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.

Facings are a terrible hassle with vehicles that are not neat boxes, so I can live without them, though I certainly see the appeal of having them.

If they are gonna add a facing mechanic, please, do it only to Box-vehicles or obvious things like Ork Trukks.

Other rare-shaped vehicles don't need that rule.

Are these goblins last week's rumour mill then? Doesn't look like it to me. So if these are new then that all but confirms last weeks rumor pic to be for 40k.

 Galas wrote:


But the Kharadron Overlords don't follow that logic. For example, the Gundrstrokk Thunderers (Or how they are called) only come with 1 of every single special weapon in the box but they can be equiped the five with the same weapon per their rules. So basically they can choose between 6 different weapons. If that is not variety for a single unit I don't know what it is!

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/grunstok-thunderers_ENG.pdf

Huh...interesting. I hadn't seen that yet. Good catch.

 Bottle wrote:
A standard game of 40k definitely needs to be completed within 2.5 hours in my opinion, so that 2 day, 5 game events are possible. For Age of Sigmar it takes 60mins for every 1000 points you have on the table (or near abouts). That's what I would want for 40k too. I am very happy to hear the game is speeding up.

Aye, but I don't think the argument was "they shouldn't speed up the game" or "speeding up the game is bad", it was "considering the hilariously long list of problems that needed solving, making game length a top priority and so probably a bigger consideration when writing or balancing rules than, say, complexity and tactical depth seems to have more to do with who they chose to playtest than the priorities of the community as a whole". Seems a perfectly reasonable point to me - I don't know anyone who actually wants to spend four hours on a normal game, but I know plenty of folk who'd put getting the game down to a tournament-friendly 90 minute average way, way down on their list of wants from a new 40K edition.

 Azreal13 wrote:
In 7th we're people not getting the "oh, you've moved a vehicle? Never mind, here's my insanely fast mid strength high volume shooting unit, or my deep striking multi shot melta unit (or whatever) to simply appear in your rear arc and completely negate your careful "positioning"" that I got a lot of the time?

I don't get how people seem so attached to the mechanic when so much seemed to bypass it at will.

Yeah, facings might as well not have existed anyway considering how easily vehicles were destroyed, or how monstrous/gargantuan creatures like the Wraithknight, Riptide, Stormsurge, didn't have to bother with facings anyway. The really tough vehicles didn't even have differences in facing either - with AV 14 all around. It's really needless complexity to make things "feel" like they it has more realism.

Going to be deeply irritated if Chaos Chosen/Havocs can't take all Plasma Guns, etc., I'd rather not have to remodel several units - though it might just be another rule I end up ignoring

Seito O wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:

Seito O wrote:
Just a side note...
the Tyranid Tervigon Brood Progenitor set is no longer avaible...coincidence or change of use?

They are probably going to slowly remove all the Formation bundles on the website.

Yeah maybe.

Edit was too slow.

The Deathwatch Librarian in Power Armor too

Looks like the sets that were regular SM(or BA in the case of the Libby) kits plus the DW sprue might be going away. Now that the DW sprue is available separately and the initial release is over and done they probably don't intend to replace there stock of the combo sets to free up shelf space.

Happy that facings are gone. It's was a ridiculous mechanic which slowed down the game, didn't actually make much sense, was a pain to implement for oddly shaped vehicles etc etc. Good riddance.

I really like the fact that everything is far more streamlined and therefore much easier to balance. It also means that when new units or factions are released, they are far easier to incorporate into the system.

Finally, I really like how it is now possible to show differences between things. I always thought that armour values placed vehicles into small groups. With uncapped values and different rules for damage and degradation... what's not to like?

AGAIN - there is a topic here - it is "Warhammer 40k 8th Edition"

AGAIN - complaining about complaints? Not on topic.

IF you see a post that you think breaks one of the rules of the site?

Just report it and move on.

Thanks!

