ClockworkZion wrote: Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
It really isn't. The Hive Tyrant just turns around. You can reasonably see a person moving around to make sure they can get a better shot. You cannot reasonably see a Land Raider or a fething jet fighter doing the same.
"But but but the vehicle can turn around as well!"
Sure, now it can, because vehicles have been dumbed down and no longer have facings. The role of position and manoeuvre when it came to vehicles has been eradicated from the game.
They don't have fire arcs and they don't facings. Fire arcs were a choice for players because sometimes to get the best firing arc you had to expose weaker armour but because vehicles don't have facings any more, because they just have a Toughness value, there would be no risk/reward to fire arcs.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
Crablezworth wrote: Throwing out weapon arcs for vehicles is going to have terrible consequences on the game.
Wow I hadn't even considered that. So the hull-mounted weapon on a Russ can fire backwards. The sponsons on a Land Raider can fire through the Land Raider to the other side.
That is so stupid...
Not having 'Vehicle Rules' other than a keyword is awful. It is the epitome of dumbing down rules.
A Hive Tyrant can fire it's Devourer out of its butt.
Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
But unit facing is the single most important part of the game... for only some units... apparently.
You want non "dumbed-down" facing and vehicle rules, go back to 2nd. Turning templates, unique hit locations on vehicles, and facings and arcs mattered even more than they did today. Or maybe we want to go back to Rogue Trader and its hit template? Facing in these early versions mattered so much so that even troopers had a 90 degree firing arc. Facing rules in a game of this scale are basically pointless and no longer have a place in it.
40k gave up on being some kind of "objective reality modeller" really early on and made no bones about it. Their need to keep an outmoded system for vehicles and only vehicles makes no sense. Every other unit in the game is already a probability cloud in terms of facing and position. Why not vehicles as well? If monstrous creatures don't have to worry about how flexible their arms are, then why can't we assume a tank has time to swivel in place or a fighter has time to pull a maneuver in order to get a target in arc even if the model isn't currently do it. In general, it is a non-issue for most of play. It wasn't an issue when they took the 90 degree firing arc off of troops and it wont be an issue if they take the dozens of unique firing arcs off of vehicles. We already assuming infantry moving up aren't just jogging at a leisurely pace toward their end point while the enemy waits for their turn to fire on them. The IGOUGO system is already and intensely gamist and abstract concept meant to organize play more than it is some measure of objective timescale. So if infantry movement represents the gamut of battlefield traversal, then why do we assume a tank's path and end position is any less of an abstraction?
When people started playing 3rd they didn't start advancing infantry in reverse because "lol, facing doesn't matter", so who cares if tanks, the last holdout of vestigial facing rules in 40k, finally get the same treatment as a variety of monstrous creatures who have been ignoring it since 3rd edition made their facing stop mattering?
Crablezworth wrote: Throwing out weapon arcs for vehicles is going to have terrible consequences on the game.
Wow I hadn't even considered that. So the hull-mounted weapon on a Russ can fire backwards. The sponsons on a Land Raider can fire through the Land Raider to the other side.
That is so stupid...
Not having 'Vehicle Rules' other than a keyword is awful. It is the epitome of dumbing down rules.
I interpret it as an Abstraction of events in the Turn. including the vehicle pivoting, turning to face the enemy etc., in order to clear up clunky mechanics which simply slow the game down.
It's always been stated that a shooting phase is an abstraction of a period of time. Don't see the big deal and stinkfuss
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
It really isn't. The Hive Tyrant just turns around. You can reasonably see a person moving around to make sure they can get a better shot. You cannot reasonably see a Land Raider or a fething jet fighter doing the same.
"But but but the vehicle can turn around as well!"
Sure, now it can, because vehicles have been dumbed down and no longer have facings. The role of position and manoeuvre when it came to vehicles has been eradicated from the game.
They don't have fire arcs and they don't facings. Fire arcs were a choice for players because sometimes to get the best firing arc you had to expose weaker armour but because vehicles don't have facings any more, because they just have a Toughness value, there would be no risk/reward to fire arcs.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now?
Look, I know those are gamey and very very abstract rules, but if you want 40k to work with Flyers, Dragons, Monsters, 80 infantry models and 8 tanks in the table, you NEED those rules.
This isn't flames of War where you have 4 tanks between the two armys in the whole game. You can't have so specific vehicle rules when you have so many vehicles in the table fighting so many crazy things that just ignore all the restrictions vehicles have for being vehicles. Infantry had facings in Warhammer Fantasy. You could charge a dragon from his back and everyone saw that as pretty realistic. But it has never apply for 40k, and no one has blink a eye for that inconsistence. This is the double standard of people that has lost grap of what 40k is now.
40k of now is not 40k of 20 years ago. To be honest, I prefer the 40k of 20 years ago. Without Gargants, without Flyers, without so many units in the table. But we have to live with what we have, and make it FUN and FUNCTIONAL.
But you'll just ignore my points to keep bashing the same death horse. I know you. I have read you, study you, c'mon. Bring it on H.B.M.C! Bring me you sarcasm! I'm ready for it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
It really isn't. The Hive Tyrant just turns around. You can reasonably see a person moving around to make sure they can get a better shot. You cannot reasonably see a Land Raider or a fething jet fighter doing the same.
"But but but the vehicle can turn around as well!"
Sure, now it can, because vehicles have been dumbed down and no longer have facings. The role of position and manoeuvre when it came to vehicles has been eradicated from the game.
They don't have fire arcs and they don't facings. Fire arcs were a choice for players because sometimes to get the best firing arc you had to expose weaker armour but because vehicles don't have facings any more, because they just have a Toughness value, there would be no risk/reward to fire arcs.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
You aparently never saw people driving tanks sideways in the past to act as cover then.
And tanks can spin around in place just.as easy as a two story space locust.
Frankly facings only really work if everyone has them, otherwise only somemmodels get punished for positiong and facing while others don,t.
Crablezworth wrote: Throwing out weapon arcs for vehicles is going to have terrible consequences on the game.
Wow I hadn't even considered that. So the hull-mounted weapon on a Russ can fire backwards. The sponsons on a Land Raider can fire through the Land Raider to the other side.
That is so stupid...
Not having 'Vehicle Rules' other than a keyword is awful. It is the epitome of dumbing down rules.
A Hive Tyrant can fire it's Devourer out of its butt.
Yes of course that's not what actually happens, but that's the same level of complaint.
But unit facing is the single most important part of the game... for only some units... apparently.
You want non "dumbed-down" facing and vehicle rules, go back to 2nd. Turning templates, unique hit locations on vehicles, and facings and arcs mattered even more than they did today. Or maybe we want to go back to Rogue Trader and its hit template? Facing in these early versions mattered so much so that even troopers had a 90 degree firing arc. Facing rules in a game of this scale are basically pointless and no longer have a place in it.
40k gave up on being some kind of "objective reality modeller" really early on and made no bones about it. Their need to keep an outmoded system for vehicles and only vehicles makes no sense. Every other unit in the game is already a probability cloud in terms of facing and position. Why not vehicles as well? If monstrous creatures don't have to worry about how flexible their arms are, then why can't we assume a tank has time to swivel in place or a fighter has time to pull a maneuver in order to get a target in arc even if the model isn't currently do it. In general, it is a non-issue for most of play. It wasn't an issue when they took the 90 degree firing arc off of troops and it wont be an issue if they take the dozens of unique firing arcs off of vehicles. We already assuming infantry moving up aren't just jogging at a leisurely pace toward their end point while the enemy waits for their turn to fire on them. The IGOUGO system is already and intensely gamist and abstract concept meant to organize play more than it is some measure of objective timescale. So if infantry movement represents the gamut of battlefield traversal, then why do we assume a tank's path and end position is any less of an abstraction?
When people started playing 3rd they didn't start advancing infantry in reverse because "lol, facing doesn't matter", so who cares if tanks, the last holdout of vestigial facing rules in 40k, finally get the same treatment as a variety of monstrous creatures who have been ignoring it since 3rd edition made their facing stop mattering?
ALEXisAWESOME wrote: I'm so disappointed in how the HQ's work out, especially the Eldar ones. Everyone hit's on a 2+. Everyone. How is it possible to represent skill when a Haemonculi hit's on 2's as equally as Lileth?
In fact a Haemonculi is actually better than a Succubus in combat. More attacks, a better weapon (Can take electrocorrosive whip) 5+ invul at all times, mortal wound psyker bomb. That just isn't right.
Welcome to the Dark Imperium!
Seriously though, the skill of the fighter makes it easier to hit their opponent, rather than harder for their opponent to hit them. Rules such as the Wyches' Invul Save in melee represent skill preventing damage.
This new system works fine while it also streamlines the game appropriately. I fully expect that once GW gets more feedback things will change. Maybe in the yearly update, or in the appropriate codex. Which ever drops first.
Remember, this is only the foundation of the game going forward. We still have to build the walls with codexes for the game to truly start taking shape as CT and LT start to come into play and other subfaction rules start to change the shape of army lists.
But before skill of hitting opponent was also more varied...
And not much chance for change here. They drew themselves into corner with this system. D6 has narrow range so when tacticals hit on 3+ it leaves only 1 value for elites. Unless they want to start having rerolls like candies so slightly more skilled would have 3+, reroll 1's, even more skilled 2+, yet more skilly 3+ reroll misses and then best 2+ reroll misses.
But that would basically mean redoing everything. Marine commanders would probably be 3+ reroll 1's etc kind of thing.
Hard part was teaching him to talk instead of hiss mind breaking sounds.
The Water Caste is very diplomatic. Sure it might have taken a few dozen teachers before he started learning, but I think that's a small price to pay for bringing a new race into the glory of the Greater Good. Besides, it would give Tau a viable CC unit. More than worth the trade-off, IMO.
kestral wrote: Looking at the "87 points + 11 for a gun" type stuff - do you think they used a mathematical formula to come up with the point values? That would be interesting, though I prefer easier to add up values.
Sure hope not or they are 100% quaranteed to be busted already.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
The idea of Chaos Tau isn't even good or achievable. The 4th Sphere Expanse was dragged by the Great Rift so Tau has a justification to fight Space Wolves or other stuff normally too far from their homeland.
It's the same thing of the Protectorate of Menoth taking a bit of land from Llael, in Warmahordes: so it makes sense narrative Menoth x Khador, Menoth x Ios, etc.
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have(funny how infantry isn't superior to tanks in irl just cause they can shoot any direction more freely than tank...). Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have. Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
If you think that points are the end of all balance measures and that in many cases no matter how you change the points, is the unit or core rules where lies the problem, I can't say any more to you.
You can't have a game so masive and with so much variety without streamlining it. And the people that could do that are working for the NASA or the Army, not making rulesets for wargames.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have(funny how infantry isn't superior to tanks in irl just cause they can shoot any direction more freely than tank...). Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
Points don't cover everything when you can drive a Baneblade sideways but technically can't rotate it in place 180 degrees because of the cam movement.
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have. Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
If you think that points are the end of all balance measures and that in many cases no matter how you change the points, is the unit or core rules where lies the problem, I can't say any more to you.
Just agree to disagree.
Tanks having firing arcs is not game breaking prmblem. Every good game designer has shown that to be not so. 40k tank problem is gw has no competent game designer in it's payroll so they went for easy solution to give illusion of balance.
We have this novel idea of points to balance out units if some units are weaker than others. Now if vehicles are worse due to rules what to do? Well we could upgun them. They could also have abilities monsters don't have(funny how infantry isn't superior to tanks in irl just cause they can shoot any direction more freely than tank...). Oh and of course POINTS could reflect it. Woo. What an idea! Points used for what they were created!
Points don't cover everything when you can drive a Baneblade sideways but technically can't rotate it in place 180 degrees because of the cam movement.
What balances it out is that it blocks LOS both ways. If you are smart you can use their baneblade block LOS against them....
Have you considered the move and shooting phases an abstraction or not?
have you considered the tank turning as something performed DURING its movement vector? Eg., a bunch of little turns rather than move, stop, pivot?
it makes more sense for a massive tank to turn in a vector than pivot on the spot, for obvious reasons...
The biggest problem with the Vehicles facing, firing arc and moving rules, is that they are practical rules that take at literal value how the model is in the table, in a game full of abstract rules for every other aspect of the game.
Is the same reason why TLOS is so bad in a game without fixed sized for the models where you can have freedom to convert your units, the terrain, etc...
Is it at all odd that on the one hand there is positively reverence (for some reason) in losing a massive incentive in vehicle maneuvering (to gain los on target) but somehow also reverence for every model being able to split fire.
"the game needs abstraction, those old rules were too clunky"
"wow, ever model can target independently, that in no way has the potential to be clunky or abusive to slow play at all, I love that kinda detail"
There's positivity and there is naked cognitive dissonance. We've lost massive amounts of detail in many areas of the ruleset with the release of 8th and any issue raised have been waved off with essentially "it will speed things up, abstraction in all things is only ever a positive development except at a later date where I'll selectively like additional details" .
The really hard to argue part for me is flyers essentially being able to target just about wherever they can draw los to their hull. Abstractons are always better clearly, so why did they keep the 90 degree turning aspect if it rarely matters short of actual weapon range?
Short of havihg a lot of very large and tall los blockers... good luck. Now if you'll excuse me it's time to buy stock in heldrakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: The biggest problem with the Vehicles facing, firing arc and moving rules, is that they are practical rules that take at literal value how the model is in the table, in a game full of abstract rules for every other aspect of the game.
Is the same reason why TLOS is so bad in a game without fixed sized for the models where you can have freedom to convert your units, the terrain, etc...
Why even endeavor to play with models or in 3 dimension when the game is basically reduced bumper cars meets chinese dodgeball? The game getting closer to being vassal doesn't seem like a positive development.
