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.

tneva82 wrote:

ian wrote:
Couldnt i park my tank on the top of a building in 7th because that was really realistic

Yes. Who said that should have stayed? Nobody here has claimed 7th ed was perfect. That's why fixing rather than this shuffle would have been better. Now they have just changed what is illogal to others. Just like they randomly change style of weapons and units unneededly with horde killers becoming terminator killers etc when there was nothing that inheritently required such a change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ian wrote:
This is my point a player who wants to use the antenna of doom apears to be only intressed in winning and means i also win because i dont have to play with them

So they are only interested in winning playing the game like designers want you to play? Interesting.

Sorry that im replying late ,but from meeting some of the miniature designer i really dont think that it was there intention to create the antenna of doom , they seemed much more intressed in the design and feel of the model like they where creating a story a theme ect , if you want to imagine that the designers thought yes a antenna of doom is what they want then i fear you lack the common sense necessary for this type of game and a game like chess where the rules are unbreakable is more for you

Justyn wrote:

Many is not the majority. A tank cannot move to adjust to it's surroundings. You can suggest it moves forwards, fires, then moves back all you want. I'd say ok, then if it moves forwards to fire, my guys get to fire back and still target it. Because they sure as hell are not going to sit there and wait for some judge to tell them it's their turn. I'm not sure why GW changed it from using the viewpoint of the weapon itself.

But you are saying a Carnifex can, when it is a giant lumbering clumsy looking monster, but damn if it has 1mm of one claw sticking out from behind that same rock, no problem it can shoot everything.

No, I'm not saying that at all. This is why I liked True LoS. You viewed it from the weapon itself. HOWEVER. A carnifex, a monstrous creature, riptide, any suit, or anything of that nature moves EASIER and is more FLEXIBLE than a tank. A tank is a square chunk of metal with no flexibility at all and all it's weapons are on fixed points/pivots. A Carni for example can move at the shoulder joint, elbow joint, wrist joint, etc to bend it's way around an object. It would be like you holding a rifle around a corner and firing blindly. You're able to do that because you're flexible. A tank cannot unless it has hands and can take it's turret off and hold it around a corner. Which now needs to be a cartoon.

Yes, the Exocrine, a marvel of agility and manouverability.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If we're not allowed real life examples as analogies, I don't think Transformers is gonna cut it with the mods, guys!

No no. Don't be too hasty. Bull0 might've been onto something. We haven't got to the core of it yet. There may be more than meets the eye.




Ok I'll stop.

Admech players, infiltrators have been nerfed a fair bit but are far cheaper. What do we think is the best loadout for them? Tasergoads were better in pretty much every situation before but is this still the same?

Tasers don't wound T4 models on a 2+ anymore so I think power swords may make a comeback.

Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The entire game is abstraction, why get hung up on vehicles when you've been able to do the EXACT SAME THINGS with MCs?

Except, as I keep pointing out, it's not. A living creature (or even a suit like a Crisis Suit, where the person is immobile and the suit kinda "becomes" their body, and moves as they think it), is far more manoeuvrable than a solid lump of a tank. They can physically change their shape by crouching, laying flat, flattening themselves up against walls and, yes, leaning out to fire their weapons without having to move from their position. They are flexible. It's why infantry are so good in high cover areas, because they can better navigate and use the terrain to their advantage.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sturmpanzerwagen, he's going to have a bit of a problem doing just that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If TLOS was still in the game and we still had to check to see which weapons could see the opponent then you,d have a valid complaint...

That is my complaint. How have you not got that so far?

My problem is that they've dumbed the rules down so much that "vehicles" aren't even a thing, so now a Land Raider can fire its Lascannon through itself.

Okay...how does a two story tall Hive Tyrant crouch low enough to shoot through a hole in the wall only it's toe can see?

You only seem to be stuck on the idea that tanks can,t be abstracted to have shited into position to fire heavy weapons while everyone else can Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge to fire their heavy weapons without counting as moving. Even if they need to lean so far over that they'd physically have to take two steps forward to do it.

I feel like the issue is less about the abstraction of the rules regarding LOS and more about how you can let go of old rles regardless of how generally BAD they made vehicles preform.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: any game that wants to use "facings" needs to go all in or not at all. To restrict a single model type to being required to move in any sort of manner differently than everything else in the game is nonsensical in terms of mechanics. If positioning should be that important I should only be able to shoot with infantry in a forward 180 degree arc, and never get overwatch when charged rom behind unless I had models pointed that way, and MCs woukd have the same facings as tanks with different values for which direction I shoot from.

