Karol wrote: Plus there could also be a few factions whose player wouldn't be interested in playing 500pts games.
I wouldn't be interested with any faction at 500 points, it's not a fun game. It's way too swingy based on dice of your 1 strong model and every game is pretty much the same thing. 1,000 is much more enjoyable and almost as fast. That's really the minimum point level that 40k requires. I'm not against smaller games, 1,500 or 1,750 might even be better than 2,000 for tournaments as it forces you to make more decisions when listbuilding. I have just never enjoyed a 500pt game.
The sky is not falling. Your conclusions are just speculation. The company is in rude health.
I have seen pictures from games in stores in the 90s or early 2000s, they seemed to be full of people my age or younger. Stores don't look like that anymore. Adds, army construction, the basic entry army non of those things is build for someone who is 13-15y old. 2-3 squads, 1-2 vehicles and 1-2 heros is a game a teen can play. Starting with 9+ of anything is not. The focus on large kits, on nostalgia only someone playing 10 or even 20+ years ago, those are things that GW does. Which clearly point at the fact that they do seem to think their buyers are older. The complication in the game systems, not impossible to learn when you are a teen, but to be honest boring. Who wants to go through 4 multiple steps of overlaping rules that could have just been changed to unit X wounds on +2 and hits on +2 this turn.
And you can easily check it. Take older rules from older editions and ask someone who is my age or younger, if they would rather play those or something like 9th ed ad mecha.
All those kids bought units one at a time and played with what they had in their houses with friends. Magically you don't need 2000 points to play.
And 2,000 points was generally fewer models. In 2nd, your standard Tactical marine was 30ish points. Terminators were 65 or so.
I still remember when 1500 was seen as the tournament standard, then it was 1750/1850, now it's 2000. Then as you said, units were typically more expensive back then.
Jarms48 wrote: I still remember when 1500 was seen as the tournament standard, then it was 1750/1850, now it's 2000. Then as you said, units were typically more expensive back then.
It's a (sad) consequence of introducing heroes and big stuff to the regular game. They have to cost more than the standard specialists and vehicles so in order to be played without sinking the whole points budget, which would make them unplayable, games have to be this large.
Things were more expensive in 2nd, not in 3rd-7th.
In 3rd edition the most expensive single model I could bring with orks was the Battlewagon which was 120-135 points and limited to max one per army, other than a couple of named characters. And named characters couldn't be played without the opponent's permission. The other most expensive single models were the warboss (100ish points full kitted) and the deff dread (80ish points). Things weren't much different in 4th and 5th, although named characters became part of the regular roster then.
Tactics and manuvering are more important in 40k than anyone gives it credit for, but usually gets dismissed because it's "gamey"; like a tank having wet paper mache for rear armor isn't 'gamey'.
The real reason behing the nerf of flyers is tied to maneuvering, not the stats of the most powerful ones. Specifically the tactics of an ork player who positioned his flyers in order to prevent his other units to be assaulted.
Karol wrote: I can imagine that if a generation of generation of players focuses on playing the game at a points level which is equal to the local or world standard tournament game, the acceptance to someone asking to play half or a third of that, could be rather low. Plus there could also be a few factions whose player wouldn't be interested in playing 500pts games. Not many knight, custodes or GK would like that, when their codex are build for playing with at least three times as many points.
500 would face a lot of resistance because plenty of armies would have trouble fielding anything beyond a basic HQ and 2 troops but I have never really seen an issue with people trying to get 1k point games, especially if they are a new player.
The results at the weekend would suggest a game dangerously close to balance. Certain factions are probably too easy (Tyranids) - and some too hard - but some of that is choice. The idea Tyranids would be more broken than Harlequins doesn't seem to have come to pass.
If anyone can do the magic - I'd love to see Tyranid win rates by going first and second.
Ad Mech might need help - although it feels like no one is interested in playing them. (Hmmm... inner snowflake/Johnny activated).
Tyel wrote: The results at the weekend would suggest a game dangerously close to balance. Certain factions are probably too easy (Tyranids) - and some too hard - but some of that is choice. The idea Tyranids would be more broken than Harlequins doesn't seem to have come to pass.
I think they're pretty close to Harlies, but perhaps a bit easier to score on, which keeps them slightly lower. Interestingly the book is pretty diverse so there's not a lot of samey lists for Nids.
If anyone can do the magic - I'd love to see Tyranid win rates by going first and second.
That comes from the ITC Battles App, which hasn't been updated since 2021. It's fairly unreliable overall since it requires self reported data.
Ad Mech might need help - although it feels like no one is interested in playing them. (Hmmm... inner snowflake/Johnny activated).
Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).
Daedalus81 wrote: Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).
A reversal of the flyer nerf is definitely something that should happen, after which GW can properly balance/nerf the Ork and AdMech flyers, rather than all flyers.
Tyel wrote: Its just the conflict between whether you want 40k to be a sort of collective RPG sim, or futuristic chess.
IIRCGW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.
9th edition has been a perfect case study of changing the game to make it "more fun and more action packed" and then trashing the game in the process.
Making the engagement space smaller and shooting ranges longer, is meant to make the game more exciting, as Timmy gets to roll dice and kill models even in turn 1. This makes lethality go nuts, and negates maneuvering aside from "are you behind LOS blocking cover, y/n."
Removing things like pinning debuffs, forced fallbacks, etc is meant to ensure that Timmy doesn't get frustrated when he can't do what he wants whenever he wants. This strips out tactical effects from the game beyond "kill models," and makes the ruleset dumber and (again) cranks up the lethality.
I think the real feedback Timmy gave was "it doesn't make sense that games are ending with more than half my army still on the table", because Timmy is a rube and has no comprehension that wars are not fought to the death and traditionally casualties are only a small fraction of the size of forces deployed. So then GW said, "right, we need to make sure at least 80% of a players models are killed before the game ends". Removing pinning and fall backs, etc. are a way to ensure the models stay in the fight longer so they can become actual casualties - because the other thing Timmy said is "I want my dudesmen to go down fighting gloriously like action movie heroes, not flee the field like craven dogs".
Daedalus81 wrote: Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).
A reversal of the flyer nerf is definitely something that should happen, after which GW can properly balance/nerf the Ork and AdMech flyers, rather than all flyers.
Daedalus81 wrote: Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).
A reversal of the flyer nerf is definitely something that should happen, after which GW can properly balance/nerf the Ork and AdMech flyers, rather than all flyers.
I wonder how long you can continue to be in full denial over the fact that flier spam is a general problem for the game, just like indirect fire was.
Jarms48 wrote: I still remember when 1500 was seen as the tournament standard, then it was 1750/1850, now it's 2000. Then as you said, units were typically more expensive back then.
So, I've been around for a very long time and have seen / been part of some things over the years.
The move to 1750 was because tourney-gakkers didn't want to have to think; make the hard choice of what units / models to cut out of their army. This idea is true to this day. Removal of critical thinking is their MO. Hence, one gak GT mission and fixed terrain layout to rule them all.
The move to 1850 was done specifically to accommodate some 'popular' tourney-gakkers that founds some broken-ass gak that just couldn't be pulled off at 1750. Truth!
The move to 2000 was done to try and shift the meta; to assist players / factions who couldn't compete by giving them more points to work with. As well as 1850 being the stupidest most unhelpful points limit to have ever been conceived. The results are arguable.
The move to 1750 was because tourney-gakkers didn't want to have to think; make the hard choice of what units / models to cut out of their army.
There are a ton of armies which just don't work at 1500pts, no thinking involve but when your basic troop units costs 200pts for 5 and 400pts for 10 unupgraded and characters cost 250+pts playing 1500pts is not going to be fun. And it can be much worse for armies like knights, who before they got the mini knights came in +400pts chunks.
The move to 1750 was because tourney-gakkers didn't want to have to think; make the hard choice of what units / models to cut out of their army.
There are a ton of armies which just don't work at 1500pts, no thinking involve but when your basic troop units costs 200pts for 5 and 400pts for 10 unupgraded and characters cost 250+pts playing 1500pts is not going to be fun. And it can be much worse for armies like knights, who before they got the mini knights came in +400pts chunks.
They work, you just can't do a mega Deathstar. And the Terminator spam list you own would actually do better at lower points.
When the game is about capturing 3 objectives and being in 2-3 places at the time stoping the other side from claiming theirs and army which runs 3-4 units of infantry and 2-3 characters will lose. Not sure what a death star is. If it is a big high cost unit, then yeah people would also not be able to take those. unimportant to armies that don't have to take those units to have a working army. But if you are a necron at the start of 9th ed, telling him that he can't take a ctan shard is a bit like telling him that he should not play at all or play to lose. The upcoming knight books have a ton of rules and interaction, which require running one of the really big knights. Without those a lot of the rules in the book stay dead.
Karol wrote: When the game is about capturing 3 objectives and being in 2-3 places at the time stoping the other side from claiming theirs and army which runs 3-4 units of infantry and 2-3 characters will lose. Not sure what a death star is. If it is a big high cost unit, then yeah people would also not be able to take those. unimportant to armies that don't have to take those units to have a working army. But if you are a necron at the start of 9th ed, telling him that he can't take a ctan shard is a bit like telling him that he should not play at all or play to lose. The upcoming knight books have a ton of rules and interaction, which require running one of the really big knights. Without those a lot of the rules in the book stay dead.