Well, I developed my list for my Crimson Fists. Man are they much more sparse than in 7th. But I can do all sorts of stuff that I couldn't do before, so that is cool. I custom built an Honour Guard squad, which is something new.
So now you can drive all your vehicles up the table diagonally sideways because why not? And fire your fixed artillery pieces perpendicular to the barrel because 40K's new vehicle rules aren't.
The silliest part is basically every vehicle is like shooting out of an open topped vehicle in 7th. Pop out 3 mm of tank, fire literally 5 weapons at different targets. I never liked it in 7th but it was at least fairly rare, now with 8th... there's gotta be an faq or something, it such a deal breaker. Just think of the modelling for advantage in terms of height and dimension now, madness.
I find it fascinating that many of the people who are all for vehicles now being nothing more than rolling bags of meat bean counters also argue for the retained and I'd say wholly unnecessary complexity of variable power weapons (sword, axe, maul) that have so little bearing on this grand abstraction of a game. I'm also surprised how many people love the idea of removing USR's just so the same rule can be called something different under some other army or unit's list.
To each his own, so it would seem.
EDIT: sideways ninja'd by Crablezworth by greater eloquence!
Split Fire is good because it allow mixed squads to be relevant and make the lowly grunts something more that just ablative wounds for the Heavy Weapon guy.
It has nothing to do with abstraction or speeding up the game. You can speed and simplify some rules and add more deep to others. If the net result is a faster gameplay, I don't see problems with that.
amanita wrote: I find it fascinating that many of the people who are all for vehicles now being nothing more than rolling bags of meat bean counters also argue for the retained and I'd say wholly unnecessary complexity of variable power weapons (sword, axe, maul) that have so little bearing on this grand abstraction of a game. I'm also surprised how many people love the idea of removing USR's just so the same rule can be called something different under some other army or unit's list.
To each his own, so it would seem.
Because vehicles rules maked vehicles useless compared with all other options? I find unnecesary the variety in power weapons, thats right, but I don't find either exactly whats the bad thing of them existing. In the other hand, I can see many counter arguments for Vehicles Firing Arcs and Vehicles facing in the actual 40k of today.
Is just like, I don't know. People has complex reasons to like some rules and equally complex reasons to dislike others. Is not like they just point at random rules and say "THIS I LIKE, THIS I DON'T!"
I can totally see why you guys prefer vehicle facings, more complex rules for Flyers, etc... they have their reasons to exist. Personally I don't think they are appropiate system for the 40k of today, but I can see the appeal.
The problem is how categorically you (General you) come to this thread and repeat the old mantra of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I LIKE IS BECAUSE YOU LOVE DUMPTED DOWN RULES AND GAMES FOR TODDLERS, ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH AND THIS GAME CAN ONLY FUCTION IN ONE WAY, THE WAY I LIKE!"
"Why don't we play with paper tokens then?" "Vehicles are just bags of meat" are categorically and subjetive assertions that you use as some kind of universal truth.
Galas wrote: So basically what you are saying is that... Vehicles are viable now? ]
Here's funny thought: You can make viable vehicles that actually work like a vehicles rather than needing to dumb down rules.
What a novel concept! Rather than dumping down rules simply balance them appropriately.
Explain me how you make vehicles viable in a system where every other unit ignore all the special systems that vehicles have, where you can have 4-8 vehicles per side, fighting against Aircraft and Titans both mechanical and biological, without making a normal game lasting 3 hours or more.
You know why Epic was so streamlined, no? 40k is now Epic in 28mm scale.
If only things become balanced because one said that they should be balanced... what a magical world to live in.
In fairness though, epic died not long after it was streamlined into epic 40k.
What balances it out is that it blocks LOS both ways. If you are smart you can use their baneblade block LOS against them....
Have you considered the move and shooting phases an abstraction or not?
have you considered the tank turning as something performed DURING its movement vector? Eg., a bunch of little turns rather than move, stop, pivot?
it makes more sense for a massive tank to turn in a vector than pivot on the spot, for obvious reasons...
Have I considered these things? Yes. Does 40k do a good job of modelling them in a realistic way? No. Would it be fun to break out a protractor and count every degree of rotation as you plan a realistic path for it to take in order for it to end up 6" directly to its right and facing the same direction? No. Is that even possible without exceeding its movement limit? No.
Yet you're willing to explain that with abstraction, while suddenly turning into an expert on tank turning vectors when it comes to pivoting in place.
So they seem to get two attacks from their claws, while others listed only get one.
Aaaand yet another GW writing inn a way that makes it arquable what is RAI. If you have weapon(lightning claw) on two models it should be written in same way.
But yeah RAW warp talons gets 2 attacks. Guess that's to balance out previously lousy warp talons then!
Biggest change in new GW is they have guy in facebook. Rulewriting is same old same old.
1) I know that you cannot charge a target you didn't declare (cannot move within 1"), but does that restriction apply to Pile-In and Consolidation? If the "nearest enemy model" is from another unit than the one being charged? I don't see any restriction RAW ?
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
1) I know that you cannot charge a target you didn't declare (cannot move within 1"), but does that restriction apply to Pile-In and Consolidation? If the "nearest enemy model" is from another unit than the one being charged? I don't see any restriction RAW ?
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
1) yeah I don't see any restriction, so expect combats to "spiral" around and try locking in more units (without taking overwatch). Berzerkers can do this twice each turn for up to 12" in the Fight phase!
2) yeah no visibility restrictions in the rules, although some tournament organizers may continue drawing LoS from eyes and barrels.
Weazel wrote: Two quick rules questions:
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
Vehicles are now just like any other models, so yes, 360, LoS and distance measured from Hull not the actual weapon! (or even from closest point - so "the other sponson" for example).
I know weird - but that will speed up game I guess.
1) I know that you cannot charge a target you didn't declare (cannot move within 1"), but does that restriction apply to Pile-In and Consolidation? If the "nearest enemy model" is from another unit than the one being charged? I don't see any restriction RAW ?
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
1) You have 3" to pile in to any enemy unit you can get within 1" of. Edit: actually, even when you charge if you can end up within 1" of any enemy unit they are in combat too.
2) Are firing arcs history? E.g. can you shoot everything 360 degrees even through vehicle hull etc?
Sadly, apparently it was a real drag that a basilisk wasn't a riptide doing a hand stand or something. According to accounts in this thread, somehow vehicles weapon arcs were what made the last edition cumbersome. Odd that it was fine in 5th and 6th and apparently not worth considering that the addition by gw of two additional phases to the game in 7th probably in no way accounted for extended play time. But with the lovely abstraction of literally every single vehicle in the warhammer 40000 universe now operating as open topped transport at different targets somehow its much faster now, or something.
We are on about vehicle facings again, who knows when we will get back to Chaos whining!
Ive got a 1500 point and 2000 point list all ready to go. I was going to make a primaris list with Roboute, but seems kinda pointless seeing as they dont have any mode of transportation.
2) yeah no visibility restrictions in the rules, although some tournament organizers may continue drawing LoS from eyes and barrels.
Yup, gonna have to or I'll have no choice but to stick with 7th. It's just a bridge too far, especially to be then slapped in the face with every model splitting fire with every weapon because apparently that level detail is fine but a land raider not being able to invert its owns sponson through itself and shoot clear through its own hull.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: We are on about vehicle facings again, who knows when we will get back to Chaos whining!
Actually if you paid attention we're not talking about vehicle facings, we're talking about fire arcs. Also, is characterizing others as whining a polite thing to do?
Not-not-kenny wrote: Funny how poeple are complaining their armies got more expensive and here I am with my Tau lists that just got 100-200 pts cheaper.
A lot of people have made the mistake in thinking that EVERYTHING got more expensive. A Brimstone Horror costs 2 points for a model with T3 W1 and a 4+ invulnerable save. Not to mention the untargetable 'sergeant' can cast Smite. 2 points per wound.
Dakkafex is another good example of cost efficiency.
Actually if you paid attention we're not talking about vehicle facings, we're talking about fire arcs. Also, is characterizing others as whining a polite thing to do?
Seriously though, how else would you characterize your last few posts?
oni wrote: Wait... So if I move one model out of the woods the unit loses cover, but if I put one model in ruins the unit gains cover? WTF?
What? The rules are literally the same for both. Units on the base of either gain cover, other units only gain cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the firing unit. They are worded exactly the same.
No they are not. The woods rules say the infantry unit must be 'entirely' in the woods to get cover. The ruins rules simply say the unit must be 'on' the ruin. Without the word 'entirely' it would generally be understood that as long as one model is on the ruin, the entire infantry unit would get cover.
It just need to be FAQ'd, but its sad to see something so simple (on the same page) slip past already.
Want to add craters into this jumble? Craters work on a per-model basis.
You can park a tank behind a wall, completely obscured from view with just a fraction of an inch of a track sticking out, and your tank is still allowed to shoot all its guns at any enemy that that track can "see".
They might've taken simplification and abstraction a step too far for me.
The Assault Cannon Razorback is 100 points for 12 6/-1/1 shots. Itll rip through hordes or gribblies, be a giant wall, and when you have five or six of them, provide that aweet sweet saturation.
Lascannons in the back to shoot the big things. Havent decided between Annihilator Preds to fire off four lascannons for 202, 4 devs with lascannons for 165, or a pred autocannon and two lascannons for 201.
Cant quite bring myself to use Drop Pods, especially since you cant drop into melta range. 105 points for not getting as close as you could before? Eh...
Crazyterran wrote: The Assault Cannon Razorback is 100 points for 12 6/-1/1 shots. Itll rip through hordes or gribblies, be a giant wall, and when you have five or six of them, provide that aweet sweet saturation.
Lascannons in the back to shoot the big things. Havent decided between Annihilator Preds to fire off four lascannons for 202, 4 devs with lascannons for 165, or a pred autocannon and two lascannons for 201.
Cant quite bring myself to use Drop Pods, especially since you cant drop into melta range. 105 points for not getting as close as you could before? Eh...
Yep, Razorbacks are sweet. Tons of wounds and a lot of firepower. 115 points for two lascannons and 10 T7 wounds, or 100 points for the 12 S6 shots. I haven't figured out what else is good in Marine lists though. Assassins seem really good, so I'm pretty sure those will be in plenty of lists because they can just jump in due to the Imperium keyword into any detachment. Because of the keyword rule the most points efficient list might be a mix and match of like 8 different Imperial factions in the same detachment. Take Razorbacks with Assassins backed up by Onager Dunecrawlers or whatever. It'll be pretty ridiculous because Imperium is the only one that can still keep doing that crap.
What balances it out is that it blocks LOS both ways. If you are smart you can use their baneblade block LOS against them....
Have you considered the move and shooting phases an abstraction or not?
have you considered the tank turning as something performed DURING its movement vector? Eg., a bunch of little turns rather than move, stop, pivot?
it makes more sense for a massive tank to turn in a vector than pivot on the spot, for obvious reasons...
Have I considered these things? Yes. Does 40k do a good job of modelling them in a realistic way? No. Would it be fun to break out a protractor and count every degree of rotation as you plan a realistic path for it to take in order for it to end up 6" directly to its right and facing the same direction? No. Is that even possible without exceeding its movement limit? No.
Yet you're willing to explain that with abstraction, while suddenly turning into an expert on tank turning vectors when it comes to pivoting in place.
This is why vehicle facings in 40k are dumb.
No, the argument of abstraction is just....abstraction.
Might require an imagination; An asset in short supply with surly gamers who have to make little derogatory snaps at people suggesting you use said imagination. Or other people quipping the term cognitive dissonance when they have no understanding of the concept.
Galas wrote: Split Fire is good because it allow mixed squads to be relevant and make the lowly grunts something more that just ablative wounds for the Heavy Weapon guy.
It has nothing to do with abstraction or speeding up the game. You can speed and simplify some rules and add more deep to others. If the net result is a faster gameplay, I don't see problems with that.
amanita wrote: I find it fascinating that many of the people who are all for vehicles now being nothing more than rolling bags of meat bean counters also argue for the retained and I'd say wholly unnecessary complexity of variable power weapons (sword, axe, maul) that have so little bearing on this grand abstraction of a game. I'm also surprised how many people love the idea of removing USR's just so the same rule can be called something different under some other army or unit's list.
To each his own, so it would seem.
Because vehicles rules maked vehicles useless compared with all other options? I find unnecesary the variety in power weapons, thats right, but I don't find either exactly whats the bad thing of them existing. In the other hand, I can see many counter arguments for Vehicles Firing Arcs and Vehicles facing in the actual 40k of today.
Is just like, I don't know. People has complex reasons to like some rules and equally complex reasons to dislike others. Is not like they just point at random rules and say "THIS I LIKE, THIS I DON'T!"
I can totally see why you guys prefer vehicle facings, more complex rules for Flyers, etc... they have their reasons to exist. Personally I don't think they are appropiate system for the 40k of today, but I can see the appeal.
The problem is how categorically you (General you) come to this thread and repeat the old mantra of "IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I LIKE IS BECAUSE YOU LOVE DUMPTED DOWN RULES AND GAMES FOR TODDLERS, ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH AND THIS GAME CAN ONLY FUCTION IN ONE WAY, THE WAY I LIKE!"
"Why don't we play with paper tokens then?" "Vehicles are just bags of meat" are categorically and subjetive assertions that you use as some kind of universal truth.
Is tiresome and inmature.
Preach, my man, PREACH! Couldn't agree more. Facing and complex rules work for small skirmish games like Infinity and Shadow War: Armageddon. Personally I am very optimistic on how vehicles work now. The only thing I don't quite like is how blast weapons are now represented.