And while that sounds coold when playing with ten or so models, when you can easilly have over a hundred models to micromanage that way the game can, and will, take hours longer to play. Arguements would be limitless about if something is in a firing arc or not, and so on.

We abstract things to make the game run smoother, to make units more balanced against each other and to make games less about arguing over if something can see or not. If that sacrifices your personal views of realism upon the altar of entertainment, I can live with that.

Man, can we just take the vehicles facing topic to another thread already? It's ridiculous that people are arguing because a monster can look around a corner, but a tank can't. But guess what? In a battle you don't stand there while all of your opponents move their units and wait to get shot in the face. Units don't teleport and move a quarter of the way across the battlefield in the blink of an eye either. Wargames are an abstraction. You don't like it? Cool. Play Dawn of War, house rule it, or play 7th. Just move on already.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If we're not allowed real life examples as analogies, I don't think Transformers is gonna cut it with the mods, guys!

What about Ork Trukks that are transformers like Orkimus Prime?

It is really dodgy, people shouldn't be defending it. A vehicle is basically just a big counter now, the weapons will all theoretically be coming from that area of the board but it doesn't matter where they are, the shape of the vehicle, etc, beyond the dimensions of the hull. It's a regressive step. Needs sorting out. I don't mind armour facings etc being gone - they were logical but I don't mind them going - but weapons firing from the opposite corner of the hull etc is dumb as paint and needs to be FAQ'd.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


My problem is that they've dumbed the rules down so much that "vehicles" aren't even a thing, so now a Land Raider can fire its Lascannon through itself.

Yeah I'm not sure why the solution was to alter vehicles instead in addition to mc's. In my eyes mc's were the problem in 7th, not vehicles. Instead they sorta fix mc's in 8th but also for some reason break vehicles.

What exactly was so hard about measuring LOS from the guns on a vehicle?

I mean, unlike living creatures that can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (again!) as you put it, a Predator's sponson is pretty much always in exactly the same spot, and if we have to - as the rules say - take a model's eye view to determine LOS, why can't we do that for the fixed weapons on a vehicle?

When has that ever been hard, or something that slows the game down any more than regular LOS?

Parked that way limits a vehicles LOS, so units can use the cover screen to approach and then shoot/assault it to death later. Tactical positioning always has pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. Use the disadvantage this creates for the vehicle and position to weather the advantage to the vehicle.

 Bull0 wrote:
It is really dodgy, people shouldn't be defending it. A vehicle is basically just a big counter now, the weapons will all theoretically be coming from that area of the board but it doesn't matter where they are, the shape of the vehicle, etc, beyond the dimensions of the hull. It's a regressive step. Needs sorting out. I don't mind armour facings etc being gone - they were logical but I don't mind them going - but weapons firing from the opposite corner of the hull etc is dumb as paint and needs to be FAQ'd.

I'll just save everyone some time and reply for them:

"But it's an abstraction!"

Think I'll get a T-shirt made.

I understand the points of view on both sides of it, but in a game of this scale, I'd rather go with the simpler, faster method. If we scaled the game down to a couple squads and a vehicle or two on each side, I'd be happy with the more complex version. But with 50+ models per side, I'd rather not play Advanced Squad Leader 40K.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What exactly was so hard about measuring LOS from the guns on a vehicle?

I mean, unlike living creatures that can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (again!) as you put it, a Predator's sponson is pretty much always in exactly the same spot, and if we have to - as the rules say - take a model's eye view to determine LOS, why can't we do that for the fixed weapons on a vehicle?

When has that ever been hard, or something that slows the game down any more than regular LOS?

Remember how "measure from the model" was fairly quickly patched by GW to "measure from the base"?

This could easily become the case for 40K if people write in and politely explain the issues the chosen method creates for them.

Or just house rule it and move on. But please, move on.

Firing a Lascannon sponson on the left side of the vehicle only at things that it can see is now "Advanced Squad Leader 40K". We've been doing that since 40K's inception. Why is it suddenly too hard?

There's a quote from Aliens that Ripley says towards the start of the film that I'm really feeling right now.

Currently not that bothered - will see how it works in game and then decide.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I understand the points of view on both sides of it, but in a game of this scale, I'd rather go with the simpler, faster method. If we scaled the game down to a couple squads and a vehicle or two on each side, I'd be happy with the more complex version. But with 50+ models per side, I'd rather not play Advanced Squad Leader 40K.

OK, and yet 8th also introduces the ability for each one of those 50 models to target independently with each weapon. So we can't have it both ways can we? IE even we agreed that vehicle fire arcs slowed down the game, it wouldn't be fair to omit that each model being able to target independently also slows the game down and is every bit "advance squad leader 40k".