The mission changes when you get to lower points....
Necrons at the start of 9th were actually fine without Ctans.
Knights are obviously the ONE army thats more problematic at lower pts value, but adding armigers fixed that problem. Oh and the Dominus knights still won't see play even at 2k
My troops 10 termintors cost 400pts, like a knight. Custodes have the same problem with their troops.
The fix you propose is a thing when you try to optimise the list, aka make it more tournament, which is , or at least that I was told, not suppose to be a thing. What if someone doesn't like the mini knights, I for one sure do hate power armoured GK. Or want to run a Dominus. should they be screwed on the list building level, just because the decided to not play the most optimal list.
Karol wrote: When the game is about capturing 3 objectives and being in 2-3 places at the time stoping the other side from claiming theirs and army which runs 3-4 units of infantry and 2-3 characters will lose.
This seems like an issue with the scenario, rather than with the points.
Karol wrote: My troops 10 termintors cost 400pts, like a knight. Custodes have the same problem with their troops.
The fix you propose is a thing when you try to optimise the list, aka make it more tournament, which is , or at least that I was told, not suppose to be a thing. What if someone doesn't like the mini knights, I for one sure do hate power armoured GK. Or want to run a Dominus. should they be screwed on the list building level, just because the decided to not play the most optimal list.
Your 10-man terminator has combat squads, so its not really a problem.
You're already screwed for not running the most optimal list in regular 2000pts 40k.
I love Magnus but i know everytime i'm bringing him, i'm gonna do worse than if i just brough 10 termis instead (yeah i know, someone did well with a magnus list last weekend)
I play Night lords and i know Raptors are trash, yet i still bring them
It still doesn't work that well when other armies can scale down much better. A knight, GK or Cusodes army at 1000pts or 1500pts doesn't work that well. While something like CWE or Harlis is much easier to scale down, just by cutting dups or trips. And some armies like the nids are just so undercosted that playing them with a more elite army at 1500pts just makes no sense, unless you army got some very good buffs of their own and probably unintentional rules interactions like GK do right now.
1st: Dark Angels
2nd: Nidz
3rd: Genestealers
4th: Eldar
5th: Deathwatch
6th: Nidz
7th: Harlies
8th: Sisters
Battle Shock GT (44 Players)
Spoiler:
1st: Nidz
2nd: Grey Knights
3rd: Orkz
4th: Eldar
5th: Tau
6th: Grey Knights
7th: Drukhari
8th: Eldar
West of Scotland GT (34 Players)
Spoiler:
1st: Grey Knights
2nd: Harlies
3rd: Harlies
4th: 1k Sons
5th: Custards
6th:Tau
7th: Sisters
8th: Tau
Total: 6 GT/Majors. Total of 48 Top 8 placings.
Nidz: 13 (27%)
Harlies: 6 (12.5%)
Tau: 5 (10.4%)
Grey Knights: 4 (8.3%)
Drukhari: 3 (6.25%)
1k Sons: 3 (6.25%)
Eldar: 3 (6.25%)
Sisters: 2 (4.16%)
Custards: 2 (4.16%)
Death Watch: 1 (2.08%)
Dark Angels: 1 (2.08%)
Death Guard: 1 (2.08%)
Genestealers: 1 (2.08%)
Chaos Marines: 1 (2.08%)
Ad Mech: 1 (2.08%)
Orkz: 1 (2.08%)
So yeah...new codex is dominating, Harlequins and Tau the next newest are still doing exceptionally well and for the 2nd weekend in a row since AoC became a thing, Grey Knights are doing amazing. Marines in general have dramatically improved, while Orkz and Ad-Mech have fallen off a cliff.
AoC is a good rule for marines in general, and it has no impact on the good melee units they were already running like V.Veterans or Bladeguard. But for stuff like GK interceptors the change was huge.
So yeah...new codex is dominating, Harlequins and Tau the next newest are still doing exceptionally well and for the 2nd weekend in a row since AoC became a thing, Grey Knights are doing amazing. Marines in general have dramatically improved, while Orkz and Ad-Mech have fallen off a cliff.
GK: 2 first places and 1 2nd place and 4 times top 8 in total for 6 tournaments
I have the feeling that all people here in the thread that claimed that GK are now nerfed to the ground missed something
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."
I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference.
Daedelus you're off in the deep end again. Weaker rear armor worked for friggin Epic where entire tank companies were roving around.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."
I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference.
Daedelus you're off in the deep end again. Weaker rear armor worked for friggin Epic where entire tank companies were roving around.
That reinforces speaking to my point. It works at a smaller scale where the models don't occupy so much space.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."
I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference.
Daedelus you're off in the deep end again. Weaker rear armor worked for friggin Epic where entire tank companies were roving around.
That reinforces speaking to my point. It works at a smaller scale where the models don't occupy so much space.
I thought you meant smaller scale in the other direction.
But then you're still off the deep end, because now you're advocating for a reduction of granularity as the game simulates fewer models.
Karol wrote: AoC is a good rule for marines in general, and it has no impact on the good melee units they were already running like V.Veterans or Bladeguard. But for stuff like GK interceptors the change was huge.
great for marines, terrible for some codexes. It buffed marines up to hang with the top books while leaving everything else behind. Bad game design if you ask me. It would have bene better to bring the top books down in power level via points increases and rules nerfs. deathguard, chaos marines, orks, gsc, and necrons all took a pretty big hit no longer being able to handle marines (yes i know BG and chaos marines got it but DG damage and csmdmg it pretty abysmal already here is hoping csm codex helps them though)
Tyran wrote: The issue is how armor facings are implemented.
The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.
Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.
If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.
Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.
eldar tanks should only have front/back, orks are boxes, tau are boxes, necrons are half/half, GSC are boxes, nids dont have vehicles
Curious definition of a box considering that Tau vehicles are shaped more like Ts or Hs.
And even with Eldar tanks or Necron half/half, it wasn't exactly clear where their rear arcs started. Now that think of it, the rear of Imperial knights was also badly defined.
if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.
Curious definition of a box considering that Tau vehicles are shaped more like Ts or Hs.
And even with Eldar tanks or Necron half/half, it wasn't exactly clear where their rear arcs started. Now that think of it, the rear of Imperial knights was also badly defined.
Tau tanks have 4 corners, just make a line between them to determine which side youre on
Doomsday arks are pretty obvious, CCB isnt as much
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Tyran wrote: The issue is how armor facings are implemented.
The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.
Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.
If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.
Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.
eldar tanks should only have front/back, orks are boxes, tau are boxes, necrons are half/half, GSC are boxes, nids dont have vehicles
ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.
Tyran wrote: Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.
Mob rule has already been taken away from orks.
Well, it currently does the same as ATSKNF, so...
mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing
ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.
BTW, I love that the Land Raider was the classic GW issue of "we ran out of design space for this thing's armor because we cannot go over 14, so lets make it all 14, defeating the whole purpose of the armor facing system."
mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing
The rule still exist though, it is useless most of the time but it isn't literally nothing.
Karol wrote: if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.
Careful, that way lies MADNESS like LoS by volume and *that* causes monocle to pop all over Nottingham.
ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.
Karol wrote: if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.
Careful, that way lies MADNESS like LoS by volume and *that* causes monocle to pop all over Nottingham.
Can you imagine letting your players model their dudes with total freedom? Unthinkable!
Karol wrote: if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.
The vehicle doesn't need a base in order to do that.
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?
Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."
Wasn't the solution to finding the facing of a vehicle to just imagine an X over it, with each point of the x starting at the 4 most extreme parts of the vehicle?
ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.
BTW, I love that the Land Raider was the classic GW issue of "we ran out of design space for this thing's armor because we cannot go over 14, so lets make it all 14, defeating the whole purpose of the armor facing system."
mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing
The rule still exist though, it is useless most of the time but it isn't literally nothing.
fair point its so useless it doesn't come up since out infantry is so bad (because of mob rule being gone and boss poles no longer existing), but I would rather have atsknf than current mob rule
"While this unit is within 6" of a friendly <CLAN> MOB unit that is not under half strength, this unit is never considered to be under half strength"
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?
Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?
Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."
Yeah, but where would the flanks be? Do the flanks extend to the rear hatch, or to the engines?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wasn't the solution to finding the facing of a vehicle to just imagine an X over it, with each point of the x starting at the 4 most extreme parts of the vehicle?
Yes.
Nobody I've ever played with has ever had a problem figuring out the arc they were in.
I must have just gotten lucky & been playing with moderately intelligent folks though.
Oh my mistake, we're talking hypotheticals, not how it actually worked.
It would have been nice if each vehicles' facings were defined in the rules, yes. If there's space for a silly little lore blur on the side of the page, there's space for a diagram.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Oh my mistake, we're talking hypotheticals, not how it actually worked. It would have been nice if each vehicles' facings were defined in the rules, yes. If there's space for a silly little lore blur on the side of the page, there's space for a diagram.
To be fair I was also confused by that until Vladimir posted their diagram.
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?
Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."
