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.

Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?

Full rules and indexes have been leaked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?

Any point whatsoever. It's part of model, it works as LOS and range for everything. Same as infantry. You have backbanner and you get to shoot from it and get fried by hit to it

 Mr BugBear wrote:
Have full vehicle rules been leaked?

Look in the original post for the full leak of just about everything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?

I'm guessing we will do the ol' fashioned "stoop down and get a look from behind the model". So in a Predator I guess we get our LoS from the turret regardless of what we're shooting?

As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
You want non "dumbed-down" facing and vehicle rules, go back to 2nd. Turning templates, unique hit locations on vehicles, and facings and arcs mattered even more than they did today. Or maybe we want to go back to Rogue Trader and its hit template? Facing in these early versions mattered so much so that even troopers had a 90 degree firing arc.

Yeah, see, I didn't call for any of that. Reply to the things people write, not what you'd wish they'd wrote.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Facing rules in a game of this scale are basically pointless and no longer have a place in it.

Based on? Because of? Due to?

You've just said what it is. You haven't said why it is.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
40k gave up on being some kind of "objective reality modeller" really early on and made no bones about it.

Never said that it was nor called for it to be again, but hey, you put words in my mouth before so why stop now!!!

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Their need to keep an outmoded system for vehicles and only vehicles makes no sense.

Again, you've made a statement as if it were the truth with nothing to back it up. Why is it outmoded? You have to qualify your statement.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Every other unit in the game is already a probability cloud in terms of facing and position. Why not vehicles as well?

Because that's not how vehicles work, and I already explained why. If you are standing in a field holding a rifle and something comes up to your left it's very easy to turn and face it. Now imagine you are sitting still in your car and something comes up on your left. You can't turn instantly to face it. Tanks turn faster on account of their tracks, sure, but the rules have to encompass all vehicles so some level of abstraction is certainly required (ie. I'm not calling for a simulation).

But the rules as they stand go far beyond "abstraction" and into really stupid territory, where a tank can have most of its guns behind a solid wall yet can still shoot with everything even if it has to draw LOS through itself. That doesn't make any sense.

At that point we may as well not play with miniatures at all if how they represent the unit doesn't even matter. Why do we stoop down to get a model's eye view if the miniature itself and how it is shaped/armed/its dimensions don't actually matter?

 Ronin_eX wrote:
If monstrous creatures don't have to worry about how flexible their arms are, then why can't we assume a tank has time to swivel in place or a fighter has time to pull a maneuver in order to get a target in arc even if the model isn't currently do it.

Again, no, because that's not how those things work. Abstractions can only go so far before they break down. A fighter jet flying over a tiny patch of ground somehow being able to fire 4 different forward facing fixed weapons at targets at all the cardinal directions in the space of however long a turn of 40K represents (30 seconds, if that) just doesn't track. A person doing that with a pair of pistols? Sure. A lumbering battletank? Not so much.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
In general, it is a non-issue for most of play.

Again, you haven't said why. You've just said that it is.

Not good enough.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
It wasn't an issue when they took the 90 degree firing arc off of troops and it wont be an issue if they take the dozens of unique firing arcs off of vehicles.

Again, no reasoning given.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
When people started playing 3rd they didn't start advancing infantry in reverse because "lol, facing doesn't matter"...

False equivalency. There were no facings for infantry, so that didn't matter.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Said far better than I did. Have an Exalt!

Ahh don't low-ball yourself like that Zion. I'm sure you could have come up with more than straw-filled statements devoid of actual qualification.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?

I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.



But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


But the rules as they stand go far beyond "abstraction" and into really stupid territory, where a tank can have most of its guns behind a solid wall yet can still shoot with everything even if it has to draw LOS through itself. That doesn't make any sense.

At that point we may as well not play with miniatures at all if how they represent the unit doesn't even matter. Why do we stoop down to get a model's eye view if the miniature itself and how it is shaped/armed/its dimensions don't actually matter?

