So one of the massive changes to come with 8th edition sees us say goodbye not just to our dear old friend the armour facing, in addition we're also being asked to say goodbye to fire arcs on vehicles. They're gone entirely.
In this edition, literally every vehicle be it flyer or tank or super heavy, gw or fw, they all function exactly like shooting from an open topped transport. Flyers for some reason still have very specific turning arcs and minimum moves but also can fire all of their weapons from anywhere because magic.
Now where I've seen dakkaits claim that, somehow in an edition that saw 2 extra phases forced into it, weapon fire arcs were the real time waster. They're often pretty quiet when I ask how literally all models being able to split fire with every weapon at a different target isn't somehow a far more laborious exorcise. (8th has a lot of splitfire)
Also, why take away detail only to add unlimited split fire for everything?
The flyer stuff is just so baffling too because so many flyers have incredibly fixed weaponry and now all they need to do is draw line of sight anywhere on the model to 0.01% of a an enemy model to target it. That just seems to far far worse than the flyer rules in 7th. It eliminates any dog fighting between flyers because even if a flyer has an enemy flyer on its tail, it can still draw los from its hull (what constitutes hull has certainly never divide us in past editions) and fire all weapons backwards.
I recall having far and away more disputes about whether or not a vehicle got a cover save from being obscured 25% or more than whether or not a target was in a vehicle weapons arc of fire.
This was never overly complicated, I think the only time we had any issue was with flyers, even then it wasn't hard to figuer out, 22.5 up, 22.5 down.
I mean really think guys, did anyone not like the detail and emergent gameplay of say moving your chimera 18 inches to block the los of the enemies vindicator at least buying your little dudes a turn of respite from its powerful gun as it would have to now move to re-acquire its targets. No, far better for it to be able to shoot them regardless of the chimeras intervention because they can still draw los from the 3mm the rhino isn't blocking. (please argue that somehow the chimera being able to charge the vindicator is an improvement)
For reference, this is an accurate diagram of how los functions in 8th edition.
Yep, it's a stupid rule and part of the ridiculous homogenization of 40k. Why have an element that adds strategic depth when you can simplify it away in favor of mindlessly throwing dice at stuff?
Peregrine wrote: Yep, it's a stupid rule and part of the ridiculous homogenization of 40k. Why have an element that adds strategic depth when you can simplify it away in favor of mindlessly throwing dice at stuff?
Peregrine wrote: Yep, it's a stupid rule and part of the ridiculous homogenization of 40k. Why have an element that adds strategic depth when you can simplify it away in favor of mindlessly throwing dice at stuff?
Honestly I kind of get this. I don't see the strategy in having a model that would screw you over with firing arcs, like the LandRaider when if you think about it.. the tank crew could just pivot it to make another shot very quickly. Least in my head they could.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I kind of get this. I don't see the strategy in having a model that would screw you over with firing arcs, like the LandRaider when if you think about it.. the tank crew could just pivot it to make another shot very quickly. Least in my head they could.
In the short timeframe turn represents? They don't spin instantly.
I think it's a worthwhile trade. The firing arc rules were often very clunky and, on some models at least, quite difficult to apply properly. I still don't know how you figure out the arc of a Gauss Flayer Array!
I think the new method is fine. It removes a little of the planning required to use vehicles but it cleans up some grey areas. I'm OK with that trade-off.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I kind of get this. I don't see the strategy in having a model that would screw you over with firing arcs, like the LandRaider when if you think about it.. the tank crew could just pivot it to make another shot very quickly. Least in my head they could.
In the short timeframe turn represents? They don't spin instantly.
I would also add that regardless of timescale a turn represents, it has little bearing on why said lascannons would be eminating from the raiders comms antenna.
I'm going to keep using them on my models, but that is simply for immersion's sake. The EXACT same reason my infantry models face what I am targeting.
As it stands, I don't care in the slightest about the change to vehicles in these regards. Facing on a vehicle doesn't need to exist in a large scale game, all it does is penalise them unnecessarily.
You lost the need to get behind vehicles in order to get a better shot at them meaning you have less tactical reasons for movement. However, you have to move in the exact same way to be able to target characters who are empowering other units in the army due to their new rules.
So you have the tactical movement requirements you want, it is just being necessitated by a different unit than what was previously targeted.
As for the split fire rule, if you could choose which weapon after seeing the results of the last I would agree with you. However you choose targets first.
So if "missile launcher goes here, bolters go there." takes a little more time than "missile launcher goes here, bolters stand around." and also gives a more enjoyable experience to the controlling player, then I am perfectly fine with that.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I kind of get this. I don't see the strategy in having a model that would screw you over with firing arcs, like the LandRaider when if you think about it.. the tank crew could just pivot it to make another shot very quickly. Least in my head they could.
In the short timeframe turn represents? They don't spin instantly.
Slipspace wrote: I think it's a worthwhile trade. The firing arc rules were often very clunky and, on some models at least, quite difficult to apply properly. I still don't know how you figure out the arc of a Gauss Flayer Array!
I think the new method is fine. It removes a little of the planning required to use vehicles but it cleans up some grey areas. I'm OK with that trade-off.
Underestand friend, the ramifications go way past vehicles, this is literally what you're ok with:
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I kind of get this. I don't see the strategy in having a model that would screw you over with firing arcs, like the LandRaider when if you think about it.. the tank crew could just pivot it to make another shot very quickly. Least in my head they could.
In the short timeframe turn represents? They don't spin instantly.
Speak for yourself! My Land Raider's crew practically make the thing break dance It's amazing how fast a tank that weights 72 tonnes can spin about!
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Honestly I kind of get this. I don't see the strategy in having a model that would screw you over with firing arcs, like the LandRaider when if you think about it.. the tank crew could just pivot it to make another shot very quickly. Least in my head they could.
In the short timeframe turn represents? They don't spin instantly.
So? This is a game, not a simulation
Ah yes... We'll see how you like it when your opponents move those Land Raiders sideways to block LOS to their marines and still shoot all their weapons at you.
I'm seeing this as an abstraction of simultaneous events during the vehicle's turn.
It's moving and firing at the same time.
So yeah, those targets out of the firing arc when the model stops? Might have been in the firing arc during movement.
I'm welcoming the change.
And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.
Hanskrampf wrote: And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.
I didn't know there was a rule blocking the use of two sponson weapons in the same turn.
They wanted to balance the points cost? Make units that don't have to deal with weapon firing arcs more expensive to cover for their heightened maneuverability. Simple.
So a ghost ark with two flayer arrays can target one unit with both arrays? Or better yet, my monolith can target one unit with every gun?
I cant see why they just make it TLOS from the gun barrel. It was a tad confusing before with all the different mount types, but it wasn't that bad once you got your head around it.
No big loss tbh. It only really effects vehicles with side sponsons anyway and even then it only effected one at a time. Certain armies like SoB or Tau already completely ignored those rules because 360 turrets did.
Hell an exorcist could be completely obscured and still shoot at you without so much as an intervening save.
Hanskrampf wrote: And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.
I didn't know there was a rule blocking the use of two sponson weapons in the same turn.
They wanted to balance the points cost? Make units that don't have to deal with weapon firing arcs more expensive to cover for their heightened maneuverability. Simple.
Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Hanskrampf wrote: And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.
I didn't know there was a rule blocking the use of two sponson weapons in the same turn.
They wanted to balance the points cost? Make units that don't have to deal with weapon firing arcs more expensive to cover for their heightened maneuverability. Simple.
Cool, how much more expensive should a razorback be than a land raider? Monolith versus Hammerhead? Ghost ark vs battlewagon? What about side sponsons? The second one is clearly worse than the first so how much do they cost? A hull mounted weapon gets worse with every additional sponson how does that wprk.You should be able to tell because it's so simple right?
Points balancing like that was 'technically possible' sure but in no way would it be simple.
Hanskrampf wrote: Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Plenty of times. I mean, Land Raider sponsons even have a pretty big overlap arc in the middle compared to LRBT sponsons. The only restriction was that you had to come out from behind cover and point your tank straight at the target, potentially making it more vulnerable to return fire. Now you just poke one tiny corner out from behind a solid wall and get to fire all of your guns, and there's no more tradeoff between defense and offense.
Hanskrampf wrote: Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Plenty of times. I mean, Land Raider sponsons even have a pretty big overlap arc in the middle compared to LRBT sponsons. The only restriction was that you had to come out from behind cover and point your tank straight at the target, potentially making it more vulnerable to return fire. Now you just poke one tiny corner out from behind a solid wall and get to fire all of your guns, and there's no more tradeoff between defense and offense.
You said it yourself, what about the LRBT? Or worse, the Land Raider Terminus Ultra?
Which panel do you use for the weapon placement on Land Raiders and when does it become modelling for advantage?
Hanskrampf wrote: Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Plenty of times. I mean, Land Raider sponsons even have a pretty big overlap arc in the middle compared to LRBT sponsons. The only restriction was that you had to come out from behind cover and point your tank straight at the target, potentially making it more vulnerable to return fire. Now you just poke one tiny corner out from behind a solid wall and get to fire all of your guns, and there's no more tradeoff between defense and offense.
Hmm, what does this mean for vehicles like the Stormlord now? It normally has a heavy stubber on each side in the rear. Does this mean they fire out the front like the rest of the weapons? Interesting...
Hanskrampf wrote: I'm seeing this as an abstraction of simultaneous events during the vehicle's turn.
It's moving and firing at the same time.
So yeah, those targets out of the firing arc when the model stops? Might have been in the firing arc during movement.
I'm welcoming the change.
And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.
Game is clearly not working on the principle of simultaneous action so that's flawed idea.
And land raiders could use them before. And if that wasn't case it's not like it can't be compensated.
... are we really pretending we're worried about realism in a game here 8 foot tall dudes in plate armor rush at guys with jet packs while weilding chain saw swords one one of the oldest most venerable units guys?
Ah yes... We'll see how you like it when your opponents move those Land Raiders sideways to block LOS to their marines and still shoot all their weapons at you.
Will like it just fine. You make the faulty assumption that everyone that doesn't agree with you still agrees with you. It's really weird.
Hmm, what does this mean for vehicles like the Stormlord now? It normally has a heavy stubber on each side in the rear. Does this mean they fire out the front like the rest of the weapons? Interesting...
Yes. You shoot from any point from the vehicle. You have 1mm sticking from behind wall that's valid point to shoot every gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: ... are we really pretending we're worried about realism in a game here 8 foot tall dudes in plate armor rush at guys with jet packs while weilding chain saw swords one one of the oldest most venerable units guys?
And once more another who assumes make sense and realism are linked together.
Newsflash: You can have world with flying dragons, wizards and so on AND STILL MAKE SENSE.
What about it? You have to choose between defense and firepower, and sometimes you don't get to use all of your sponsons (or even any of your sponsons) if you want to sit behind cover with your AV 14 pointed at the biggest threat. I don't see what the problem is.
Also, the LRBTdidn't pay full price for its sponson guns.
What about it? You have to choose between defense and firepower, and sometimes you don't get to use all of your sponsons (or even any of your sponsons) if you want to sit behind cover with your AV 14 pointed at the biggest threat. I don't see what the problem is.
Also, the LRBTdidn't pay full price for its sponson guns.
Ah yes... We'll see how you like it when your opponents move those Land Raiders sideways to block LOS to their marines and still shoot all their weapons at you.
Will like it just fine. You make the faulty assumption that everyone that doesn't agree with you still agrees with you. It's really weird.
I am sorry, who is speaking on someone else's behalf here? Could it be you aswell?
Ah yes... We'll see how you like it when your opponents move those Land Raiders sideways to block LOS to their marines and still shoot all their weapons at you.
Will like it just fine. You make the faulty assumption that everyone that doesn't agree with you still agrees with you. It's really weird.
I am sorry, who is speaking on someone else's behalf here? Could it be you aswell?
Pot, meet kettle.
Wait what? I never said you were speaking on anyone's behalf. What are you reading? It sure as hell isn't my text.
Hanskrampf wrote: And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.
I didn't know there was a rule blocking the use of two sponson weapons in the same turn.
They wanted to balance the points cost? Make units that don't have to deal with weapon firing arcs more expensive to cover for their heightened maneuverability. Simple.
Cool, how much more expensive should a razorback be than a land raider? Monolith versus Hammerhead? Ghost ark vs battlewagon? What about side sponsons? The second one is clearly worse than the first so how much do they cost? A hull mounted weapon gets worse with every additional sponson how does that wprk.You should be able to tell because it's so simple right?
All those examples? That's smoke and Mirrors - the method with which you address this balance is simple, no matter how much dust you use to cover it.
I don't need to give you a detailed points difference for each vehicle for you to understand this - stop being disingenuous.
What about it? You have to choose between defense and firepower, and sometimes you don't get to use all of your sponsons (or even any of your sponsons) if you want to sit behind cover with your AV 14 pointed at the biggest threat. I don't see what the problem is.
Also, the LRBTdidn't pay full price for its sponson guns.
Or worse, the Land Raider Terminus Ultra?
Apocalypse-only unit. Apocalypse does not matter.
...... that hasn't been a thing for two editions now. the Terminus Ultra is a valid Lord of War in 8th edition. (Ultramarines only though, which is dissappointing)
Regardless of nitpicking over one specific unit the general trend is that most units with sponsons were able to use both of them at the same time. And even if you couldn't use both of them simultaneously buying coverage for both sides has value. This whole argument seems like little more than "this one time I didn't get to shoot with all of my guns, so make my unit better".
1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.
2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.
It makes LESS sense to have fixed firing arcs that only take into account where the vehicle ended it's move instead of assuming that the tank was driving and shooting all along.
Lance845 wrote: 1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.
But somehow this abstraction doesn't apply to other situations. For example, if you move between two pieces of LOS-blocking terrain I should be able to shoot you while you're in the gap. But there's no point where I can shoot you as long as you end your move in a safe position. So yes, it may not be 100% realistic that vehicles had fixed arcs based on the end point of their move, but at least it was consistent with the rest of the game.
2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.
This argument fails because you don't lose movement distance for this hypothetical turning around. Nor do you have to be able to shoot at a target at any point, a tank sitting still behind an impassible wall with only the tip of a single antenna poking out can still shoot with all of its guns.
Lance845 wrote: 1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.
2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.
It makes LESS sense to have fixed firing arcs that only take into account where the vehicle ended it's move instead of assuming that the tank was driving and shooting all along.
If we are to assume events happen simultaneously why o why are there rules that are so clearly non-simultaneous? The idea that it works because it's simultaneous action is flawed one.
Peregrine wrote: Regardless of nitpicking over one specific unit the general trend is that most units with sponsons were able to use both of them at the same time. And even if you couldn't use both of them simultaneously buying coverage for both sides has value. This whole argument seems like little more than "this one time I didn't get to shoot with all of my guns, so make my unit better".
Regardless, GW doesn't see it like you.
Your whole argument is basically, "It's always trading in cover for offensive power".
Which isn't always the case.
I made my case why I think it's a good thing, you made yours.
Lance845 wrote: 1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.
2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.
It makes LESS sense to have fixed firing arcs that only take into account where the vehicle ended it's move instead of assuming that the tank was driving and shooting all along.
If we are to assume events happen simultaneously why o why are there rules that are so clearly non-simultaneous? The idea that it works because it's simultaneous action is flawed one.
Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.
Hanskrampf wrote: Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.
GW doesn't consider events happening simultaneously so trying to argue lack of arcs on the idea they are happening simultaneously with moving is flawed and false.
Hanskrampf wrote: Because the game is an abstraction of events. Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.
GW doesn't consider events happening simultaneously so trying to argue lack of arcs on the idea they are happening simultaneously with moving is flawed and false.
Why? The lack of fire arcs are a good pointer that they might be seeing it this way.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: I interpreted it to mean if the vehicle can get normal LOS then have at it hoss.
What is "normal LOS"? AFAIK there is only LOS, not different tiers of it.
Right now the best argument RAI is at least having to measure distance from somewhere on the weapon currently firing. And even that involves interpretation and inference.
ERJAK wrote: No big loss tbh. It only really effects vehicles with side sponsons anyway and even then it only effected one at a time. Certain armies like SoB or Tau already completely ignored those rules because 360 turrets did.
Hell an exorcist could be completely obscured and still shoot at you without so much as an intervening save.
I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.
Have we seen all of the advanced rules?
Demolisher Cannons shooting out of the side of a vindicator annoyed me, it didnt annoy me as much as Riptides, Tau'nars, Stormsurges, Dreadknights and Wraithknights did under the old rules. You know, piloted vehicles that somehow counted as vehicles rather than vehicles. Especially since most of thrm have the vehicle tag now!
Crazyterran wrote: I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.
No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.
Demolisher Cannons shooting out of the side of a vindicator annoyed me, it didnt annoy me as much as Riptides, Tau'nars, Stormsurges, Dreadknights and Wraithknights did under the old rules. You know, piloted vehicles that somehow counted as vehicles rather than vehicles. Especially since most of thrm have the vehicle tag now!
Yes, Riptides and similar should have been vehicles, but that has nothing to do with the subject of fire arcs.
Hanskrampf wrote: Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.
GW doesn't consider events happening simultaneously so trying to argue lack of arcs on the idea they are happening simultaneously with moving is flawed and false.
Why?
The lack of fire arcs are a good pointer that they might be seeing it this way.
Overwatch, above mentioned model moving between 2 LOS blockers safely are just 2 examples.
Sorry. Game doesn't operate on simultaneous action idea.
Crazyterran wrote: I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.
No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.
That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.
Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.
Slipspace wrote: One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.
I emphatically and wholeheartedly agree. As with all problems, solution can only be identified after the problem is acknowledged. You've already got people shooting the messenger over this revelation in the main rumor thread. As if a doctor informing a patient of cancer is tantamount to causing the cancer.
They probably didn't need to lose vehicle fire arcs now that they have split fire on everything. Split fire would have made it easier to have all vehicle weapons firing at something at least.
I'm not too sorry to see them gone though, if just to even up vehicles with MCs and the like and to speed up the game.
Just a though, would a workable alternative rule be for the centre of your model to be able to draw a line to the target to shoot? It did irritate me somewhat when I had a squad of outflanking bikers blown away because a riptide's FOOT could see them :(
Crazyterran wrote: I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.
No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.
That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.
Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.
No it's not equal. You are assuming unit vs unit in vacuum. Howabout unit vs 2 units? With this you can expose yourself JUST enough to fire at one unit blocking other unit from firing back.
Crazyterran wrote: I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.
No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.
That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.
Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.
No it's not equal. You are assuming unit vs unit in vacuum. Howabout unit vs 2 units? With this you can expose yourself JUST enough to fire at one unit blocking other unit from firing back.
And your enemy can do the same to you. Not to mention that is a highly unlikely situation where you can find some cover that shows you just enough that you can fire at one unit, and the second unit can't see you at all, even after manouvering into position. It's completely equal.