How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?
How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?
you don't. You add a diagram for every vehicle. Theres plenty of room for it under the unit picture
The other option would be to mark bases with the arcs but then comes the problem with unbased vehicles
The rule of thumb I aways used was to imagine a rectangle with the sides touching the front/sides/back of the model. Draw lines connecting the corners. Those are your arcs.
Not perfect, but close enough for the FLGS.
Kinda glad we no longer have to deal with firing ports/embarkation locations/firing arcs, as the could get wonky. Not that some of the artifacts of the new system are any better, just different.
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?
Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."
How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?
Use the center of the model. Then use quarters or front/back.
I'm still waiting on your alluded-to system though.
Karol wrote: if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.
Careful, that way lies MADNESS like LoS by volume and *that* causes monocle to pop all over Nottingham.
Can you imagine letting your players model their dudes with total freedom? Unthinkable!
Yeah walkers are a given. I had one of the old metal deff dreads and it didn't come with a base. Damned thing kept tipping over so I had to make it a base from cardboard.
Turns out bipedal warmachines have poor balance, go figure.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm still waiting on your alluded-to system though.
I'm not really in the business of future leaning hypotheticals, but if you desire half baked ideas...
Shrink the to-wound table so that less than = 6s, equal = 5s, more = 4s, 2x = 3s. Then make GSC Crossfire a universal rule - perhaps giving more elite armies an easier way to trigger crossfire due to fewer units.
Maybe some outnumber in melee mechanic that triggers when you have 2x/3x as many models.
Give Pinning to anything Heavy 3 or more that doesn't have Blast - if target unit was shot by two units that each had a pinning weapon = no charging for INFANTRY; LD test to charge; reroll LD test 6" from an HQ.
These aren't written to be scrutinized to the littlest functional detail though. They're just ways to give more interaction with the current framework. I'm sure someone more inclined could think of better ideas.
mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing
The rule still exist though, it is useless most of the time but it isn't literally nothing.
Yes Mob rule does in fact exist. And I have personally played hundreds of games as an Ork player exclusively. Care to take a guess how often Mob rule has been useful? Once. In my last GT I finally had it happen where I saved 1 9pt Trukkboy from running away because a unit of Kommandos happened to be nearby and allowed him to pass his attrition test.
So in the literal hundreds of games i've played Orkz in 9th, with more infantry than most lists, Mob rule has been used one single time. The rule is functionally useless.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm still waiting on your alluded-to system though.
I'm not really in the business of future leaning hypotheticals, but if you desire half baked ideas...
Shrink the to-wound table so that less than = 6s, equal = 5s, more = 4s, 2x = 3s. Then make GSC Crossfire a universal rule - perhaps giving more elite armies an easier way to trigger crossfire due to fewer units.
Maybe some outnumber in melee mechanic that triggers when you have 2x/3x as many models.
Give Pinning to anything Heavy 3 or more that doesn't have Blast - if target unit was shot by two units that each had a pinning weapon = no charging for INFANTRY; LD test to charge; reroll LD test 6" from an HQ.
These aren't written to be scrutinized to the littlest functional detail though. They're just ways to give more interaction with the current framework. I'm sure someone more inclined could think of better ideas.
That's all reasonable, and I thank you for posting them, however I was looking for something more related to the armor facing mechanics under discussion.
How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?
you don't. You add a diagram for every vehicle. Theres plenty of room for it under the unit picture
The other option would be to mark bases with the arcs but then comes the problem with unbased vehicles
There is no problem.
You find the center of the model. You envision an X centered on that point.
Voila: f/b/side arcs.
Works for any shape/size of vehicle you can imagine.
If you need to you can make yourself a small square template. Doesn't have to be any particular size, afterall 90dg right angles are still 90dg right angles....
So, two pages of arguing about how arcs which were clear as day actually worked.
Let me chuck in this little picture:
Spoiler:
I regularly played both the first and second variant of these "perfectly clear" arcs as I still used to frequent the many stores around here and always gave my opponent the choice on how to play it before the game. The third one occasionally came up, but not that often.
Insectum7 wrote: That's all reasonable, and I thank you for posting them, however I was looking for something more related to the armor facing mechanics under discussion.
I'd just so simple things like +1AP or +1 to wound in melee "for hitting vulnerable points" and something like +1 save to vehicles who are struck on their "front" however you might fairly define that.
mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing
The rule still exist though, it is useless most of the time but it isn't literally nothing.
Yes Mob rule does in fact exist. And I have personally played hundreds of games as an Ork player exclusively. Care to take a guess how often Mob rule has been useful? Once. In my last GT I finally had it happen where I saved 1 9pt Trukkboy from running away because a unit of Kommandos happened to be nearby and allowed him to pass his attrition test.
So in the literal hundreds of games i've played Orkz in 9th, with more infantry than most lists, Mob rule has been used one single time. The rule is functionally useless.
I completely forgot about it honestly i had to recheck the codex. I have never actually used it and can't think of a time it would have come up since infantry is so bad. my current mortal wounds spam ork list involves 31 ork infantry and none of them hang out near each other. pre that it was literally 2 units of trukk boyz who were never close enough to use it.
Jidmah wrote: So, two pages of arguing about how arcs which were clear as day actually worked.
Let me chuck in this little picture:
Spoiler:
I regularly played both the first and second variant of these "perfectly clear" arcs as I still used to frequent the many stores around here and always gave my opponent the choice on how to play it before the game.
The third one occasionally came up, but not that often.
Interesting point, to me the rolla isn't part of the hull, so option 2 as the rest of the vehicle is loosely rectangular, in the case of any vehicles that were too oddly shaped or if there were disputed we defaulted to option 3.
Insectum7 wrote: That's all reasonable, and I thank you for posting them, however I was looking for something more related to the armor facing mechanics under discussion.
I'd just so simple things like +1AP or +1 to wound in melee "for hitting vulnerable points" and something like +1 save to vehicles who are struck on their "front" however you might fairly define that.
I'd say that's too minimal a reward for having flanked your opponent. Under the old AV system whole classes of weapons went from literally useless to capable of taking out a vehicle when firing at the side/rear, and CC was sometimes the only viable option for some units, but provided an excellent reward for closing the distance with a vehicle. The reward for advantageous positioning should be greater than "+1", imo.
Dudeface wrote: Interesting point, to me the rolla isn't part of the hull, so option 2 as the rest of the vehicle is loosely rectangular, in the case of any vehicles that were too oddly shaped or if there were disputed we defaulted to option 3.
At least half my opponent wanted it to be hull though, because it would reduce the size of the AV14 facing
Not making the rolla hull also caused a number of other silly interactions with 5th edition's rules, like not being able to charge the wagon from the front or guardsmen standing right in front of it not being able to draw LoS to the hull.
In general treating it as hull cause the least headaches.
Just treat it like a dozer blade and ignore it for rules purposes, and be generous with measuring if you don't want the enemy to stand models on it (or use Wobbly Model).
Insectum7 wrote: That's all reasonable, and I thank you for posting them, however I was looking for something more related to the armor facing mechanics under discussion.
I'd just so simple things like +1AP or +1 to wound in melee "for hitting vulnerable points" and something like +1 save to vehicles who are struck on their "front" however you might fairly define that.
I'd say that's too minimal a reward for having flanked your opponent. Under the old AV system whole classes of weapons went from literally useless to capable of taking out a vehicle when firing at the side/rear, and CC was sometimes the only viable option for some units, but provided an excellent reward for closing the distance with a vehicle. The reward for advantageous positioning should be greater than "+1", imo.
If you need to you can make yourself a small square template. Doesn't have to be any particular size, afterall 90dg right angles are still 90dg right angles....
GW could have incorporated facing angles into the blast templates, even.
I can seriously get behind the theory that GW is intentionally speeding up the game through sheer killiness. Invulns? What invulns? Auto-MWs on 6's. This Psyker can do 20MWs per turn! This Cannon can bracket a titan in one turn! This HQ model can wipe a Custodes Guardian Shield squad off the map in a single turn!
That isn't a conspiracy... Talk to the game designers, it is intentional. The brief is to have a game that can be completed in 2-3 hours. With the model density and short engagement range reducing the ability to manoeuvre that means removing models fast enough to reach a decision by the end of turn x, within a reasonable time frame. You can probably find seminars/posts on reddit from designers/ex designers where they talk about the game design briefs and the decisions that come out of them. Alternatively they are quite happy to talk at open days.
If you need to you can make yourself a small square template. Doesn't have to be any particular size, afterall 90dg right angles are still 90dg right angles....
GW could have incorporated facing angles into the blast templates, even.
Well sure, they could have. But when the molds for the templates were made it probably never crossed their minds that people were so stupid that they couldn't handle this idea on their own.
Afterall, it's a simple concept. You learn the idea of R/L/F/B somewhere in your pre-school - kindergarten years....
Additionally there's nothing stopping one from taking a sharpie & adding 4 little lines to their templates.
ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.
BTW, I love that the Land Raider was the classic GW issue of "we ran out of design space for this thing's armor because we cannot go over 14, so lets make it all 14, defeating the whole purpose of the armor facing system."
