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.
2024/01/26 14:28:21
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Genuinely I don't see any problem with any of that. If vehicle armor facing shifts army balance around a bit, then so be it. It gives another potential method of engaging a subset of high value targets, and encourages more positional play.
Karol may play GK and loathe Eldar, but that bias doesn't automatically make him incorrect.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Genuinely I don't see any problem with any of that. If vehicle armor facing shifts army balance around a bit, then so be it. It gives another potential method of engaging a subset of high value targets, and encourages more positional play.
Karol may play GK and loathe Eldar, but that bias doesn't automatically make him incorrect.
I think it does in the context of 10th ed 40k. Flanking a vehicle is generally fairly easy to accomplish for a lot of forces and would unfairly punish those that have a larger vehicle contingent (looking at the low 40's% WR knights over there).
In a world where it was a Tactical challenge to pull off and there was space to value the maneuvering? Sure why not. All that would encourage in 40k now is that vehicles either don't get taken, sit at the back or are worth a lot less suddenly and as a result, get spammed.
To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/26 15:32:38
2024/01/26 16:24:51
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Dudeface wrote: To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Depends how the facings were implemented - if we're talking facings + AV, then lasguns are usually unable to penetrate even the weakest armour (AV10) on a verhicle.
I may have missed how people were talking about implementing them earlier in the thread, admittedly.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2024/01/26 18:04:56
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
What looks dumb is not basing vehicles, as it makes your based infantry models look larger by comparison.
Genuine question, how big are you making a baneblade base? I'd like to visualise it.
I'm not, lol. Not only do I not own any, but theres no point in basing a Baneblade - doing so isn't supported by the rules (and might in fact be considered an illegal modeling for advantage type thing). While it would, I think, enhance the representative scaling between the vehicle and the surrounding infantry, its not worth the headaches that doing so would entail if GW isn't going to support it in their game.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2024/01/26 18:38:18
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Dudeface wrote: To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Depends how the facings were implemented - if we're talking facings + AV, then lasguns are usually unable to penetrate even the weakest armour (AV10) on a verhicle.
I may have missed how people were talking about implementing them earlier in the thread, admittedly.
Karol suggested a lower T value on the rear.
2024/01/26 19:02:51
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Genuinely I don't see any problem with any of that. If vehicle armor facing shifts army balance around a bit, then so be it. It gives another potential method of engaging a subset of high value targets, and encourages more positional play.
Karol may play GK and loathe Eldar, but that bias doesn't automatically make him incorrect.
I think it does in the context of 10th ed 40k. Flanking a vehicle is generally fairly easy to accomplish for a lot of forces and would unfairly punish those that have a larger vehicle contingent (looking at the low 40's% WR knights over there).
In a world where it was a Tactical challenge to pull off and there was space to value the maneuvering? Sure why not. All that would encourage in 40k now is that vehicles either don't get taken, sit at the back or are worth a lot less suddenly and as a result, get spammed.
To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Squaring that circle is easy. 10th is bad (see thread title), and in the ideal world where small arms (or maybe even heavier ones) couldn't scratch a vehicle from the front, flanking is great mechanic.
But even in 10th (*barf), I'm pro-flanking because not all armies have the same number of AT solutions. Providing potential alternatives (that aren't Strats or bespoke special rules) is still great. If some rebalancing has to happen, then so be it.
Star Wars Legion, technically Warmachine though vehicles are relatively few and far between, Battletech, technically age of sigmar (steam tanks are on bases, as are hurricanums and luminarks, amongst others), etc. all put vehicles on bases, plenty of older games predating 40k did so as well.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2024/01/26 21:34:46
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Star Wars Legion, technically Warmachine though vehicles are relatively few and far between, Battletech, technically age of sigmar (steam tanks are on bases, as are hurricanums and luminarks, amongst others), etc. all put vehicles on bases, plenty of older games predating 40k did so as well.
Vehicles in BT are as often not on bases as they are on bases.
Bolt Action doesn't bother.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/26 21:34:58
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
RaptorusRex wrote: Vehicles in BT are as often not on bases as they are on bases.
So there are - in fact and contrary to the original statement - other systems that do use bases for their vehicles. Glad we could clear that up so quickly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/01/27 12:38:47
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2024/01/27 13:35:28
Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