Ach...I feel the pain of loss of firing arcs. Why? I like my tanks. I like my tanks to behave as tanks. Units like the riptide were powerful because instead of being vehicles they were MC, so GW decided they needed to double down on that rule to fix the breaks that it caused. I had hoped my tanks would have become more tankie, not less with 8th ed. Alas my tanks are now more like Godzilla than a bunch of dudes in a steel container. Facing and fire arcs are part of what made vehicles feel like vehicles. I guess I now longer have to dream of painting "front towards enemy" on my demolishers dozer blades.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Ach...I feel the pain of loss of firing arcs. Why? I like my tanks. I like my tanks to behave as tanks. Units like the riptide were powerful because instead of being vehicles they were MC, so GW decided they needed to double down on that rule to fix the breaks that it caused. I had hoped my tanks would have become more tankie, not less with 8th ed. Alas my tanks are now more like Godzilla than a bunch of dudes in a steel container. Facing and fire arcs are part of what made vehicles feel like vehicles. I guess I now longer have to dream of painting "front towards enemy" on my demolishers dozer blades.
I guess you could always paint "front is irrelevant" (not tryin to be crual, I feel your pain)
Insurgency Walker wrote: Ach...I feel the pain of loss of firing arcs. Why? I like my tanks. I like my tanks to behave as tanks. Units like the riptide were powerful because instead of being vehicles they were MC, so GW decided they needed to double down on that rule to fix the breaks that it caused. I had hoped my tanks would have become more tankie, not less with 8th ed. Alas my tanks are now more like Godzilla than a bunch of dudes in a steel container. Facing and fire arcs are part of what made vehicles feel like vehicles. I guess I now longer have to dream of painting "front towards enemy" on my demolishers dozer blades.
I guess you could always paint "front is irrelevant" (not tryin to be crual, I feel your pain)
I like that!
I guess the silver lining is that light vehicles may become useful again. Charge of the salamanders! Oh wait, I bet FW will not update the rules for them as they no longer produce them.
Crazyterran wrote: I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.
No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.
That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.
Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.
No it's not equal. You are assuming unit vs unit in vacuum. Howabout unit vs 2 units? With this you can expose yourself JUST enough to fire at one unit blocking other unit from firing back.
But what if instead of 2v1 it was actually 2v3? My God, then it wouldn't be equal, but in the other direction! I assume nothing.
I really don't get how this is a difficult concept to grasp - both players have access to the same set of rules and tactical concepts so in this case the overall effect of the rules doesn't favour one player over another. If one player can use it more to their advantage than another that sounds like good tactical play to me.
Peregrine wrote: Regardless of nitpicking over one specific unit the general trend is that most units with sponsons were able to use both of them at the same time. And even if you couldn't use both of them simultaneously buying coverage for both sides has value. This whole argument seems like little more than "this one time I didn't get to shoot with all of my guns, so make my unit better".
Also, the sponsons are MEANT to be limited. There is a reason why few real world tanks used sponsons (and none today). They're just not that good. Only problem with sponsons was that they were sometimes priced too high, as if they were a turret weapon (which is much more flexible).
One thing which was good in the old system was that tanks might lose entire weapons, with rest of the tank remaining fully operational. This was both realistic, and gave you interesting challenges. Oh crap, your Leman Russ Battlecannon was destroyed. Good thing I still have Heavy Bolter sponsons! Now I only have to move closer and play the tank much more aggressively than before. Fortunetely I did buy those extra weapons, otherwise my tank would be useless!
By contrast, in 8th edition, none of that happens. The tank shoots exactly like before, just slightly worse. A damage progression which happens in same fashion in every single game you play. It is just so BORING.
I really don't get how this is a difficult concept to grasp - both players have access to the same set of rules and tactical concepts so in this case the overall effect of the rules doesn't favour one player over another. If one player can use it more to their advantage than another that sounds like good tactical play to me.
"Tactical play" is not same thing as "abusing holes in the ruleset". Rhino sniping and diversificated wound allocation were 'tactics' available for both players. They were still stupid, and took away from the realism and entertainment value of the game.
It says you shoot from a weapon that the model can see with.
Land raider las cannons cannot see thru the body of the tank.
Those of you insisting it works otherwise are going to be sorely disappointed with a faq.
Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.
Really? Because in the photo of rules I have read it says unit, not weapon. I guess that is the issue with working from leaks. Do you have acces to the full rules?
Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.
They really don't though, they just need to be in range, which for some reason is measure from the base or hull. I have the rulebook FYI so find the polite setting on your interactions menu please.
Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.
They really don't though, they just need to be in range, which for some reason is measure from the base or hull. I have the rulebook FYI so find the polite setting on your interactions menu please.
In what I am looking at, it states,
range is measured from the weapon being used... and be visible to the shooting model... For the purposes of determining visibility a model can see through other models in the same unit.
So a strange mix there, at max range from center of model, the close sponson weapon can fire, the far one cannot. At max range-model width everything can shoot...
Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?
I get the weirdness issues as illustrated above, but when every other unit type in the game can do that, there's no good balance reason not to allow vehicles to do so as well, and cutting it out also means you can make the rules simpler to boot.
If people want fire arcs, armor facings, etc, then we need to be playing a different, smaller scale of game with such facing and arc attributes applying to far more unit tupes. As is, with the game 40k is, while visually weird, I'm fine with this change.
Vaktathi wrote: Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?
I get the weirdness issues as illustrated above, but when every other unit type in the game can do that, there's no good balance reason not to allow vehicles to do so as well, and cutting it out also means you can make the rules simpler to boot.
If people want fire arcs, armor facings, etc, then we need to be playing a different, smaller scale of game with such facing and arc attributes applying to far more unit tupes. As is, with the game 40k is, while visually weird, I'm fine with this change.
Some folk have serious psychological issues related to their immersion.
If a MC takes a few seconds to scoot ahead, crouch down and twist, that's perfectly acceptable.
If a vehicle takes a few seconds to drive forward, turn and drive back the world ends.
It's not based upon anything rational. In both cases a finite amount of time occurs. In many cases a 41st millennium vehicle could do this faster than the MC, but the deniers will never, EVER, accept this.
Im happy they're gone, they made sense but were the source of many minor arguments. I'd still like front and rear arcs at least, but I'd like those on all monsters and vehicles, not just vehicles.
To be more complete, I see a battle of 40k taking a good part of a day. So each turn is about an hour. Each phase is about 15 minutes. Obviously turns and phases are truly simultaneous; but in the game we abstract this, and that's OK.
If you have 15 minutes to take 1 shot, you could definitely position your tank to do so and retreat back to cover.
If the entire battle is literally 60 seconds, then no, a tank as it appears on the table is really where it is at that instant, with it's firing arcs and facings.
But I see the game as a tactical exercise, not a game of marksmanship. Did I position the troops correctly? Did I give the tank commanders the right orders? Can my forces coordinate and aid each other? It's not a FPS.
It does look like you're still going to have to measure line of sight per-weapon, so technically speaking arcs aren't really gone, they've just gotten a bit wider (or a lot wider, in some cases).
Though that does raise an interesting question about the Shadowsword's cannon. It can technically get LoS to the rear by elevating the barrel, but it's in a welded housing, not turreted, so it technically shouldn't be able to turn around.
That's quite an edge case though. Why would your Shadowsword not be facing its target when you can turn it freely in the movement phase anyway?
Edit:
Oh, if it can see through models in the same unit I guess that means it can see through itself. Well, that works I guess.
I miss firing arcs and armor facing, but since MCs work the same way im fine with abstraction. I will think youre an *** for advancing your tanks sideways and firing with everything though.
Btw. Not counting antennae, banners or MC wings at part of model.
JimOnMars wrote: But I see the game as a tactical exercise, not a game of marksmanship. Did I position the troops correctly? Did I give the tank commanders the right orders? Can my forces coordinate and aid each other? It's not a FPS.
This is why vehicle facings and firing arcs were important. It made the game a tactical exercise of positioning your tanks and finding the best tradeoff between maximizing your shooting and keeping your tanks behind cover with their front arcs pointed at the biggest threats. And it made countering tanks a tactical exercise of trying to flank the tanks and hit them from their weaker sides, both in arc coverage and AV. Now there's less of that tactical exercise involved, you hide your tanks except for 0.000001" poking out from behind cover to shoot at the enemy, and there's no reason to reposition your anti-tank units once you can see that 0.000001".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?
Who said we weren't bothered by those things? For example, I think the 6th-7th edition rules for artillery were incredibly stupid and artillery never should have had 360* shooting. They should have stayed as immobile vehicles with 45* hull-mount arcs. Poor handling of one part of the game doesn't excuse poor handling of other parts.
JimOnMars wrote: To be more complete, I see a battle of 40k taking a good part of a day. So each turn is about an hour. Each phase is about 15 minutes. Obviously turns and phases are truly simultaneous; but in the game we abstract this, and that's OK.
That makes no sense with movement distances. Each turn in 40k is indisputably a few seconds, maybe 30 seconds to a minute at most.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: I will think youre an *** for advancing your tanks sideways and firing with everything though.
IOW, "how dare you play by the actual rules of the game instead of my personal unwritten rules about how the game is 'meant to be played'". No thanks.
Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
For the example of the landraider shooting its lascaonons out of the antennae, it's an abstraction. As far as the game is concerned, It's not shooting out of any particular point anymore. Can the landraider see the target? Yes. Then it can fire at it. Can the opponent see the landraider? Yes, but it's obscured and so gets a cover bonus (Though I'd doublecheck the rules for disregarding bits like wings, banners, or antennae). That's all the game system cares about. You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.
8th is more like a tabletop version of command and conquer in terms of its systems.
Units have health pools and they shoot at each other if they can see them. Nice and simple. The tactical depth comes from choosing who shoots at what, and how combinations of units interact with each other moreso than creating a realistic simulation of battlefield maneuvering/positioning/line of sight. These things are still there to a degree, but they're much more streamlined and binary to allow for some extra variables in the systems, but not be a pain in the ass like they were in 7th (Heldrake anyone?).
Can a unit see its target? Yes/No
Is it in cover? Yes/No
Is it in range? Yes/No
Vaktathi wrote: Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?
Who said we weren't bothered by those things? For example, I think the 6th-7th edition rules for artillery were incredibly stupid and artillery never should have had 360* shooting. They should have stayed as immobile vehicles with 45* hull-mount arcs. Poor handling of one part of the game doesn't excuse poor handling of other parts.
I dont recall such complaints, particularly on any widespread scale, except in relation to vehicles. I can't think of any instance in which MC's were decried as being "less tactical" because they didnt have facings and could shoot 360* around them, except in reference to how poorly vehicles performed.
I get the tactical aspects of facing, but the 40k of the last almost 20 years is simply ay the wrong scale for that to be appropriate, a company commander isnt going to be micromanaging the facings of individual tanks when there's a half dozen, dozen, or bakers dozen of 'em on the field (or more), and having facing only ever matter on vehicles but nothing else was wonky.
Vaktathi wrote: I can't think of any instance in which MC's were decried as being "less tactical" because they didnt have facings and could shoot 360* around them, except in reference to how poorly vehicles performed.
Really? Because I know that was a complaint, and one I definitely made.
JimOnMars wrote: But I see the game as a tactical exercise, not a game of marksmanship. Did I position the troops correctly? Did I give the tank commanders the right orders? Can my forces coordinate and aid each other? It's not a FPS.
This is why vehicle facings and firing arcs were important. It made the game a tactical exercise of positioning your tanks and finding the best tradeoff between maximizing your shooting and keeping your tanks behind cover with their front arcs pointed at the biggest threats. And it made countering tanks a tactical exercise of trying to flank the tanks and hit them from their weaker sides, both in arc coverage and AV. Now there's less of that tactical exercise involved, you hide your tanks except for 0.000001" poking out from behind cover to shoot at the enemy, and there's no reason to reposition your anti-tank units once you can see that 0.000001".
You are right, although when I said "tactical" I meant "operational," which seems to be the direction GW is going with the game.
McGibs wrote: You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.
Could the Land Raider "maneuver within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear" if that wall was just slightly taller and blocked the tip of the antenna? No. Therefore it is shooting out of the tip of the antenna.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JimOnMars wrote: You are right, although when I said "tactical" I meant "operational," which seems to be the direction GW is going with the game.
Not really, because GW is simplifying away strategy everywhere. Unit types are homogenized (flyers getting easier to hit, vehicles having infantry stat lines, etc), positioning and maneuvering are less important (turn-1 charges everywhere), and the game is generally being reduced to an exercise in mindless dice rolling. Vehicle facings aren't gone because of a high-level choice to focus on broad strategy over single-unit tactics, they're gone because GW wants to simplify the game for small children.
McGibs wrote: You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.
Could the Land Raider "maneuver within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear" if that wall was just slightly taller and blocked the tip of the antenna? No. Therefore it is shooting out of the tip of the antenna.
*shrug* all the game systems care about is it can see its target or not. Landraider cant see, so it's not going to take the shot. This whole thing works a whole lot better when you engage with it on a systemic level, rather than a simulation level. Like basically every game ever made. Explaining things as they are literally happening will eventually fall apart as you continue up the chain.
McGibs wrote: *shrug* all the game systems care about is it can see its target or not. Landraider cant see, so it's not going to take the shot.
Exactly, all the game cares about is if it can see its target or not, and whether it can see its target or not is determined by the tip of that antenna. All the talk of maneuvering for shots is irrelevant, the Land Raider is shooting out of that antenna tip.
This whole thing works a whole lot better when you engage with it on a systemic level, rather than a simulation level. Like basically every game ever made. Explaining things as they are literally happening will eventually fall apart as you continue up the chain.
This is incompatible with things like caring about whether a unit's sergeant is armed with a sword or an axe, or exactly which model in a unit is carrying the melta gun. Again, this is not a case of GW focusing on high-level strategy over simulation, it's GW being incompetent at writing rules for the simulation-style game they're trying to create.
No. The landraider is shooting.
There's no point at which its shooting out of, it just IS shooting.
The narrative point at where it's shooting out of is entirely up to you to figure out and entirely subjective. As far as the game system are concerned, the landraider is just shooting.
if the "firing by antenna" doesn't make sense, and I agree, agree not to, I know I'll not be using some silly things. I'll draw my LOS from the "hull" of my tanks.
McGibs wrote: Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
*snip*
Too early to tell if the mechanics are stronger. simplified, which in general is a good thing, yes but maybe not stronger.
I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
It's a simplification, and honestly not a terrible one.
Being able to shoot at anything probably represents the mobility of vehicles - they may shoot at things as they move and turn.
As for vehicle weapons needing line of sight, I don't think that's true either. All the rules say is a firing model, not weapons, need LoS.
This is probably best shown by flyers. if the guns on flyers that have minimum move values and fixed turn radius have to see their target, flyers are going to be almost entirely useless, as they can't fly off the table and reengage.
I personally always thought it was ridiculous that FMCs could fly over a target and shoot behind it, but if everyone can do it, I guess it's balanced.
I for one look forward to my death blossom attack from my obelisk, which is known for its agility and ability to spin like a top. Sarcasm by the way, it's fething stupid, but it appears to be RAW, which means we will have to put up with it until someone FAQs it. I imagine ti will be one of the more common house rules, LoS from weapons not model, and torso or legs or main body for Line of sight instead of shooting someone in a dangling purity seal.
McGibs wrote: Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
For the example of the landraider shooting its lascaonons out of the antennae, it's an abstraction. As far as the game is concerned, It's not shooting out of any particular point anymore. Can the landraider see the target? Yes. Then it can fire at it. Can the opponent see the landraider? Yes, but it's obscured and so gets a cover bonus (Though I'd doublecheck the rules for disregarding bits like wings, banners, or antennae). That's all the game system cares about. You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.
8th is more like a tabletop version of command and conquer in terms of its systems.
Yes, exactly, and this is the problem. I don't like those games. Despite their real-timeness, they usually are not even remotely realistic or believable as military simulations. I like to play Combat Mission, or Close Combat, or Steel Panthers. 40k of old was closer to those games, now it is closer to Red Alert.
McGibs wrote: No. The landraider is shooting.
There's no point at which its shooting out of, it just IS shooting.
The narrative point at where it's shooting out of is entirely up to you to figure out and entirely subjective. As far as the game system are concerned, the landraider is just shooting.
Obviously that's what's happening from a pure rules point of view, but the rules are supposed to be representing what is happening in the "real" battle. Saying "there are no rules for where it shoots from" is just highlighting the problem, there should be rules requiring the model to shoot from its weapons and not count the tip of an antenna poking out above a wall to be "having LOS to a target".
Vehicle facings didn't matter since 6th edition when they got hull points and became the most fragile units in the game ironically. Yes, the rear armour counted sometimes when you attacked Necrons in CC, but those were outliers.
Positioning of vehicles? You can pivot and turn your vehicle as you like in 7th, fire arcs hardly matter already aside from a sponson now and then or the Monolith.
I wonder if the same people that argue about vehicles shooting through their hull argue about infantry firing through their comrades. Never saw a complaint about that - the game is an abstraction after all.
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
That in of itself is a sign of a weak game system, One that breaks easily and needs repair.
McGibs wrote: Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
For the example of the landraider shooting its lascaonons out of the antennae, it's an abstraction. As far as the game is concerned, It's not shooting out of any particular point anymore. Can the landraider see the target? Yes. Then it can fire at it. Can the opponent see the landraider? Yes, but it's obscured and so gets a cover bonus (Though I'd doublecheck the rules for disregarding bits like wings, banners, or antennae). That's all the game system cares about. You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.
8th is more like a tabletop version of command and conquer in terms of its systems.
Yes, exactly, and this is the problem. I don't like those games. Despite their real-timeness, they usually are not even remotely realistic or believable as military simulations. I like to play Combat Mission, or Close Combat, or Steel Panthers. 40k of old was closer to those games, now it is closer to Red Alert.
Then this is a different argument of personal taste, and not an argument of poor game design. 8th seems pretty deliberate as to the things it wants to be, and its perfectly okay to not like those. I wish chess had cover mechanics in it, but that's not the type of game it is, and I'm not going to deride it for poor game design because of that.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Vehicle facings didn't matter since 6th edition when they got hull points and became the most fragile units in the game ironically. Yes, the rear armour counted sometimes when you attacked Necrons in CC, but those were outliers.
Positioning of vehicles? You can pivot and turn your vehicle as you like in 7th, fire arcs hardly matter already aside from a sponson now and then or the Monolith.
I wonder if the same people that argue about vehicles shooting through their hull argue about infantry firing through their comrades. Never saw a complaint about that - the game is an abstraction after all.