I will try my first game of 8th ed this weekend, with my tank heavy Imperial Guard. Will be fun to try, and I will see first hand if these new vehicle rules work well or not.
No, the argument of abstraction is just....abstraction.
Might require an imagination; An asset in short supply with surly gamers who have to make little derogatory snaps at people suggesting you use said imagination. Or other people quipping the term cognitive dissonance when they have no understanding of the concept.
TL;DR: lighten up
At this point I don't even know what you're arguing for, especially since you're the one who addressed me in the first place when I was making a point in favor of abstraction.
Nactor wrote: So the Avatar of Tzeentch can't cast Tzeentch spells ? Yeeah right. Way to go GW ... here is hoping for some change to that with an faction-battletome-of-40k-1ksons, but who am i kidding.
Gonna check with my meta about that saturday, as i am not going to play tournaments anyway.
I aim at something like pick tzeentch / heretic without roll, if mixed must roll which one. Why they did not do that for Magnus is beyond me.
Magnus is not the avatar of Tzeentch.
Someone did not read the text under the pic of him, riiight? I was referring to that.. .)
Actually if you paid attention we're not talking about vehicle facings, we're talking about fire arcs. Also, is characterizing others as whining a polite thing to do?
Seriously though, how else would you characterize your last few posts?
The character of my posts isn't the topic, sport. Perhaps comment on 8th edition news and rumours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-DE- wrote: You can park a tank behind a wall, completely obscured from view with just a fraction of an inch of a track sticking out, and your tank is still allowed to shoot all its guns at any enemy that that track can "see".
They might've taken simplification and abstraction a step too far for me.
Yeah it's baby with bath water territory for sure. Once a vehicles has 50% obscurement, the only incentive to move is target being out of range or threat of being assaulted. Having fewer incentives to move vehicles just seems silly.
Is there a consilidation move when you kill the enemies unit? I mean there is a consolidation move I know that but I don't think that after you win a close combat you should have to consolidate closer to another enemy unit. Did I miss something?
Iago40k wrote: Is there a consilidation move when you kill the enemies unit? I mean there is a consolidation move I know that but I don't think that after you win a close combat you should have to consolidate closer to another enemy unit. Did I miss something?
The whole rule pamphlet is outthere man. Just double check real quick. Probs in the OP
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?
Any point whatsoever. It's part of model, it works as LOS and range for everything. Same as infantry. You have backbanner and you get to shoot from it and get fried by hit to it
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?
I'm guessing we will do the ol' fashioned "stoop down and get a look from behind the model". So in a Predator I guess we get our LoS from the turret regardless of what we're shooting?
As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.
Ronin_eX wrote: You want non "dumbed-down" facing and vehicle rules, go back to 2nd. Turning templates, unique hit locations on vehicles, and facings and arcs mattered even more than they did today. Or maybe we want to go back to Rogue Trader and its hit template? Facing in these early versions mattered so much so that even troopers had a 90 degree firing arc.
Yeah, see, I didn't call for any of that. Reply to the things people write, not what you'd wish they'd wrote.
Ronin_eX wrote: Facing rules in a game of this scale are basically pointless and no longer have a place in it.
Based on? Because of? Due to?
You've just said what it is. You haven't said why it is.
Ronin_eX wrote: 40k gave up on being some kind of "objective reality modeller" really early on and made no bones about it.
Never said that it was nor called for it to be again, but hey, you put words in my mouth before so why stop now!!!
Ronin_eX wrote: Their need to keep an outmoded system for vehicles and only vehicles makes no sense.
Again, you've made a statement as if it were the truth with nothing to back it up. Why is it outmoded? You have to qualify your statement.
Ronin_eX wrote: Every other unit in the game is already a probability cloud in terms of facing and position. Why not vehicles as well?
Because that's not how vehicles work, and I already explained why. If you are standing in a field holding a rifle and something comes up to your left it's very easy to turn and face it. Now imagine you are sitting still in your car and something comes up on your left. You can't turn instantly to face it. Tanks turn faster on account of their tracks, sure, but the rules have to encompass all vehicles so some level of abstraction is certainly required (ie. I'm not calling for a simulation).
But the rules as they stand go far beyond "abstraction" and into really stupid territory, where a tank can have most of its guns behind a solid wall yet can still shoot with everything even if it has to draw LOS through itself. That doesn't make any sense.
At that point we may as well not play with miniatures at all if how they represent the unit doesn't even matter. Why do we stoop down to get a model's eye view if the miniature itself and how it is shaped/armed/its dimensions don't actually matter?
Ronin_eX wrote: If monstrous creatures don't have to worry about how flexible their arms are, then why can't we assume a tank has time to swivel in place or a fighter has time to pull a maneuver in order to get a target in arc even if the model isn't currently do it.
Again, no, because that's not how those things work. Abstractions can only go so far before they break down. A fighter jet flying over a tiny patch of ground somehow being able to fire 4 different forward facing fixed weapons at targets at all the cardinal directions in the space of however long a turn of 40K represents (30 seconds, if that) just doesn't track. A person doing that with a pair of pistols? Sure. A lumbering battletank? Not so much.
Ronin_eX wrote: In general, it is a non-issue for most of play.
Again, you haven't said why. You've just said that it is.
Not good enough.
Ronin_eX wrote: It wasn't an issue when they took the 90 degree firing arc off of troops and it wont be an issue if they take the dozens of unique firing arcs off of vehicles.
Again, no reasoning given.
Ronin_eX wrote: When people started playing 3rd they didn't start advancing infantry in reverse because "lol, facing doesn't matter"...
False equivalency. There were no facings for infantry, so that didn't matter.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?
I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.
But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?
But the rules as they stand go far beyond "abstraction" and into really stupid territory, where a tank can have most of its guns behind a solid wall yet can still shoot with everything even if it has to draw LOS through itself. That doesn't make any sense.
At that point we may as well not play with miniatures at all if how they represent the unit doesn't even matter. Why do we stoop down to get a model's eye view if the miniature itself and how it is shaped/armed/its dimensions don't actually matter?
Exactly, I think of all the time and love I put into this ork vehicle, I can't for the life of me fathom and benefit or narrative improvement in 8th edition in having literally every last shot/rokkit/bout of flame come from a grot sporting a radio cuz abstraction bro:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?
I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.
But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?
Anyone else not too excited for the Space Marine psychic powers listed so far? There's not enough mind bullets with the only option being the generic smite (which D3 seems too low to make it effective so gotta hope for a roll of 10 or 11 for the D6).
I'm also a bit miffed that Chief libby Tigurius seems to have taken a massive nurf. He was never a beast in CC which I'm fine with and the stat line reflects. However he was always about giving buffs and improving all the units around him. He can sort of do that now based on the index, but the powers are all CC related which is where he shouldn't be.
He also can cast 2 powers, just the same as the bog standard ones. Come one, he is meant to be one of the most powerful imperium Psykers (poss only matched by Mephiston). Sure he can deny the witch one more time which could be useful but he seems to have taken a big nurf on his powers.
The re-roll psychic tests is good and goes with his fluff and previous editions but is not enough, and his rod (no pun intended) has lost all special rules. At least mortal wounds would of been nice.
The -1 to hit him I don't think is going to be that great when I have seen so many +2/+3 BS stats so far pumping out more shots than previous. The least they could of done is give it a bubble effect and/or switched it to a +1 for his to hit rolls.
However I know the indexes are only temporary so hoping that the full codex gives him some boosts.
As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.
The rulebook doesn't even specify what being in range of a weapon is, only that the enemy unit must be to be targeted. It's that short.
Yeah I know. That's why I said I'm thinking it's how it works. Unless they want us to measure range from the front of the model from now on...
People wanted vehicles to work like monsters, they got it. You draw LOS and range from any point whatsoever in vehicle to any point whatsoever in target.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?
I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.
But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?
But the rules as they stand go far beyond "abstraction" and into really stupid territory, where a tank can have most of its guns behind a solid wall yet can still shoot with everything even if it has to draw LOS through itself. That doesn't make any sense.
At that point we may as well not play with miniatures at all if how they represent the unit doesn't even matter. Why do we stoop down to get a model's eye view if the miniature itself and how it is shaped/armed/its dimensions don't actually matter?
Exactly, I think of all the time and love I put into this ork vehicle, I can't for the life of me fathom and benefit or narrative improvement in 8th edition in having literally every last shot/rokkit/bout of flame come from a grot sporting a radio cuz abstraction bro:
Spoiler:
Was this a problem for people? I guess I'm just used to being able to 100% obscure my vehicle and still fire out of the giant pipe organ on top of it.
2+ save with night fighting and you didn't even get the intervening save most of the time lol.
As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.
The rulebook doesn't even specify what being in range of a weapon is, only that the enemy unit must be to be targeted. It's that short.
Yeah I know. That's why I said I'm thinking it's how it works. Unless they want us to measure range from the front of the model from now on...
People wanted vehicles to work like monsters, they got it. You draw LOS and range from any point whatsoever in vehicle to any point whatsoever in target.
Such fun times to be had!
"See here? I'm measuring range from this Razorback's Shock Blades. Totally legit bro."
Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)
Eldarain wrote: Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)
Eldarain wrote: Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)
There is no vehicle pages. Vehicles operate just like infantry model with vehicle keyword which comes into play with bespoken rules like haywire.
Im willing to sacrifice vehicle rules if it means Tau, Eldar, and Grey Knight walk- er, monstrous creatures, magically get to be better than everyone elses walkers.
GI_Redshirt wrote: Wow, Tau just got FAST. Target Lock is definitely gonna be my go to support system for all suits. Removing the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons (why yes, I do want mobile Broadsides, thank you), removing the penalty for advancing and shooting assault weapons (Crisis Suits moving between 9" and 14" a turn and firing at full BS? Um, all of the yes), and gaining the ability to fire rapid fire weapons after advancing at -1 BS?! Between that, our tanks getting movement 12" and our infantry having 6" or 7", mobile Tau just became godly. A Coldstar Commander (who is finally worth taking!!!!) is moving 40" a turn and still hitting on a 2+. My Tau are very happy with this.
Not to mention Advanced Targetting System. Increasing the AP values of all weapons by 1 (AP 0 becomes -1, AP -1 becomes -2, etc) is just plain good. Nothing more needs to be said, that is just good.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. I think Tau, particularly mobile Tau, are gonna be in a good place in 8th. Yeah if you played gunline Tau you may be a bit SOL here, but the army is in a good place no matter how you look at it.
Sorry for the 70 page post but....moble tau...are we talking fish of fury back...because that would be awesome. Tau in 4th/5th where great for being a mobile army with some suit support to go and pick of need to die now targets....if this comes back I guess its Mobile Tau and HH....og my wallet :(
jballs_85 wrote: Anyone else not too excited for the Space Marine psychic powers listed so far? There's not enough mind bullets with the only option being the generic smite (which D3 seems too low to make it effective so gotta hope for a roll of 10 or 11 for the D6).
I'm also a bit miffed that Chief libby Tigurius seems to have taken a massive nurf. He was never a beast in CC which I'm fine with and the stat line reflects. However he was always about giving buffs and improving all the units around him. He can sort of do that now based on the index, but the powers are all CC related which is where he shouldn't be.
He also can cast 2 powers, just the same as the bog standard ones. Come one, he is meant to be one of the most powerful imperium Psykers (poss only matched by Mephiston). Sure he can deny the witch one more time which could be useful but he seems to have taken a big nurf on his powers.
The re-roll psychic tests is good and goes with his fluff and previous editions but is not enough, and his rod (no pun intended) has lost all special rules. At least mortal wounds would of been nice.
The -1 to hit him I don't think is going to be that great when I have seen so many +2/+3 BS stats so far pumping out more shots than previous. The least they could of done is give it a bubble effect and/or switched it to a +1 for his to hit rolls.
However I know the indexes are only temporary so hoping that the full codex gives him some boosts.
I'm really hoping we'll get some new psyker lists, my over all feel is 8th edition had psykers nerfed too hard due to how abused 7th was.
personaly I more or less liked how 5th ed did psykic abilities.
Eldarain wrote: Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)
There is no vehicle pages. Vehicles operate just like infantry model with vehicle keyword which comes into play with bespoken rules like haywire.
Yup, vehicles essentially work like this in 8th edition:
Vindicators will no way be silly at all, nope. Oh and banners on models too are seemingly fine to draw los from. Progress? This is sadly not hyperbole, I really wish it were.
Why do people want vehicles to be objectively worse than other models/units? I must be missing something. You can talk about immersion all you want but nothing kills immersion like s model sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Given the new rules, I am actually looking forward to putting my Predator and Storm Raven on the table.
Median Trace wrote: Why do people want vehicles to be objectively worse than other models/units? I must be missing something. You can talk about immersion all you want but nothing kills immersion like s model sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Given the new rules, I am actually looking forward to putting my Predator and Storm Raven on the table.
I must simply say that in my humble opinion, for me, nothing kills immersion like needless abstraction that only reduces tactics and overall strategy with very little upside. It's especially disingenuous of people to deride its complexity while brushing over the fact that everything now has split fire for all weapons in this edition, hardly an abstraction and certainly not a mechanic for speeding up game play. There's still plenty to like so far in this edition, but this really is not something I like, in fact I would legitimately say I hate this change. And with good reason. Look at that picture of the raider, look at the cartoon with the banner getting shot, thats literally what the game is now.
Median Trace wrote: Why do people want vehicles to be objectively worse than other models/units? I must be missing something. You can talk about immersion all you want but nothing kills immersion like s model sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Given the new rules, I am actually looking forward to putting my Predator and Storm Raven on the table.
I would want vehicles to behave vehicles which means they also have their own advantages over infantry and then point costed appropriately.