"This vehicle is so well armored it provides consistent 360 degree protection" is a perfectly valid usage of the armor facing system.
If you need to you can make yourself a small square template. Doesn't have to be any particular size, afterall 90dg right angles are still 90dg right angles....
GW could have incorporated facing angles into the blast templates, even.
Well sure, they could have. But when the molds for the templates were made it probably never crossed their minds that people were so stupid that they couldn't handle this idea on their own.
Afterall, it's a simple concept. You learn the idea of R/L/F/B somewhere in your pre-school - kindergarten years....
Additionally there's nothing stopping one from taking a sharpie & adding 4 little lines to their templates.
Seriously dude, get off your fething horse - you are absolutely insufferable. Every time one of these threads come up about older rules that have been removed from the game you take a predictable stance on the superiority of the old ways and cook up record-setting amounts of copium to try to justify it. Its always "the rule is perfectly fine, there were no problems, its the players fault for not being giga-chads with omniscient knowledge of the intended usage of the rule in each and every possible corner case". You constantly ignore (often with no small amount of attempted belittlement) all the extremely valid points that peo.ple make about the failings of the rules in questio in the most demeaning and belittling manner possible. Jidmah illustrated the point quite clearly - all three of the interpretations of F/S/R that he showed are valid under RAW, there was never any formal clarification as to what the "proper" method of this apparently "simple concept" are, and the three interpretations each can produce extremely different outcomes in gameplay. - and if you insist that your interpretation is the obvious correct one then you're full of orkgak.
I mean, the land raider was "the exception that proved the rule". It was notable for being the *only* vehicle that had that type of armor configuration (at least until IIRC the stormraven released and had a 12/12/12 profile). If it had been more common than that you might have a point but when you're discussing literally 1-2 models out of a few dozen its not particularly a problem.
chaos0xomega wrote: I mean, the land raider was "the exception that proved the rule". It was notable for being the *only* vehicle that had that type of armor configuration (at least until IIRC the stormraven released and had a 12/12/12 profile). If it had been more common than that you might have a point but when you're discussing literally 1-2 models out of a few dozen its not particularly a problem.
chaos0xomega wrote: I mean, the land raider was "the exception that proved the rule". It was notable for being the *only* vehicle that had that type of armor configuration (at least until IIRC the stormraven released and had a 12/12/12 profile). If it had been more common than that you might have a point but when you're discussing literally 1-2 models out of a few dozen its not particularly a problem.
One word: Monolith.
The LR and monolith were basically the top end of normal 40k for a long time. It’s was OK for them to define hard targets and laugh at the little stuff.
On the flip side, I think flyweight things like land speeders were AV 10 all around.
"This vehicle is so well armored it provides consistent 360 degree protection" is a perfectly valid usage of the armor facing system.
And that's why there are no armor facings in 9th, because all vehicles are so well armored they provide consistent 360 degree protection!
It makes sense in that it doesn't appear that any faction cares one wit about armor to weight ratios. They also seem to enjoy placing their tanks danger-close to the enemy line, where being flanked is a common event. Then there is the fact that tank killer units can literally materialize out of thin air behind a tank platoon mid-pitched combat. All of which does make the concept of focused armor a bit silly.
Armor facings only make sense as a game mechanic to potentially make the game more interesting (and that isn't always a bad thing), and because real tanks also tend to have variable thickness armor. So many historical games have it too. But like morale in other war games, it can feel like 40k designers are aping mechanics from other war games without really understanding why they exist in those games. And they are done so badly, I'd be happier with them not being there at all.
So I can do without facings as I don't see it being a thing in the setting anyway, and maneuver can be so trivial as to be elementary to accomplish, not adding much to the game. The only positive for me would be to prevent 'Tokyo Drift'-ing vehicles to provide more frontage. I'd much rather have range deceleration penetration (or good ol' fashion ranged penalties) instead, but in 40k setting-wise with the wide variety of weapons that also doesn't make a whole of sense. Sure, a Lascannon might lose some punch cutting through smoke, dust, active chaff or whatever, but many weapons wouldn't. And I wouldn't want to get into what could be counted as a 40k shaped-charge type weapon and what's not.
So, rather than fiddle with templates, facing diagrams or all the minutiae, I just live with the occasional player that has their vehicles move up the table sideways (which, honestly, is surprisingly few). Chances are I have a squad of combi-melta and powerfist Chaos Terminators in the Warp looking to rend reality and step behind the scariest armor and turn it into slag and/or pound it into scrap. I don't need some fancy bonus to do so.
Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc
Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?
Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."
How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?
Use the center of the model. Then use quarters or front/back.
I'm still waiting on your alluded-to system though.
That manages to have all the irritation of armor facings while being even less relevant to gameplay.
Insectum7 wrote: That's all reasonable, and I thank you for posting them, however I was looking for something more related to the armor facing mechanics under discussion.
I'd just so simple things like +1AP or +1 to wound in melee "for hitting vulnerable points" and something like +1 save to vehicles who are struck on their "front" however you might fairly define that.
I'd say that's too minimal a reward for having flanked your opponent. Under the old AV system whole classes of weapons went from literally useless to capable of taking out a vehicle when firing at the side/rear, and CC was sometimes the only viable option for some units, but provided an excellent reward for closing the distance with a vehicle. The reward for advantageous positioning should be greater than "+1", imo.
And people still didn't bother. Vehicle flanking wasn't really a thing in old 40k. You either dropped deepstrikers behind tanks for a slightly easier die roll or you blew them up from the front. Didn't really make much of a difference which.
And people still didn't bother. Vehicle flanking wasn't really a thing in old 40k. You either dropped deepstrikers behind tanks for a slightly easier die roll or you blew them up from the front. Didn't really make much of a difference which.
Flanking vehicles was totally a thing and I did it all the friggin time. If you didn't that's fine, but I've used it as a viable tactic in every edition until it suddenly vanished. And "slightly better" doesn't ring true when you're converting a 6+ to Pen to a 4+ to Pen against the flank, a 200% increase in effectiveness. Nor does it ring true where weapons with 0 chance to effect the target can suddenly Glance/Pen. This was especially true for Eldar weapons, many of which were S6. AV 13+ was immune, but AV 11 on the side meant those fast moving skimmers with Scatter Lasers or Starcannons could get good hits in.
Plus you had the CC bonuses against vehicles in combat, meaning you're hitting the rear armor.
There was mad value in those rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Yeah people greatly overestimate how important armor facings were. Most people looked for ways to just ignore it entirely.
Which meant that they were still thinking about it, and therefore it mattered.
The very fact that one takes a unit in one's list for the sole purpose of flanking vehicles to destroy them proves that vehicle facings were a "thing". That's a tactical consideration. That's like saying cover isn't a thing in the new xcom game because of explosives and flanking.
Insectum7 wrote: This was especially true for Eldar weapons, many of which were S6. AV 13+ was immune, but AV 11 on the side meant those fast moving skimmers with Scatter Lasers or Starcannons could get good hits in.
In the hundreds of games I played against eldar while facings still existed, they either used lances, d-scythes or melta to go through the front armor like it was side armor or used flanking/scout/deep strike to put stuff in my rear arc. It was probably the army which cared the least about maneuvering, they either ignored facings or had the freedom to be wherever they are.
"maneuvering" to hit the side arc only ever happened when a deep striker scattered and someone started to argue that the guy with the special weapon was still in the side arc.
Insectum7 wrote: This was especially true for Eldar weapons, many of which were S6. AV 13+ was immune, but AV 11 on the side meant those fast moving skimmers with Scatter Lasers or Starcannons could get good hits in.
In the hundreds of games I played against eldar while facings still existed, they either used lances, d-scythes or melta to go through the front armor like it was side armor or used flanking/scout/deep strike to put stuff in my rear arc. It was probably the army which cared the least about maneuvering, they either ignored facings or had the freedom to be wherever they are.
"maneuvering" to hit the side arc only ever happened when a deep striker scattered and someone started to argue that the guy with the special weapon was still in the side arc.
"flanking/deep striking/scouting" are all still maneuvering in addition to just a traditional move-unit-here. Your army is using tools available to it to get side/rear armor shots for advantage. Remember when Eldar would run 6+ Wave Serpents and spread them around the board? Those WSs would fire their S7 Wave attack from across the board, and if they're firing at AV 11 instead of 13-14, that's a big deal.
Also in 4E there were ways to make vehicles immune to lance and melta, so it wasn't really as reliable to just load up on those as just learning to flank with maneuver.
I would LOVE to play my 4th edition armored company list against someone who expects to just sit back and go through my front armor. A lesson in why the Imperial Guard excels at "Front Towards Enemy" warfare.
If we brought back armor values, and facing, wouldn't that also require us to bring back directional shooting arcs? Because if you park your Demolisher tank facing the squad of marines 24" in front of it, it CANNOT then shoot at the unit of marines 6" behind it. This is where 8th made it simpler and harder, they removed the concept of facing, but in part ruined the ability to balance vehicles.