McGibs wrote: Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
For the example of the landraider shooting its lascaonons out of the antennae, it's an abstraction. As far as the game is concerned, It's not shooting out of any particular point anymore. Can the landraider see the target? Yes. Then it can fire at it. Can the opponent see the landraider? Yes, but it's obscured and so gets a cover bonus (Though I'd doublecheck the rules for disregarding bits like wings, banners, or antennae). That's all the game system cares about. You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.
8th is more like a tabletop version of command and conquer in terms of its systems.
Yes, exactly, and this is the problem. I don't like those games. Despite their real-timeness, they usually are not even remotely realistic or believable as military simulations. I like to play Combat Mission, or Close Combat, or Steel Panthers. 40k of old was closer to those games, now it is closer to Red Alert.
Then this is a different argument of personal taste, and not an argument of poor game design. 8th seems pretty deliberate as to the things it wants to be, and its perfectly okay to not like those. I wish chess had cover mechanics in it, but that's not the type of game it is, and I'm not going to deride it for poor game design because of that.
We can just pretend that vehicles, like infantry and MC's, are abstracted to a degree and the model's exact physical pose is thematic and not meant to be a literal representation of the exact orientation of the unit in time and space. Much as infantry can shoot "behind" themselves, why not tanks that should have no problem turning around in place to bring weapons to bear and then returning to a different orientation within the timespace of a round.
Antennas and ancillary stuff like that should be treated as the irrelevant bits they are, and not be used to draw LoS for shooting, but at the same time if infantry, bikes, MC's and Artillery can all shoot behind themselves, tanks should be allowed to do so as well.
If we were playing a game with no more than two dozen models on the board and only a couple of vehicles, ok, the scale would be such that facing makes sense, but when there's a hundred infantry and 15 tanks on the board, I'm ok with ditching facings.
Agreed with Vakthati. And I wouldn't be surprised if GW released a pseudo-5th edition at some point with all those details as one of their specialist games like they did with shadow war. But then that game will have the right scale for that, 40K right now with Grots, Nurglings, Hierophants, Thunderhawks on one table simply can't handle overly detailed vehicle rules, as was shown by 6th and 7th edition.
Though I agree that rules like split fire everything or the obliterator rules stand against the whole streamlining.
People really take their plastic cars and planes quite seriously here, don't they? Browsing these forums really makes you wonder if some of these people have fun while playing 40k or are just angry grumbling the entire time.
Of course there's an abstraction to a casual hobby about space men and aliens. This is a game were artillery guns are a mere football field away from guys fighting with swords and shields. Its meant to be a fun pastime, no sense in getting upset over silly minutia. Firing arcs just purposely made some vehicles worse for no reason. Look at how stupid knights were, with how they couldn't even shoot someone in front of them.
Have they leaked rules from the actual rule book yet? I only ask because the rules I've seen are from the quick start rules and GW has already said they are just a frame work designed to help people get models on the table quickly. As an example the fight subphase rules don't actually explain how wounds are allocated or how damage is determined. They list them as setups but the steps arent actually covered. They skip from make attacks to check morale.
For all we know the full rules still have the bit about decorative stuff not counting for line of sight.
Don't really care, although like a lot of the basic rules for AoS/40k 8th edition they're not meant to represent anything except absolute abstraction. It's a hard break from what many of us are used to where the rules are written to explain what's happening on the table. Now it's trying to explain what's happening on the table to justify the rules. Of the things that caused issues or slowdowns though this wasn't very high on the list, and works fine in other systems.
Then this is a different argument of personal taste, and not an argument of poor game design. 8th seems pretty deliberate as to the things it wants to be, and its perfectly okay to not like those. I wish chess had cover mechanics in it, but that's not the type of game it is, and I'm not going to deride it for poor game design because of that.
Well, this is like saying that St. Anger is not a bad Metallica album, just different and it's a matter of taste...
I think that I'm done with most of Dakkadakka. This is just one of many pointless salt filled threads and really it's just a bummer to be surrounded by this much negativity.
I'm gonna go have fun enjoying the game, you guys have fun screaming about how your little plastic space men aren't hyper realistic.
Many of these changes are designed to avoid disputes and make the game faster.
I actually like this. Flamers on tanks were the biggest joke on the planet. You had to be RIGHT on top of something to hit it, and even then, you're probably only hitting with 1 sponson.
Now, your land raider crusader can actually do something.
One thing, it has made the points for vehicle weapons much more balanced. If you have limited gun arcs, the bolter on a russ sponson is less useful than one in the turret of a chimera. With the unified weapon costs, these two guns really need to be of a similar use. Getting rid of weapon arcs helps this.
I think that the current system is fine. The one thing that comes to mind being weird is for vehicles with guns all pointing different directions, such as the Malcador Defender:
Spoiler:
This is a vehicle that is supposed to drive into the enemy and act like a pillbox, firing in all directions. It would be a bit weird if it could fire it's 5 bolters at the same target, spinning like a top. I guess I am ok with the new rules but I would much prefer to play with people who purposefully limited themselves from taking advantage of the edge case weirdness that some vehicles present. I know that I am in some cases. For instance, my tanks are going to point at what they shoot at, none of that "sideways for more cover" nonsense. I know it is a fault of the rules that it is even allowed, but we have to deal with what we have.
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
I can agree in the part about seeing the obvious holes and reporting them to GW. But abusing them?
When you encounter a bug in a system or a videogame you should report it to the manufacturer to be repared. But if you abuse it, you are gonna ve banned or receive other type of repercusion.
You don't play with GW when you play Warhammer, you play with random people or your friends. If you abuse those holes you aren't punishing 40k, you are making a bad experience for the people in the other side of the table.
If you play in a big competitive tournament with GW presence, then I can agree here to make a statement.
This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
Honest question, how many people willingly, like out side of a tournment, sit down for a second game of 40k with you?
Vaktathi wrote: We can just pretend that vehicles, like infantry and MC's, are abstracted to a degree and the model's exact physical pose is thematic and not meant to be a literal representation of the exact orientation of the unit in time and space.
Dang, I wish I could write a sentence like that. THIS.
Can someone show me where in the 8th edition rules line of sight can be draw from a vehicles extra bits?
Even though weapons have lost firing arcs, I'm under the assumption they still draw line of site from the vehicle's hull. Making the overly dramatized picture in the thread completely bunk (although humorous).
Is there definitive proof yet that rules of written says you can draw line of sight from ANY part of a vehicle, otherwise the people creating the hysteria in this thread really need to calm down their Yeah, that's not going to fly. - Lorek
takonite wrote: Can someone show me where in the 8th edition rules line of sight can be draw from a vehicles extra bits?
Shooting phase, page 179: 2. Choosing Targets. "...must be within range of the weapon being used... and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible."
No mention of different parts of models being excluded, or having to draw line of sight from or to any particular piece of a model.
Vaktathi wrote: We can just pretend that vehicles, like infantry and MC's, are abstracted to a degree and the model's exact physical pose is thematic and not meant to be a literal representation of the exact orientation of the unit in time and space.
That's a nice thought, but it directly conflicts with all the times when a model's exact pose does matter as a literal representation. For example, kneeling/prone models that can't shoot over a wall that they could easily see over if they were modeled in a standing position, drawing LOS to a model because you can see a tiny bit of antenna poking out from behind a building, etc. 8th is an awkward mess of trying to have it both ways, sometimes vehicle models are very literal representations, sometimes they're abstracted, and there's no consistency at all.
8th is an awkward mess of trying to have it both ways, sometimes vehicle models are very literal representations, sometimes they're abstracted, and there's no consistency at all.
So... if you have to stoop down behind a model to see what it can see, that means facing matters! Even for infantry, finally!
At least the guys looking back can now shoot at a different unit as they "watch their backs," if anything model placement and facing is much more strict if sponsons have to attack what can be seen in front of a model.
Except, as I said, it isn't always an abstraction. When you're drawing LOS you don't use some abstract volume of space that the model could be in, you look at the exact model down to 0.00000001" differences in pose/location. I notice you cut out the following sentences, where I gave some examples of the rules being extremely literal about a model's pose/position and not using that supposed abstraction. It's an inconsistent mess where abstraction vs. literalism goes back and forth depending on the exact rule, because nobody at GW seems to have any kind of overall concept for how it should work.
And nice "Exhibit A" remark for a pretty blatant rule #1 violation. I think it says something about the level of discussion that pointing out GW's inconsistency in game design is considered "{censored}".
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind losing true line-of-sight, as it would help with the consistency of abstraction and allow for cooler modelling options without incurring an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
Except, as I said, it isn't always an abstraction. When you're drawing LOS you don't use some abstract volume of space that the model could be in, you look at the exact model down to 0.00000001" differences in pose/location. I notice you cut out the following sentences, where I gave some examples of the rules being extremely literal about a model's pose/position and not using that supposed abstraction. It's an inconsistent mess where abstraction vs. literalism goes back and forth depending on the exact rule, because nobody at GW seems to have any kind of overall concept for how it should work.
I cut out sentences to emphasize hyperbole. Is it reaaally "a mess?" Do you really think "nobody at GW [has] any kind of concept for how it should work"?
Can you really not assume you don't draw line of sight from an antennae? Or give some "gentlemans leeway" for a crouched model? Just use some common sense.
And nice "Exhibit A" remark for a pretty blatant rule #1 violation. I think it says something about the level of discussion that pointing out GW's inconsistency in game design is considered "{censored}".
Feel free to point out inconsistencies. You can do that without hyperbole though.
SuspiciousSucculent wrote: To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind losing true line-of-sight, as it would help with the consistency of abstraction and allow for cooler modelling options without incurring an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
Yeah, I much prefer a system where models have a "size" and take up a given volume myself. That's something I could get behind. Though with the sheer variety of models in 40k these days, it is hard to do with anything except infantry models. Probably comes down to most vehicles being base-free for aesthetic reasons.
One of those hard things to reconcile. Using the model itself is a hell of a lot faster but can lead to a lot of weird edge cases due to how a thing is modeled. Using a volumetric system helps to make the various abstractions needed for minis games work, but they can be cumbersome to bring in to a game after the fact when there was little to no oversight in designing new minis to fit within such a system.
It's like in Infinity, where the Maghariba Guard mini is basically the only mini to use its specific silhouette profile. 40k is like that, but almost every vehicle would have its own unique profile because nothing was designed with a standardized system in mind.
I'd love a volumetric system, but at the end of the day, it isn't one of my dealbreakers either, just a piece of design I tend to prefer over using minis as objective position and pose representation pieces.
What hyperbole is there? I'm talking about examples from real games I've been involved in, where crouching/prone models couldn't see (or be seen) over low walls or LOS was drawn to some ridiculously tiny piece of a model that was just barely visible.
Is it reaaally "a mess?" Do you really think "nobody at GW [has] any kind of concept for how it should work"?
That's exactly what I think. I think GW's rule authors are incompetent, and have no overall plan for 40k. They just write rules impulsively based on what seems good, and the result is a lack of consistency in how things work across various parts of the game. Some pieces are heavily abstracted, some are completely literal, and there doesn't seem to be any pattern in the choices.
Can you really not assume you don't draw line of sight from an antennae? Or give some "gentlemans leeway" for a crouched model? Just use some common sense.
IOW, "the rules are fine, just ignore the rules and replace them with better rules". If you have to give "gentleman's leeway" to get a reasonable outcome then it's a concession that the rules as GW wrote them are not good.
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
I can agree in the part about seeing the obvious holes and reporting them to GW. But abusing them?
When you encounter a bug in a system or a videogame you should report it to the manufacturer to be repared. But if you abuse it, you are gonna ve banned or receive other type of repercusion.
You don't play with GW when you play Warhammer, you play with random people or your friends. If you abuse those holes you aren't punishing 40k, you are making a bad experience for the people in the other side of the table.
If you play in a big competitive tournament with GW presence, then I can agree here to make a statement.
Key word was visibly. Given GWs general history of lagging behind on fixing big issues, sometimes you have to start a fire to make them take notice.
So complaining about bad fire Arcs is one thing, but pointing out the flaw at a GT or a GW store, etc would be more prudent.
MagicJuggler wrote: I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?
Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.
Honest question, how many people willingly, like out side of a tournment, sit down for a second game of 40k with you?
I mentioned both of those examples because they were both examples of things that GW reacted to and fixed due to abuse (Wolf Guard Cyclonespam, or Purple Sun Scroll nuking).
If there's a single crouching/prone guy in a squad than drawing line of sight to and from the squad is the same as its always been. If its a full squad of guys crouching/prone then just call them out beforehand on modeling for advantage. Its really not that hard. Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with vehicle firing arcs. If the vehicle is behind a wall that he 100% cannot see other models from then it cannot fire at other models. If you let people get away with shooting when they're 100% behind walls then idk what to tell ya.
Sounds like a non-issue if you ask me.
edit: if someone actually measured from their antennae I'm positive anyone you asked in the store would call them an idiot for trying to do that. Its not going to be the new meta to maximize distance.
I think GW's rule authors are incompetent, and have no overall plan for 40k. They just write rules impulsively based on what seems good, and the result is a lack of consistency in how things work across various parts of the game. Some pieces are heavily abstracted, some are completely literal, and there doesn't seem to be any pattern in the choices.
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep. All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly. It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
While I can see the problem, I can't lie that I prefer this system because it eliminates some obnoxious edge cases that a number of people argued in order to deny an advantage to an opponent. For instance, the Obelisk and Tesseract Vault Tesla Sphere firing arc issue. Going off the idea of them being fixed hull weapons, it's entirely possible that the model could not actually hit any ground models at all outside of the very extreme of the weapon's range.
It also helps balance weapon costs as you know how many weapons on the model will be effective - all of them - and it also helps to even out some weird designs where guns were set very low on the vehicle and would not be able to fire over even small obstructions or friendly models. While it's not as useful in terms of simulation, it helps with modeling and also allows GW to design crazier looking units without worrying about if the firing arcs are actually realistic.
I expect the final ruling when FAQs are released will be 'From the Hull' as many of the rules referencing skimmers and fliers state that LOS must be drawn from the hull.of the model despite it having a base.
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep. All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly. It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
So basically what you are saying is that everybody has been brainwashed by decades of GW's bad rulewritting to believe that theres only one way to fix a rule... to defend that the only way to do this rule-system is the one you find appropiate?
Hmmm...
We can try to paint our vision in this form of rule-writting as the only logical and possible one. And that every other are wrong, lazy, overcomplicated or over shallow...
Or we can agree that different folks have different expectations of the game they play, and that every solution has his upsides and is downsides.
But what can I know. Afterall, I feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep. All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly. It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
So basically what you are saying is that everybody has been brainwashed by decades of GW's bad rulewritting to believe that theres only one way to fix a rule... to defend that the only way to do this rule is the one you find appropiate?
Hmmm...
Nice strawman.
Did I say everybody is brainwashed? You might want to read that again.
Did I say my way is the only way? Read my response again and find where I said that.
No, you are saying that everybody that defend this change is because they have been brainwhased by GW. Obviously, not the ones that think like you.
You even go to say that the same that defend this now are people that defended some gak changes in 6th edition. Don't try to hide behind a false acusation of Strawman. Thats exactly what you where saying.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
Galas wrote: No, you are saying that everybody that defend this change is because they have been brainwhased by GW. Obviously, not the ones that think like you.
You even go to say that the same that defend this now are people that defended some gak changes in 6th edition. Don't try to hide behind a false acusation of Strawman. Thats exactly what you where saying.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
This are your words, not mine.
Show me where I said everybody thinks this way.
I said people do this, but I didn't mean everyone. This thread alone should give reason enough for that. Sorry for the confusion.
If you want TLOS and weapons - just say to your opponent;
"hey, you mind if we use tlos from the weapons, and you have to see the body of the target?"
I shouldn't have to ask my opponent to accept a house rule to have functioning rules. The rules we're paying GW to write should function right out of the box, and the fact that you can fix GW's mistakes with house rules doesn't negate the fact that they are bad rules.
Galas wrote: No, you are saying that everybody that defend this change is because they have been brainwhased by GW. Obviously, not the ones that think like you.
You even go to say that the same that defend this now are people that defended some gak changes in 6th edition. Don't try to hide behind a false acusation of Strawman. Thats exactly what you where saying.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is
This are your words, not mine.
Show me where I said everybody thinks this way.
I said people do this, but I didn't mean everyone. This thread alone should give reason enough for that. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. Sorry if I have come as more hostile than intended. But is easy to be heated in a internet debate about plastic toys that cost hundreds of dollars
No doubt, Galas! My apologies as well. I have lots of soldiers of my own and I want what's best for them! And I do want GW to right the ship so we have many more goodies for years to come.
No more firing points on so many vehicles is a pretty huge change too. Now, I'm a big fan of hiding in my metal boxes, drive by shooting till my ride is over too, but forcing units to come out once in a while is gonna be real fun in the future.
This also finally gives open topped vehicles the boon they needed now that everything can be an assault vehicle.
amanita wrote: This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.
This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
No, the principle is exactly the same. Replacing what can be tactical and intuitive for something bland for no other reason than laziness and perceived balance. It's a friggin' cop-out.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc.
Are facings so bad that they were the worst thing ever? Of course not, but they were something GW never got really right in any edition and always had problems with.
Was 5th Ed. horribly over-complicated and unbalanced? No, the real imbalance occurred when different writers kept trying to one-up each other in power creep.
Hrm, transports that effectively ignored 5 of 6 glancing result hits and 50% of penetrating hits (with ubiquitous EA upgrade), 4+ cover on *everything*, gun tanks which ended up being stationary pillboxes as a result of the secondary weapons rules, weird special cover rules for when units are physically in one armor facing but can only see a different armor facing (e.g. they can see the rear hatch but are in the side arc), some rather poor wording with smoke launchers and Scout, squadron rules that autokilled immobilized vehicles and allowed a melee unit to make base contact with one tank in a squadron and inflict hits on an another vehicle on an armor facing that they may be 23" away from (it's possible), dead tank hulls being driven on by other tanks and getting tank stacks 3-4 high as they become immobilized or destroyed on top of each other, etc. and that's not even getting into things like the change to Kill Points from the older Victory Points, wound allocation, etc.
Also, my IG army in 5E ran 17 independent vehicles with 85 infantry, that's a lot of stuff to keep track of, manage facings on, keep track of damage status, who's facing what from which angles? Etc.
5E was dramatically better than 7E, but 5E had its own glut of special issues, every edition has.
All that edition's rules needed were a couple of solid fixes here and there along with responsible codex writing. Period.
It would require less work to fix than 7E, but there were some major rules issues that needed to be addressed and a major rehaul of the entire codex line, not a simple task.
This myth of "oh the game is too large *blah* too complicated *blah blah* too convoluted *blah blah blah* is nothing more than GW's very own mismanagement of this game, but since its gone on for so long people actually believe there can't be any alternatives other than starting completely over - to the point players feverishly defend every new premise no matter how ridiculous it is, desperate for it run smoothly.