Competent game designers can do it. Too bad GW is too cheapskate and model oriented to hire even mediocre game designer never mind competent one.
so much whinging from the filthy heretics... their tears are truly delicious! I quite like the lack of fire arcs on vehicles now, while unrealistic it is a lot more helpful in cities of death like terrain where turning/positioning vehicles can be a challenge!
Vulkan Fran'cis wrote: so much whinging from the filthy heretics... their tears are truly delicious! I quite like the lack of fire arcs on vehicles now, while unrealistic it is a lot more helpful in cities of death like terrain where turning/positioning vehicles can be a challenge!
Cities are SUPPOSED to be challenging for tanks...There's reason infantry are preferred in city enviroment.
Mr BugBear wrote: If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.
The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.
Vulkan Fran'cis wrote: so much whinging from the filthy heretics... their tears are truly delicious! I quite like the lack of fire arcs on vehicles now, while unrealistic it is a lot more helpful in cities of death like terrain where turning/positioning vehicles can be a challenge!
"They don't like what I like, I had better insult them and say their tears are delicious"
- Stereotypical new poster
Mr BugBear wrote: If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.
The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.
So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?
Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.
I think its a brilliant way to find out who the win at all cost players are , stoop down to check if a target is visable . If you want to say that because a track is poking out that the target is visable ,you at not the type of person i would like to play against .
ian wrote: I think its a brilliant way to find out who the win at all cost players are , stoop down to check if a target is visable . If you want to say that because a track is poking out that the target is visable ,you at not the type of person i would like to play against .
Why? That's what GW designers WANT you to do. They deliberately wrote the rules so that it works like that. That's how it's supposed to be played.
Hell as it is that's what players have been asking for...
ian wrote: I think its a brilliant way to find out who the win at all cost players are , stoop down to check if a target is visable . If you want to say that because a track is poking out that the target is visable ,you at not the type of person i would like to play against .
It's amazing how quickly the fault of the rules writers gets shifted on to the players, astonishing in fact.
So vehicles are a good one for an early FAQ/update. OK. And yeah, the image of the land raider firing all its weapons from the antenna of death is funny. I expect this will get fixed. Firing a lascannon through its own vehicle to hit a target not in arc can't be what was intended, just not thought through enough.
Mr BugBear wrote: If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.
The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.
I understand it's a hard thing to solve, I just think they've taken away a few too many things that make a tank feel like a tank.
Mr BugBear wrote: If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.
The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.
I understand it's a hard thing to solve, I just think they've taken away a few too many things that make a tank feel like a tank.
Exactly, I can be pragmatic and live without armour facings, although I still prefer them, but removing weapon arcs is such a bridge too far, it also takes away although beautiful nuance from vehicle to vehicle.
ian wrote: I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should
You can certainly choose to draw and measure los from wherever you want on a vehicle as well as position vehicles wherever you so choose, the problem however is your opponent is under no obligation to do the same. IE if you start accusing them of being that guy for targeting part of your model they themselves can draw los too, even if it's an antenna or banner, well, they're just following the rules guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ian wrote: Couldnt i park my tank on the top of a building in 7th because that was really realistic
This is my point a player who wants to use the antenna of doom apears to be only intressed in winning and means i also win because i dont have to play with them
ian wrote: This is my point a player who wants to use the antenna of doom apears to be only intressed in winning and means i also win because i dont have to play with them
They're not the ones responsible for the antenna of doom, how you could infer anyone's intentions from following the incredibly un specific super short rules is beyond me my good sir.
ian wrote: I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should
Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.
They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.
Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?
Becuase there unspecific is exactly why its necessary to apply common sense, each to there own if you want to play the antenna of doom thats fine . But you dont have to play it like that ,
what ever happened to this being a hobby wbere you created the worlds it seems to have turned into a ridgid law of how to play
Im really looking forward to narrative play myself
ian wrote: I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should
Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.
They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.
Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?
ian wrote: Couldnt i park my tank on the top of a building in 7th because that was really realistic
Yes. Who said that should have stayed? Nobody here has claimed 7th ed was perfect. That's why fixing rather than this shuffle would have been better. Now they have just changed what is illogal to others. Just like they randomly change style of weapons and units unneededly with horde killers becoming terminator killers etc when there was nothing that inheritently required such a change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ian wrote: This is my point a player who wants to use the antenna of doom apears to be only intressed in winning and means i also win because i dont have to play with them
So they are only interested in winning playing the game like designers want you to play? Interesting.
ian wrote: Becuase there unspecific is exactly why its necessary to apply common sense, each to there own if you want to play the antenna of doom thats fine . But you dont have to play it like that ,
what ever happened to this being a hobby wbere you created the worlds it seems to have turned into a ridgid law of how to play
Im really looking forward to narrative play myself
You don't have to play it like that, but you can't play it with differing interpretation on your opponents part, regardless of what side they find themselves in. It's fine to house rule, but its not always easy to get other on board.
ian wrote: I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should
Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.
They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.
Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?
If they didn't want that they would have WRITTEN IT SO! They listened players say "make vehicles and monsters equal" so they did that.
They gave players what they wanted. Now players must learn to live with it. Say hello to antenna of dooms.
This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Arguing rules as if this will be a common occurrence just makes the whole discussion pointless
Facing vs abstraction is just preference, no one is going to prove one side wrong, it's not because the rules are hard to write or GW is incapable or any such laughable nonsense - it's a design decision.
ian wrote: Becuase there unspecific is exactly why its necessary to apply common sense, each to there own if you want to play the antenna of doom thats fine . But you dont have to play it like that ,
what ever happened to this being a hobby wbere you created the worlds it seems to have turned into a ridgid law of how to play
Im really looking forward to narrative play myself
Yeah, it's pretty sad to see some folks needing a hand to walk them through every little detail, while not being able to apply simple logic on how to imrove their hobby, their time playing
Just like kids:"you told me to go play outside, so I am" while holding a phone in their hands
"You said I could shoot from any point of the miniature, so I am" while holding a tape measure from the SM sarge backbanner
Vorian wrote: This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Here's a tank I built for my orks, what, do you think, will I be accused of, regardless of when it was built? Will be forcing playeres to remove antennas and banners from vehicles built possible multiple editions ago?
Yeah, it's pretty sad to see some folks needing a hand to walk them through every little detail, while not being able to apply simple logic on how to imrove their hobby, their time playing
Excuse me? No one has suggested not finding a solution, but that's difficult if there's no consensus on whether it's a problem. Whether we focus exlusively on the positive changes or the negative ones, it really doesn't alter the fact that either exist and the negatives will need to be addressed. We have already had it inferred that, as always, actually endeavoring to follow the rules accurately is derided.
In other news, mass rescue in work to save those stuck on high ground.
Distances in Warhammer 40, 000 are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.
So, unless you count antennae or flagpoles as hull, it's a non-issue.
Distances in Warhammer 40, 000 are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.
So, unless you count antennae or flagpoles as hull, it's a non-issue.
Where you measure from and where you draw los from are not the same it would seem. All they've done there is give antenna of doom a range boost if it happens to be further from the target than the closest point on the hull.
page 179:
"in order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model."
Also, here's what the internet tells me a hull is
hull1
həl/Submit
noun
1.
the main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings. So I'll make sure to meditate for the next twelve house on the common sense interpretation that in no way will be subjective.
Just like kids:"you told me to go play outside, so I am" while holding a phone in their hands
"You said I could shoot from any point of the miniature, so I am" while holding a tape measure from the SM sarge backbanner
Maybe it's just my area, but this would never be an issue. Even if there is some initial disagreement, talking it over always works.
Distances in Warhammer 40, 000 are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.
So, unless you count antennae or flagpoles as hull, it's a non-issue.
Ah, that puts that one to bed then.
@crable, if you'd never tried to draw line of sight from it, they'd have said nothing. As it is you can't anyway, so a non issue
ian wrote: This is my point a player who wants to use the antenna of doom apears to be only intressed in winning and means i also win because i dont have to play with them
They're not the ones responsible for the antenna of doom, how you could infer anyone's intentions from following the incredibly un specific super short rules is beyond me my good sir.
Well according to Postel’s Law both are responsible. You should be conservative in what you send (GW was not) but you should be liberal in what you receive (which in that case means, you should try to do your best to make sense with what you receive and don't try to mess things up on intent)
So you usually should validate your interpretation of the data before you draw conclusions out of it. The easiest validation is: Does my interpretation make any sense? If it does not it is probably wrong.
ian wrote: I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should
Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.
They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.
Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?
If they didn't want that they would have WRITTEN IT SO! They listened players say "make vehicles and monsters equal" so they did that.
They gave players what they wanted. Now players must learn to live with it. Say hello to antenna of dooms.
Do you need a reference sheet from GW with every bit from their kits, that don't apply to the rules about vehicles? Or maybe you don't wonder about stabbing people with a kitchen knife just because instructions dont say, that such behavior is not allowed?
@crablezworth
Don't play with people whining about your conversions, nor shoot from the antenna. Simple.
Damn, if GW had just written "hull", people wouldn't entertain themselves with such nonsensical theoretical rulelawyering
Edit: oh wait, they did?
Vorian wrote: This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:
A......B
xxxxx
......L
A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.
ian wrote: I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should
Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.
They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.
Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?
If they didn't want that they would have WRITTEN IT SO! They listened players say "make vehicles and monsters equal" so they did that.
They gave players what they wanted. Now players must learn to live with it. Say hello to antenna of dooms.
Do you need a reference sheet from GW with every bit from their kits, that don't apply to the rules about vehicles? Or maybe you don't wonder about stabbing people with a kitchen knife just because instructions dont say, that such behavior is not allowed?
@crablezworth
Don't play with people whining about your conversions, nor shoot from the antenna. Simple.
Damn, if GW had just written "hull", people wouldn't entertain themselves with such nonsensical theoretical rulelawyering
Edit: oh wait, they did?
We've been arguing over hull since 5th, for the same reason, GW didn't tell us and had to faq it. Or maybe we all haven't been around since 5th and remember the lovely are wings hull debate? It's not my fault gw wrote this crap. I'm really sorry to tell you this but my silly antenna example asside, it's no different than showing 1% of your tanks hull and being able to fire all weapons at different targets, antennas asside that just as incentivized and thats not my fault or my singular interpretation, its was the rules say
Huh. So, strangeness still looking through the rules a bit more.
There's not even much of a perk to taking a pure Thousand Sons, EC, WE or DG detachment - apparently just taking their Cult Troops is enough to make them Troops on their own.
Talk about 4 pages of redundant rules.
So keyword wise, it is still feasible to just pick....
Death Guard Plague Marines as troops.
Other Legion Bob Plague Marines as Elites.
Oh well, suppose it's going to make filling the Brigade Detachment out even easier in its own strange way just using the keywords of Chaos and Nurgle.
Vorian wrote: This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:
A......B
xxxxx
......L
A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.
That's how game designers want you to play.
There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?
It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it
Excuse me? It is not my fault, I did not write the rules nor decide how they are implemented and if I did they wouldn't be rules. My antenna example aside, it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons, how do you not see that regardless of your emotional reaction to the antenna? Projecting GW's failure on to me is not fair and it is not polite either, stop please. Your shooting the messenger.
Spoiler:
ACCURATE READING COMPREHENSION IS NOT A MORAL FAILING.
Vorian wrote: This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:
A......B
xxxxx
......L
A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.
That's how game designers want you to play.
There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?
I think he's pointing out that if the tank had to actually move far enough that it's weapon could see unit B, then unit A would be able to see the tank.
Here's a tank I built for my orks, what, do you think, will I be accused of, regardless of when it was built? Will be forcing playeres to remove antennas and banners from vehicles built possible multiple editions ago?
1) that's an awesome tank
2) at least the antenna on that has a grot spotter at the top, so measuring LOS from that would be A-OK... and inventive. Firing weapons from it wouldn't be but regardless we know that's out now, so happy days!
I'm not a fan of "shoot from any point of the hull" rule myself.
But if we take into consideration shooting from 1% of the vehicle, we also must think about being shot at it.
It doesn't make the rule too
Much better for me, but it does make it more fair.
I sincerely hope, people won't abuse this rule to measure the smallest possible angle of attack..
Ps:@crabzwirth it is a bit, like if you see something racist/sexist in a thing, in which others don't notice it, it is you, that drew the lines.
Well, maybe I'm wrong and it will be a moral failure,only if you actually use the wrongly implemented rule..
I myself will try to find opponents, that will agree to shoot from the guns rather than from the hull. And if they are ok with simple facing addon: +1t in front, "-1" at the back- great!
Here's a tank I built for my orks, what, do you think, will I be accused of, regardless of when it was built? Will be forcing playeres to remove antennas and banners from vehicles built possible multiple editions ago?
1) that's an awesome tank
2) at least the antenna on that has a grot spotter at the top, so measuring LOS from that would be A-OK... and inventive. Firing weapons from it wouldn't be but regardless we know that's out now, so happy days!
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it
Excuse me? It is not my fault, I did not write the rules nor decide how they are implemented and if I did they wouldn't be rules. My antenna example aside, it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons, how do you not see that regardless of your emotional reaction to the antenna? Projecting GW's failure on to me is not fair and it is not polite either, stop please. Your shooting the messenger.
Spoiler:
ACCURATE READING COMPREHENSION IS NOT A MORAL FAILING.
Hull is just for range... not LoS? So antenna is fine, as long as the hull is in range. I don't see what's wrong here. You can be in range of something and not see it, while also not see something and not be in range.
I didn't see any rule saying how to get LoS beyond "get behind the model and see if it can see any part of the target model" (or something like that, can't copy the rule".