You don't really need to bring back armor values to bring back facings. Honestly, the armor value resolution system sucks - not in and of itself but in conjunction with the wounding system used by every other model in the game. In practice there is a disjoint created in the value of weapons in terms of their utility vs other models resulting from the armor value mechanism scaling differently from the wounding mechanism. For the sake of solid game design methodology and streamlined gameplay, its better to just stick with the established to-wound system (though that doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit from tweaks) and introduce the concept of "toughness facings"
Necromunda Ash Wastes is demonstrating what this looks like:
And yeah, either there needs to be an armor diagram for each vehicle (ew) or the arc layout needs to be standardized to 90 degree arcs (yes, this is better) and players need to learn to accept the idea that the increased weight of a real world vehicles frontal armor doesn't magically end at the edges and corners of the vehicles front profile, but does in fact wrap around to encompass the leading edges of the sides.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If we brought back armor values, and facing, wouldn't that also require us to bring back directional shooting arcs? Because if you park your Demolisher tank facing the squad of marines 24" in front of it, it CANNOT then shoot at the unit of marines 6" behind it. This is where 8th made it simpler and harder, they removed the concept of facing, but in part ruined the ability to balance vehicles.
I don't think armor facings necessarily require the reintroduction of firing arcs on vehicles. I'd prefer it personally. But not required.
/shrug. I think toughness and getting rid of armor facings was still one of the best things they ever did for the game. you can disagree and that is fine. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything but I support the decision.
I would support a rule added to vehicles similar to the armor of contempt rule where weapons count as -1 AP and -1 damage to a minimum of 1 unless the firing unit is in the rear vehicle arc.
Yeah, thats the principal "minor improvement" I would want. There needs to be a threshold at which a weapon can no longer wound a target - and with that I would argue that toughnesses on certain things (principally vehicles and monstrous creatures) should increase and wound counts decrease to keep pace with that change - conversely some weapons may need to have their strengths increase but on the whole I like the idea that AT weapons would mostly be wounding on 5s/6s.
I would also go so far as to say the wound chart should include the ability to auto-wound after a certain point when weapon strength is so much higher than target toughness.
The problem with +1 save rules and minus damage rules under the current system is the only effect they have is making Anti-Tank guns less efficient while still allowing assault rifles to be as efficient as ever.
Like really? The Dreadnought reduces the effect of Fire Prism Focused fire fairly significantly, but lasguns just ignore all it's defensive systems?
Tyran wrote: You are aware you would need to redesign the entire game for that, right? or are you fancying fighting current nidzilla with the old wound chart?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Yeah people greatly overestimate how important armor facings were. Most people looked for ways to just ignore it entirely.
Yeah, it depends on the armies they played. When your most armored vehicle, with AV14 in the front, can easily get wrecked by targeting its AV12 side or its AV10 rare then armor facings matters a lot. When all your vehicles have the same values or just a difference of one point (who says SM? ) then yeah, they don't think armor facings mattered that much.
And it also depends on what kind of anti tank weapons people got at hand. Orks, with S8 weapons at most that hit on 5s and no access to deepstrike anti tank weapons, couldn't possibly wreck tough vehicles from distance unless benefitting from an insane amount of luck. A marine squad with meltas in a drop pod could wreck everything with little effort.
Insectum7 wrote: "flanking/deep striking/scouting" are all still maneuvering in addition to just a traditional move-unit-here. Your army is using tools available to it to get side/rear armor shots for advantage.
Simply deploying a unit in a perfect spot to one-shot a vehicle requires about as much maneuvering as paying 2 CP for a stratagem for mortal wounds on 4+...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: You are aware you would need to redesign the entire game for that, right? or are you fancying fighting current nidzilla with the old wound chart?
I don't agree with HBMC on a whole lot, but the wounding chart seems to be the one place which can easily be tweaked to scale down the insane lethality we have.
And while I was of a different opinion in the past, outside of some exotic relics and unit upgrades the need to actually shoot a weapon at something that doubles out its strength is rather low.
So what if nidzilla ends up too durable because of this? The one thing point changes do rather well is controlling how any wounds an army can put on the table.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Armor facings only make sense as a game mechanic to potentially make the game more interesting (and that isn't always a bad thing), and because real tanks also tend to have variable thickness armor. So many historical games have it too. But like morale in other war games, it can feel like 40k designers are aping mechanics from other war games without really understanding why they exist in those games. And they are done so badly, I'd be happier with them not being there at all.
And the close-to-historical-presentation material we have for large portions of the vehicles in 40k confirm that there are variable thicknesses of armour on various facings - not to mention various materials used, as well.
Afraid I'm in team "flanking didn't really happen". The narrative idea of a guardsman with a melta spending 3 turns creeping up on a tank to get that auto-kill rear shot is good. The number of times it ever happened were minimal to none (not least because your opponent has 3 turns to do something about it). You either DSed to get the facing you wanted (and hoped not to scatter) - or you had things like Eldar Bikes that were far faster than the average unit, so could plausibly get into flank/rear arcs as the game went on. But this wasn't obviously tactical - you either could, or, like our humble guardsman, you couldn't.
Its like how assault=rear armour only came in 5th edition. Because actually getting round there with say a nob+power claw was very difficult.
In practice you can want 40k to be a much more positional/directional based game. But it makes very little sense to apply this to vehicles and nothing else. You can then be in favour of a very complex system of modifiers depending on facings, whether units are covered by other units etc etc. But really, I just don't think it works with I go-you go - because movement as said, is something you either can do, or can't. In practice you'd end up writing a whole new game. And if you are a committed treadhead maybe that's a good thing - but its not what I want anyway.
So you're saying that flanking didn't happen except for the things that people took for the purpose of flanking?
Of course people used faster elements of their force to flank opponents. That is literally what those kinds of units are for.
Slower units with heavy weapons weren't for flanking, they were for providing lanes of fire which threatened a vehicle so it had to present it's strong facing to that unit, which you then exploited to get on its flank with a different unit.
In WW2 you didn't lug a full anti-tank gun all over the battlefield to try and flank tanks, that is what lighter tanks (in open terrain) and infantry with portable anti-tank weapons (in more confined terrain) are for.
Tyel wrote: Afraid I'm in team "flanking didn't really happen".
You either DSed to get the facing you wanted (and hoped not to scatter) - or you had things like Eldar Bikes that were far faster than the average unit, so could plausibly get into flank/rear arcs as the game went on. But this wasn't obviously tactical - you either could, or, like our humble guardsman, you couldn't.
I see, so flanking did happen then.
The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then. The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
40k players have always set the bar low for what they consider "tactical" gameplay to mean. They think they're Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but they are really more like Gomer Pyle.
Jidmah wrote: In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then. The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
It's still a flank. No different from using some relocation abilities in XCOM 2 or various other strategy games. Also, choosing poorly where to deep strike usually resulted in the squad getting wiped out, hence why screens and board control was important. So no, it wasn't as easy as "place them where you want and just scatter".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: 40k players have always set the bar low for what they consider "tactical" gameplay to mean. They think they're Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but they are really more like Gomer Pyle.
It's almost as if flanking is a basic military tactic which is literally just moving to the side of the target when it is facing a certain direction. It's really nothing sophisticated in itself, the real challenge is getting there because a competent commander would try to protect the flanks of his units.
chaos0xomega wrote: You don't really need to bring back armor values to bring back facings. Honestly, the armor value resolution system sucks - not in and of itself but in conjunction with the wounding system used by every other model in the game. In practice there is a disjoint created in the value of weapons in terms of their utility vs other models resulting from the armor value mechanism scaling differently from the wounding mechanism. For the sake of solid game design methodology and streamlined gameplay, its better to just stick with the established to-wound system (though that doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit from tweaks) and introduce the concept of "toughness facings"
Necromunda Ash Wastes is demonstrating what this looks like:
And yeah, either there needs to be an armor diagram for each vehicle (ew) or the arc layout needs to be standardized to 90 degree arcs (yes, this is better) and players need to learn to accept the idea that the increased weight of a real world vehicles frontal armor doesn't magically end at the edges and corners of the vehicles front profile, but does in fact wrap around to encompass the leading edges of the sides.
I like this, I hope that system finds its way into 40k.
What bothered me about the AV system is that it's damage resolution was a little wonky; you had a good chance of not hurting the vehicle, a very, very slight chance of glancing the vehicle, and a good chance of penetrating the vehicle.
Which was weird, because you'd think there would be a greater chance of glancing than to penetrate.
Just me, or is anyone else wondering what a solid four pages of re-running the argument over armour facings yet again has to do with the balance data slate?
I always thought it meant a glancing blow, like the weapon hit at an odd angle relative to the tank's armor. If you assume basic competency from the anti-tank gunners, then that probably is pretty rare, relative to hitting the armor square on.
I do see your point though - glancing was only ever 1/6th of possible results. This goes up in 4th, where things like being Obscured or Hull Down or Moving Fast dramatically increases the chances of a glance relative to a pen. This jives with the idea that some action the tank is taking is making it more difficult for the AT gunners to strike the armor square on.
Jidmah wrote: I don't agree with HBMC on a whole lot...
You'll come around eventually.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I always thought it meant a glancing blow, like the weapon hit at an odd angle relative to the tank's armor. If you assume basic competency from the anti-tank gunners, then that probably is pretty rare, relative to hitting the armor square on.