It's at the point if one thing is silly people would rather make something else equally stupid rather than fix the original problem. Then they rationalize it by comparing it something else equally farcical. There is more than one way to fix a rule!
Honestly, if GW were to announce tomorrow they were going to change one thing about vehicles next month, how many would want the lack of firing arcs to remain? Then again, I am hardly surprised that so many who are supporting some of the things now are the same who supported very bad changes when 6th Edition hit the streets like a wet turd. What comes around goes around.
You're not actually engaging in attacking any of the arguments made in favor of removing facings or against keeping them, you're just naming those arguments and then calling people who disagree with you names at this point...
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the concept of folding vehicles into the standard unit paradigm of T/W/Sv. That's fine with the game 40k is. I have some issues with specifics of the execution, but the fundamental concept is probably better for what 40k actually tries to be. Besides, people really into tabletop miniatures game for deep tactical play aren't looking to 40k for that, and GW will be the first ones to tell you that that isn't what they sell, much as many of us might wish otherwise.
Except, as I said, it isn't always an abstraction. When you're drawing LOS you don't use some abstract volume of space that the model could be in, you look at the exact model down to 0.00000001" differences in pose/location. I notice you cut out the following sentences, where I gave some examples of the rules being extremely literal about a model's pose/position and not using that supposed abstraction. It's an inconsistent mess where abstraction vs. literalism goes back and forth depending on the exact rule, because nobody at GW seems to have any kind of overall concept for how it should work.
And nice "Exhibit A" remark for a pretty blatant rule #1 violation. I think it says something about the level of discussion that pointing out GW's inconsistency in game design is considered "{censored}".
It's still an abstraction.
If it were a cube, you could still measure that cube down to 0.00000001" to see if there is LOS or not. The vaguely tank-shaped plastic object that we are using as our LOS guide is not a real tank. It's a hunk of plastic.
Effectively it's a vaguely tank-shaped LOS template. You didn't think the flame template was anything other than abstract, did you? the tank-like object sitting in terrain is the same thing. Yours may be a different shape than mine, but it is essentially a binary outcome generator, just like a template.
It is abstract. Just because you like to think it's real, it's not. it's a hunk of plastic which generates an outcome, like dice. it's no different.
@ Vaktathi: You keep saying scale is the issue for the lack of detail but you never give any evidence for it. Sure, it's you opinion just like it's my opinion that this is one of the best scales for vehicle facings and firing points. The idea of a heavy assault gun rumbling down a narrow street and firing at troops who managed to flank the machine and approach it from behind is absolutely jarring to me. You want me to somehow prove this is incorrect??? To me its immersion breaking. To you and others its just fine. So what? Just because you are the overall commander shouldn't negate that level of detail, in my opinion. The entire game is filled with loads of micromanagement, but you are happy to explain this rather large discrepancy away? That is your prerogative, but don't ask for proof when you haven't given any.
I said 5th Ed. was a more simple game, but it was hardly perfect - which I mentioned. In fact my group was hoping for fixes to 4th but were sorely disappointed in 5th as a lateral shift, therefore from then on we created our own rules and have played them since. I noticed you had no issue cherry-picking a bad rule to show the flaw with 5th Edition, thus illustrating my point: instead of finding a better solution people often say "well at least it's better than that!" When did this become a binary problem? Now we have another lateral shift - many things are improved but other things are needlessly worse.
You say reworking all the codices of a prior edition would be a major task, as if too difficult. You mean like what they are doing now?
Finally, you say that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be a tactical game. Do you have some proof of that? I'm pretty sure many of the better writers in the past tried very hard to make a tactical game before moving on or getting expelled by the sales department. Just because GW has made the game less tactical doesn't mean that was the best decision, unless the game turns out to be a financial success of course. Time will tell.
If it were a cube, you could still measure that cube down to 0.00000001" to see if there is LOS or not. The vaguely tank-shaped plastic object that we are using as our LOS guide is not a real tank. It's a hunk of plastic.
Effectively it's a vaguely tank-shaped LOS template. You didn't think the flame template was anything other than abstract, did you? the tank-like object sitting in terrain is the same thing. Yours may be a different shape than mine, but it is essentially a binary outcome generator, just like a template.
It is abstract. Just because you like to think it's real, it's not. it's a hunk of plastic which generates an outcome, like dice. it's no different.
By that definition anything would be an abstraction, because no matter how detailed and simulationist you make the rules you aren't having actual tanks and infantry fighting battles with real weapons. You need a definition that draws a meaningful difference between abstraction and literalism, and looking at the actual model vs. an arbitrary volume of space is a pretty good place to draw that line. In determining which weapons can fire you treat the vehicle as an abstract volume of space, assuming that regardless of its actual position on the table it maneuvered to get a clear shot at some point during its turn. But if you're trying to shoot at the same vehicle you suddenly take its exact size and position on the table 100% literally. Even if its movement path the previous turn took it across clear ground where your anti-tank units have LOS if it ends its move out of LOS behind terrain you can't shoot at the tank at all. You no longer assume that it moved across the table and things happened along that path, you only consider the final position. There's no consistency at all between how the two situations are handled.
amanita wrote: @ Vaktathi: You keep saying scale is the issue for the lack of detail but you never give any evidence for it.
I believe I explained my arguments and reasoning quite clearly...
Vaktathi wrote:Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc
Sure, it's you opinion just like it's my opinion that this is one of the best scales for vehicle facings and firing points. The idea of a heavy assault gun rumbling down a narrow street and firing at troops who managed to flank the machine and approach it from behind is absolutely jarring to me.
But yet this doesn't bother you with a Squiggoth or an Exocrine does it? For that matter, when a basic Space Marine or Guardsmen or an Obliterator does it?
You want me to somehow prove this is incorrect??? To me its immersion breaking. To you and others its just fine. So what?
Ok, if you can accept other units doing the exact same thing, why is it so hard with vehicles? We do this with literally every other unit type in the game.
Just because you are the overall commander shouldn't negate that level of detail, in my opinion.
Again, I'll note almost every RTS at the scale 40k is played at pays 0 attention to vehicle facing, and facing mechanics in most other tabletop games that have it have far simpler and less detailed facing rules than 40k ever has had and/or have fewer models and much smaller scales (e.g. Flames of War, Heavy Gear, Dropzone Commander, Infinity, etc).
The entire game is filled with loads of micromanagement, but you are happy to explain this rather large discrepancy away?
There's all sorts of other things I'd do away with or change in 40k, stuff like differentiated power weapons (e.g. power axe vs power mace) and the like for a start, the way it was pre-6E.
That is your prerogative, but don't ask for proof when you haven't given any.
See above...
I said 5th Ed. was a more simple game
Well, you asked if it was over-complicated and unbalanced, which in many ways it was. But yes it was simpler than 7E, we don't know yet for sure if it will be simpler than 8E.
, but it was hardly perfect - which I mentioned. In fact my group was hoping for fixes to 4th but were sorely disappointed in 5th as a lateral shift, therefore from then on we created our own rules and have played them since. I noticed you had no issue cherry-picking a bad rule to show the flaw with 5th Edition, thus illustrating my point: instead of finding a better solution people often say "well at least it's better than that!" When did this become a binary problem? Now we have another lateral shift - many things are improved but other things are needlessly worse.
I didn't just say "well at least it's better than that", I said that the fundamental concept of moving away from facings and folding everything into the T/W/Sv paradigm has inherent advantages in regards to complexity and balance, which it does. If we want great tactical detail, it's not better, but doing that just for vehicles has shown to be a consistent problem with the game and especially as the number of hulls on the field has gone from 3-4 to routinely in the double digits and the line between MC's and tanks and Superheavies and whatnot becomes increasingly blurred as bigger and bigger robots and monsters are introduced, with massive advantages to the MC's for no real good reason.
You say reworking all the codices of a prior edition would be a major task, as if too difficult. You mean like what they are doing now?
Right, but as part of a major total core rules reboot which allows them to tackle other issues in that process as well, such as addressing some of those scale issues by rebalancing vehicles around those core rules changes such that they take a greater proportion of one's force but offer greater value as shown by things like Rhino's being 70pts now instead of 35 (we'll see if that turns out to be the case or not for vehicles as a whole, my feelings on GW's execution are thoroughly mixed).
Finally, you say that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be a tactical game. Do you have some proof of that?
GW's design notes over multiple editions and public notices to shareholders about what they see the nature of their product as (they're a model company, not a game design studio, that's just their sales mechanic for models). 40k has always been (especially the last couple editions) more of a framework that gives people a way to play with their plastic space-armyman toys as opposed to a sharp tactical battle simulator. GW's made no secret of that.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.
There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.
Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
It is complexity which exists for a reason. Simplicity is not a virtue by itself. Tic-tac-toe is elegant and simple. You can finish hundred of games in same time you finish one 40k match. I still rather play 40k.
The cold hard fact is that if you need to SIMULATE things which are dramatically different in real life (a living body vs hard mechanical shell), you need some complexity in your game. It is a necessary evil.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc.
...as opposed to now where a most powerful, heavily armoured battle tank can be hurt by weakest infantry weapons in the game from frontal aspect? That is not unintuitive or weird?
Scaling problem was entirely because the system was not meant to accommodate superheavies. Which is perfectly reasonable as they simply do not, and will not, fit to the scale 40k is usually played. 8th edition will not be any different in this regard.
MC issue was not a problem as long as designers stuck to the basic principles of unit design and simply did not design MC's (or Infantry) which would compete with tanks. Of course there was going to be problems when clueless people got around designing Codices. It will be just as much a problem in 8th.
amanita wrote: @ Vaktathi: You keep saying scale is the issue for the lack of detail but you never give any evidence for it.
I believe I explained my arguments and reasoning quite clearly...
Vaktathi wrote:Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc
Sure, it's you opinion just like it's my opinion that this is one of the best scales for vehicle facings and firing points. The idea of a heavy assault gun rumbling down a narrow street and firing at troops who managed to flank the machine and approach it from behind is absolutely jarring to me.
But yet this doesn't bother you with a Squiggoth or an Exocrine does it? For that matter, when a basic Space Marine or Guardsmen or an Obliterator does it?
You want me to somehow prove this is incorrect??? To me its immersion breaking. To you and others its just fine. So what?
Ok, if you can accept other units doing the exact same thing, why is it so hard with vehicles? We do this with literally every other unit type in the game.
Just because you are the overall commander shouldn't negate that level of detail, in my opinion.
Again, I'll note almost every RTS at the scale 40k is played at pays 0 attention to vehicle facing, and facing mechanics in most other tabletop games that have it have far simpler and less detailed facing rules than 40k ever has had and/or have fewer models and much smaller scales (e.g. Flames of War, Heavy Gear, Dropzone Commander, Infinity, etc).
The entire game is filled with loads of micromanagement, but you are happy to explain this rather large discrepancy away?
There's all sorts of other things I'd do away with or change in 40k, stuff like differentiated power weapons (e.g. power axe vs power mace) and the like for a start, the way it was pre-6E.
That is your prerogative, but don't ask for proof when you haven't given any.
See above...
I said 5th Ed. was a more simple game
Well, you asked if it was over-complicated and unbalanced, which in many ways it was. But yes it was simpler than 7E, we don't know yet for sure if it will be simpler than 8E.
, but it was hardly perfect - which I mentioned. In fact my group was hoping for fixes to 4th but were sorely disappointed in 5th as a lateral shift, therefore from then on we created our own rules and have played them since. I noticed you had no issue cherry-picking a bad rule to show the flaw with 5th Edition, thus illustrating my point: instead of finding a better solution people often say "well at least it's better than that!" When did this become a binary problem? Now we have another lateral shift - many things are improved but other things are needlessly worse.
I didn't just say "well at least it's better than that", I said that the fundamental concept of moving away from facings and folding everything into the T/W/Sv paradigm has inherent advantages in regards to complexity and balance, which it does. If we want great tactical detail, it's not better, but doing that just for vehicles has shown to be a consistent problem with the game and especially as the number of hulls on the field has gone from 3-4 to routinely in the double digits and the line between MC's and tanks and Superheavies and whatnot becomes increasingly blurred as bigger and bigger robots and monsters are introduced, with massive advantages to the MC's for no real good reason.
You say reworking all the codices of a prior edition would be a major task, as if too difficult. You mean like what they are doing now?
Right, but as part of a major total core rules reboot which allows them to tackle other issues in that process as well, such as addressing some of those scale issues by rebalancing vehicles around those core rules changes such that they take a greater proportion of one's force but offer greater value as shown by things like Rhino's being 70pts now instead of 35 (we'll see if that turns out to be the case or not for vehicles as a whole, my feelings on GW's execution are thoroughly mixed).
Finally, you say that Warhammer 40K was never intended to be a tactical game. Do you have some proof of that?
GW's design notes over multiple editions and public notices to shareholders about what they see the nature of their product as (they're a model company, not a game design studio, that's just their sales mechanic for models). 40k has always been (especially the last couple editions) more of a framework that gives people a way to play with their plastic space-armyman toys as opposed to a sharp tactical battle simulator. GW's made no secret of that.
Actually, their latest statment from the investors page is that they are a "hobby" company and that the game is a very important part of the hobby.
Well, on the one hand it's a shame to lose the strategic elements of trying to hit rear armour, and the realistic quality that armour is usually stronger in the front. And it's kind of cheap to say every weapon can fire despite which way the thing is facing and TLOS.
But then, you could also say during a turn models would be firing while moving, that some slight pivots can be made if the vehicle remained stationary. In the end, it takes away from the aesthetics of the game a bit, but may speed up games and make the game more palatable for newcomers.
Overall, I hope they bring weapon arcs back, but keep the ability of vehicles to fire all their weapons if they have LOS on a target. After all, it's a very aesthetically pleasing game and anything that takes away from that or suspends the realism too much is a detriment. Though, it seems to me like there's been a lot of positive changes in 8th as well.
Yeah, I like this change. Speeding up the game is good, even if it's only little.
In fact, 40k would be better if we placed all of our models on the table, then just rolled 1d6 and whoever gets the higher result wins the game. Done.
Completely split 50-50 on this one.
Whilst I fully agree there is a tactical gameplay loss with vehicle facings being removed and "any part of the vehicle now shooting anywhere" (hmmm), the old facings were clunky and pernickity at times.
I feel some sort of compromise might have been better.
Having said that its basically the old simulation VS realism VS gameplay VS abstraction equation which GW has NEVER been good at.
MagicJuggler wrote: Can a vehicle or MC draw a line from a weapon being fired? I really don't see why it's so difficult, unless modeling for advantage was going on.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.
There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.
How many tanks do you run in that game? Not many. 3 tops? Usually less? You're certainly not going to be running around commanding over a dozen tanks and a dozen infantry units to boot. It doesn't deal with as many vehicles and units in general as 40k does. There's a reason once games start involving larger numbers of tanks and vehicles, that detail falls by the wayside.
It is complexity which exists for a reason.
Yes, just not a good one for the scale the game is played at, particularly when it only applies to a single unit type, but not other highly comparable ones.
Simplicity is not a virtue by itself. Tic-tac-toe is elegant and simple. You can finish hundred of games in same time you finish one 40k match. I still rather play 40k.
These are so vastly different as to be incomparable. Dropping facings isn't losing *that* much depth and, again, 40k just is not meant to be a deeply tactical game in the first place to boot. I'll note again nobody seems to care that facing isn't an issue for an Exocrine or IG heavy weapons team or many other units where facing could make sense.
The cold hard fact is that if you need to SIMULATE things which are dramatically different in real life (a living body vs hard mechanical shell), you need some complexity in your game. It is a necessary evil.
Except, again, nobody cares that facings don't exist or matter for anything else, why are vehicles the only units this matters for, why are great gobs of tactical depth lost when we drop facing for vehicles, but not for anything else, especially when many other units easily fit into the same mold. Why does facing matter on a Dread but not on a Wraithlord? Why does facing matter on a Russ but not on an Exocrine? These units are not *that* different in role and scale that such differentiation is necessary, and as such, having that extra complexity creates unnecessary balance issues, as we've seen in literally every edition of 40k.
I'll note that every other game I can think of either doesn't have facings, has dramatically less complex facing rules, has dramatically fewer models, or a combination of these things.
...as opposed to now where a most powerful, heavily armoured battle tank can be hurt by weakest infantry weapons in the game from frontal aspect? That is not unintuitive or weird?
Yes it's weird, but that's a visualization issue, and, more importantly, an issue of execution, not a problem with the fundamental concept or the balance functionality of the mechanic in game. There's lots of weirdness with that, same way it's weird that An'Ggrath would care about a Lasgun shot, but nobody is terribly up in arms about that.
Scaling problem was entirely because the system was not meant to accommodate superheavies. Which is perfectly reasonable as they simply do not, and will not, fit to the scale 40k is usually played. 8th edition will not be any different in this regard.
And yet there they are, hamfisted into the game as the scale has been pushed ever upwards.
MC issue was not a problem as long as designers stuck to the basic principles of unit design and simply did not design MC's (or Infantry) which would compete with tanks.
Except that MC's have always competed with tanks. They fill many of the same roles in different armies and bring similar weaponry to bear. We can look at stuff like Dreads vs Wraithlords for example. There have always been issues and problems with this differentiation and there has never really been a good balance, you can go back to 5E or 3E and see people complaining about tank vs MC balance with regularity.
Of course there was going to be problems when clueless people got around designing Codices. It will be just as much a problem in 8th.
Always will be, but there will be fewer issues with no radically different fundamental unit type now.
It's kind of crazy that for decades, people have had no problem with infantry, bikes, and MCs having 360 degree firing arcs, but when vehicles get it everyone loses their minds.
If it were a cube, you could still measure that cube down to 0.00000001" to see if there is LOS or not. The vaguely tank-shaped plastic object that we are using as our LOS guide is not a real tank. It's a hunk of plastic.
Effectively it's a vaguely tank-shaped LOS template. You didn't think the flame template was anything other than abstract, did you? the tank-like object sitting in terrain is the same thing. Yours may be a different shape than mine, but it is essentially a binary outcome generator, just like a template.
It is abstract. Just because you like to think it's real, it's not. it's a hunk of plastic which generates an outcome, like dice. it's no different.
By that definition anything would be an abstraction, because no matter how detailed and simulationist you make the rules you aren't having actual tanks and infantry fighting battles with real weapons. You need a definition that draws a meaningful difference between abstraction and literalism, and looking at the actual model vs. an arbitrary volume of space is a pretty good place to draw that line. In determining which weapons can fire you treat the vehicle as an abstract volume of space, assuming that regardless of its actual position on the table it maneuvered to get a clear shot at some point during its turn. But if you're trying to shoot at the same vehicle you suddenly take its exact size and position on the table 100% literally. Even if its movement path the previous turn took it across clear ground where your anti-tank units have LOS if it ends its move out of LOS behind terrain you can't shoot at the tank at all. You no longer assume that it moved across the table and things happened along that path, you only consider the final position. There's no consistency at all between how the two situations are handled.