Bezerkers are insanely crazy. This is rediculous. I have to try them out just to check if they are as crazy as they look on paper
Land Raiders are extremely expensive but seem to be pretty good, too
Dark Angels
The best Terminators of all Legions... uh Chapters are now the worst,
Ravenwing/Deathwing synergy is a thing of the past
Darkshroud sucks now.
Ravenwing bikers are now just bikers.
Nephilim is again ridiculously overpriced
Astra Militarum:
Basilisk is a cheap murder machine of Doom.
Wyverns are as crazy as ever.
Hydras are not as pointless as they have been before but too expensive
Chimeras lost everything cool - no fire points, no command vehicle, they even lost amphibious (wow that did make them OP, didn't it?) and are now about as expensive as a Basilisk. I really have to play a game using both to check if this is as ridiculously unbalanced in play as it is on paper.
Super Heavy Tanks got better, but now they get -1 on basically all their to hit rolls if they move. Wow, if a Leman Russ can fire his turret gun on a 4+, why can't a Baneblade?
Leman Russ Variants are not bad, but seem extremely overpriced.
You get so much cheap stuff that you can drown yourself in command points. It seems you can easily have 18 command points with Guard in a 2000 Points game. However, with the restriction of using one Stratagem per Phase in matched it is not as crazy as it sounds.
GW finally recognized that a weapon with BF 4+ is not as good as one with 3+ and therefore cost less
Veteran squads however, can buy the cheap weapons with their BF 3+ and load themselves up until total crazyness. If I didn't read it wrong you can now have 1 heavy flamer, 3 Plasma Guns and a lascannon in one veteran squad.
Bottom Line:
It does not seem as out of whack as 7th, but to call this "balanced" is a bold move. It may really be the most balanced edition of 40k ever, but the problem is for balance in 40k the bar is extremely low...
Vorian wrote: This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:
A......B
xxxxx
......L
A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.
That's how game designers want you to play.
There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?
Yes by unit B. Not by unit A. That's the point. You expose 1mm of your vehicle to unit B so that unit A doesn't get LOS. If you had to expose your vehicle like 7th ed either you would be choosing "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it
Ah lovely. GW can write everything they want and it's always fault of player playing the game as designers wanted you to play.
You're taking the rulelawyering example to the extreme and I pointed that out, as well as I dislike new vehicle rules regarding facing and hull shooting several times. But calling me a white GW knight is a go, i guess.
tneva82 wrote: "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"
Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.
Vorian wrote: This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.
Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:
A......B
xxxxx
......L
A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.
That's how game designers want you to play.
There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?
Yes by unit B. Not by unit A. That's the point. You expose 1mm of your vehicle to unit B so that unit A doesn't get LOS. If you had to expose your vehicle like 7th ed either you would be choosing "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"
If the track is "looking" at A, A is also looking at the track. The track needs a line between itselt and A to be able to see it, so you should be able to fire with both A and B.
Edit: Nevermind, I'm an idiot who read this example incorrectly
tneva82 wrote: "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"
Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.
Well now hiding is default...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: You're taking the rulelawyering example to the extreme and I pointed that out, as well as I dislike new vehicle rules regarding facing and hull shooting several times. But calling me a white GW knight is a go, i guess.
You are shifting blame from the crappy GW writers to players. Blame for players using this lies squaredly on _game designers_. They decided the game works like this. Not players.
tneva82 wrote: "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"
Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.
Well now hiding is default...
No, the default is "I can use my vehicles" with the addition of being able to protect them efficiently. Previously, it wasn't even "hide or use" because vehicles were terrible and not running them was generally the correct method of usage.
If the track is "looking" at A, A is also looking at the track. The track needs a line between itselt and A to be able to see it, so you should be able to fire with both A and B.
Sigh hard to explain with ascii but land raider is positioned so that the track sees only unit B. Due to angles and wall in between unit A sees just the wall. Ergo land raider fires every gun at unit B but enemy can only retaliate with unit B(assuming it didn't die). For unit A to shoot it needs to move.
Before this would have resulted in at least 1, possibly all guns from land raider seeing neither unit. Now you can hide from 1 unit completely while shooting at will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
His Master's Voice wrote: No, the default is "I can use my vehicles" with the addition of being able to protect them efficiently. Previously, it wasn't even "hide or use" because vehicles were terrible and not running them was generally the correct method of usage.
Default is hide them behind walls.
And you don't need rules like that to make vehicles worth it. Only crappy game designers like GW hires could possibly think so.
tneva82 wrote: "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"
Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.
Well now hiding is default...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SnotlingPimpWagon wrote: You're taking the rulelawyering example to the extreme and I pointed that out, as well as I dislike new vehicle rules regarding facing and hull shooting several times. But calling me a white GW knight is a go, i guess.
You are shifting blame from the crappy GW writers to players. Blame for players using this lies squaredly on _game designers_. They decided the game works like this. Not players.
I'm blaming the disigners for me not liking the rule(I dislike and"I'm not a fan of" translate into that) and players for implementing such use of the rule.
--------------
If vehicles had bases, like in warmachine, would that improve the mechanics?
If the track is "looking" at A, A is also looking at the track. The track needs a line between itselt and A to be able to see it, so you should be able to fire with both A and B.
Sigh hard to explain with ascii but land raider is positioned so that the track sees only unit B. Due to angles and wall in between unit A sees just the wall. Ergo land raider fires every gun at unit B but enemy can only retaliate with unit B(assuming it didn't die). For unit A to shoot it needs to move.
Before this would have resulted in at least 1, possibly all guns from land raider seeing neither unit. Now you can hide from 1 unit completely while shooting at will.
Nah, your ascii and example are good, it was me who didn't read it correctly.
I honestly don't understand how multiple offtopic warnings from the mods and even an offtopic warning in the title and op can be ignored this blatantly. Take your meaningless rule discussion about antennas in YMDC.
Zande4 wrote: I honestly don't understand how multiple offtopic warnings from the mods and even an offtopic warning in the title and op can be ignored this blatantly. Take your meaningless rule discussion about antennas in YMDC.
Actually we were discussing 8th edition rumours. But thanks for being impolite.
Has anyone been able to find anything on objective markers themselves?
Some Flyers get a -1 to be hit but only when "airborne" so yes Jink has gone, a few other units have or will have modifiers to be hit but they are on a unit by unit basis
2) For matched play missions, where does it say who/what can score? Or is everything "scoring"?
sorry not read through that bit of the leaks
3) Do flyers just start on the board now?
Yep seems so - much easier.
4) For warlord traits, are the three listed still used for matched play?
not sure
6) There's no "instant death" anymore is there?
Not that I am aware of there are wound and mortal wounds - the latter can't normally be saved by armour or even Invuln but there are units that can ignore one or more on themselves or take them in lieu of other units..
it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons
But every other model can do that already. Why is it you need to insist that only vehicles be limited? Shouldn't we have fire arcs for every other model too? And Tyrannid models almost all look like they have more armor on their Top/Back than on their front. They should be easier to wound from the front. They can already shoot left arm guns if only their right leg is showing around a corner. On top of that you have the vehicles that were monstrous creatures by game rules, but clearly not creatures at all. I'm totally for facing for weapons and armor. If it is consistent across all models. But it wasn't.
I mean everyone can suspend disbelief enough for every other aspect of the game, but not that vehicles could turn and shoot during their turn. Or that when firing upon them, you ARE shooting the weak points (not a single 40k vehicle has a good armor layout. What it comes across as, is people whining that they won't be able to kill vehicles as easy.
Is there a full core rules leak anywhere? The imgur one (http://mystecore.imgur.com/) doesn't seem to have it all, for example I can't see anything about the fly keyword.
Yeah you're right thanks. I remember reading somewhere that vehicles interact differently with cover but the rules say its just a flat +1 to any unit in cover?
it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons
But every other model can do that already. Why is it you need to insist that only vehicles be limited? Shouldn't we have fire arcs for every other model too? And Tyrannid models almost all look like they have more armor on their Top/Back than on their front. They should be easier to wound from the front. They can already shoot left arm guns if only their right leg is showing around a corner. On top of that you have the vehicles that were monstrous creatures by game rules, but clearly not creatures at all. I'm totally for facing for weapons and armor. If it is consistent across all models. But it wasn't.
I mean everyone can suspend disbelief enough for every other aspect of the game, but not that vehicles could turn and shoot during their turn. Or that when firing upon them, you ARE shooting the weak points (not a single 40k vehicle has a good armor layout. What it comes across as, is people whining that they won't be able to kill vehicles as easy.
This. So much this. If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?
There is IMO only one answer: Because you don't want to. Yeah, you can find about five billion rational "arguments" for each side, but at the end it all boils down to I don't want it and therefore I don't like it. Which is IMO completely fine. Everybody can want and like what he or she wants. But trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.
RoboDragon wrote: Is there a full core rules leak anywhere? The imgur one (http://mystecore.imgur.com/) doesn't seem to have it all, for example I can't see anything about the fly keyword.
I'm pretty sure everything you need for Fly is on the unit profiles for units that can fly, and the basic movement page. Is there something specific you want to know about Fly?
On a side note, our thread here has entered the most exalted ever list!
I just wanted to pop in and say thanks again to all the continued support in keeping this OP in tip top form! (Even the moderators adding a splash of info up the top! )
The continued PMs letting me know missed info etc. is overwhelming! Thanks so much again, I am having a blast keeping this up to date.
Please don't hesitate to PM me anything you want added, or something that I missed, I appreciate PMs I wake up to in the morning.
UncleThomson wrote: trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that hey must abandon their own opinions for my own but by all means shoot the messenger, it's been a theme of this threads narrative
Rippy wrote: On a side note, our thread here has entered the most exalted ever list!
I just wanted to pop in and say thanks again to all the continued support in keeping this OP in tip top form! (Even the moderators adding a splash of info up the top! )
The continued PMs letting me know missed info etc. is overwhelming! Thanks so much again, I am having a blast keeping this up to date.
Please don't hesitate to PM me anything you want added, or something that I missed, I appreciate PMs I wake up to in the morning.
Yeah you're right thanks. I remember reading somewhere that vehicles interact differently with cover but the rules say its just a flat +1 to any unit in cover?
Infantry get cover for being in it, anything else needs 50%.
Yeah you're right thanks. I remember reading somewhere that vehicles interact differently with cover but the rules say its just a flat +1 to any unit in cover?
Infantry get cover for being in it, anything else needs 50%.
That's not strictly speaing accurate, currently until they fix ruins, having 1 or more models on the ruin grants cover to the entire squad. If you look at the woods rules, you can see what they meant to say with ruins but they forgot the word "entirely".
oni wrote: Wait... So if I move one model out of the woods the unit loses cover, but if I put one model in ruins the unit gains cover? WTF?
What? The rules are literally the same for both. Units on the base of either gain cover, other units only gain cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the firing unit. They are worded exactly the same.
No they are not. The woods rules say the infantry unit must be 'entirely' in the woods to get cover. The ruins rules simply say the unit must be 'on' the ruin. Without the word 'entirely' it would generally be understood that as long as one model is on the ruin, the entire infantry unit would get cover.
It just need to be FAQ'd, but its sad to see something so simple (on the same page) slip past already.
Want to add craters into this jumble? Craters work on a per-model basis.
Unless you're charging, then it only takes one guy to slow down the whole unit (THANKS STEVE).
tneva82 wrote: So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?
Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.
That's harsh, insulting and unfair. GW have made a deliberate design decision to abstract alot of things to allow battle sized games to occur without taking forever. Clearly in your eyes that abstracted vehicles too much, and to say that is fine, but to go from "i disagree with their design decision" to "they're gak because they didn't do what i wanted" is just wrong. Shame on you.
UncleThomson wrote: If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?
I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow a Land Raider to:
1. Fire the guns on one side of its hull through its hull to something on the other side.
2. To fire all the guns on a tank, no matter where they are located, at any target in LOS to a tiny part of its hull, even if it's behind a giant rock.
-DE- wrote: You can park a tank behind a wall, completely obscured from view with just a fraction of an inch of a track sticking out, and your tank is still allowed to shoot all its guns at any enemy that that track can "see".
They might've taken simplification and abstraction a step too far for me.
So the tank rolled forward (or backwards as needed), fired, and then moved back behind cover. Seems perfectly logical.
The whole game is an abstractation. We can moan about things not making sense (like nids farting Dakka or Space Marines overwatching by firing over their shoulders like their trick shooters) but at the end of the day any and everything the rules allow can be given an explination that makes sense.
Ooooooorrr we can just spend all of our time on the internet complaining that the same rules for MCs who could fire their weaoons in directns they couldn't see, applying to tanks is somehow silly now that tanks do it.
Like I've said before: a game that has facings either needs to go all in, or not at all. To only make facings important for a single unit type in the entire game is frankly silly. It doesn't force tactics, it simply makes the unit weaker while all other units get a free pass to move however they want.
Since nothing else is designed for having facings, I frankly am glad vehicles got rid of it too. Now I can dynamically pose my walkers without fearing that I'll be told that one of their guns can't shoot forwards because of the model's pose.
UncleThomson wrote: If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?
I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow a Land Raider to:
1. Fire the guns on one side of its hull through its hull to something on the other side.
2. To fire all the guns on a tank, no matter where they are located, at any target in LOS to a tiny part of its hull, even if it's behind a giant rock.
For example:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
I mean, I get the point, but at least be consistent.
ClockworkZion wrote: So the tank rolled forward (or backwards as needed), fired, and then moved back behind cover. Seems perfectly logical.
Well no, that doesn't work as a counter-point because the rules explicitly point out what happens when a tank moves (if suffers penalties to hit with heavy weapon shooting). So now you're abstracting movement as well?