When we did our vehicle rules, our Glancing Hit table was 1-3 "Nothing". It's a glancing hit, it glances off. There's a dent. You did nothing.
The 6 result however was't "Instant Detonation!". It was "Roll on the Penetrating chart". Means it was tough to plink a tank to death with piddly little guns. If you wanted to take a tank out, you used anti-tank weapons.
Meanwhile, in 9th, volley fire Guard wound Warlord Titans on 6's.
Tyran wrote: Getting rid of Armor Values and simplifying vehicles rules to use the same ones as everyone else was one of the best things they did for the game.
But armor facings can work with the T/Sv+ system as shown above. In fact they could be expanded to also work for other large models like monsters.
Giving rhino chassis a 2+ save if shot at the front, a 3+ at the sides and a 4+ at the back would be a nice way to reduce the tokyo drifting rhinos we see so often.
(vindicator with plow could get a 1+ save)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with +1 save rules and minus damage rules under the current system is the only effect they have is making Anti-Tank guns less efficient while still allowing assault rifles to be as efficient as ever.
Like really? The Dreadnought reduces the effect of Fire Prism Focused fire fairly significantly, but lasguns just ignore all it's defensive systems?
Give all vehicles -1 Damage (that can go down to zero).
Simply deploying a unit in a perfect spot to one-shot a vehicle requires about as much maneuvering as paying 2 CP for a stratagem for mortal wounds on 4+...
No, because the strat only requires me to have CP, deepstriking behind a tank requires me to have done something so there is room for my unit (force my opponent to pull his guns to another side of the table or simply kill stuff so that there is room for me).
If deep striking is a flank, then I don't see why we need Armor Facings to encourage maneuver when people still maneuver (deep strike) to get hard targets in 9th edition.
Rihgu wrote: If deep striking is a flank, then I don't see why we need Armor Facings to encourage maneuver when people still maneuver (deep strike) to get hard targets in 9th edition.
Right now we deepstrike for two reason : keep our guns safe from enemy fire, kill some wimpy unit thats camping on a objective behind a building.
adding more reason why deepstriking is relevant would be a bonus
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
Hammer of the Emperor isnt a real rule, its a patch for people to stop crying the codex is complete ass and will be gone in a few months when the codex releases.
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
Hammer of the Emperor isnt a real rule, its a patch for people to stop crying the codex is complete ass and will be gone in a few months when the codex releases.
Mmhm, and I am sure the codex will de-power Guard so that their lasguns are actively less good than they are now.
There is no way that lasguns or infantry squads can be buffed by the codex releasing.
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
Hammer of the Emperor isnt a real rule, its a patch for people to stop crying the codex is complete ass and will be gone in a few months when the codex releases.
Or its a preview from the codex, and GW is fully intent on keeping it because they think it 'solves the problem.'
I can't manage the level of faith required to accept that the new codex will wrap up Guard's issues without resulting to this sort of jank (or worse jank).
Rihgu wrote: If deep striking is a flank, then I don't see why we need Armor Facings to encourage maneuver when people still maneuver (deep strike) to get hard targets in 9th edition.
Right now we deepstrike for two reason : keep our guns safe from enemy fire, kill some wimpy unit thats camping on a objective behind a building.
adding more reason why deepstriking is relevant would be a bonus
I'd also say that deep striking units as a threat spread out an opponent's army, defusing its strength. Because if the opponent doesn't, those deep striking units can cause havoc in the opponent's back. Either way, it tends to slow/break up the concentrated force of the opposing army. And that's before scooping up easy to get positional secondaries with them.
Done right, and deep striking units work very much like paratroopers. All my armies feature extensive deep strike capability (Terminators, jump troops, Reivers, GSC). Even if I don't put into deep strike more than a single unit (which I find less is more with deep strikers), it can and should affect my opponent's deployment and always have them keeping an eye out for where I might place them until they hit the table. All which I would argue can be more important than the first two reasons you brought up. Which are also pretty important.
Going back to actual balance discussion rather than theoreticals, I'm surprised I haven't see that much actual discussion about Tyranid imbalance issues.
Like sure we can agree they are a problem being the current strongest codex (although arguably not as much as a problem as Harley's and releseDE were), but looking at the lists winning tournaments, there is actually a quite decent diversity with different subfactions and units being used.
Sure there are units that are more common than others, double flyrant is common, everyone brings a maleceptor, zoanthropes and a neurothrope. And yet none of these units is being spammed.
So again, while everyone can agree there is a problem, I actually haven't seen a lot of talk identifying which are the specific problems and suggested fixes.
Jidmah wrote: In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then.
The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
The definition of flanking doesn't require a particular method of achieving it, only the final position of being at an opponents side. It was achieved through movement, deep strike, or just plain board control. But it was all 'flanking'.
Also, deep strike in earlier editions was absolutely an abstraction of playing a "mobile army." GW obviously intended for that to be the case.
Imperial Guard Drop Troops doctrine was intended to reflect airmobile regiments with Valkyries and other orbital drop platforms. All it did was give your Infantry units Deep Strike, though - the army was apparently non-maneuverable and slow according to some people here.
Lore wise the IG is a slow army outside of the airmobile regiments. The tanks and artillery in particularly do not have not a lot of deployment or redeployment options.
Tyran wrote: Lore wise the IG is a slow army outside of the airmobile regiments. The tanks and artillery in particularly do not have not a lot of deployment or redeployment options.
until Creed hides a baneblade behind a mailbox post
I do miss being able to run all my mass valkrie and drop troop storm troopers from end of 5th. its wasn't the strongest army but looked cool on the table and was fun to play
Insectum7 wrote: This was especially true for Eldar weapons, many of which were S6. AV 13+ was immune, but AV 11 on the side meant those fast moving skimmers with Scatter Lasers or Starcannons could get good hits in.
In the hundreds of games I played against eldar while facings still existed, they either used lances, d-scythes or melta to go through the front armor like it was side armor or used flanking/scout/deep strike to put stuff in my rear arc. It was probably the army which cared the least about maneuvering, they either ignored facings or had the freedom to be wherever they are.
"maneuvering" to hit the side arc only ever happened when a deep striker scattered and someone started to argue that the guy with the special weapon was still in the side arc.
"flanking/deep striking/scouting" are all still maneuvering in addition to just a traditional move-unit-here. Your army is using tools available to it to get side/rear armor shots for advantage. Remember when Eldar would run 6+ Wave Serpents and spread them around the board? Those WSs would fire their S7 Wave attack from across the board, and if they're firing at AV 11 instead of 13-14, that's a big deal.
Honestly with the amount of shots you could generate from a Serpent shield in 6th, even AV13 wasn't a big deal. Nobody bringing AV14 vehicles either.
Tyran wrote: Going back to actual balance discussion rather than theoreticals, I'm surprised I haven't see that much actual discussion about Tyranid imbalance issues.
Like sure we can agree they are a problem being the current strongest codex (although arguably not as much as a problem as Harley's and releseDE were), but looking at the lists winning tournaments, there is actually a quite decent diversity with different subfactions and units being used.
Sure there are units that are more common than others, double flyrant is common, everyone brings a maleceptor, zoanthropes and a neurothrope. And yet none of these units is being spammed.
So again, while everyone can agree there is a problem, I actually haven't seen a lot of talk identifying which are the specific problems and suggested fixes.
As I see it you have a similar sort of situation to DE after the initial balance pass. Tyranids are the best army - but nowhere near as dominant Harlequins were, or frankly Tau/Custodes. I've whinged about some of their abilities - and feel like if their game plan works certain lists can't do anything. But equally, quite a wide range of armies are blowing them up.
I think the problem is that - while I think the big unit are a bit undercosted - its hard to have all the big tools and simultaneously enough meat to hold objectives/board position. So its a bit like an inversed old Custodes. You both mutually destroy each other, but then find the Tyranid player has lost out on primary.
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
A veteran squad can get it down to like 5 lasguns for a T8 2+ target without Armor of Contempt.
I may be missing something here, but what effect does AoC have on veterans firing lasguns at that target profile? They don't have any AP to lose, do they?
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
A veteran squad can get it down to like 5 lasguns for a T8 2+ target without Armor of Contempt.
I may be missing something here, but what effect does AoC have on veterans firing lasguns at that target profile? They don't have any AP to lose, do they?
Veterans have a stratagem to add -1 AP to any weapons they shoot.
If you could use that stratagem on multiple units (big if I know), equivalent points of veterans armed solely with Lasguns averages a one-shot on an Imperial Knight (6 squads, 360 pts, 54 lasguns).
That's a single platoon of regular (admittedly well trained) guys with assault rifles and no upgrades taking down one of the largest and most powerful war machines in the Imperium of Man, second class only to the Legio Titanicus. This same platoon of men also kills a Baneblade on average rolls (again, if they can use the stratagem on 4 units).
Jidmah wrote: In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then.
The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
It's still a flank. No different from using some relocation abilities in XCOM 2 or various other strategy games.
Also, choosing poorly where to deep strike usually resulted in the squad getting wiped out, hence why screens and board control was important. So no, it wasn't as easy as "place them where you want and just scatter".