Actually, this is how exactly works in others game as infinity. If you run across one enemy model he can counter-react to you and shoot you in the mid of your movement.
And to put an example with the RTS metaphor...
Armour facings are something of a game like Company of Heroes. Warhammer40k is Starcraft2 made Tabletop Wargame. You have come to the wrong game looking for that level of individual depth.
Or to be honest, you had come to the right game... 30 years ago. Warhammer40k is not of the scale it used to be.
Kap'n Krump wrote: It's kind of crazy that for decades, people have had no problem with infantry, bikes, and MCs having 360 degree firing arcs, but when vehicles get it everyone loses their minds.
Kap'n Krump wrote: It's kind of crazy that for decades, people have had no problem with infantry, bikes, and MCs having 360 degree firing arcs, but when vehicles get it everyone loses their minds.
Exalted for truth.
Says who?!? Never liked that they had/have 360 degree arcs, those bastards should have a facing too. However, given the other problems in past editions, complaining about 360 degree arcs on infantry and such was just so low on the totem. It would have been like having dinner on a sinking ship that's on fire while fighting off pirates, and complaining that your soup is cold.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.
There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.
How many tanks do you run in that game? Not many. 3 tops? Usually less?
0 to 5+, depending from mission, campaign etc.
In 40K, I usually run between 2 to 5 Vehicles in average 1500pts game, depending on army and list. 1 to 3 if I am in a Team game.
You're certainly not going to be running around commanding over a dozen tanks and a dozen infantry units to boot. It doesn't deal with as many vehicles and units in general as 40k does. There's a reason once games start involving larger numbers of tanks and vehicles, that detail falls by the wayside.
In Steel Panthers it is not unusual to have 20+ Vehicles on a side. Steel Panthers uses a system which is very similar to 40K.
OTOH, RTS game like Total Annihilation might have 100+ tanks or combat bots in an attack task force. Hardly comparable to any edition of 40K. (Of course, computer games have the advantage of easily simulating fog of war, which adds tactical depth but it is almost impossible to simulate in tabletop game.)
Also, I find absolutely hilarious that some people argue like vehicle rules were bogging the game down. Shooting from or at vehicles was pretty much the quickest, least cluttered aspect of the game. What slowed down the game was wound allocation of complicated units, psychic powers from armies which had tons of them, complicated assaults and constant looking up and rolling for special rules which had little effect on the game (Soul Blaze, Hammer of Wrath and so on).
These are so vastly different as to be incomparable. Dropping facings isn't losing *that* much depth and, again, 40k just is not meant to be a deeply tactical game in the first place to boot. I'll note again nobody seems to care that facing isn't an issue for an Exocrine or IG heavy weapons team or many other units where facing could make sense.
Existing stupidity or lack of depth is not an excuse to add more stupidity or remove existing depth.
Of course in any modelling system you will end up having borderline cases where stuff gets weird. What a smart person does (given that we're talking about wholly fictional universe here) is to avoid designing such units which break the modelling. Something which was repeatedly violated in recent years.
...as opposed to now where a most powerful, heavily armoured battle tank can be hurt by weakest infantry weapons in the game from frontal aspect? That is not unintuitive or weird?
Yes it's weird, but that's a visualization issue, and, more importantly, an issue of execution, not a problem with the fundamental concept or the balance functionality of the mechanic in game. There's lots of weirdness with that, same way it's weird that An'Ggrath would care about a Lasgun shot, but nobody is terribly up in arms about that.
Lack of facings and "everything can hurt everything" wounding is directly problem of fundamental rules concept when it comes to visualization. In 8th edition you will have main battle tanks turning their side armour towards enemy, Grots tying down tanks in assault, and so on. In my books, these issues are much, much serious than supposed 'complication' of old vehicle system. I also note that even the execution of the concept was sloppy, since the wound progression is so boring, doesn't even exist for all models, and end-up explosions are different for every vehicle, totally defeating the purpose of unifying the rules.
By the way, in 7th edition, An'Ggrath was immune to Lasguns.
Scaling problem was entirely because the system was not meant to accommodate superheavies. Which is perfectly reasonable as they simply do not, and will not, fit to the scale 40k is usually played. 8th edition will not be any different in this regard.
And yet there they are, hamfisted into the game as the scale has been pushed ever upwards.
Which is exactly the point, and 8th edition does NOTHING to fix that issue. If anything, quite the contrary, since many of the superheavies are now officially part of the armies and no longer bound by either informal or real restrictions seen in earlier editions.
Exalted for firing clueless rules designers. Between the aforementioned issues mentioned, alongside flamethrowers doubling as anti-aircraft guns, saying "It's an abstraction" is a hamfisted defense.
You know what game did abstraction? Epic. And Epic didn't have rule mishaps this glaring. Units had an AP and an AT attack value and a save, with a core rule forcing -1 save penalties for flanking and setting up crossfires.
Personally, I'm refusing to play 8th unless several house rule become standard, and the most pressing one IMO is: Measure LOS from the weapon, unless the attacking unit is entirely composed of models with the Infantry keyword.
It's a simple rule, it encourages very basic elementary tactics (fields of fire, flanking to deny overwatch, etc), and gives a unique advantage to Infantry in that they're the only unit in the game with 360* LOS.
I enjoy the simplification. I have no intention of shooting all of my guns from antennas. If my opponent does, good for him, if that's what he wants to do to win he can win. All the girls and fat stacks of cash for winning a game of 40k can be his. And of course he's earned the right to be relentlessly mocked by everyone in the room.
-DE- wrote: You can now down sonic jets with handguns and anti-personnel grenades.
The game has been distilled and abstracted so much, it has lost all flavor. There isn't even a proper morale mechanic anymore, just extra casualties.
The amount of handguns you'd need to down a flyer would have the flyer flying into a literal wall of lead. It would be the captain of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men just telling his men to fire into the air to create an asteroid belt of bullets.
It's also theoretically possible that all the atoms in your body lign up with all the atoms of the floor and you fall right through it, but it's so improbable as to approach 0. Handguns downing a jet in 8th is equally ridiculous.
Purifier wrote: The amount of handguns you'd need to down a flyer would have the flyer flying into a literal wall of lead. It would be the captain of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men just telling his men to fire into the air to create an asteroid belt of bullets.
You hit on 4+, wound on 5+, and the flyer gets a middling save. It's not impossible at all. And it's certainly possible to shave off those last 2 wounds and bring it down. It was not possible in 3rd-7th and is certainly impossible in real life. You can also destroy a supersonic plane in flight with a hand grenade or engage it in close combat. That's not abstract, that's slowed.
It's also theoretically possible that all the atoms in your body lign up with all the atoms of the floor and you fall right through it, but it's so improbable as to approach 0. Handguns downing a jet in 8th is equally ridiculous.
No, that's literally impossible and has no bearing on how awful 8th is at simulating what has been present in the previous editions AND fiction.
The game has three model types now: humans, large humans, and humans on scooters with malfunctioning brakes that crash into invisible walls and explode.
Let me add another nonsensical, blatantly untested rule - a vehicle with a plasma weapon now spontaneously combusts on a single roll of 1 when firing, with no recourse. Have a vehicle with 4 plasma shots, chances are it kills itself before turn 2 wraps up, dealing more damage to you than the opponent.
Purifier wrote: The amount of handguns you'd need to down a flyer would have the flyer flying into a literal wall of lead. It would be the captain of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men just telling his men to fire into the air to create an asteroid belt of bullets.
You hit on 4+, wound on 5+, and the flyer gets a middling save. It's not impossible at all. And it's certainly possible to shave off those last 2 wounds and bring it down. It was not possible in 3rd-7th and is certainly impossible in real life. You can also destroy a supersonic plane in flight with a hand grenade or engage it in close combat. That's not abstract, that's slowed.
It's also theoretically possible that all the atoms in your body lign up with all the atoms of the floor and you fall right through it, but it's so improbable as to approach 0. Handguns downing a jet in 8th is equally ridiculous.
No, that's literally impossible and has no bearing on how awful 8th is at simulating what has been present in the previous editions AND fiction.
The game has three model types now: humans, large humans, and humans on scooters with malfunctioning brakes that crash into invisible walls and explode.
Let me add another nonsensical, blatantly untested rule - a vehicle with a plasma weapon now spontaneously combusts on a single roll of 1 when firing, with no recourse. Have a vehicle with 4 plasma shots, chances are it kills itself before turn 2 wraps up, dealing more damage to you than the opponent.
"blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.
How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.
Spoiler:
And come on. "Supersonic" means at least 1235kph. What's your average supersonic jets speed in 40k? let's go with 60 inches? Infantry moves 6 inches, that'd translate to a running speed in ruins of 41kph if they're REALLY lazy, and a top speed of 247kph on open ground. So much for the realism.
More amusing is the fact that both Loyalists and Heretics have access to regular and overcharged profiles, when overcharging was originally a Chaos-specific thing.
Fun fact: Gets Hot only applied to Chaos Space Marines in 2nd and in exchange they got to fire them every turn as opposed to every other turn.
nekooni wrote: "blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.
How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.
Dude, you just confirmed what I wrote. Yes, you need to overcharge the gun. But without it, it's worthless - 1 damage is nothing in this edition. So you overcharge and die, or spend over 100 points for a babysitter and waste even more points on a sub-par weapon. And still run the risk of rolling that 1 in a 36 result and go poof.
Flyers can now be engaged in melee. That is a fact. Sure, it's only jump/jetpack infantry, but it's certainly possible. You just admitted to it. Try hitting a speeding plane with your fist while strapped to a rumbling, roaring jet engine. Apparently warriors of the 41st millenium are THAT skilled. All of a sudden.
Nobody used fire arcs the way they were supposed to anyways. If they did, then vehicles like a Stormraven would never be able to shoot anything within about 8" of it's base. The Stormwolf/Stormfang lascannon/frost cannon would never be able to shoot at anything below the vehicle itself. The Stormtalon/Stormhawk has the same problem. Basically, any flyer unless it was modeled pointing down at the ground, and then that could invoke the "modeling for advantage" rule.. The Land Raider Redemmer would never be able to shoot both it's flame storm cannons at the same target. My favorite was any hull mounted weapon. So many players would move their vehicle at combat speed, then pivot the model at the end of the move to get the most targets in an arc...
nekooni wrote: "blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.
How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.
Dude, you just confirmed what I wrote. Yes, you need to overcharge the gun. But without it, it's worthless - 1 damage is nothing in this edition. So you overcharge and die, or spend over 100 points for a babysitter and waste even more points on a sub-par weapon. And still run the risk of rolling that 1 in a 36 result and go poof.
Flyers can now be engaged in melee. That is a fact. Sure, it's only jump/jetpack infantry, but it's certainly possible. You just admitted to it. Try hitting a speeding plane with your fist while strapped to a rumbling, roaring jet engine. Apparently warriors of the 41st millenium are THAT skilled. All of a sudden.
Yes, they are. (And I can't encounter a Image of some Night Lords doing the same thing)
Just like a guy with a hammer can destroy a Giant Robot. If you don't like it thats fine, but is part of the fantasy of the universe.
Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.
There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.
How many tanks do you run in that game? Not many. 3 tops? Usually less?
0 to 5+, depending from mission, campaign etc.
In 40K, I usually run between 2 to 5 Vehicles in average 1500pts game, depending on army and list. 1 to 3 if I am in a Team game.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of Close Combat games I've played (it's been....way over a decade) or watched have like 1 or 2 tanks, they really don't have many. With 40k games, some armies run 1-2 tanks, some 2-5, but others can and do easily run 10 or 12 vehicles in a 1500pt game. My last mech IG army ran like 12 distinct armor elements in a 1500pt game.
In Steel Panthers it is not unusual to have 20+ Vehicles on a side. Steel Panthers uses a system which is very similar to 40K.
Steel Panthers is a dramatically simpler game built on hexsides that fundamentally lends itself to that kind of tactical detail. It's not trying to worry about portraying all the stuff 40k wants to. It's intended as a tactical battle simulator where 40k is not and does not claim to be. It doesn't have to worry about portraying half naked armorless weeny infantry and power armored super soldiers or giant monsters, it doesn't have to worry about portraying teleporting units or thunderhammers vs power swords, it doesn't have to worry about psychic powers or skimmers, etc.
One can look at most other tabletop games, almost none of them deal with vehicle facing the way 40k does, and of those that do, they have waayyyyyyyyyyyy smaller unit/model counts. Nobody tries to worry about front/side/rear arcs and things like sponson and hull mounted weapons with distinct firing arcs, in games that can routinely have double digits worth of these units on the table, in addition to having many dozens of other models that ignore facing entirely on the table at the same time.
Also, I find absolutely hilarious that some people argue like vehicle rules were bogging the game down. Shooting from or at vehicles was pretty much the quickest, least cluttered aspect of the game. What slowed down the game was wound allocation of complicated units, psychic powers from armies which had tons of them, complicated assaults and constant looking up and rolling for special rules which had little effect on the game (Soul Blaze, Hammer of Wrath and so on).
There's lots of things that slow the game down, vehicle shooting isn't the sum of facing, stuff like fiddling with armor arcs to get it *just* right, arguing over whether some dude is in side arc or front arc, cover issues when you can see side but not front but are in the front arc, etc, and that's not even getting into the balance issues that have been endemic with vehicles in every single edition (as shown by how wildly the vehicle rules change every single edition despite the basic rules for other types of units remaining largely unchanged).
Existing stupidity or lack of depth is not an excuse to add more stupidity or remove existing depth.
It is if that extra depth creates balance issues and is only selectively applied. If you're playing chess and the rules say that Queens must fight with RPG level detail, character sheets, feats, magic weapons, D100 rolls, etc, but nothing else does, well, most people are going to be ok with removing that depth because it just doesn't fit with the rest of the game.
Again, never heard about anyone complaining about Exocrines or IG heavy weapons teams not having facings. Nobody ever seemed to think there was a lack of depth there or that that was stupid given the scale 40k is played at. I don't recall any great demand for facing to be a thing on other units in say, 4E or 7E or 5E.
I'll give you another example. Shadowrun has extremely detailed rules for grenade explosions. These are very realistic and make using grenades in enclosed spaces (like pillboxes or small bunkers) extremely devastating (as they are meant to be). The problem is that it does this by getting into ridiculous detail about the explosive shockwaves bouncing off walls multiple times and causing extra damage but also losing strength each time they're reflected, and this gets to be both painfully tedious and functionally unnecessary when they could just do something like "X3 damage bonus in enclosed spaces as designated by the GM", and most people (at least that I've seen in my personal experience with Shadowrun) houserule grenades as a result.
Of course in any modelling system you will end up having borderline cases where stuff gets weird. What a smart person does (given that we're talking about wholly fictional universe here) is to avoid designing such units which break the modelling. Something which was repeatedly violated in recent years.
Aye, and that cat is out of the bag and will never go back in. That ship has sailed unfortunately. I'm in total agreement with you there, but that point has come and gone.
Lack of facings and "everything can hurt everything" wounding is directly problem of fundamental rules concept when it comes to visualization.
Sure, I will happily acknowledge that, but lets acknowledge that visualization is a separate issue from functionality and balance.
In 8th edition you will have main battle tanks turning their side armour towards enemy, Grots tying down tanks in assault, and so on. In my books, these issues are much, much serious than supposed 'complication' of old vehicle system. I also note that even the execution of the concept was sloppy, since the wound progression is so boring, doesn't even exist for all models, and end-up explosions are different for every vehicle, totally defeating the purpose of unifying the rules.
Which may all bear out to be a giant clusterfeth as well, I'm not denying that. My point was that many successful games don't deal with facing and that the lack of it in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. *how* GW does this and how it ends up playing out, we'll have to see. I'm not holding my breath, and looking at the leaked stats for stuff like IG tanks (and updated profiles for things like Lascannons), I don't think they got it right (in practice for instance, a Russ is not going to be meaningfully more resilient against anti-tank weapons than a Wyvern, Chimera or Rhino, while a Valkyrie will be even without its hard to hit rule) and I think there will be problems of implementation for some time, but they'll be easier to address, in theory, given that they operate like everything else now. Whether they actually do so or not...
nekooni wrote: "blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.
How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.
Dude, you just confirmed what I wrote. Yes, you need to overcharge the gun. But without it, it's worthless - 1 damage is nothing in this edition. So you overcharge and die, or spend over 100 points for a babysitter and waste even more points on a sub-par weapon. And still run the risk of rolling that 1 in a 36 result and go poof.
Flyers can now be engaged in melee. That is a fact. Sure, it's only jump/jetpack infantry, but it's certainly possible. You just admitted to it. Try hitting a speeding plane with your fist while strapped to a rumbling, roaring jet engine. Apparently warriors of the 41st millenium are THAT skilled. All of a sudden.
So how much playtesting have you done that you're confident that anything that's Damage 1 is utter garbage? I'm pretty sure a normal plasma shot is quite effective against a ton of things (it's still AP-3). I don't think the overcharge mechanic is worth using with the risk e.g. Leman Russes take, but a SM Dreadnought with a Heavy Plasma Cannon only takes a single mortal wound on a 1, seems worth it in that instance.
And yeah, I like to be honest and present the full rule instead of saying "omg flyers can be engaged in combat, totes unrealistic, sky's falling" which implies that a Tac Squad could charge a Vendetta at supersonic speeds. Same with the overcharge.
And to be honest, I'm fine with the image of a flying unit being able to melee another flying unit. It's pretty epic to have an Assault Marine with a Thunder Hammer smash a Dakkajet out of the sky. He's literally a super soldier with a jet pack and a super weapon, why wouldn't he?
Aipoch wrote: So where do you determine range and LOS from in 8th edition for firing ranged weapons from vehicles? Center of the vehicle?
Range is determined from the weapon, LOS is determined from the model, RAW. That's what all the fuss is about basically.
The distance required is determined from the weapon's stats. Range is measured from the hull or base.
That is not what the rules say:
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.
The parenthesis is clarifying that the range is defined by the weapon's profile. Nothing is contradicting that the range to the enemy unit is measured from anywhere else besides the weapon being used. There is absolutely no mention of hull or base in determining targets. Any weapon that does not have an enemy unit within range cannot fire.
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.
The parenthesis is clarifying that the range is defined by the weapon's profile. Nothing is contradicting that the range to the enemy unit is measured from anywhere else besides the weapon being used. There is absolutely no mention of hull or base in determining targets. Any weapon that does not have an enemy unit within range cannot fire.
Line of sight is mentioned for determining targets, and you do that by looking over the table.
Measuring is from the hull or base, and that's explained in an earlier section.
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 is the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.
The parenthetical statement makes the statement very clear: "the range of the weapon being used" is something you look up in a book, not something you figure out with a ruler.
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.