Just read the chaos index seems a bit weird that daemon princes have two different stat lines 8 wound CSM ones and the 10 would chaos daemon one. (also them being same pts seems to be a bit of a oversight, when the daemons one costs more power level)
I guess the chaos daemon ones are older, or more favored and a thus more powerful ?
Eyjio wrote: How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.
Eyjio wrote: I mean, I get the point, but at least be consistent.
I think part of the problem is people are struggling to come to terms with 'vehicles' not being a thing with their own rules anymore.
Ther are no more rules for separate unit types like vehicles, fliers, and MC
There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.
Grinshanks wrote: There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
I'm fairly certain Mr Carnifex would fall over if he leaned that far off his center of gravity. Therefore he had to step out, and step back, and counts as moving. Thus incurring a penalty to shooting.
Politely email GW to explain your concerns with the rule, and if enough people do they may publish an Errata document or update the Primer rules.
Play the game with all elements functioning together before deciding it is broken.
These are all better options than filling up a forum with complaints that GW won't read or heed. They've chosen an abstraction that's different to the previous one. Let's see how it plays out eh?
tneva82 wrote: So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?
Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.
That's harsh, insulting and unfair. GW have made a deliberate design decision to abstract alot of things to allow battle sized games to occur without taking forever. Clearly in your eyes that abstracted vehicles too much, and to say that is fine, but to go from "i disagree with their design decision" to "they're gak because they didn't do what i wanted" is just wrong. Shame on you.
Vehicle facings and reasonable LOS rules slow game not if game designers are up to their job.
I do my job badly I expect to be told and I take responsibility. Guess GW designers work differently.
Lots of game designers have shown it's possible. Therefore only reason GW didn't do it is because they can't. Incapable. Same reason why 7th ed was bad and unbalanced. Same reason why people are already spotting out badly balanced stuff in 8th ed. Same designers, same result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grinshanks wrote: I think part of the problem is people are struggling to come to terms with 'vehicles' not being a thing with their own rules anymore.
Ther are no more rules for separate unit types like vehicles, fliers, and MC
There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.
Which is the problem! Vehicles aren't like living things. Vehicles have their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Modeling them as same is recipe for disaster.
Funny how tons of game designers can make fast 40k scaled games with vehicles that work like vehicles and organic things that work as organic thing but GW doesn't.
We got this because players complained about vehicles being poor compared to monsters(balance problem) and GW designers being bad designers didn't want to do it right and have them separate but balanced(that would require skill) so they went instead the easy option and made them same giving illusion of balance.
Rydria wrote: Just read the chaos index seems a bit weird that daemon princes have two different stat lines 8 wound CSM ones and the 10 would chaos daemon one. (also them being same pts seems to be a bit of a oversight, when the daemons one costs more power level)
I guess the chaos daemon ones are older, or more favored and a thus more powerful ?
Oh, that's indeed weird! But the CSM one is probably better, as sub-ten wound character they're not targettable.
Lots of game designers have shown it's possible. Therefore only reason GW didn't do it is because they can't. Incapable. Same reason why 7th ed was bad and unbalanced. Same reason why people are already spotting out badly balanced stuff in 8th ed. Same designers, same result.
If you feel this way, maybe you should find one of those other stellar games to play? As for me. I will actually play my tanks as if they had arcs in friendly games, while understanding why the rules work they do for competitive games. Mostly I can't wait to drive over normal vehicles with a Baneblade, now that it is possible.
Eyjio wrote: How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)
UncleThomson wrote: trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that hey must abandon their own opinions for my own but by all means shoot the messenger, it's been a theme of this threads narrative
If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.
Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.
Eyjio wrote: How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.
It's not a hoop at all. You're saying that a tank firing in an arc over a hill, or rolling forwards 3 feet to get line of sight is too absurd, yet a carnifex standing on tiptoes to aim its gun above a wall that the model pokes a hair over isn't ridiculous. And isn't leaning over movement too? You can't use the movement rules for being stationary as a reason, unless you think that it's reasonable that a model moving as fast as they can get -1 to hit, as does someone moving 1 step forwards. It's all an abstraction, that's the point. Maybe this one is too far for you personally, but to many of us it's just the same thing as what every other model is already doing.
Mr BugBear wrote: If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.
The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.
So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?
Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.
Considering your rather negative views on their work...why play something you seem to hate so much?
Eyjio wrote: How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)
It can't however teleport its bullets and shells to be originating from its comm antenna....
Mr BugBear wrote: If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.
The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.
So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?
Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.
Considering your rather negative views on their work...why play something you seem to hate so much?
Can we get over the idealogical purity tests and the rampant need for everyone to fawn over all aspects, there will be aspects of the new edition that aren't perfect, that's objective reality my man. If I'm pointing out any issues with 8th it's because I want them fixed.
UncleThomson wrote: trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that hey must abandon their own opinions for my own but by all means shoot the messenger, it's been a theme of this threads narrative
If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.
Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.
No, sorry, you don't get to do that. I and otheres have posted plenty of new and relevant information about 8th edition and dicussed said information, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you get to dictate who can comment. It doesn't work like that.
UncleThomson wrote: If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?
I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow a Land Raider to:
1. Fire the guns on one side of its hull through its hull to something on the other side.
2. To fire all the guns on a tank, no matter where they are located, at any target in LOS to a tiny part of its hull, even if it's behind a giant rock.
For example:
But you can if a Carnifex or Wraithknight can pull the same thing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: anyone notice scout snipers might actually be amazing.
roll a 6 and you do one normal savable wound AND a mortal wound
Rydria wrote: Just read the chaos index seems a bit weird that daemon princes have two different stat lines 8 wound CSM ones and the 10 would chaos daemon one. (also them being same pts seems to be a bit of a oversight, when the daemons one costs more power level)
I guess the chaos daemon ones are older, or more favored and a thus more powerful ?
Oh, that's indeed weird! But the CSM one is probably better, as sub-ten wound character they're not targettable.
The non legion one does not have the death to the emp rule so no extra attacks on 6's
legion one is sub 10 s can hide from direct targetting
legion pricne ability of re-roll 1's extends to legion and daemons, other one just daemons
legion one is ld10 vs ld9 (not that it makes much diff)
non legion on gets extra 'mark' buffs
Eyjio wrote: You're saying that a tank firing in an arc over a hill
And how does one arc a lascannon shot?
Eyjio wrote: ... or rolling forwards 3 feet to get line of sight...
That sounds a lot of like... oh what's the word for it... oh yes: Movement!
Presumably a vehicle whose guns are stuck behind a giant rock that wants LOS would need to move to make sure it's guns are no longer behind said rock. And 40K, amazingly enough, has a whole phase dedicated to such a thing: The movement phase.
Would seem odd to include a whole set of rules to cover the pesky business of movement, and even put rules into the weapons (heavy) that govern what happens when you fire said weapons after moving, and even give some tanks a way to overcome that (Russ turrets) only to then say that movement in the shooting phase is an... abstraction?
... yet a carnifex standing on tiptoes to aim its gun above a wall that the model pokes a hair over isn't ridiculous.
Again, you're adding a hoop. "Tiptoes to aim its gun". I never said that. I'm saying that a person doing this is far easier than Baneblade doing the same thing.
By jove you're (almost right). Except that you can lean around a corner without moving position. The tank physically cannot.
Eyjio wrote: You can't use the movement rules for being stationary as a reason, unless you think that it's reasonable that a model moving as fast as they can get -1 to hit, as does someone moving 1 step forwards.
No idea what you're trying to say here.
Eyjio wrote: It's all an abstraction, that's the point.
And you can keep saying "It's an abstraction" until you're blue in a face, but right now "Banerock" is the rules. A Baneblade can fire all its guns though solid rock as long as a teensy tiny bit of its hull is showing.
Eyjio wrote: Maybe this one is too far for you personally...
If I'm pointing out any issues with 8th it's because I want them fixed.
But many of us don't find that to be an issue. Because every other model uses the same rules.
Many is not the majority. A tank cannot move to adjust to it's surroundings. You can suggest it moves forwards, fires, then moves back all you want. I'd say ok, then if it moves forwards to fire, my guys get to fire back and still target it. Because they sure as hell are not going to sit there and wait for some judge to tell them it's their turn. I'm not sure why GW changed it from using the viewpoint of the weapon itself.
ClockworkZion wrote: So the tank rolled forward (or backwards as needed), fired, and then moved back behind cover. Seems perfectly logical.
Well no, that doesn't work as a counter-point because the rules explicitly point out what happens when a tank moves (if suffers penalties to hit with heavy weapon shooting). So now you're abstracting movement as well?
The entire game is abstraction, why get hung up on vehicles when you've been able to do the EXACT SAME THINGS with MCs?
UncleThomson wrote: I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)
Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.
Justyn wrote: If you feel this way, maybe you should find one of those other stellar games to play?
That's a pretty nonsensical statement given how much market dominance games workshop has. For an overwhelming majority of people, it's historicals or GW.
It can't however teleport its bullets and shells to be originating from its comm antenna....
If you still insist that an antenna is part of a vehicles hull, I would say that tanks are able to make pretty high jumps to raise temporarily over obstacles and are still able to fire their gun precisely due to their stabilizers.
UncleThomson wrote: I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)
Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.
quick get casting periscope conversion kits for models, RICH gonna be RICH
Eyjio wrote: How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.
Eyjio wrote: I mean, I get the point, but at least be consistent.
I am being consistent.
If you wanted to go with a cartoon car peeking around corners Speed Buggy would have been a better choice.
And considering some of those said MCs were basically vehicles (Riptides, Dreadknights, ect) its still the same dang problem.
If TLOS was still in the game and we still had to check to see which weapons could see the opponent then you,d have a valid complaint, but when I can measure LoS from a Carnifex's TAIL it goes out the window.
Many is not the majority. A tank cannot move to adjust to it's surroundings. You can suggest it moves forwards, fires, then moves back all you want. I'd say ok, then if it moves forwards to fire, my guys get to fire back and still target it. Because they sure as hell are not going to sit there and wait for some judge to tell them it's their turn. I'm not sure why GW changed it from using the viewpoint of the weapon itself.
But you are saying a Carnifex can, when it is a giant lumbering clumsy looking monster, but damn if it has 1mm of one claw sticking out from behind that same rock, no problem it can shoot everything.
UncleThomson wrote: I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)
Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.
It leans round the corner. That baneblade was actually a Decepticon all along.
ClockworkZion wrote: The entire game is abstraction, why get hung up on vehicles when you've been able to do the EXACT SAME THINGS with MCs?
Except, as I keep pointing out, it's not. A living creature (or even a suit like a Crisis Suit, where the person is immobile and the suit kinda "becomes" their body, and moves as they think it), is far more manoeuvrable than a solid lump of a tank. They can physically change their shape by crouching, laying flat, flattening themselves up against walls and, yes, leaning out to fire their weapons without having to move from their position. They are flexible. It's why infantry are so good in high cover areas, because they can better navigate and use the terrain to their advantage.
Meanwhile, Mr. Sturmpanzerwagen, he's going to have a bit of a problem doing just that.
ClockworkZion wrote: If TLOS was still in the game and we still had to check to see which weapons could see the opponent then you,d have a valid complaint...
That is my complaint. How have you not got that so far?
My problem is that they've dumbed the rules down so much that "vehicles" aren't even a thing, so now a Land Raider can fire its Lascannon through itself.
Grinshanks wrote: I think part of the problem is people are struggling to come to terms with 'vehicles' not being a thing with their own rules anymore.
Ther are no more rules for separate unit types like vehicles, fliers, and MC
There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.
That's where I feel the abstraction/streamlining can go a bit too far and create a bland experience. What sounds fun to me personally is for scurrying grots, grinding tanks and lumbering monsters to behave in a way that befits what they are, inherit limits/disadvantages and all, and with a few elegant rules I like to think they could bring that out more. ATM it feels like there's a focus on ensuring everything can dish out maximum damage all the time with less tradeoffs. That being said I am actually excited for 8th
Bull0 wrote: It leans round the corner. That baneblade was actually a Decepticon all along.
That's actually a very good point Bull. When Starscream wants to shoot around a wall at Bumblebee he doesn't land and stay in his jet form and then just fire through the wall. He turns into a man and leans around - because people can do that and giant lumps of tanks cannot.
ian wrote: Couldnt i park my tank on the top of a building in 7th because that was really realistic
Yes. Who said that should have stayed? Nobody here has claimed 7th ed was perfect. That's why fixing rather than this shuffle would have been better. Now they have just changed what is illogal to others. Just like they randomly change style of weapons and units unneededly with horde killers becoming terminator killers etc when there was nothing that inheritently required such a change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ian wrote: This is my point a player who wants to use the antenna of doom apears to be only intressed in winning and means i also win because i dont have to play with them
So they are only interested in winning playing the game like designers want you to play? Interesting.
Sorry that im replying late ,but from meeting some of the miniature designer i really dont think that it was there intention to create the antenna of doom , they seemed much more intressed in the design and feel of the model like they where creating a story a theme ect , if you want to imagine that the designers thought yes a antenna of doom is what they want then i fear you lack the common sense necessary for this type of game and a game like chess where the rules are unbreakable is more for you
Many is not the majority. A tank cannot move to adjust to it's surroundings. You can suggest it moves forwards, fires, then moves back all you want. I'd say ok, then if it moves forwards to fire, my guys get to fire back and still target it. Because they sure as hell are not going to sit there and wait for some judge to tell them it's their turn. I'm not sure why GW changed it from using the viewpoint of the weapon itself.
But you are saying a Carnifex can, when it is a giant lumbering clumsy looking monster, but damn if it has 1mm of one claw sticking out from behind that same rock, no problem it can shoot everything.