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: 40k players have always set the bar low for what they consider "tactical" gameplay to mean. They think they're Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but they are really more like Gomer Pyle.
It's almost as if flanking is a basic military tactic which is literally just moving to the side of the target when it is facing a certain direction.
It's really nothing sophisticated in itself, the real challenge is getting there because a competent commander would try to protect the flanks of his units.
It also didn't happen that often. No one really took vehicles and the vehicles that did get taken were camped up against a board edge. Or yunno...free. Even if it was worth using a deepstriker to kill a vehicle (usually wasn't) you ended up shooting the front a lot of the time anyway.
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
A veteran squad can get it down to like 5 lasguns for a T8 2+ target without Armor of Contempt.
I may be missing something here, but what effect does AoC have on veterans firing lasguns at that target profile? They don't have any AP to lose, do they?
Veterans have a stratagem to add -1 AP to any weapons they shoot.
If you could use that stratagem on multiple units (big if I know), equivalent points of veterans armed solely with Lasguns averages a one-shot on an Imperial Knight (6 squads, 360 pts, 54 lasguns).
That's a single platoon of regular (admittedly well trained) guys with assault rifles and no upgrades taking down one of the largest and most powerful war machines in the Imperium of Man, second class only to the Legio Titanicus. This same platoon of men also kills a Baneblade on average rolls (again, if they can use the stratagem on 4 units).
8 Repentia and a repentia superior kill a knight on average. 152pts of ladies in tennis-shoes swinging chainsaws. No stratagems needed. Although they can kill 2 with the right combination of stratagems and buffs.
It also didn't happen that often. No one really took vehicles and the vehicles that did get taken were camped up against a board edge. Or yunno...free. Even if it was worth using a deepstriker to kill a vehicle (usually wasn't) you ended up shooting the front a lot of the time anyway.
If we're talking free vehicles, we're talking 7th. And it'd hardly be fair to characterize all of 3rd-7th by what went on during 7th. But even if we're gonna talk 7th, you could still flank Knights (and use your free Drop Pods to do it )
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If we brought back armor values, and facing, wouldn't that also require us to bring back directional shooting arcs? Because if you park your Demolisher tank facing the squad of marines 24" in front of it, it CANNOT then shoot at the unit of marines 6" behind it. This is where 8th made it simpler and harder, they removed the concept of facing, but in part ruined the ability to balance vehicles.
I don't think armor facings necessarily require the reintroduction of firing arcs on vehicles. I'd prefer it personally. But not required.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum? The Schrodinger's Tank as it were? And what about vehicles with no defined front or rear or sides, ala the necron Obelisk, or the flyers? Honestly I can say anything with fly just doesnt get an AV system, but then you get into things like Jetbikes being sturdier against anti-tank weapons than a actual Tank.
I would say AV could work, but it would require FAR more tact and care than GW is willing to give it. At this point, for better or worse, I think AV systems are not coming back in any future edition, but I will be cautiously surprised if they did.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If we brought back armor values, and facing, wouldn't that also require us to bring back directional shooting arcs? Because if you park your Demolisher tank facing the squad of marines 24" in front of it, it CANNOT then shoot at the unit of marines 6" behind it. This is where 8th made it simpler and harder, they removed the concept of facing, but in part ruined the ability to balance vehicles.
I don't think armor facings necessarily require the reintroduction of firing arcs on vehicles. I'd prefer it personally. But not required.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum?
Just ignore it, as it's not really a conundrum. Vehicle facing matters when attacking it, but weapons on the vehicle fire freely. That's ok by me. We can re-implement firing arcs for advanced users or whatever, but I don't mind not having them for the sake of expediency
And what about vehicles with no defined front or rear or sides, ala the necron Obelisk, or the flyers? Honestly I can say anything with fly just doesnt get an AV system, but then you get into things like Jetbikes being sturdier against anti-tank weapons than a actual Tank.
I would say AV could work, but it would require FAR more tact and care than GW is willing to give it. At this point, for better or worse, I think AV systems are not coming back in any future edition, but I will be cautiously surprised if they did.
I'm not necessarily saying a return to AV either, just defensive arcs to provide some bonus to flanking and further differentiate vehicles. And ideally different vehicles would be treated differently in that regard. Some vehicles might not have defensive arcs at all, essentially being "unflankable". Vehicles would use a template drawn from the center of the model, and use quarters, front/back, or none. A Necron Obelisk could be one of those units which has no defensive facing.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum?
And what about my infantry/biker/monster guy is facing in all directions constantly conundrum? Why only vehicles have to have firing arcs? I've never understood it.
The AV systen I get it to make vehicles sturdier (since why only vehicles have to be weaker on the flank or rare?) but with the current game design if that's the goal just give all vehicles some ability to reduce damage or to mitigate the to wound roll. This way jetbikes wouldn't be sturdier than tanks.
Tyran wrote: Going back to actual balance discussion rather than theoreticals, I'm surprised I haven't see that much actual discussion about Tyranid imbalance issues.
Like sure we can agree they are a problem being the current strongest codex (although arguably not as much as a problem as Harley's and releseDE were), but looking at the lists winning tournaments, there is actually a quite decent diversity with different subfactions and units being used.
Sure there are units that are more common than others, double flyrant is common, everyone brings a maleceptor, zoanthropes and a neurothrope. And yet none of these units is being spammed.
So again, while everyone can agree there is a problem, I actually haven't seen a lot of talk identifying which are the specific problems and suggested fixes.
The design of the Nid Codex encourages diversification of the big bugs for their varied Synaptic Imperatives, which prevents a certain amount of spamming. In general I think the internal balance seems pretty good but, like the DE Codex, I think a lot of things are just a little too good. I'm not sure exactly what I'd change though, because the only things that seem completely stupid are Maleceptors and Harpys. Everything else is almost OK. It's still just a horrible experience using an older Codex like Necrons or Death Guard against them though.
Playing against the new tyranids feels like playing against an army which not only has very good rules and synergies, but also, which is also the feeling some people had playing the old pre nerf DEs, an army which has like 2500pts in a 2000pts game. the monsters, all of them, the way they are now went beyond what is efficient or with good rules. They are just cheap right now, and when stuff is cheap it is easy to diversify in what someone can take.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum?
And what about my infantry/biker/monster guy is facing in all directions constantly conundrum? Why only vehicles have to have firing arcs? I've never understood it.
The AV systen I get it to make vehicles sturdier (since why only vehicles have to be weaker on the flank or rare?) but with the current game design if that's the goal just give all vehicles some ability to reduce damage or to mitigate the to wound roll. This way jetbikes wouldn't be sturdier than tanks.
Not sure. That's exactly what I mean. The AV system involves an implicit honor system, that I would inherently distrust. You would have to say, not be allowed to touch models after placing them, until it's your movement phase again. Otherwise they are locked in place. That then begs the question of sightlines. If my Vertus Praetor's speartip can see the back of your tank, do I get rear shooting with my melta missiles? Or do we put a rule that the "majority" has to be in view? Either way it's up to player discretion, which is always ugly.
I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.
I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.
Blackie wrote: I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.
I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.
make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy
I think adding more and more rules is how we end up with bloat. AV facings aren't necessary. I'm definitely not a fan of stringent arcs and facings. It makes the game too tedious.
Making everything wound on a roll of 6, regardless of toughness vs weapon strength is a problem. It makes volume of fire a priority and takes away from weapon roles. It also makes it difficult to scale durability.
Blackie wrote: I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.
I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.
make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy
Not so easy actually. Not every units has a squad leader. Necrons or tyranids units can't possibly have a squad leader and many other units from other factions don't have it as well. Kroots, Mandrakes, Talos, Grotesques, etc...
Even for orks (where most stuff has a squad leader) deffkoptas, gretchins, killa kanz, dreads, buggies immediately come to my mind. Lootas and burnaboyz also, unless the meks are the squad leader but in that case people might have to decide which specific meks (up to 3 in a squad can be taken) is the actual leader.
Not even fair or immersive I think. Squad leader is looking somewhere, all the other dudes look at the opposite direction and yet the whole squad can only target what the leader sees? Sound much more nonsense than the current mechanics.
Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.
1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.
2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.
1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.
2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).
AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.
That first one also doesn't resolve the concern. Something relatively long or otherwise large, like a custodes jetbike, could easily be in a position where part of the model is in one arc and the rest is in the other. It could even be a very, very small portion of the model. In that case, you'd be able to target whichever facing is weakest despite the plurality of the model not being in that arc. You are 'standing in' both arcs, so you can shoot both arcs.
Blackie wrote: I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.
I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.
make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy
That's one of the worst rules in Star Wars Legion and they're only dealing with squad sizes of like 6 max.
2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.
1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.
2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).
AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.
That first one also doesn't resolve the concern. Something relatively long or otherwise large, like a custodes jetbike, could easily be in a position where part of the model is in one arc and the rest is in the other. It could even be a very, very small portion of the model. In that case, you'd be able to target whichever facing is weakest despite the plurality of the model not being in that arc. You are 'standing in' both arcs, so you can shoot both arcs.
Blackie wrote: I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.
I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.
make range/facing be based on the squad leader, easy
That's one of the worst rules in Star Wars Legion and they're only dealing with squad sizes of like 6 max.
