swenson

    Do not adopt the book. It’s terrible. I get expansions can change the meta, but this just does it too much unnecessarily. If anything do another vote survey. First have a question that asks “Do we implement Death From the Skies supplement?” Yes or no. Then do a few questions of “If yes….” exploring ways people wouldnt mind seeing it in the game. I am sure though that a majority of people would say they don’t want the supplement. The reserves manipulation alone is pretty no-fun-allowed, unless someone has to pay a flyer tax to keep their strategy from being nerfed into the ground. Also some armies just don’t have flyers, or can’t get them. Tyranid technically wouldnt count as having any, and some supplements don’t have them. For example I run haemonculus covens, and I would need to ally with something else to bring a flyer, something I do not want to do. The escalation stuff was a different bag. You don’t need lords of war to combat lords of war, but with this supplement you pretty much do need to bring a flyer.

    • Shiwan8

      Ok. Correct me if I’m wrong in what I got from that. As far as I can tell you do not like the semi mandatory flyers because they hinder one or both players ability to use some strategies.

      I get this. I do not like someone preventing me from playing my army. Then again there are other things that achieve the exact same thing by other means. Some of them are:

      – Deathstars that by definition are pretty much invincible and incredibly destructive against pretty much anything. If only one side has one the other side has only 2 options, either quit or fight against tabling….which is a lot worse than getting reserves on average on turn 3 instead of turn 2.
      – Warp Spiders, because if you are not playing Tau, a deathstar or something other that just does not care about silly mortal problems like LoS there is exactly nothing you can do against them in any meaningful way. Outside landraiders there are no counters against them and landraiders are not a counter because of what comes next.
      – Wraithknights or imperial knights and similar units that are not deathstars but are pretty much immune to damage, fast, shoot and hit hard on top of probable stomps that just delete units.

      – New SM psychic powers.

      What I gathered from what you said you have not problem with these other things but this flyer thing (that you do not even have to buy in to if you do not base your strategy on reserves) is a huge nope in your books. Am I right?

      • Jared Swenson

        I’m curious where you are getting all these assumptions from. Where did I mention deathstars, warp spiders, wraith knights, imp knights and all that were fine and balanced? How are those relevant to the implementation of death from the skies? The 40k rule set as it is right now is a terrible mess. I love it, but it’s bloated and severely unbalanced. Adopting this supplement tips that even further. So instead of just dealing with deathstars, warp spiders, wraith knights, and imperial knights, we also now have to deal with flyer reserves manipulation. Sure I could decide not to hold anything in reserves, but for some armies that eliminates their biggest strengths for dealing with those deathstars, warp spiders, wraith knights, imp knights, and whatever. Even from a fluff perspective (which is important to me) air superiority doesnt make sense against tyranid burrowing up from the ground or webway portals. Lets not even talk about some armies that don’t even have flyers without allying, forcing allies and giving up one of their precious 3 detachments/formations limit. So I have no idea where you are getting the idea that because I don’t like this supplement’s stuff, I am ok with everything else. I’ve got enough poop served to me on my platter, I don’t need another helping.

        • Shiwan8

          Well, you did not compare it to any of the regularly seen BS that fills the 40k battle fields. Almost everytime someone has a compalint about something in this game, a complaint as specific as yours is, they give the reader something to compare it to. Something they consider to be equally dumb to their present object of hate. An educated quess, nothing more. I share your dislike towards things that just make this game bad.

          I personally do not think that this book is bad. Sure, it screws some armies but nothing that are not already screwed by the eldar anyway.

  • Ronin

    Adopting the book and going back down to 1500 might be the best solution for balancing time limit vs rules bloat.

  • uatu13

    I’m hoping the world just generally ignores this book, it did nothing to make the game more fun, and is just a giant, sloppy mess in an already fairly sloppy game. Flyers were fine before, they didn’t need the change.

    • Shiwan8

      Heldrakes are not useless with it…at least not totally. They are without it though.

      • Malisteen

        Helldrakes will continue to be useless until their line of sight is greater than 45 degrees, or until torrent flamers are no longer restricted to applying wounds only to models in line of sight (if the target unit had to be in line of sight, but wounds could be applied to any models under the template, for instance, like with normal flamers).

        This book, if anything, made drakes worse, by giving them a chance to be killed before they even arrive. In exchange they can adopt attack patterns – which mostly do not help heldrakes, since they tend to give out BS boosts they don’t use, or ignore cover they already have, etc. The book also fails to give them their own formation, unlike the fliers of every other faction in the book.

        A chance at a second pivot doesn’t help much when relying on it means a third of the time you won’t shoot at all, and even with it the los restriction on their hull mounted gun still leaves them hobbled.

        Honestly, I would be less inclined to run heldrakes under these rules than I already am without them.

        • Shiwan8

          Well, my biggest problem with them was not having targets. Now that’s solved…in a way…ish…

  • Drpx

    TOs will probably just ignore this. And nobody will care.

  • Mach13

    They really need to break out types of deep strike. Having more flyers affecting when those terminators teleport in (as the most obvious) is quite silly.

  • Drahazar

    I actually have no issues with my DE army and I use 3 razorwings. I like the wing formations so I can add my razorwings and voidravens the benefits are really nice thought the new phase dose take time leave it out. We normally play 2000pnt games anyway

  • Shawn

    I guess the tourney folks have to decide yay or nay to these new rules. Personally, I love them. I love flyers and I already have an air force. Since I use flyers all the time, the +2/-2 to reserves is awesome! From what I’ve read so far, it seems a better rendition of what flyers are suppose to do in a sky battle with flyer vs flyer. I see no reason that they shouldn’t be included in tourneys. Everyone in a tourney is already playing rock-paper-scissors, so what’s one more rock?