No, I'm not saying that at all. This is why I liked True LoS. You viewed it from the weapon itself. HOWEVER. A carnifex, a monstrous creature, riptide, any suit, or anything of that nature moves EASIER and is more FLEXIBLE than a tank. A tank is a square chunk of metal with no flexibility at all and all it's weapons are on fixed points/pivots. A Carni for example can move at the shoulder joint, elbow joint, wrist joint, etc to bend it's way around an object. It would be like you holding a rifle around a corner and firing blindly. You're able to do that because you're flexible. A tank cannot unless it has hands and can take it's turret off and hold it around a corner. Which now needs to be a cartoon.
Admech players, infiltrators have been nerfed a fair bit but are far cheaper. What do we think is the best loadout for them? Tasergoads were better in pretty much every situation before but is this still the same?
Tasers don't wound T4 models on a 2+ anymore so I think power swords may make a comeback.
ClockworkZion wrote: The entire game is abstraction, why get hung up on vehicles when you've been able to do the EXACT SAME THINGS with MCs?
Except, as I keep pointing out, it's not. A living creature (or even a suit like a Crisis Suit, where the person is immobile and the suit kinda "becomes" their body, and moves as they think it), is far more manoeuvrable than a solid lump of a tank. They can physically change their shape by crouching, laying flat, flattening themselves up against walls and, yes, leaning out to fire their weapons without having to move from their position. They are flexible. It's why infantry are so good in high cover areas, because they can better navigate and use the terrain to their advantage.
Meanwhile, Mr. Sturmpanzerwagen, he's going to have a bit of a problem doing just that.
ClockworkZion wrote: If TLOS was still in the game and we still had to check to see which weapons could see the opponent then you,d have a valid complaint...
That is my complaint. How have you not got that so far?
My problem is that they've dumbed the rules down so much that "vehicles" aren't even a thing, so now a Land Raider can fire its Lascannon through itself.
Okay...how does a two story tall Hive Tyrant crouch low enough to shoot through a hole in the wall only it's toe can see?
You only seem to be stuck on the idea that tanks can,t be abstracted to have shited into position to fire heavy weapons while everyone else can Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge to fire their heavy weapons without counting as moving. Even if they need to lean so far over that they'd physically have to take two steps forward to do it.
I feel like the issue is less about the abstraction of the rules regarding LOS and more about how you can let go of old rles regardless of how generally BAD they made vehicles preform.
I've said it once, I'll say it again: any game that wants to use "facings" needs to go all in or not at all. To restrict a single model type to being required to move in any sort of manner differently than everything else in the game is nonsensical in terms of mechanics. If positioning should be that important I should only be able to shoot with infantry in a forward 180 degree arc, and never get overwatch when charged rom behind unless I had models pointed that way, and MCs woukd have the same facings as tanks with different values for which direction I shoot from.
And while that sounds coold when playing with ten or so models, when you can easilly have over a hundred models to micromanage that way the game can, and will, take hours longer to play. Arguements would be limitless about if something is in a firing arc or not, and so on.
We abstract things to make the game run smoother, to make units more balanced against each other and to make games less about arguing over if something can see or not. If that sacrifices your personal views of realism upon the altar of entertainment, I can live with that.
Man, can we just take the vehicles facing topic to another thread already? It's ridiculous that people are arguing because a monster can look around a corner, but a tank can't. But guess what? In a battle you don't stand there while all of your opponents move their units and wait to get shot in the face. Units don't teleport and move a quarter of the way across the battlefield in the blink of an eye either. Wargames are an abstraction. You don't like it? Cool. Play Dawn of War, house rule it, or play 7th. Just move on already.
It is really dodgy, people shouldn't be defending it. A vehicle is basically just a big counter now, the weapons will all theoretically be coming from that area of the board but it doesn't matter where they are, the shape of the vehicle, etc, beyond the dimensions of the hull. It's a regressive step. Needs sorting out. I don't mind armour facings etc being gone - they were logical but I don't mind them going - but weapons firing from the opposite corner of the hull etc is dumb as paint and needs to be FAQ'd.
My problem is that they've dumbed the rules down so much that "vehicles" aren't even a thing, so now a Land Raider can fire its Lascannon through itself.
Yeah I'm not sure why the solution was to alter vehicles instead in addition to mc's. In my eyes mc's were the problem in 7th, not vehicles. Instead they sorta fix mc's in 8th but also for some reason break vehicles.
What exactly was so hard about measuring LOS from the guns on a vehicle?
I mean, unlike living creatures that can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (again!) as you put it, a Predator's sponson is pretty much always in exactly the same spot, and if we have to - as the rules say - take a model's eye view to determine LOS, why can't we do that for the fixed weapons on a vehicle?
When has that ever been hard, or something that slows the game down any more than regular LOS?
Parked that way limits a vehicles LOS, so units can use the cover screen to approach and then shoot/assault it to death later. Tactical positioning always has pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. Use the disadvantage this creates for the vehicle and position to weather the advantage to the vehicle.
Bull0 wrote: It is really dodgy, people shouldn't be defending it. A vehicle is basically just a big counter now, the weapons will all theoretically be coming from that area of the board but it doesn't matter where they are, the shape of the vehicle, etc, beyond the dimensions of the hull. It's a regressive step. Needs sorting out. I don't mind armour facings etc being gone - they were logical but I don't mind them going - but weapons firing from the opposite corner of the hull etc is dumb as paint and needs to be FAQ'd.
I'll just save everyone some time and reply for them:
I understand the points of view on both sides of it, but in a game of this scale, I'd rather go with the simpler, faster method. If we scaled the game down to a couple squads and a vehicle or two on each side, I'd be happy with the more complex version. But with 50+ models per side, I'd rather not play Advanced Squad Leader 40K.
H.B.M.C. wrote: What exactly was so hard about measuring LOS from the guns on a vehicle?
I mean, unlike living creatures that can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (again!) as you put it, a Predator's sponson is pretty much always in exactly the same spot, and if we have to - as the rules say - take a model's eye view to determine LOS, why can't we do that for the fixed weapons on a vehicle?
When has that ever been hard, or something that slows the game down any more than regular LOS?
Remember how "measure from the model" was fairly quickly patched by GW to "measure from the base"?
This could easily become the case for 40K if people write in and politely explain the issues the chosen method creates for them.
Or just house rule it and move on. But please, move on.
Firing a Lascannon sponson on the left side of the vehicle only at things that it can see is now "Advanced Squad Leader 40K". We've been doing that since 40K's inception. Why is it suddenly too hard?
There's a quote from Aliens that Ripley says towards the start of the film that I'm really feeling right now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I understand the points of view on both sides of it, but in a game of this scale, I'd rather go with the simpler, faster method. If we scaled the game down to a couple squads and a vehicle or two on each side, I'd be happy with the more complex version. But with 50+ models per side, I'd rather not play Advanced Squad Leader 40K.
OK, and yet 8th also introduces the ability for each one of those 50 models to target independently with each weapon. So we can't have it both ways can we? IE even we agreed that vehicle fire arcs slowed down the game, it wouldn't be fair to omit that each model being able to target independently also slows the game down and is every bit "advance squad leader 40k".
If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.
Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.
No, sorry, you don't get to do that. I and otheres have posted plenty of new and relevant information about 8th edition and dicussed said information, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you get to dictate who can comment. It doesn't work like that.
I don't care if/how much you have contributed to this thread in the past, now you are just arguing for arguments sake. Take it up with GW, send them a well constructed e-mail (if you haven't already), post on their Facebook site. They are the ones that can actually do something about it. Posting here won't change anything, all you're doing is fanning the flames and blowing this way out of proportion.
They have repeatedly said that they will continue to fix and balance this edition, á la Generals Handbook. So what is to say that they can't change this or add firing arcs in a future version?
H.B.M.C. wrote: What exactly was so hard about measuring LOS from the guns on a vehicle?
I mean, unlike living creatures that can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (again!) as you put it, a Predator's sponson is pretty much always in exactly the same spot, and if we have to - as the rules say - take a model's eye view to determine LOS, why can't we do that for the fixed weapons on a vehicle?
When has that ever been hard, or something that slows the game down any more than regular LOS?
You must have forgotten such arguements as models not being able to shoot because they don't have eyes.
TLoS was so much of a mess for the game that GW made that crappy laser pointer to try and help people determine it faster.
You now you have a rules issue when it takes an extra device just to determine if ou can see the thing you're trying to shoot.
Eyjio wrote: How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?
Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.
Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.
You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.
It's called side scraping and it is the equivalent of leaning for tanks. The example pic posted above is indeed ridiculous but no moreso than a wraithknight sticking its right toe out of cover and being able to shoot its left shoulder weapon as a result. If you're fine with the latter then it is only fair to be consistent about the equivalent former.
RoboDragon wrote: Admech players, infiltrators have been nerfed a fair bit but are far cheaper. What do we think is the best loadout for them? Tasergoads were better in pretty much every situation before but is this still the same?
Tasers don't wound T4 models on a 2+ anymore so I think power swords may make a comeback.
I made mine with taser goads. Lucky 6's means lots of hits. Not gonna happen, but 5 of them could pull 45 hits. And being STR 6 makes em wound your average target on 3s. Also built mine to have the blasters, so Pistol 5 in shooting in CC adds another 25 attacks, even though its str 3.
Hopefully trying a game of 8th fri with my Admech army so will see how they do. At the very least, its a good distraction from the rest of my army!
But really though, lets move the LoS to the sub forum for rules. I think its been beaten to death and spammed enough for now
If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.
Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.
No, sorry, you don't get to do that. I and otheres have posted plenty of new and relevant information about 8th edition and dicussed said information, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you get to dictate who can comment. It doesn't work like that.
I don't care if/how much you have contributed to this thread in the past
You could at the very least read what I've had to say, bucko. I've made the case, several times that fixing it would be a positive development, your selective reading of my commentary isn't justification to of moral outrage, it's just you being impolite. Sport.
UncleThomson wrote: I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)
Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.
Drives forward, fires its guns and drives backwards again. Just like a "creature with guns" would move out of cover fire and go back. Again, Tanks are much much better doing this than large creatures, especially huge robots walking on feet because tanks tend to have far less ground pressure than feet. A 60 ton robot would make real bad food prints in a concrete road, while a tank just ruins it a little.
P.S.: And you can bet a 60 ton creature would be much much much worse. You are talking about something the size of an Argentinosaurus.
Why is it so hard to believe that the land raider fires one of
It's guns as it turns, then fires its other as it swings around? Assuming everything in your turn to be happening at pretty much the same time...
It's an abstraction. Some wierd things occured under 7th, some will under 8th.
Thebiggesthat wrote: The mods have already said once to stop with the vehicle facing discussion.
Strange how some are allowed to get away with things
For feth's sake, we're not discussing vehicle facing, we're discussing many facets of the 8th edition rumours, inclding VEHICLE WEAPON ARCS, specifically the lack there of. You don't get to not read a page of a thread and come in pretending to play mod.
Thebiggesthat wrote: The mods have already said once to stop with the vehicle facing discussion.
Strange how some are allowed to get away with things
For feth's sake, we're not discussing vehicle facing, we're discussing many facets of the 8th edition rumours, inclding VEHICLE WEAPON ARCS, specifically the lack there of. You don't get to not read a page of a thread and come in pretending to play mod.
I'm pointing out that this discussion happened, a mod came in and said to stop it as it's ruining the thread. I suggest you buy some better fitting knickers.
UncleThomson wrote: Drives forward, fires its guns and drives backwards again.
Again, no, that doesn't work. The game has rules for moving and firing heavy weapons. If the vehicle has to move to fire its guns, shouldn't it then have to do that in the movement phase? Shouldn't it then have to suffer the penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons?
You can't not move in the phase dedicated to movement and then abstract said movement during the shooting phase. That doesn't make sense.
RoboDragon wrote: Admech players, infiltrators have been nerfed a fair bit but are far cheaper. What do we think is the best loadout for them? Tasergoads were better in pretty much every situation before but is this still the same?
Tasers don't wound T4 models on a 2+ anymore so I think power swords may make a comeback.
I made mine with taser goads. Lucky 6's means lots of hits. Not gonna happen, but 5 of them could pull 45 hits. And being STR 6 makes em wound your average target on 3s. Also built mine to have the blasters, so Pistol 5 in shooting in CC adds another 25 attacks, even though its str 3.
Hopefully trying a game of 8th fri with my Admech army so will see how they do. At the very least, its a good distraction from the rest of my army!
But really though, lets move the LoS to the sub forum for rules. I think its been beaten to death and spammed enough for now
Yeah I think the potential for the chance of so many extra hits outweighs the 'safe' option of power swords.
Do vehicles fire over watch like normal infantry now? I play against necrons a lot and tasers would be decent against a ghost ark but if they're overwatching 20 odd gauss shots I think it's too risky. I'm assuming since there is no facing that ghost arks can fire their full barrage from anywhere.
LoS for me should be : shoot from any point if the miniature has a base.
Shoot from the gun if it hasn't.
LoS can pass through friendly miniatures but can't pass through the firing miniature.
I'm in the camp of retaining weapon fire arcs on vehicles and giving it to monsters too. However, I feel any more on that discussion should be taken to proposed rules. I'll be watching that forum avidly over the next few months.
On topic, my 2000 point list is now 2534 points. How are your armies converting?
Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
You could at the very least read what I've had to say, bucko. I've made the case, several times that fixing it would be a positive development, your selective reading of my commentary isn't justification to of moral outrage, it's just you being impolite. Sport.
Not trying to be impoilte, just tired of yours and everyones elses complaining for complainings sake. If you feel like you've made your case then you can leave it that at. Why keep arguing? What does it accomplish other than bloat this post and fan the flame? It's not even an interesting discussion anymore, just "This is stupid" and "No it's not" over and over. I doubt people have even played the game yet and seen for themselves how often this even becomes a thing.