Actually its just mentioning "the" range "of" the weapon being used...not "from" the weapon being used. So LOS is checked from the Hull and measured from the Hull.
Hanskrampf wrote: Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Plenty of times. I mean, Land Raider sponsons even have a pretty big overlap arc in the middle compared to LRBT sponsons. The only restriction was that you had to come out from behind cover and point your tank straight at the target, potentially making it more vulnerable to return fire. Now you just poke one tiny corner out from behind a solid wall and get to fire all of your guns, and there's no more tradeoff between defense and offense.
What he said, visualized
I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
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.
Actually its just mentioning "the" range "of" the weapon being used...not "from" the weapon being used. So LOS is checked from the Hull and measured from the Hull.
ForceChoke wrote: I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
And here we see the kneejerker. You haven't even tried it, but you're willing to throw away everything you've done so far because of what some people say on the internet. C'est la vie.
ForceChoke wrote: I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
Nah, that's not good enough. After Age of Sigmar's release I simply can't take anyone seriously if they don't make a YouTube video of themselves setting their army on fire.
ForceChoke wrote: I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
Nah, that's not good enough. After Age of Sigmar's release I simply can't take anyone seriously if they don't make a YouTube video of themselves setting their army on fire.
Quit like you mean it. No balls.
Not even that, the idiot who burnt his army plays stormcasts now.
But yeah, let him go. If it's not his cup of tea, fine by us: we don't care.
Hanskrampf wrote: Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Plenty of times. I mean, Land Raider sponsons even have a pretty big overlap arc in the middle compared to LRBT sponsons. The only restriction was that you had to come out from behind cover and point your tank straight at the target, potentially making it more vulnerable to return fire. Now you just poke one tiny corner out from behind a solid wall and get to fire all of your guns, and there's no more tradeoff between defense and offense.
What he said, visualized
I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
What army do you play, and can I have it (or buy it)?
Personally, I'm liking the idea of no templates - they were such a hassle to deal with, and was always possible to cause arguments about "is this model under or not"; plus, scattering was obnoxious and added a lot of time.
That said, I think the weapons that used to be AOE may have been undertuned; we'll see what happens in the future.
I will miss the flamer template though, that was always fun to use.
I have not seen the rules for forts yet. Do they work the same as Vehicles? So would my Bastion be able to shoot all Heavy Bolters at a target in front of it ?
zedsdead wrote: I have not seen the rules for forts yet. Do they work the same as Vehicles? So would my Bastion be able to shoot all Heavy Bolters at a target in front of it ?
The datasheet says "...Each of its weapons can only target the nearest visible enemy. ..." The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with targeting.
Hanskrampf wrote: Yeah, and how many times could you actually shoot BOTH sponsons without Split-Fire or PotMS? Not that often. But you were paying for the possibility anyways.
Plenty of times. I mean, Land Raider sponsons even have a pretty big overlap arc in the middle compared to LRBT sponsons. The only restriction was that you had to come out from behind cover and point your tank straight at the target, potentially making it more vulnerable to return fire. Now you just poke one tiny corner out from behind a solid wall and get to fire all of your guns, and there's no more tradeoff between defense and offense.
What he said, visualized
I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
What army do you play, and can I have it (or buy it)?
Personally, I'm liking the idea of no templates - they were such a hassle to deal with, and was always possible to cause arguments about "is this model under or not"; plus, scattering was obnoxious and added a lot of time.
That said, I think the weapons that used to be AOE may have been undertuned; we'll see what happens in the future.
I will miss the flamer template though, that was always fun to use.
Just going to play 5th and 7th. Might play a heavy modded version of 8th.
That doesn't really solve anything. You can house rule any rule in the game to do anything or cover anything, so saying "Just house rule it!" doesn't fix any problems.
MagicJuggler wrote: Exalted for firing clueless rules designers. Between the aforementioned issues mentioned, alongside flamethrowers doubling as anti-aircraft guns, saying "It's an abstraction" is a hamfisted defense.
You know what game did abstraction? Epic. And Epic didn't have rule mishaps this glaring. Units had an AP and an AT attack value and a save, with a core rule forcing -1 save penalties for flanking and setting up crossfires.
Personally, I'm refusing to play 8th unless several house rule become standard, and the most pressing one IMO is: Measure LOS from the weapon, unless the attacking unit is entirely composed of models with the Infantry keyword.
It's a simple rule, it encourages very basic elementary tactics (fields of fire, flanking to deny overwatch, etc), and gives a unique advantage to Infantry in that they're the only unit in the game with 360* LOS.
Door let the door hit you. Meanwhile, My stormraven will take its chances vs flamethrowers.
Martel732 wrote: I also feel like my flamers are better used vs the various hordes or infantry I'm up against.
8" D6 hits wounding on 5+ isn't exactly optimal for taking out flyers, or any other type of vehicle for that matter. Especially if you have basically any anti-armor weapons in your list at all. Just because you can do it, doesn't make it a good idea, or one that any but the most foolhardy will sincerely attempt. I too will be using my flamers to melt some infantry faces off.
Autocannons are pretty good at making a mess of most flyers. Which was the original purpose of the German 88mm gun, btw. So, it's almost like weapons were redesigned to have tasks that make sense.
So riddle me this, is hitting flyer with a flamerthrower (probably effectually) a bigger flaw, or direct hits from massive railguns or demolisher shells causing one wound to MCs a bigger design flaw?
I was just at the Ohio museum of natural history looking at a Trex skeleton a few weeks ago.I can guarantee you the number of M-1 120mm rounds it would take to kill a Trex would be one.
Martel732 wrote: Autocannons are pretty good at making a mess of most flyers. Which was the original purpose of the German 88mm gun, btw. So, it's almost like weapons were redesigned to have tasks that make sense.
Imagine that! But they can be sub-optimally used in other applications, which means there is no depth and the game is dumbed down...
Fire arcs never slowed down the game. And now that everything can split fire, sponson weapons would have an easier time finding a target with their limited fire arc, except that they got rid of fire arcs. It just weird.
Well, as others have mentioned this is easily fixed would a couple of simple house rules. 1) Trace LOS from the gun barrel 2) Antennas don't count.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Fire arcs never slowed down the game. And now that everything can split fire, sponson weapons would have an easier time finding a target with their limited fire arc, except that they got rid of fire arcs. It just weird.
Well, as others have mentioned this is easily fixed would a couple of simple house rules. 1) Trace LOS from the gun barrel 2) Antennas don't count.
So you want to look someone in the face and say "Hey, that 200+ point predator you haven't used since 4th but is suddenly good again? Yeah, it has to be doggak overpriced now becaise mah immersion! In fact, just don't take vehicles because I don't want to play against them unless they're worse than every other unit in the game for no reason!"
JimOnMars wrote: House rules are a thing, you know. I bet a lot of folk at least do the following:
1 - line of sight from the gun on all models (not just range)
2 - antennas, etc don't count for targeting.
That's it. No need to storm out because your house rules aren't official.
Also, you'd rather play a wildly unbalanced game like 7th? What army do you play, I wonder.
I love how "what army do you play" has become the standard counter-argument to not wanting to play AOS-40k. "You're just a cheesing Tau or Eldar player, neener-neener" as though it magically validates Vendettas...I'm sorry, those are no longer legal, I mean Heldrakes being able to shoot out their ass again, alongside every other Vindicator, etc.
If 7th was a game with exploits you can drive a Bike across, 8th is the game with gaping holes so wide you could drive a Baneblade through them...or at least you could if Tank Shock were a thing, a single Grot poking a Land Raider wasn't able to stop it from shooting, and a heavy enough flamethrower can be better anti-aircraft than actual anti-aircraft guns.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Fire arcs never slowed down the game. And now that everything can split fire, sponson weapons would have an easier time finding a target with their limited fire arc, except that they got rid of fire arcs. It just weird.
Well, as others have mentioned this is easily fixed would a couple of simple house rules. 1) Trace LOS from the gun barrel 2) Antennas don't count.
So you want to look someone in the face and say "Hey, that 200+ point predator you haven't used since 4th but is suddenly good again? Yeah, it has to be doggak overpriced now becaise mah immersion! In fact, just don't take vehicles because I don't want to play against them unless they're worse than every other unit in the game for no reason!"
I think immersion is one of the most important things in a game as thematic as 40k. Also, I don't think these rules would make vehicles under powered. They will still be putting out much more fire power than ever before, and for the most part you'll be able to fire all your weapons at the same target. I don't think you should be able to fire all your weapons from a single point on a vehicle.
GorillaWarfare wrote: Fire arcs never slowed down the game. And now that everything can split fire, sponson weapons would have an easier time finding a target with their limited fire arc, except that they got rid of fire arcs. It just weird.
Well, as others have mentioned this is easily fixed would a couple of simple house rules. 1) Trace LOS from the gun barrel 2) Antennas don't count.
So you want to look someone in the face and say "Hey, that 200+ point predator you haven't used since 4th but is suddenly good again? Yeah, it has to be doggak overpriced now becaise mah immersion! In fact, just don't take vehicles because I don't want to play against them unless they're worse than every other unit in the game for no reason!"
I think immersion is one of the most important things in a game as thematic as 40k. Also, I don't think these rules would make vehicles under powered. They will still be putting out much more fire power than ever before, and for the most part you'll be able to fire all your weapons at the same target. I don't think you should be able to fire all your weapons from a single point on a vehicle.
The more of the rulebook I read, the less immersed I feel. From my understanding, they brought back the silliness of being able to kill a whole squad even if only 1 model is in range and los.
I'm someone who stopped playing because I think 40k's rules have become dense garbage - I started playing in 5th and even then they were, imo, a giant hot mess, one which has only gotten worse over time. I'm guessing at some prior point in time, the rules were OK but they kept adding more and more stuff onto them to support flyers, and superheavies, and monsters, and so on. Eventually I stopped playing because the rules were so poor - I still collect and sometimes paint the models but I have not put a model down on a table for a game in at least 5 or 6 years.
Anyway, the only reason I'm interested in 40K now is because the rules are way simplified, something that I have wanted them to do since the first time I picked up the rulebook. And even then, I think the change to LOS is maybe going too far. The idea that someone standing to the 3'o clock position of a tank with sponsons is not in LOS to the sponson on the 9'o clock side wasn't a complex idea, in fact I think that was one of the most obvious and straightforward ideas about the game.
I can get on board with the idea that the shooting phase is just an abstraction of what happens in the battle and it's not really "real-time" but this seems like an oversimplification to me.
Ouze wrote: I'm someone who stopped playing because I think 40k's rules have become dense garbage - I started playing in 5th and even then they were, imo, a giant hot mess, one which has only gotten worse over time. I'm guessing at some prior point in time, the rules were OK but they kept adding more and more stuff onto them to support flyers, and superheavies, and monsters, and so on. Eventually I stopped playing because the rules were so poor - I still collect and sometimes paint the models but I have not put a model down on a table for a game in at least 5 or 6 years.
Anyway, the only reason I'm interested in 40K now is because the rules are way simplified, something that I have wanted them to do since the first time I picked up the rulebook. And even then, I think the change to LOS is maybe going too far. The idea that someone standing to the 3'o clock position of a tank with sponsons is not in LOS to the sponson on the 9'o clock side wasn't a complex idea, in fact I think that was one of the most obvious and straightforward ideas about the game.
I can get on board with the idea that the shooting phase is just an abstraction of what happens in the battle and it's not really "real-time" but this seems like an oversimplification to me.
It's not that it was complex or unintuitive, it just made vehicles gakkier than other units just based on how they were shaped. For example, an Exorcist is dramatically better than an an all-las predator despite their relative damage output being fairly similar and the exorcist being about as reliable as Comcast Cable, because the exorcist A) Only has 1 weapon to shoot, which means it can move freely, B) Has a huge tall turret that can see over cover allowing it to be 100% obscured and still fire and C) Doesn't have to deal with firing sponson weapons.
If this were a historical game where everything was shaped pretty much exactly like a leman russ vehicle facings would be fine, but with tanks shaped like croissants and giant spiders and giant mechs, it does more harm than good.
ERJAK wrote: It's not that it was complex or unintuitive, it just made vehicles gakkier than other units just based on how they were shaped. For example, an Exorcist is dramatically better than an an all-las predator despite their relative damage output being fairly similar and the exorcist being about as reliable as Comcast Cable, because the exorcist A) Only has 1 weapon to shoot, which means it can move freely, B) Has a huge tall turret that can see over cover allowing it to be 100% obscured and still fire and C) Doesn't have to deal with firing sponson weapons.
Yes, and that's a good thing. Units should be different like that, and their relative value can be incorporated into their point costs.
Speak for yourself! My Land Raider's crew practically make the thing break dance It's amazing how fast a tank that weights 72 tonnes can spin about!
actually, the speed of the machine is all that limits it. the faster you go, the less turn you can do. it is really about representing stuff as easily as possible. tanks can actually be made to do some amazing things, even today. the kind of tanks ytou see in 40k are based on the ww2 stuff, they were less hulky, and were capable of lots more than their modern counter parts.
Units should be different but sometimes, if you can't draw a good line to make them different it's best not to draw a line at all. In theory fire arcs/ facings are a good idea but in practice, rarely so. both from a balance (mc vs vehicle) and ease of gameplay experience.
ERJAK wrote: It's not that it was complex or unintuitive, it just made vehicles gakkier than other units just based on how they were shaped. For example, an Exorcist is dramatically better than an an all-las predator despite their relative damage output being fairly similar and the exorcist being about as reliable as Comcast Cable, because the exorcist A) Only has 1 weapon to shoot, which means it can move freely, B) Has a huge tall turret that can see over cover allowing it to be 100% obscured and still fire and C) Doesn't have to deal with firing sponson weapons.
Yes, and that's a good thing. Units should be different like that, and their relative value can be incorporated into their point costs.
Earth127 wrote: Units should be different but sometimes, if you can't draw a good line to make them different it's best not to draw a line at all.
In theory fire arcs/ facings are a good idea but in practice, rarely so. both from a balance (mc vs vehicle) and ease of gameplay experience.
The "theory" behind MC's not having fire arcs and stuff was that they are much less bulky and being a single organism, more agile than vehicles and can turn to face the threat etc, just like an infantry model. Which to some extent makes sense, a Carnifex is supposed to weight like 8 tons, a Predator tank weights over 60 tons. Walkers, then, were a hybrid between the two, usually controlled by single mind which was often directly linked to the vehicular controls they represented a compromise between MC and Vehicle abilities. From gameplay viewpoint, being a Vehicle also brought some advantages, most tanks were totally immune to small arms fire even from a side armour, by contrast a Carnifex could be easily brought down by Boltguns, and even easier by Poison weapons which do nothing to a Vehicle.
But then they began to add really durable MC's to the game which were both very durable against Small arms fire, and hard to kill with Heavy weapons. Also they might have tank-like firepower and mobility. They effectively combined best of the both worlds, so of course they come across unbalanced. If say, a Riptide had been Walker AV12 all around, or MC with T7 4W 3+, there would have been much, much less complaints against the system itself.
The Dreadknight was probably the actual worst thing Ward ever did, because it opened the door to all the other super-MCs of 6th/7th. And then GW massively overreacted to parkinglot-40K of 5th and then took a big dump on vehicles.
The "theory" behind MC's not having fire arcs and stuff was that they are much less bulky and being a single organism, more agile than vehicles and can turn to face the threat etc, just like an infantry model. Which to some extent makes sense, a Carnifex is supposed to weight like 8 tons, a Predator tank weights over 60 tons.
Honestly I think it never made any sense. First a Carnifex, being similary robust to a tank should weigh more than a tank, because high grade steel (and Sci Fi steel even more) provides far more toughness than biomass. The only way that Tyranids could work at all is if you invent some pseudo scientific explanation that their biology is far tougher than what we know on Earth.
Btw a Rhino is an APC and not a MBT, and therefore its mass should be more like 30 tons, if you could draw any similarity between 21st century tech and... well 40k tech.
Also a MBT (with a mass of 60+ metric tons) accelerates faster, turns faster and breaks faster than an elephant or a giraffe. Just skim the internet and look for jumping tanks (jep tanks can jump. And while cars are usually scrap metal when they land, tanks go on without any problems because they are... well... tanks)
One interesting fact is that modern tanks have their crew in flexible riggings to dampen the acceleration, because a human (i.e. biological) brain is the first thing in the tank that breaks down, if the tank is exposed to extreme maneuvers/acceleration (or hit by an IED)
And yes, there are pictures of toppled and stuck tanks. This happens if drivers make serious mistakes. But just make sure to read about how dangerous some maneuvers are for giraffes and how often they break their legs and die...
P.S.: And two legged walkers are a pretty bad design for a combat vehicle and are only cool and work in SF or Anime, because two legs are cool if you want to have two hands with opposable thumbs and look over savannah grass, but are pretty stupid if you want to be agile or resistant to the impact of kinetic energy.
P.P.S: And yes, I am aware that bringing realism into a game of space elves and giant walkers does not make much sense, but I am not the first person to come up with it. But IMO this entire debate is much more about suspension of disbelief and what you want to work and what you don't want to work than about what "makes sense" and what does not.
P.P.P.S: Ok... you could argue that 40k tank drive trains look more like WW1 drive trains without any suspension and are wrapped around the body and are not like the horizontal suspension drive trains of WW2 and today, but... well... ok...
Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.
Why didn't they just give all weapons on a vehicle split fire and keep TLOS? If my sponsons could just shoot at whatever makes sense for them to shoot at I would have no problem with occasionally not having a target for one sponson.
nateprati wrote: Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.
I look at my 40k game like playing out what is in the books so if gaming reflects source material I am typically happy.
Why didn't they just give all weapons on a vehicle split fire and keep TLOS? If my sponsons could just shoot at whatever makes sense for them to shoot at I would have no problem with occasionally not having a target for one sponson.
or did I miss that?
This is far too sensible a statement! At least the new rules do not penalize the agonizing choice of attaching the sponson guns on the front or rear set of doors on a Landraider.
nateprati wrote: Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.
Agreed, I struggle with it so much that I can only even enjoy a game if everything is painted. Funny how that never got mocked as some sort of bizarre obsession with "reality in a space elf game durr" lol
Crablezworth wrote: Agreed, I struggle with it so much that I can only even enjoy a game if everything is painted. Funny how that never got mocked as some sort of bizarre obsession with "reality in a space elf game durr" lol
Good observation.
It does seem to go without question that your high fantasy or science fiction movie must look as "real" as possible within the esthetic of that genre.
I suppose if you did not want/need/require fully painted models, why not just play a video game or use "icon" type pieces like in chess?
I am used to playing Battletech and they say often that the piece is not scaled to the hex it is in, I always looked at the 40k models as pieces of the real model: the unit.
I always felt dealing with specific models within a unit as unnecessary busywork other than representing specific capabilities of the unit and the space it occupies.