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 amanita wrote:
With the removal of templates and the loss of armor facings, it seems the game is headed in a direction where positioning is less relevant.

Lol, what a short-sighted opinion.

The ONLY place where positioning might not matter as much is in regards to flamers and blast weapons. On literally every other level positioning will be crucial. Cover will be as important as ever, assault units NEED to be positioned correctly due to the new bonuses for charging, ranged units need to be checkerboarded correctly to avoid getting multi-assaulted with the 3'' consolidate rule.

Only like Tau players would look at these new rules and think that positioning no longer matters... presumably because Tau ignore 75% of the phases in the game.

What a weird post. He never said that facing and positioning will no longer matters, only that they will be less relevant, which will obviously be the case if facings are indeed removed and no new mechanism is added to replace it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
If they are gonna add a facing mechanic, please, do it only to Box-vehicles or obvious things like Ork Trukks.

Other rare-shaped vehicles don't need that rule.

I think the best way to go would be to give front, side and rear to boxes-like vehicules, and only front and rear for the other shaped ones

 streetsamurai wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
If they are gonna add a facing mechanic, please, do it only to Box-vehicles or obvious things like Ork Trukks.

Other rare-shaped vehicles don't need that rule.

I think the best way to go would be to give front, side and rear to boxes-like vehicules, and only front and rear for the other shaped ones

Thats a good middle ground. Personally, I have no strong feelings one way or the other in the facing issue. At least in my games never mattered much. But maybe thats because vehicles sucks and nobody used them...

Facing would not be hard to add on a case by case basis now, likely with a diagram on the unit data sheet, or a not that the facing arcs are to be marked on the base of models that have bases - but again with a diagram to clarify.

The profile system makes it easy to use, vary the toughness or save, or both for different arcs and job done.

Arcs can thus be any angles desired, ideally limited to things that are easy to measure on the models (e.g. say corner to corner on a tank, or behind a line drawn along the front of the model), for things more rounded say a front/back drawn between the shoulders.

But only doing it for models where its appropriate, the new profiles make this sort of thing easy.

Also expecting the 'day 0' profiles to change as actual books come out to provide a bit more detail

That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong

 warboss wrote:
Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?

Yes.

Now vehicles require more firepower to reliably take down I am worried about a possibility of new spam lists.

We haven't seem everything though, and will probably be something to keep them in check weapons wise. So not throwing a wobbler yet.

However given GW's form for missing out (despite their insistence of more playtesting), I welcome the rules with a degree of caution.

 streetsamurai wrote:
That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong

Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.

Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.

Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.

If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.

I love the idea of stats and abilities degrading as wounds go. Now I've seen an example I'm all the more excited. Having played a game where three of my tanks were killed per turn last night, fun as it was yeah, I'm up for a change!!!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong

Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.

Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.

Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.

If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.

In a tank combat game, or Titan combat game, facing would be a fine mechanic, but as of now, it's really kind of unnecessary for 40K. I'm fine to see it go.

Regarding vehicle facings, there was a simple to follow rule in Epic: Armageddon that encouraged careful out-manoeuvring without all the horrible debates over the precise angle your shot is at. Basically you just draw a line (of limited length) between two friendly units. If that passes through an enemy unit, it counts as under a crossfire and suffers and additional -1 to any saves from shooting.

It would be nice to see something elegant like this again to make good positioning important. It could even be applied far more generally than AV was, so all units are vulnerable to being ambushed.

 xttz wrote:
Regarding vehicle facings, there was a simple to follow rule in Epic: Armageddon that encouraged careful out-manoeuvring without all the horrible debates over the precise angle your shot is at. Basically you just draw a line (of limited length) between two friendly units. If that passes through an enemy unit, it counts as under a crossfire and suffers and additional -1 to any saves from shooting.

It would be nice to see something elegant like this again to make good positioning important. It could even be applied far more generally than AV was, so all units are vulnerable to being ambushed.