 Crablezworth wrote:

 alleus wrote:

If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.

Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.

No, sorry, you don't get to do that. I and otheres have posted plenty of new and relevant information about 8th edition and dicussed said information, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you get to dictate who can comment. It doesn't work like that.

I don't care if/how much you have contributed to this thread in the past, now you are just arguing for arguments sake. Take it up with GW, send them a well constructed e-mail (if you haven't already), post on their Facebook site. They are the ones that can actually do something about it. Posting here won't change anything, all you're doing is fanning the flames and blowing this way out of proportion.

They have repeatedly said that they will continue to fix and balance this edition, á la Generals Handbook. So what is to say that they can't change this or add firing arcs in a future version?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What exactly was so hard about measuring LOS from the guns on a vehicle?

I mean, unlike living creatures that can dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge (again!) as you put it, a Predator's sponson is pretty much always in exactly the same spot, and if we have to - as the rules say - take a model's eye view to determine LOS, why can't we do that for the fixed weapons on a vehicle?

When has that ever been hard, or something that slows the game down any more than regular LOS?

You must have forgotten such arguements as models not being able to shoot because they don't have eyes.

TLoS was so much of a mess for the game that GW made that crappy laser pointer to try and help people determine it faster.

You now you have a rules issue when it takes an extra device just to determine if ou can see the thing you're trying to shoot.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.

It's called side scraping and it is the equivalent of leaning for tanks. The example pic posted above is indeed ridiculous but no moreso than a wraithknight sticking its right toe out of cover and being able to shoot its left shoulder weapon as a result. If you're fine with the latter then it is only fair to be consistent about the equivalent former.

 RoboDragon wrote:
Admech players, infiltrators have been nerfed a fair bit but are far cheaper. What do we think is the best loadout for them? Tasergoads were better in pretty much every situation before but is this still the same?

Tasers don't wound T4 models on a 2+ anymore so I think power swords may make a comeback.

I made mine with taser goads. Lucky 6's means lots of hits. Not gonna happen, but 5 of them could pull 45 hits. And being STR 6 makes em wound your average target on 3s. Also built mine to have the blasters, so Pistol 5 in shooting in CC adds another 25 attacks, even though its str 3.

Hopefully trying a game of 8th fri with my Admech army so will see how they do. At the very least, its a good distraction from the rest of my army!

But really though, lets move the LoS to the sub forum for rules. I think its been beaten to death and spammed enough for now

 alleus wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 alleus wrote:

If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.

Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.

No, sorry, you don't get to do that. I and otheres have posted plenty of new and relevant information about 8th edition and dicussed said information, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you get to dictate who can comment. It doesn't work like that.

I don't care if/how much you have contributed to this thread in the past

You could at the very least read what I've had to say, bucko. I've made the case, several times that fixing it would be a positive development, your selective reading of my commentary isn't justification to of moral outrage, it's just you being impolite. Sport.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:
I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)

Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.

Drives forward, fires its guns and drives backwards again. Just like a "creature with guns" would move out of cover fire and go back. Again, Tanks are much much better doing this than large creatures, especially huge robots walking on feet because tanks tend to have far less ground pressure than feet. A 60 ton robot would make real bad food prints in a concrete road, while a tank just ruins it a little.

P.S.: And you can bet a 60 ton creature would be much much much worse. You are talking about something the size of an Argentinosaurus.

The mods have already said once to stop with the vehicle facing discussion.

Strange how some are allowed to get away with things

Why is it so hard to believe that the land raider fires one of
It's guns as it turns, then fires its other as it swings around? Assuming everything in your turn to be happening at pretty much the same time...

It's an abstraction. Some wierd things occured under 7th, some will under 8th.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
The mods have already said once to stop with the vehicle facing discussion.

Strange how some are allowed to get away with things

For feth's sake, we're not discussing vehicle facing, we're discussing many facets of the 8th edition rumours, inclding VEHICLE WEAPON ARCS, specifically the lack there of. You don't get to not read a page of a thread and come in pretending to play mod.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
The mods have already said once to stop with the vehicle facing discussion.

Strange how some are allowed to get away with things

For feth's sake, we're not discussing vehicle facing, we're discussing many facets of the 8th edition rumours, inclding VEHICLE WEAPON ARCS, specifically the lack there of. You don't get to not read a page of a thread and come in pretending to play mod.

I'm pointing out that this discussion happened, a mod came in and said to stop it as it's ruining the thread. I suggest you buy some better fitting knickers.

Drahken_40k wrote:
Anyone see any rules for selecting warlords?

Any model can be the warlord, but it has to be a character to select a warlord trait

http://imgur.com/a/wdVuF