How big is the base on a Custodes jetbike? I thought it was less than 60mm
Also how about "if you can't tell what facing a model is in, use the highest AV of the facings".
Gotta actually maneuver, you know, and the tank crew has a small say.
Blackie wrote: I think it's impractical to introduce arc facings in 40k. In Necromunda they work because each model is actually a unit of one model, but in 40k units can be squads of several dudes and it would be impossible to determine appropriate arc facings for such units. At the same time one model units, such as vehicles, can't be penalized and get arc facings just because they're solo models.
I believe the current rules are the best option regarding this matter.
Option 1: Use the model closest to the firing unit. Could be gamed by both parties though.
Option 2: Have the firing unit explicity state which vehicles in the target unit are being fired at by which weapons. I prefer this option.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
It isn't impossible or mysterious to figure out how they need to work.
1) you shoot the facing you are standing in, not any facing you can see. Shooting at an extreme angle into the thinner armor increases it's effective thickness anyways.
2) once your movement phase is over, you don't get to move your models again (including pivoting them) unless a special rule allows you to. I don't know of anyone who plays a different way even in 9th (otherwise what stops you from rotating your turret to see in your shooting phase with the tip of the gun, then rotating it back out of LOS later?).
AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.
They worked fine. The controversy would be around the HP system, which we can do away with.
EviscerationPlague wrote: I'd greatly argue AV barely worked in 5th and it was absolutely terrible in 4th.
I imagine that comes down more to taste, and how vulnerable you think vehicles should be, rather than the mechanics themselves. I preffered 4th to 5th, personally. 5th ed games often just looked like parking lots on deployment.
ERJAK wrote: AV didn't work in 6th or 7th. They existed in 6th and 7th. They didn't work.
They worked fine. The controversy would be around the HP system, which we can do away with.
Exactly. They stapled a wounds system on top of a completely different damage dealing system. No wonder it didn't work.
well it was an attempt to fix the over-tough vehicles of 5th, and do something about the chance to perpetually stun/shake them. It was an ok idea, but the HP counts were probably to low. Or they could have just rolled back the changes for 5th, and gone about alleviating vehicle issues in 4th with some fine tuning.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
the simple suggested solution or house rule back in the days was to replace the D6 with "7-AP", to make the AP of weapons count (and AntiTank USRs to give +1 if needed)
now with higher AP being better, you would simply use Strength+AP against AV
but a lot of people did not like replacing random dice with fixed values, as this was not 40k any more without the randomness on vehicles
how times are changing
The introduction of hullpoints made the whole AV system fall apart. So you had pages upon pages describing these intricate rules and then scatterlaser/ autocannon just went brrrt, ignored all of it and killed most vehicles easier than infantry. What do you mean my Plague Marine gets a 3+ followed by a 5+++ against that weapon but my tank just dies without any save?
It might have worked in 5th but from 6th on it was just rules bloat serving no purpose outside of fringe cases like Leman Russ and Battle wagons in the first turn and Land Raiders in a casual game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
Did they work or were they tolerated?
Because if your logic is based on the success of the editions also 9th of 40k works perfectly, according to how many players are still in the game and GW sales.
I can say that vehicles finally works in 9th edition, after ages of bad rules. I have never been fond of how my ork vehicles performed in 5th for example, and in 3rd they worked barely just because armies didn't have the same amount of firepower they have these days and armies were smaller in size. No more silly rules such as immobilized, weapon destroyed, useless for a whole turn, harsh limitations on shooting and moving even for vehicles with transport capacity, FOC limitations, etc... Now I play tons of vehicles and I enjoy it a lot. Including a Land raider for my SW.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
Did they work or were they tolerated?
Because if your logic is based on the success of the editions also 9th of 40k works perfectly, according to how many players are still in the game and GW sales.
I think it's safe to say that the success of 40k didn't hinge on the AV system.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Armor value systems worked for every edition of 40k up until 7th.
Did they work or were they tolerated?
Because if your logic is based on the success of the editions also 9th of 40k works perfectly, according to how many players are still in the game and GW sales.
I can say that vehicles finally works in 9th edition, after ages of bad rules. I have never been fond of how my ork vehicles performed in 5th for example, and in 3rd they worked barely just because armies didn't have the same amount of firepower they have these days and armies were smaller in size. No more silly rules such as immobilized, weapon destroyed, useless for a whole turn, harsh limitations on shooting and moving even for vehicles with transport capacity, FOC limitations, etc... Now I play tons of vehicles and I enjoy it a lot. Including a Land raider for my SW.
I am not sure what you mean - are you asking whether they were fun or not? Because that is a subjective question. I can say my friends and I enjoyed them, and many still do - the 30k group here is very active, as is my little 4th Ed. enclave. Just got another player this week - another Ork.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.
But really my issue with all of this is that calls for the return of armor facings are usually based on its realism, because true tanks tend to have thicker front armor. But if we are talking about realistic armor, then AP matters arguably more than strength, e.g the mechanism that allow a hellgun to penetrate power armor should also allow it to penetrate tank armor, yet under the AV system it was useless against tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Under a more "realistic" system, AP would be the main characteristics to determine armor penetration, and then Strength would be the main characteristic to determine the damage inflicted on the vehicle.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.
In fairness, even in 7th AP2 was of dubious use unless the weapon also had a high rate of fire.
This was something that screwed Dark Eldar over at the time, as almost all their anti-tank weapons were AP2. I believe it took something like 6 Ravagers (750pts) to average a single 'Vehicle Destroyed' result against a 35pt Rhino.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.
But really my issue with all of this is that calls for the return of armor facings are usually based on its realism, because true tanks tend to have thicker front armor. But if we are talking about realistic armor, then AP matters arguably more than strength, e.g the mechanism that allow a hellgun to penetrate power armor should also allow it to penetrate tank armor, yet under the AV system it was useless against tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Under a more "realistic" system, AP would be the main characteristics to determine armor penetration, and then Strength would be the main characteristic to determine the damage inflicted on the vehicle.
I could definitely see a system like this... we could probably come up with something better than GW has done or will do.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.
But really my issue with all of this is that calls for the return of armor facings are usually based on its realism, because true tanks tend to have thicker front armor. But if we are talking about realistic armor, then AP matters arguably more than strength, e.g the mechanism that allow a hellgun to penetrate power armor should also allow it to penetrate tank armor, yet under the AV system it was useless against tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Under a more "realistic" system, AP would be the main characteristics to determine armor penetration, and then Strength would be the main characteristic to determine the damage inflicted on the vehicle.
I could definitely see a system like this... we could probably come up with something better than GW has done or will do.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.
But really my issue with all of this is that calls for the return of armor facings are usually based on its realism, because true tanks tend to have thicker front armor. But if we are talking about realistic armor, then AP matters arguably more than strength, e.g the mechanism that allow a hellgun to penetrate power armor should also allow it to penetrate tank armor, yet under the AV system it was useless against tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Under a more "realistic" system, AP would be the main characteristics to determine armor penetration, and then Strength would be the main characteristic to determine the damage inflicted on the vehicle.
I could definitely see a system like this... we could probably come up with something better than GW has done or will do.
Dakka people? Lol.
Honestly, filtering out at least half of us, I think we could absolutely be more capable of a rule system. Hell you guys did Maelstrom Edge and I haven't heard balance complaints yet
Honestly, filtering out at least half of us, I think we could absolutely be more capable of a rule system. Hell you guys did Maelstrom Edge and I haven't heard balance complaints yet
Honestly, filtering out at least half of us, I think we could absolutely be more capable of a rule system. Hell you guys did Maelstrom Edge and I haven't heard balance complaints yet
How many people play Maelstrom Edge?
*crickets chirp*
We just have to look at 9th age to see how great the community is at projects /s
You need a small dedicated team on the same page, preferably who are not too swayed by outside noise.
Armor Values not caring about Armor Penetration is a dumb feature.
You're forgetting that Armour Penetration did effect your result on the Damage Chart however, with AP2 and AP1 giving you more severe results.
Penning a vehicle with an AP1 weapon made it more likely than not that said vehicle was dead in a single hit, especially if that AP1 weapon was also Ordnance.
AP2 only mattered in 6th and 7th, it didn't matter in 5th or 4th. And as noted above, the HP system meant that the damage table didn't really matter in those editions anyway.
But really my issue with all of this is that calls for the return of armor facings are usually based on its realism, because true tanks tend to have thicker front armor. But if we are talking about realistic armor, then AP matters arguably more than strength, e.g the mechanism that allow a hellgun to penetrate power armor should also allow it to penetrate tank armor, yet under the AV system it was useless against tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Under a more "realistic" system, AP would be the main characteristics to determine armor penetration, and then Strength would be the main characteristic to determine the damage inflicted on the vehicle.
I could definitely see a system like this... we could probably come up with something better than GW has done or will do.
Actually been working on a tank-focused ruleset the past few weeks, but when I say its tank focused I mean that the rues are really built around AFV combat, infantry are present but heavily abstracted and simplified relative to t he vehicles, basically the opposite of 40k where the ruleset is built around infantry and tanks are simplified in order to fit the infantry being the focus of the game.