I like the system used in Flames of War. You draw a line perpendicular to the tank across the front. If the shot came from ahead of the line, it strikes the front armor. If it comes from behind the line (i.e., the tank's sides or rear) it hits the flank armor.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
That would be great, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure facing will completely be removed and nothing will be added to replace it. Sincerly hope that I'm wrong

Facing going bye-bye isn't losing anything of value at the scale 40k games are played.

Don't get me wrong, I can see where vehicle armor facing added some tactical depth in some ways, but ultimately having only one unit type in the game care about facing, with no real balance reason or other gameplay necessity, just added complication and headache, not to mention how awkward facing could be on many vehicles.

Facing makes sense in a game with one or two vehicles and maybe a dozen or two infantry on the board at most. When we have games with potentially two dozen vehicles on the board, it no longer makes sense to portray at that scale.

If 40k were played at the model count of Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, or Infinity, armor facing could be a great mechanic (though even those games don't use facings for armor/toughness/etc purposes really), but not when tables routinely have a dozen or more tanks and often twice that number, and especially when no other units, not MC's, not Cavalry, not Infantry, nor anything else, has to worry about it despite ostensibly often having the exact same vulnerabilities.

Let's just say that I strongly disagree. Some of the most fun moments in 40k for me involved the decision on whether I should shoot at an unit with a vehicule, while exposing its rear to another, or rather play it safe.

Something out of the blue. Does anyone recall which campaign book/event does the quote: this world will burn, it will be quenched, purified and the heavens will deliver our reward! ? I keep hearing it on the trailer for the 8th edition but I've failed in so far to pinpoint which book does it rever.

 Grinshanks wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Anyone else worried a bit about wound spam with vehicles after that?

Yes.

Now vehicles require more firepower to reliably take down I am worried about a possibility of new spam lists.

We haven't seem everything though, and will probably be something to keep them in check weapons wise. So not throwing a wobbler yet.

However given GW's form for missing out (despite their insistence of more playtesting), I welcome the rules with a degree of caution.

Well I am just a bit concerned about how daemons are going to translate over. I'm sure Tzeentch will translate over just fine with all there ranged Psychic powers. But what about the other three gods without some serious shooting how are they to disable tanks or crack open transports? I love to be able to play without spamming FMC, or psyker heavy. Id' be nice to have all four faction be viable as mono-god lists. Without shooting to deal with all these multi-wound monsters and vehicles. I have to assume that MC can do multiple damage with their melee attacks. It also make you wonder how they'll translate Rending USR attacks over in the new addition. In AOS for instance Slaaneshi daemons just have a -1 armor save modifier. That won't be enough given that we still have S vs T, and S3 will be doing noting versus vehicles and monsters. Maybe auto wounding on a wound roll of "6"? Perhaps helblades and plague knives with do multiple damage, etc.

Everything wounds on a roll of 6 in 8th edition

 streetsamurai wrote:
Everything wounds on a roll of 6 in 8th edition

We don't know that for sure yet, do we?

There could be a similar double roll like there was if you needed 7s to hit (so a 6 followed by a 4+,5+,6+ etc..)

Straight 6s wound everything is just the assumption based in the current table.

So tomorrow's Infantry article will reignite the "lasguns vs Land Raiders" arguments I bet. Oh I hope that's the example used, would be so funny...

*edit* guess it was already posted not sure why I missed over 10 pages. Sorry.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Everything wounds on a roll of 6 in 8th edition

We don't know that for sure yet, do we?

There could be a similar double roll like there was if you needed 7s to hit (so a 6 followed by a 4+,5+,6+ etc..)

Straight 6s wound everything is just the assumption based in the current table.

That's a good point, didn't think of it. Previous editions of WHFB had 7+ and 8+ rolls, so they might use them in 8th (even thought I still think that it will be a simple 6 to wound)

Oh yeah the overpowered lasgun that melts Riptides, after all it can wound them!

KoW does it neatly, if you need more than a 6 then it's still a 6+ roll but you halve the number of dice.