Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Vehicles are just monsters with an aversion for medics now. ; )

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?

Strategic? What?

Oh, hey, Valkyrie door gunners might have a reason to exist now!

nekooni wrote:

 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?

Strategic? What?

You're kidding us... right?

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.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

tneva82 wrote:

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

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:

tneva82 wrote:

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!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


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!

Aha! I knew I'd seen your land raider somewhere before tee hee

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


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!

Aha! I knew I'd seen your land raider somewhere before tee hee

btw totally legal even under 7th ed rules

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 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.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

 Peregrine wrote:

 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

 Crablezworth wrote:
What he said, visualized

That is hilarious!

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?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


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.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
What he said, visualized

That is hilarious!

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.

8th ed 40k fails in that.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
You said it yourself, what about the LRBT?

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 LRBT didn't pay full price for its sponson guns.

Or worse, the Land Raider Terminus Ultra?

Apocalypse-only unit. Apocalypse does not matter.