I'm done now. I realize my own hypocrisy about arguing with you about arguing about rules. I will play my first game of 8th this weekend, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out, since I play IG with tank focus.
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?
I think the games will be on twitch and the rules videos will be on YouTube. Anyone can watch the twitch games live.
UncleThomson wrote: Drives forward, fires its guns and drives backwards again.
Again, no, that doesn't work. The game has rules for moving and firing heavy weapons. If the vehicle has to move to fire its guns, shouldn't it then have to do that in the movement phase? Shouldn't it then have to suffer the penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons?
You can't not move in the phase dedicated to movement and then abstract said movement during the shooting phase. That doesn't make sense.
No... it just does not work in your mind. And if that's your Pov, you are entitled to it. In my mind a battle does not work like move stop shoot move stop shoot. Especially not one side then the other. the turn is an abstraction of vehicles, creatures and infantry maneuvering and firing their weapons at the same time. If you actually move during the movement phase it just means that the unit was moving a longer distance giving it less time to aim/assemble their weapons.
if you are fine that an Imperial Lascannon team can fire its gun from the backside of the spotter which is barely visible behind cover, I guess it also works for tanks.
P.S: I don't want to say that you are objectively wrong. I just want to say they are other possible ways to look at this decision of the GW designers that "they are doing it wrong"
Grinshanks wrote: There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.
Yeah... see that doesn't make it any better.
Removing facings makes it easier to be able to determine the power of a unit. It allows you to math out the damage it can put out and point it without the player coming to the conclusion that the tank didn't do what it's points indicate.
I liked firing arcs. I don't really care that they're gone now, because that isn't the part of the game I enjoy most.
UncleThomson wrote: No... it just does not work in your mind. And if that's your Pov, you are entitled to it. In my mind a battle does not work like move stop shoot move stop shoot. Especially not one side then the other. the turn is an abstraction of vehicles, creatures and infantry maneuvering and firing their weapons at the same time. If you actually move during the movement phase it just means that the unit was moving a longer distance giving it less time to aim/assemble their weapons.
Hmm...
*thinks*
Hmm... (again!)
Very well said.
Ok, sit down for a sec because what I'm about to say might shock you:
I don't think you're wrong here. And really, with the above you've opened my eyes as to why people like alternate activation style turn systems rather than UGOIGO. I hadn't thought of it that way.
I still think "It's an abstraction" is a cop-out argument because, c'mon, a Land Raider should never be able to fire through itself and "But it's moving all the time!" doesn't cut it. And I still think manoeuvre and positioning should mean something, and the 8th Ed rules have removed a lot of that (not just for vehicles) with far too much oversimplification. But I can see what you mean!
UncleThomson wrote: if you are fine that an Imperial Lascannon team can fire its gun from the backside of the spotter which is barely visible behind cover, I guess it also works for tanks.
In my opinion I've always thought that a model's base represents this. They have a base, so this base is essentially the 'area' they occupy and can operate from within. You don't need to turn them to face things because the base is representative of their 'zone of influence' (for lack of a better term. Vehicles, being inherently base-less (to a point, walkers are obviously something different), had to go with something else, and thus you had to use the miniature itself as the main form of measurement.
To put it another way, from a rules perspective a model's base is what defines it, but a vehicle's shape itself determines what it can and cannot do because it doesn't have a base. I like vehicle models to matter. In these rules they really don't. You could use anything to represent a vehicle. You could turn a vehicle on its end to make it taller (good luck getting away with that though!) and draw LOS from its underside (!) because 'vehicles', other than the specific reference to "hull" in the rules, don't exist in 8th Ed. Everything is a creature, essentially, and I just find that weird!
But what about walkers? Well that's always been a point of contention for me (and a lot of other people, I've discovered). It never made sense that a Rip Tide was an MC but a Sentinel was a vehicle. I think that vehicles should be treated differently and walkers should be treated like big infantry because that's the role they play. A Dread twisting its torso to shoot is no different to a Land Raider turning its sponson to shoot something, but vastly different to a Land Raider shooting its left sponson through itself to hit something on its right.
UncleThomson wrote: P.S: I don't want to say that you are objectively wrong. I just want to say they are other possible ways to look at this decision of the GW designers that "they are doing it wrong"
Well of course they're doing it wrong. They're GW!
Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.
A watcher in the dark is not a character
I just won't give him a warlord trait then.
No wait. Cancel that order. I'mma make a Munitorum Armoured Container my warlord. Yeah, that's the ticket! Lord Commander Shipping Container has arrived to assume command of the beleaguered defenders. May the Emperor's light guide his command!
And I'm totally shooting his storm bolter from his heroically oversized back banner!
There was an interview about the art from the new rulebook on warhammer live today. They talked about reducing the amount of freelance art and trying to achieve a more consistent artistic style. They kind of threw some of the more cartoon art they'd done under the bus. They also said that the primaris marines have been in action for a while when 8th kicks off. ( enough time to have veterans and marines interred in dreadnoughts.)
Good to know. I figured we'd start this edition "in media res", given the shifts to the galaxy map and advancements in narrative. Skipping some time allows for new stuff, as well as "historical" fill-ins if needed/wanted.
No wait. Cancel that order. I'mma make a Munitorum Armoured Container my warlord. Yeah, that's the ticket! Lord Commander Shipping Container has arrived to assume command of the beleaguered defenders. May the Emperor's light guide his command!
And I'm totally shooting his storm bolter from his heroically oversized back banner!
And thus the Basic Campfire finally can be Warchief of the Horde, as it was its birthright!
Can I make a Watcher in the Dark my warlord? Cuz if I can I'mma do that.
A watcher in the dark is not a character
I just won't give him a warlord trait then.
No wait. Cancel that order. I'mma make a Munitorum Armoured Container my warlord. Yeah, that's the ticket! Lord Commander Shipping Container has arrived to assume command of the beleaguered defenders. May the Emperor's light guide his command!
And I'm totally shooting his storm bolter from his heroically oversized back banner!
So does a Tidewall count as a single model or would you have to pick a specific section to be your warlord?
H.B.M.C. wrote: And I still think manoeuvre and positioning should mean something, and the 8th Ed rules have removed a lot of that (not just for vehicles) with far too much oversimplification. But I can see what you mean!
I have the same impression, but I really want to try a couple of games before I make my judgement.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In my opinion I've always thought that a model's base represents this. They have a base, so this base is essentially the 'area' they occupy and can operate from within. You don't need to turn them to face things because the base is representative of their 'zone of influence' (for lack of a better term. Vehicles, being inherently base-less (to a point, walkers are obviously something different), had to go with something else, and thus you had to use the miniature itself as the main form of measurement.
If there would be a consistency in 40k about what has a base and what not this could really work very well.
So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
Do you have a link? I'd like to watch and have no idea what the schedule or location is.
SirDonlad wrote: So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?
if you can buy a skysheild landing pad... which i havn't seen as an option....
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
Do you have a link? I'd like to watch and have no idea what the schedule or location is.
SirDonlad wrote: So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?
if you can buy a skysheild landing pad... which i havn't seen as an option....
None shall slay Warlord Fortress of Redemption so long as his mighty +2 to shoot Bomb Squigs are manning the lascannons!
SirDonlad wrote: So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?
if you can buy a skysheild landing pad... which i havn't seen as an option....
SirDonlad wrote: So i could finally deny my opponent that 'slay the warlord' victory point forever if i play 8th and have my skysheild landing pad commanding the munitorum armoured container army?
if you can buy a skysheild landing pad... which i havn't seen as an option....
It's in imperium #2.
ah... wondered where they all were! cheers not imperium faction either a lot of em so woo
interesting with fortification guns your guys can't fire them now only direct them at not the nearest unit... no more khorne herald manning a quadgun
Galas wrote: The biggest problem with the Vehicles facing, firing arc and moving rules, is that they are practical rules that take at literal value how the model is in the table, in a game full of abstract rules for every other aspect of the game.
Is the same reason why TLOS is so bad in a game without fixed sized for the models where you can have freedom to convert your units, the terrain, etc...
I agree. A majority of the rules are very abstract, and you assume positioning and movement of troops and vehicles is fluid...But then you lock in on very precise positioning for True Line of Site, which contradicts all of the other abstraction. Kind of hard to rationalize using both.
I think that true line of sight is a solid compromise between what we see in other systems where the tables are very flat or lacking in variations. I look at flames of war and the tables are covered in terrain but it is very flat. You dont have giant ruins that you interact with or things like that. You dont have a destroyed warlord titan as a terrain option(OMG that was soooo cool to see).
Removing facings represents the fact that most of the time vehicles will be on the move, running around, ect which you cant do with the movement rules of a model. The model has to sit still at some point for the game to function.
Troopers taking advantage of these opportunities can be factored into the wound rolls or variable damage of certain weapons rather than it being the result of fixed positioning that is required by the rules.
I much rather the rules treat things as in motion rather than have it built into the rules that something is stationary.
One thing that I really enjoy reading about in the novels is only getting a glancing shot during the fight or having a weapon that shouldnt be able to hurt something take out something critical. Now with the rules we can do that. Will lasguns kill a land raider often? NOPE, but it is the sort of situation that when it inevitably happens is the sort of thing that your gaming group will talk about forever. The game in the past got too mechanical, it seems like the rules, while still being competitive and having tactical complexity, provide the opportunities to bring that back.
I also do like how most upgrade characters for a unit are free now. "Hey if you have the models or want to use them you can, if not no worries" It helps for me personally to see that a unit has a sgt leading them because he would be leading them, or that my deathwatch can decide if they want a black shield or not, things like that are just nice to have in the game.
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?
I think the games will be on twitch and the rules videos will be on YouTube. Anyone can watch the twitch games live.
I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
Flood wrote: I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
Keywords link, they don't define. They permit things to happen, not define those things.
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?
I think the games will be on twitch and the rules videos will be on YouTube. Anyone can watch the twitch games live.
When?
First ones are tomorrow on the stream, according to Rob just now.
Flood wrote: I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
As far as we can tell outside of transports there is no list of USRs and what they do. If there is an exclusion or interaction with the keyword it is built into the profile. For example Fly does not have a section, but in many rules it mentions how units with fly interact differently.
Flood wrote: I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
I'm still trying to find out what cavalry does.
Also if should be noted the designers are well aware of firing arcs as they still exist in Death from the Skies.
Chikout wrote: Just a quick heads up. There will be 9 games of 40k played between preorder and release on warhammer live. Each game will involve 2 different factions. Hopefully those games should help answer some people's questions. They will also being doing a few videos on the community site explaining some of the rules
On the GW twitch, or put up on YouTube as demos for everyone to see?
I think the games will be on twitch and the rules videos will be on YouTube. Anyone can watch the twitch games live.
When?
As noted, the schedule for the week usually goes up on Warhammer Community on Tuesdays.
Flood wrote: I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
I'm still trying to find out what cavalry does.
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Flood wrote: I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
Unless they have more books that they're keeping secret, there's nothing more to reveal.
Flood wrote: I like how KoW does it best; 2d line but everything has a height value.
Back on topic: is there anything else they could put out now that we can't already see? I keep seeing keyword definitions being asked for, but if they don't have any USR, there wouldn't be, correct?
Unless they have more books that they're keeping secret, there's nothing more to reveal.
There are two FW Indexes that go up for preorder this weekend as well. So far we've only seen 1 page.
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.
Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.
Anyone heard anything from the Eldar scatterbike meta army owners lately? I'm worried there's been a mass suicide.
Now that the SL is Heavy4 S6 AP0 it seems like a really poor option for jetbikes, which will be at +1 to hit if they move and fire.
Shuriken Cannon seem like a way better option now - only 3 shots but they are assault (so no minus if moving, and can still fire at -1 if the bikes use they're special 6" advance) - and the chance of a -3 AP on a 6 to wound... seems like a no brainer right?
If you want a wall of scatter lasers in the backfield shooting up advancing infantry, good old war walkers seem to be the way to go again,
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.
Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.
The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.
Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.
The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.
Cavalry does nothing. It enables the rules to refer to models that are "Cavalry". A model that is "Cavalry" may not have any rules itself that take advantage of that. Of likely more importance is that a model that is "Cavalry" will likely not be "Infantry" which means it treats cover differently, etc.
Yea that is my thought process, too. It's just sort of odd in comparison with the status of Fly.
Fly is special because it has core rules that act on it (Movement, Fall Back). The vast majority of Keywords currently do nothing more than add flavour.
The vast majority of keywords don't do anything for now. Most will be limited to just determining eho can ally with what, or which rules they can benefit from, but I can see others gaining special bonuses. Like The Bike keyword for White Scars, or the Vehicle keyword for Iron Hands.
Yes, that's why I said "currently."
Missed that. Caffine must not be fully kicked in yet.
Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.
Edit: basically, do Orks get their "sergeant" for free, like marines, or are we still paying for the Nob upgrade to the squad.
montybman wrote: Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.
Again sorry if this was covered.
No, the Boss Nob for squads is included as part of the squad (so basically free)
montybman wrote: Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.
Again sorry if this was covered.
No, the Boss Nob for squads is included as part of the squad (so basically free)
montybman wrote: Forgive me for being thick, but the points costs for individual models, say Nobz, is that the point cost you would use when buying a Nob to lead a unit of Boyz in 8th? or is there a separate upgrade cost I'm not seeing in the rules leak.
Again sorry if this was covered.
Boyz say you may trade a Boy for a Boss Nob. There is no cost listed for a "Boss Nob" so it's a free trade. Most "sergeant" models are the same cost as the rank and file. Not sure I've seen an exception.
)