Funny though, my friend I game with absolutely finds it a break from "reality" if you are allowed to remove models from a unit outside of the range of the weapon being fired.
So even though he plays Orks, it bugs him if I shoot say a flamer at his unit, he can take guys from the back of his 30 boyz blob.
I do have to say one thing: removing firing arcs certainly removes orientation and positioning from strategy thinking.
It has "dumbed things down" a bit, I am just hoping as a whole a bit more action/fun/time is gained?
nateprati wrote: Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.
Agreed, I struggle with it so much that I can only even enjoy a game if everything is painted. Funny how that never got mocked as some sort of bizarre obsession with "reality in a space elf game durr" lol
Never? Really? Lucky you. I somehow have the impression that a lot of people can live with all of those guys on the tabletop somehow looking like grey plastic but they are adamant about their personal interpretation of how reality™ has to work in Warhammer 40.000™
I do have to say one thing: removing firing arcs certainly removes orientation and positioning from strategy thinking.
It has "dumbed things down" a bit, I am just hoping as a whole a bit more action/fun/time is gained?
*cough* orientation and position has nothing to do with strategy but with tactics *cough*
Sorry, my dad was a Lt. Colonel in the air force and always lectured me on my wrong use of strategy and tactics...
I would be all for facing and real firing arcs, but then I would prefer it for MCs, too.
Weapon fire arcs only really matter when the vehicle has armor facings.
Since vehicles no longer have armor facings, it's not relevant which arcs the guns can fire in, with the exception of a few strange cases. Most tanks can bring full firepower to bear forward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: On a side note, I never understood why the Exorcist was a direct fire weapon rather than bombarding an area indirectly like a jury-rigged Katyusha.
I generally assumed the rockets were cold launched from the tubes, then fired their engines and behaved otherwise like a radar or wire-guided rocket.
UncleThomson wrote: *cough* orientation and position has nothing to do with strategy but with tactics *cough*
Sorry, my dad was a Lt. Colonel in the air force and always lectured me on my wrong use of strategy and tactics...
I would be all for facing and real firing arcs, but then I would prefer it for MCs, too.
Oh for the love of Petey....
Yes, you are correct, there is a distinct difference and I needed to be corrected... I hate it when people fold maps wrong in front of me too.
I would then retort what is too short a timeline or how small a scale for your "plans" when it switches from tactics to strategy.
If my "campaign" is only as big as my "objective" which 40k tends to be, the distinction is rather pointless, but again, letter of the law I was incorrect due to laziness and not a lack of knowledge.
All the other excuses above is my silly attempt at appearing right when I was wrong.
So yes, orientation and positioning becomes less of a tactical concern and hopefully I can concentrate more on my strategy of crushing pedantic hobbyists! Yes, very touchy today, I should have that checked...
Never? Really? Lucky you. I somehow have the impression that a lot of people can live with all of those guys on the tabletop somehow looking like grey plastic but they are adamant about their personal interpretation of how reality™ has to work in Warhammer 40.000™
And those people's games while certainly enjoyable don't look as good as mine. :p
I would be all for facing and real firing arcs, but then I would prefer it for MCs, too.
Agreed, and that's really the best common ground I think we'll find. They "fixed" mc's in 8th in so much as added rules that reduced stats as they took damage. But mc's having spherical vision never made a tonne of sense and only go sillier as time went on and average size increased. Walkers only exacerbated the absurd delineation between mc's and vehicles. But the answer to me would be to reign in mc fire arcs, not toss the whole concept out along with the baby and some bath water.
What's really odd now is a baneblade can't tank shock through even tiny models but certain units are being given the ability to step over units. Which more or less gives them some benefits of fly.
I mean putting vehicle arcs in for larger models is not the end of the world if everything retains splitfire anyway.
So yes, orientation and positioning becomes less of a tactical concern and hopefully I can concentrate more on my strategy of crushing pedantic hobbyists! Yes, very touchy today, I should have that checked...
Here's hoping it's considerably faster. But in all honesty, there's a breaking point on the short end too, if the game is a mindless 90-120 minute exorcise in unpacking and packing I dunno. I think I can tolerate longer games if it means more tactical depth and ultimately more absorption in the game.
Since vehicles no longer have armor facings, it's not relevant which arcs the guns can fire in, with the exception of a few strange cases. Most tanks can bring full firepower to bear forward.
I disagree, although we lost one very good reason for trying to flank enemy vehicles (armor facings), we also lost all incentive to actually move our vehicles short of minimum range because we no long have to ensure each weapon can draw line of sight/bring the target into arc. A vehicle can show 2mm popping out from solid los blocking cover and still fire all weapons at any targets in range.
Also, planes, armor facings being gone is unfortunate, the situation is rendered worse by the fact that any flyer can pretty much engage any flyer and the sole evasion of the is getting out of range and not even vector.
Crablezworth wrote: Here's hoping it's considerably faster. But in all honesty, there's a breaking point on the short end too, if the game is a mindless 90-120 minute exorcise in unpacking and packing I dunno. I think I can tolerate longer games if it means more tactical depth and ultimately more absorption in the game.
I am hoping to have my cake and eat it too: the "loss" of true weapon line of sight "details" and get more strategy. I hope the game can give me a promotion from Lieutenant to Colonel in my game play.
There comes a point where the detail of the game could only be appreciated as a computer game where the mechanics are "handled", some speed and ease of play needs to be a consideration.
So yes, orientation and positioning becomes less of a tactical concern and hopefully I can concentrate more on my strategy of crushing pedantic hobbyists!
What's really odd now is a baneblade can't tank shock through even tiny models but certain units are being given the ability to step over units. Which more or less gives them some benefits of fly.
What somehow stretches my suspension of disbelief is that a Leman Russ is big and steady enough to ignore the -1 to hit with heavy weapons in its turret, but a Baneblade is not.
Also, planes, armor facings being gone is unfortunate, the situation is rendered worse by the fact that any flyer can pretty much engage any flyer and the sole evasion of the is getting out of range and not even vector.
IMO Flyers behave totally weird. They still have their facing when movement is involved but somehow ignore it when firing. I am usually fine with abstraction and everything, but explaining why a flyer is agile enough to turn 180° and shoot and then turn 180° back in its previous direction during the shooting phase (which IMO should be mainly about - well shooting) but is incapable of turning more than 90° in its movement phase (which IMO should be mainly about - well moving) makes my head hurt a little
I wonder how many here have actually played a game with tanks and see for themselves how it worked.
I have played tank focused IG for a while now, and the 8th game I played last time (a few days ago) had one time when it felt weird with the firing arcs/firing from hull/whatever. I shot at a squad of Genestealers with my Leman Russes, with one of the tanks blocking two of the others Heavy Bolters. At that time it felt a bit strange, that those heavy bolters could still shoot, but we didn't really mind it that much. We play with a lot of terrain and buildings, but it worked fine.
In the rest of the game/games I have not really even felt that issue, since my tanks mostly sit on one side of the table, shooting forward. Cover isn't really that good now, so I can place them in the open pretty confidently. Or just behind an Aegis Defence Line, that works to.
First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.
It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.
Vaktathi wrote: that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?
Vaktathi wrote: Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?
I would say this is a very wrong statement. The only rtss that don't care about facings are bastard children of 90s rts, artificialy kept afloat thanks to Starcraft still being around. Most games with tanks actualy have facings, even the casual ones like Company of Heroes (front and rear, actualy).
Look at Wargame series, much larger scale than 40k (https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_super/gamespot/images/2013/178/reviews/2045119-679868_20130628_001.jpg) and still tanks have facings, which btw creates incredible moments in the game where you manage to stop an otherwise really hard to stop force by clever (and approprietly planned/ timed) manouvering and ambushes. I can field and run 50 tanks at once (mostly in groups 2 - 4), all with facing and it's perfectly manageable, in real time. How isn't it manageable in turn based system like 40k.
Also, comparing 40k 8th to classical rts, thanks for proving my point that the game is shallow now, it is sth akin to playing classic rts without base building. Classic rtss are tacticaly dumb, that's playstation 1 level of tactics.
Vaktathi wrote:
Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.
MCs should have facing as well, a varied one imo where for example some Tyranid beasties should have vulnerable front and strong back, maybe with a rule, for example, that you suffer morale test if you're in a front facing in a threat range (oh sorry, morale is now dumb as well) or sth . Flavourful, tactical and easier to balance tanks vs MCs.
We already had benefits from flanking infantry (negating cover), benefts from flanking vehicles (vulnerable sides, rear), what was needed was a system for MCs. But no, now vehicles have wounds, because AV was so hard, so hard that a 6 year old can grasp it np.
Vaktathi wrote:Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc.
Make a better damage table maybe, instead of removing a whole thing. Not sure about the GW solution really heh.
Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.
Crablezworth wrote: Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.
Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.
Crablezworth wrote: Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.
Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.
It limits their filed of vision, and thus arc of fire by half... that's not nothing.
Crablezworth wrote: Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.
Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.
It would mean you couldn't shoot something in front of you and something behind you at the same time.
Crablezworth wrote: Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.
Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.
It would mean you couldn't shoot something in front of you and something behind you at the same time.
No it wouldn't. Turn so that you have a 90 degree angle to both targets. Done. There would have to be 3 individual targets, all spaced out almost perfectly around you for this to ever matter.
Plumbumbarum wrote: First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.
It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.
Vaktathi wrote: that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?
because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.
I would say this is a very wrong statement. The only rtss that don't care about facings are bastard children of 90s rts, artificialy kept afloat thanks to Starcraft still being around. Most games with tanks actualy have facings, even the casual ones like Company of Heroes (front and rear, actualy).
Company of Heroes generally doesnt have a ton of tanks on the field, you may get two panthers with three or four fireteams of infantry against maybe 4 shermans and tank destroyers with a couple dozen infantry? I havent played the game in many years, but its certainly not dealing with entire tank companies and everything from Titans to Sentinels and power armored infantry, and has a computer to deal with all the background stuff that players have to roll out.
Look at Wargame series, much larger scale than 40k (https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_super/gamespot/images/2013/178/reviews/2045119-679868_20130628_001.jpg) and still tanks have facings, which btw creates incredible moments in the game where you manage to stop an otherwise really hard to stop force by clever (and approprietly planned/ timed) manouvering and ambushes. I can field and run 50 tanks at once (mostly in groups 2 - 4), all with facing and it's perfectly manageable, in real time. How isn't it manageable in turn based system like 40k.
These games are extremely complex and are essentially niche games, the same way most historical wargames are now, and dont have to worry about fantasy or RPG elements. They are built from the ground up as realistic operational level wargames with the player responsible for more levels of command than an actual battle commander would be, and are not a miniatures game played at what otherwise would be considered point blank ranges with RPG details and and a fantasy fundamental concept, and have a humongous back end handled by the computer that just isnt translatable to a 40k game where players are doing everything by hand with D6's.
Try translating one of those battles to a tabletop dice game and it'd take months to play through a game.
It's also why tabletop games that attempted to represent such battles generally didnt try and bother with facings either. I can look through gobs of old 70's and 80's tabletop wargames about Ostfront1980 style battles and any of them on the scale that Wargame portrays dont deal with facings of individual vehicles, rather entire units of armor are abstracted and treated as a single element with the emphasis on operational level positioning and movement rather than what arc an individual RPG is fired from against a single tank.
Also, comparing 40k 8th to classical rts, thanks for proving my point that the game is shallow now, it is sth akin to playing classic rts without base building. Classic rtss are tacticaly dumb, that's playstation 1 level of tactics.
which is an entirely different conversation, but again, most that play at the same scale 40k does do not bother with facings. Some do, but most dont, and are successful and fun anyway. Games Workshop has never advertised 40k as a detailed tactical battle simulator, thats not what they want from it, so focusing on making it fun and reducing balance issues makes more sense.
Whether 8E's approach will work or not is up for debate. Russ tanks being only marginally more resilient than Hellhounds or Chimeras makes me wary it will be, GW's execution is questionable (as is tradition) but I can live with the basic idea of what theyre going for.
MCs should have facing as well, a varied one imo where for example some Tyranid beasties should have vulnerable front and strong back, maybe with a rule, for example, that you suffer morale test if you're in a front facing in a threat range (oh sorry, morale is now dumb as well) or sth . Flavourful, tactical and easier to balance tanks vs MCs.
We already had benefits from flanking infantry (negating cover), benefts from flanking vehicles (vulnerable sides, rear), what was needed was a system for MCs.
My counter would be to ask where are, or how would you define, the arcs on this bloodthirster? Given its nature, what purpose would they serve?
But no, now vehicles have wounds, because AV was so hard, so hard that a 6 year old can grasp it np.
AV and facings weren't so much hard to function as hard to balance and just introduced issues that never quite integrated right, again, as showed by the fact that vehicles, far moreso than any other unit type, have seen wild swings in functionality and viability with every edition. There were a lot of werid rules artefacts with vehicles.
Make a better damage table maybe, instead of removing a whole thing. Not sure about the GW solution really heh.
to be perfectly honest I think GW has proven that they simply are either not willing or not capable of such, and that still only addresses some issues, hence the easy route.
Plumbumbarum wrote: First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.
It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.
Vaktathi wrote: that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?
because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.
The eternal problem of GW being crap rules writers. The way to go, especialy given the fresh start and all, was to remove the useless fat, keep the depth and make it work. They seem to have removed the last bits of depth and some fat, and it's probably still not going to work as written imo.
It's obvious that you accepted their incompetence as a fact of life, and it's probably a mature thing to do, but it also makes the critique kind of valid, doesn't it. They're making shortcuts because they're bad, should have done better.
I would say this is a very wrong statement. The only rtss that don't care about facings are bastard children of 90s rts, artificialy kept afloat thanks to Starcraft still being around. Most games with tanks actualy have facings, even the casual ones like Company of Heroes (front and rear, actualy).
Company of Heroes generally doesnt have a ton of tanks on the field, you may get two panthers with three or four fireteams of infantry against maybe 4 shermans and tank destroyers with a couple dozen infantry? I havent played the game in many years, but its certainly not dealing with entire tank companies and everything from Titans to Sentinels and power armored infantry, and has a computer to deal with all the background stuff that players have to roll out.
But typical game of 40k is not dealing with entire tank companies, I'd say average is a few tanks. Ofc when you play armored IG, you can have 2 in a standard game but it's a borderline case, just like horde orks for example and ofc can get a bit unwieldy with the sponson checkin heh. Still, I think it was manageable and you saved time on other things like moving a crapton of infantry or checking cover for multiple guys etc.
40k standard battle is too small to enter strategic scale. It's closer to the already mentioned Close Combat (you can field 8 tanks + 6 infantry there, for example) and at that scale, you need facing/ flanking.
Doesn't Flames of War use different stats for side, rear and front? Quite a few tanks there, don't know much about the system though.
Look at Wargame series, much larger scale than 40k (https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_super/gamespot/images/2013/178/reviews/2045119-679868_20130628_001.jpg) and still tanks have facings, which btw creates incredible moments in the game where you manage to stop an otherwise really hard to stop force by clever (and approprietly planned/ timed) manouvering and ambushes. I can field and run 50 tanks at once (mostly in groups 2 - 4), all with facing and it's perfectly manageable, in real time. How isn't it manageable in turn based system like 40k.
These games are extremely complex and are essentially niche games, the same way most historical wargames are now, and dont have to worry about fantasy or RPG elements. They are built from the ground up as realistic operational level wargames with the player responsible for more levels of command than an actual battle commander would be, and are not a miniatures game played at what otherwise would be considered point blank ranges with RPG details and and a fantasy fundamental concept, and have a humongous back end handled by the computer that just isnt translatable to a 40k game where players are doing everything by hand with D6's.
Try translating one of those battles to a tabletop dice game and it'd take months to play through a game.
I consider Wargame series quite casual heh. Might be saying more about me than about the game though heh.
But your whole point blank range with rpg rules scale mixup argument works just as much for as against detailed rules. When in doubt, go for depth I'd say.
Vaktathi wrote: It 's also why tabletop games that attempted to represent such battles generally didnt try and bother with facings either. I can look through gobs of old 70's and 80's tabletop wargames about Ostfront1980 style battles and any of them on the scale that Wargame portrays dont deal with facings of individual vehicles, rather entire units of armor are abstracted and treated as a single element with the emphasis on operational level positioning and movement rather than what arc an individual RPG is fired from against a single tank.
I'd say it's more a design choice between a more strategic/ tactical game than some necessity born of a tabletop games nature, like you portray it. Epic was similar scale but still managed to incorporate flanking rules (yet somehow 8th can't because it's too big). Some larger scale strategy games have rear attacks (ie Panzer Korps), some don't.
Also, comparing 40k 8th to classical rts, thanks for proving my point that the game is shallow now, it is sth akin to playing classic rts without base building. Classic rtss are tacticaly dumb, that's playstation 1 level of tactics.
which is an entirely different conversation, but again, most that play at the same scale 40k does do not bother with facings. Some do, but most dont, and are successful and fun anyway. Games Workshop has never advertised 40k as a detailed tactical battle simulator, thats not what they want from it, so focusing on making it fun and reducing balance issues makes more sense.
Whether 8E's approach will work or not is up for debate. Russ tanks being only marginally more resilient than Hellhounds or Chimeras makes me wary it will be, GW's execution is questionable (as is tradition) but I can live with the basic idea of what theyre going for.
Facing/ flanking are not only for simulation purposes. The game can be heavily abstracted but have flanking for movement phase depth's sake, and I'd play 8th like that. In fact I might, if I ever play 8th it will be with houserules for facing probably, actualy it sounds as a good basis for sth like that, assumig it's really more balanced than what was before.
MCs should have facing as well, a varied one imo where for example some Tyranid beasties should have vulnerable front and strong back, maybe with a rule, for example, that you suffer morale test if you're in a front facing in a threat range (oh sorry, morale is now dumb as well) or sth . Flavourful, tactical and easier to balance tanks vs MCs.
We already had benefits from flanking infantry (negating cover), benefts from flanking vehicles (vulnerable sides, rear), what was needed was a system for MCs.
My counter would be to ask where are, or how would you define, the arcs on this bloodthirster? Given its nature, what purpose would they serve?
180 degrees front probably for CC purposes, and because my system would include rules for rear attacks in CC, he'd still has his back vulnerable (not to shooting ofc, though you could make up some gak about those wings of him). Maybe some special round attack, he's a bloodthirster after all heh.
But no, now vehicles have wounds, because AV was so hard, so hard that a 6 year old can grasp it np.
AV and facings weren't so much hard to function as hard to balance and just introduced issues that never quite integrated right, again, as showed by the fact that vehicles, far moreso than any other unit type, have seen wild swings in functionality and viability with every edition. There were a lot of werid rules artefacts with vehicles.
Make a better damage table maybe, instead of removing a whole thing. Not sure about the GW solution really heh.
to be perfectly honest I think GW has proven that they simply are either not willing or not capable of such, and that still only addresses some issues, hence the easy route.
You have to admit it's not the best justification for the new system.
Anyway, to sum it up. I tend to agree with and enjoy your posts but here I think you are wrong. I see where you're coming from, and are probably just happy that vehicles might be viable again. Still, it was possible to make a much simplier but deeper system that doesn't make vehicles into another infantry variant. The lack of facing and its consequences are bad for cinematics, bad for flavour and bad for game depth, an incredibly crude fix for balance issues. The other benefits, like the small time savings and slight increase in ease of play are totaly not worth it.
Ok, had a few more goes at 8th, and I want to make sure I'm getting this right. So please, consider the following, and let me know what I've got wrong.
//-----FIGURE 1-----\\ A simple but effective setup to portray the changes to vehicle shooting in WH40k. We have a Land Raider facing off against a Lascannon/Missile Dread, as well as a 5-man tac squad wielding a poorly placed Plasma Cannon. Do those rocks really matter? We shall find out!
//-----FIGURE 2-----\\ The time before 8th edition. Notice the terrain features limiting which weapons can fire (and at what) by providing cover and obscuring the LOS of the weapon. Madness, I tell you...MADNESS!
Take note that the Lascannon on the right arm, Twin-Lascannon on the left sponson, and derpy Plasma Cannon have no target at all. Meanwhile, the Heavy Bolter may only shoot the Dread, and the right sponson Twin-Lascannon may only shoot the tac squad (and can't hit the derpy Plasma Cannon).
While not ideal, just looking at the picture, everything is in play and it does make sense. The Dread could have been positioned better to bring more firepower to bear against the Land Raider, the Plasma Cannon is (for some reason) taking advantage of maximum safety at the cost of not having a shot, and the Land Raider could have been better positioned as well. It could have maximized firepower against the Dread, making sure at least 1 Twin-Lascannon had LOS, maximized firepower against the tac squad by making sure the Heavy Bolter had LOS, or possibly a mix of the two so special rules can come into play and both the Dread and the tac squad are equally well threatened.
Critical decisions, the hallmark of a great strategy game.
//-----FIGURE 3-----\\ The future is now, and the future is LALZ WUT ROCKS!? I C U!!!. Ah, the genius that is 8th edition vehicle shooting. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE RED DOTS! Must be lasguns in disguise...pew-pew...
Anyway, take note that without firing arcs, the amount of possible targets and weapons to use in the exact same scenario is much higher; only the derpy Plasma Cannon still can't get a shot off.
The Dread and Land Raider see each other, the tac squad (minus derpy Plasma Cannon) and Land Raider see each other. Yep, looks good to me, FIRE EVERYTHING!!!
All of the Land Raider weapons can be used, and it may split up which weapons fire at which targets (though it may not split the individual shots of a single weapon). Likewise, all of the weapons on the Dread may be used against the Land Raider. The derpy Plasma Cannon still can't shoot, as LOS cannot be drawn to any part of the Land Raider.
So what we have gained is tactical flexibility with the ability to split your firepower, a fact which is a great boon as it has never made sense that a vehicle with multiple weapons with very different ideal targets must focus all their firepower on a single target. Likewise, tac squads and their ilk will be better suited at carrying the lone Rocket Launcher or Lascannon among the bolters and other rank and file red shirts.
What we have lost is a great amount of strategic depth. The positioning of the units as modeled no longer matters. In fact, you could just as easily replace the Land Raider with a shoe box, the Dread with a soda can, and the tac squad with wine corks. The above scenario in Figure 3 would play out exactly the same way, and I think that's a bit sad and off the mark.
The obvious solution is the re-addition of fire arcs, AND the keeping of split fire among weapons. Maybe one day...
Plumbumbarum wrote: First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.
It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.
Vaktathi wrote: that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?
because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.
The eternal problem of GW being crap rules writers. The way to go, especialy given the fresh start and all, was to remove the useless fat, keep the depth and make it work. They seem to have removed the last bits of depth and some fat, and it's probably still not going to work as written imo.
That's entirely possible, likely even
The issue is that 40k is and largely always has been a relatively simple game tactically speaking. There's lots of complexity and complication, but relatively little actual depth when it comes to using your forces. GW wants lots of little gubbins to play with, but has never really built 40k as a deep tactical simulator. If such is going to be the case, I'm ok with vehicles being simplified if it makes it easier to balance stuff in general, rather than dealing with the eternal see-saw that we've seen with tanks for the last two decades.
It's obvious that you accepted their incompetence as a fact of life, and it's probably a mature thing to do, but it also makes the critique kind of valid, doesn't it. They're making shortcuts because they're bad, should have done better.
I'd agree with this. Facings and arcs aren't all *that* complicated, but GW can never seem to manage it, and there's really no upsides to facings for vehicles (as the only units in the game that ever had to deal with it), only downsides, that never seem to integrate right anyway, especially when it's not uncommon to see 20+ on the field, and thus, accepting that, I'm ok with them just dropping it.
But typical game of 40k is not dealing with entire tank companies,I'd say average is a few tanks. Ofc when you play armored IG, you can have 2 in a standard game but it's a borderline case, just like horde orks for example and ofc can get a bit unwieldy with the sponson checkin heh. Still, I think it was manageable and you saved time on other things like moving a crapton of infantry or checking cover for multiple guys etc.
In some ways, but, it's not at all uncommon to see 20+ vehicles on a board, especially in the latter days of 7E with Gladius detachments and the like. It may not be routine, but hardly irregular.
Doesn't Flames of War use different stats for side, rear and front? Quite a few tanks there, don't know much about the system though.
Flames of War has Front and Side/Rear as one value, but it's a lot simpler than 40k's. Basically when you shoot at a tank, if you're in the front 180* you hit front, if not you hit side/rear. No HP's, and only 3 possible damage results (no effect, bailed (stunned), destroyed). Very simple vehicle rules compared with 40k. There's no "oh I blew off a gun" or "it's immobilized but can still shoot" or HP's to count or anything like that, and with tanks being easy boxes (as opposed to something like a Wave Serpent) it's not hard to define facing. They also don't have to worry about dealing with hover tanks and stompas and the like. Infantry are pretty much all the same thing too, don't have to worry about an MG42 vs a Maxim vs a Bren (whereas 40k would want to define each of those as distinct weapons in many cases), don't have to worry about power armored infantry or naked Orks, they're all treated pretty much the same. Much simpler units in general. Nobody is worrying about a Power Sword vs Power Axe, or fighting out individual challenges, or casting psychic powers, or rolling to resolve for each individual gun in an artillery battery, etc.
I consider Wargame series quite casual heh. Might be saying more about me than about the game though heh.
But your whole point blank range with rpg rules scale mixup argument works just as much for as against detailed rules. When in doubt, go for depth I'd say.
In some instances, sure, but in others it can get painful (such as my example of Shadowrun grenades earlier in the thread), and more detail doesn't necessarily translate to additional depth, as has been 40k's bane for most of its existence. We've got special rules for over a dozen different varieties of Astartes, but 2/3rds of them basically still play the same or amount to the same thing. We've got rules for Hellstrike missiles, but did they really need to be called out as a unique weapon, or could we just have used the standard Hunter Killer missile profile instead? Stuff like that is what 40k drowns in, but what it really looks to push. That doesn't work well with greater operational level gameplay however. Going back to Flames of War as an example, weapons profiles, units, unit types, etc are all wayyyyyyyyyyyyy simpler than 40k. This allows for greater tactical depth. 40k likes its unit detail, but has always rather eschewed tactical depth.
Facing/ flanking are not only for simulation purposes. The game can be heavily abstracted but have flanking for movement phase depth's sake, and I'd play 8th like that. In fact I might, if I ever play 8th it will be with houserules for facing probably, actualy it sounds as a good basis for sth like that, assumig it's really more balanced than what was before.
We'll see. I've been vaccilating between hope and despair for the last month
180 degrees front probably for CC purposes, and because my system would include rules for rear attacks in CC, he'd still has his back vulnerable (not to shooting ofc, though you could make up some gak about those wings of him). Maybe some special round attack, he's a bloodthirster after all heh.
Deciding where the front and rear are is the hard part, where exactly is the front 180* on a model like that, which can be posed and situated a number of ways along with the base? That's one of those issues where facing can get weird without solid mechanisms to determine such things, especially when originally built without such concern.
You have to admit it's not the best justification for the new system.
It's not, but it's enough. If they can't manage to make facings work, either because they don't care or can't be bothered, then I'm all for making it simpler and easier to balance.
Anyway, to sum it up. I tend to agree with and enjoy your posts but here I think you are wrong. I see where you're coming from, and are probably just happy that vehicles might be viable again. Still, it was possible to make a much simplier but deeper system that doesn't make vehicles into another infantry variant. The lack of facing and its consequences are bad for cinematics, bad for flavour and bad for game depth, an incredibly crude fix for balance issues. The other benefits, like the small time savings and slight increase in ease of play are totaly not worth it.
I think the biggest benefits will be balance and record keeping related over time savings, we'll see how GW manages the execution, I'm not holding my breath, but it should at least be easier to balance in theory. As for the cinematics, that's mostly I think a holdover of older editions, Tyrannofex's, artillery, IG heavy weapons teams, etc never seemed to generate significant issues of cinematics and flavor for lacking facings with people. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and hell, my opinion may change in time as well, we'll see
Critical decisions, the hallmark of a great strategy game.
I can understand people that you like firing arcs and LOS for weapons, but don't make those pedantic statements, please.
You are putting it as the definitive TACTICAL wallmark for a good strategic game, when it has never been even near that. You are putting so much weight in firing arcs that has become just awful to read.
The reality is much more simple. You like those gaming features. Is cool. It offers some decisions. A game without them offers other kind of decissions. Thats cool too to people that like them.
It happens that for now GW has decided to not add that feature to the game. It sucks to people that like it, is great for people that doesn't like it, and is indiferent to the mayority of the people that doesn't have strongs feelings about the feature one way or the other.
But this presentation as something like that as some kind of vital part of a tactical and strategic game? Please... It can be. But isn't only one way of adding tactical and strategy in games.
Martel732 wrote: The Dreadknight was probably the actual worst thing Ward ever did in 40k, because it opened the door to all the other super-MCs of 6th/7th. And then GW massively overreacted to parkinglot-40K of 5th and then took a big dump on vehicles.
Critical decisions, the hallmark of a great strategy game.
I can understand people that you like firing arcs and LOS for weapons, but don't make those pedantic statements, please.
Pedantic? You're too kind
You are putting it as the definitive TACTICAL wallmark for a good strategic game, when it has never been even near that. You are putting so much weight in firing arcs that has become just awful to read.
Are you saying it has never been a tactical hallmark for WH40k, or for strategic games in general? As for the weight being put into it, I assure you it is minor, though my apologies for your reading experience.
The reality is much more simple. You like those gaming features. Is cool. It offers some decisions. A game without them offers other kind of decissions. Thats cool too to people that like them.
I'm curious, just what are these other kinds of decisions you speak of?
It happens that for now GW has decided to not add that feature to the game. It sucks to people that like it, is great for people that doesn't like it, and is indiferent to the mayority of the people that doesn't have strongs feelings about the feature one way or the other.
Accurate statement is accurate, nothing to see here, moving along.
But this presentation as something like that as some kind of vital part of a tactical and strategic game? Please... It can be. But isn't only one way of adding tactical and strategy in games.
The main rub: are firing arcs and LOS a vital tactic in a strategy game? To which I, and many others, state yes, yes they are. They aren't the only type of tactic in strategy games, true, but they are among the most fundamental. With them removed, terrain is even less useful than it was (one of my biggest real complaints), the game hasn't played any faster (arguably slower, with more time debating which weapon will fire onto which target), the movement phase has 1-dimensional tactics now, and I can't help but think the reason it was done away with in the first place is to remove the possibility of modeling for advantage/fringe cases where LOS/arc can't be agreed upon by both players. Which, if true, seems a steep price to pay for such a loss of tactical depth.
Plumbumbarum wrote: First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.
It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.
Vaktathi wrote: that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.
When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?
But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?
because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.
The eternal problem of GW being crap rules writers. The way to go, especialy given the fresh start and all, was to remove the useless fat, keep the depth and make it work. They seem to have removed the last bits of depth and some fat, and it's probably still not going to work as written imo.
That's entirely possible, likely even
The issue is that 40k is and largely always has been a relatively simple game tactically speaking. There's lots of complexity and complication, but relatively little actual depth when it comes to using your forces. GW wants lots of little gubbins to play with, but has never really built 40k as a deep tactical simulator. If such is going to be the case, I'm ok with vehicles being simplified if it makes it easier to balance stuff in general, rather than dealing with the eternal see-saw that we've seen with tanks for the last two decades.
It's obvious that you accepted their incompetence as a fact of life, and it's probably a mature thing to do, but it also makes the critique kind of valid, doesn't it. They're making shortcuts because they're bad, should have done better.
I'd agree with this. Facings and arcs aren't all *that* complicated, but GW can never seem to manage it, and there's really no upsides to facings for vehicles (as the only units in the game that ever had to deal with it), only downsides, that never seem to integrate right anyway, especially when it's not uncommon to see 20+ on the field, and thus, accepting that, I'm ok with them just dropping it.
But typical game of 40k is not dealing with entire tank companies,I'd say average is a few tanks. Ofc when you play armored IG, you can have 2 in a standard game but it's a borderline case, just like horde orks for example and ofc can get a bit unwieldy with the sponson checkin heh. Still, I think it was manageable and you saved time on other things like moving a crapton of infantry or checking cover for multiple guys etc.
In some ways, but, it's not at all uncommon to see 20+ vehicles on a board, especially in the latter days of 7E with Gladius detachments and the like. It may not be routine, but hardly irregular.
Doesn't Flames of War use different stats for side, rear and front? Quite a few tanks there, don't know much about the system though.
Flames of War has Front and Side/Rear as one value, but it's a lot simpler than 40k's. Basically when you shoot at a tank, if you're in the front 180* you hit front, if not you hit side/rear. No HP's, and only 3 possible damage results (no effect, bailed (stunned), destroyed). Very simple vehicle rules compared with 40k. There's no "oh I blew off a gun" or "it's immobilized but can still shoot" or HP's to count or anything like that, and with tanks being easy boxes (as opposed to something like a Wave Serpent) it's not hard to define facing. They also don't have to worry about dealing with hover tanks and stompas and the like. Infantry are pretty much all the same thing too, don't have to worry about an MG42 vs a Maxim vs a Bren (whereas 40k would want to define each of those as distinct weapons in many cases), don't have to worry about power armored infantry or naked Orks, they're all treated pretty much the same. Much simpler units in general. Nobody is worrying about a Power Sword vs Power Axe, or fighting out individual challenges, or casting psychic powers, or rolling to resolve for each individual gun in an artillery battery, etc.
I consider Wargame series quite casual heh. Might be saying more about me than about the game though heh.
But your whole point blank range with rpg rules scale mixup argument works just as much for as against detailed rules. When in doubt, go for depth I'd say.
In some instances, sure, but in others it can get painful (such as my example of Shadowrun grenades earlier in the thread), and more detail doesn't necessarily translate to additional depth, as has been 40k's bane for most of its existence. We've got special rules for over a dozen different varieties of Astartes, but 2/3rds of them basically still play the same or amount to the same thing. We've got rules for Hellstrike missiles, but did they really need to be called out as a unique weapon, or could we just have used the standard Hunter Killer missile profile instead? Stuff like that is what 40k drowns in, but what it really looks to push. That doesn't work well with greater operational level gameplay however. Going back to Flames of War as an example, weapons profiles, units, unit types, etc are all wayyyyyyyyyyyyy simpler than 40k. This allows for greater tactical depth. 40k likes its unit detail, but has always rather eschewed tactical depth.
Facing/ flanking are not only for simulation purposes. The game can be heavily abstracted but have flanking for movement phase depth's sake, and I'd play 8th like that. In fact I might, if I ever play 8th it will be with houserules for facing probably, actualy it sounds as a good basis for sth like that, assumig it's really more balanced than what was before.
We'll see. I've been vaccilating between hope and despair for the last month
180 degrees front probably for CC purposes, and because my system would include rules for rear attacks in CC, he'd still has his back vulnerable (not to shooting ofc, though you could make up some gak about those wings of him). Maybe some special round attack, he's a bloodthirster after all heh.
Deciding where the front and rear are is the hard part, where exactly is the front 180* on a model like that, which can be posed and situated a number of ways along with the base? That's one of those issues where facing can get weird without solid mechanisms to determine such things, especially when originally built without such concern.
You have to admit it's not the best justification for the new system.
It's not, but it's enough. If they can't manage to make facings work, either because they don't care or can't be bothered, then I'm all for making it simpler and easier to balance.
Anyway, to sum it up. I tend to agree with and enjoy your posts but here I think you are wrong. I see where you're coming from, and are probably just happy that vehicles might be viable again. Still, it was possible to make a much simplier but deeper system that doesn't make vehicles into another infantry variant. The lack of facing and its consequences are bad for cinematics, bad for flavour and bad for game depth, an incredibly crude fix for balance issues. The other benefits, like the small time savings and slight increase in ease of play are totaly not worth it.
I think the biggest benefits will be balance and record keeping related over time savings, we'll see how GW manages the execution, I'm not holding my breath, but it should at least be easier to balance in theory. As for the cinematics, that's mostly I think a holdover of older editions, Tyrannofex's, artillery, IG heavy weapons teams, etc never seemed to generate significant issues of cinematics and flavor for lacking facings with people. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and hell, my opinion may change in time as well, we'll see
Yes I agree, 40k was not the deepest game around. That's why I dislike the change tbh, not because I have such a high standard for depth (I do in fact, but it's not the reason here) but because it's really easy to push into very shallow territory.
I'm also not only for a tactical simulator. In fact, I'd also like a game with complexity level like you describe Flames of War has, simple but concerned with depth of gameplay. Ofc it would have more unit types and profiles, but I would do flavour with 1 or 2 rules per faction and seriously simplify stats.
The other way would be go fully into detail, with individual model's position being important, facing, etc. A glorified mass skirmish, full blown simulator indeed but at least taking advantage of all that granularity in form of gameplay depth (ie checking facing for every single model for the sake of LoS). That ofc would be a 6 hours game and probably not really a mainstream one heh but at least it would have some clear vision for itself.
Anyway, 40k 8th seems to be a game still in the middle, just little less cluttered but more shallow.
As for the bloodthirster's arcs, you just mark it on the base, or model or sth.
MCs are bit more mobile than tanks, for cinematic purposes of facing. I was posting about MCs that should have facing a few years back already though, for purposes of depth.
Anyway, now I hope it's better than I think, for the sake of all that are hoping heh.
It's amazing how fast a tank that weights 72 tonnes can spin about!