Exactly, I think of all the time and love I put into this ork vehicle, I can't for the life of me fathom and benefit or narrative improvement in 8th edition in having literally every last shot/rokkit/bout of flame come from a grot sporting a radio cuz abstraction bro:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?

I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.



But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?

But hey now we get to replay this again!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.

The rulebook doesn't even specify what being in range of a weapon is, only that the enemy unit must be to be targeted. It's that short.

So even if we infer RAI that you at the very least measure from the weapon that is firing, no idea if that is to the base or the model itself.

Anyone else not too excited for the Space Marine psychic powers listed so far? There's not enough mind bullets with the only option being the generic smite (which D3 seems too low to make it effective so gotta hope for a roll of 10 or 11 for the D6).

I'm also a bit miffed that Chief libby Tigurius seems to have taken a massive nurf. He was never a beast in CC which I'm fine with and the stat line reflects. However he was always about giving buffs and improving all the units around him. He can sort of do that now based on the index, but the powers are all CC related which is where he shouldn't be.
He also can cast 2 powers, just the same as the bog standard ones. Come one, he is meant to be one of the most powerful imperium Psykers (poss only matched by Mephiston). Sure he can deny the witch one more time which could be useful but he seems to have taken a big nurf on his powers.
The re-roll psychic tests is good and goes with his fluff and previous editions but is not enough, and his rod (no pun intended) has lost all special rules. At least mortal wounds would of been nice.
The -1 to hit him I don't think is going to be that great when I have seen so many +2/+3 BS stats so far pumping out more shots than previous. The least they could of done is give it a bubble effect and/or switched it to a +1 for his to hit rolls.

However I know the indexes are only temporary so hoping that the full codex gives him some boosts.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.

The rulebook doesn't even specify what being in range of a weapon is, only that the enemy unit must be to be targeted. It's that short.

Yeah I know. That's why I said I'm thinking it's how it works. Unless they want us to measure range from the front of the model from now on...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


As for measuring the range.. I'm thinking it's still from each gun itself, though I haven't seen anything on the rulebook either.

The rulebook doesn't even specify what being in range of a weapon is, only that the enemy unit must be to be targeted. It's that short.

Yeah I know. That's why I said I'm thinking it's how it works. Unless they want us to measure range from the front of the model from now on...

People wanted vehicles to work like monsters, they got it. You draw LOS and range from any point whatsoever in vehicle to any point whatsoever in target.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where does one measure range and LOS from a vehicle?

I hear arials are going to be big this edition... sigh.



But but but they raised obscurement from 25 to 50%. which now totally matters with the 0.001 percent your vehicle will need to fire literally all its weapons at any targets it wants. Yay?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


But the rules as they stand go far beyond "abstraction" and into really stupid territory, where a tank can have most of its guns behind a solid wall yet can still shoot with everything even if it has to draw LOS through itself. That doesn't make any sense.

At that point we may as well not play with miniatures at all if how they represent the unit doesn't even matter. Why do we stoop down to get a model's eye view if the miniature itself and how it is shaped/armed/its dimensions don't actually matter?

Exactly, I think of all the time and love I put into this ork vehicle, I can't for the life of me fathom and benefit or narrative improvement in 8th edition in having literally every last shot/rokkit/bout of flame come from a grot sporting a radio cuz abstraction bro:

Spoiler:

Was this a problem for people? I guess I'm just used to being able to 100% obscure my vehicle and still fire out of the giant pipe organ on top of it.

2+ save with night fighting and you didn't even get the intervening save most of the time lol.

Such fun times to be had!

"See here? I'm measuring range from this Razorback's Shock Blades. Totally legit bro."

Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)

 Eldarain wrote:
Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)

The rulebook is in the op

 Eldarain wrote:
Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)

There is no vehicle pages. Vehicles operate just like infantry model with vehicle keyword which comes into play with bespoken rules like haywire.

Well, the Los issues are easily house ruled..

 jamopower wrote:
Well, the Los issues are easily house ruled..

1. Create new rules, also for matched, turnament, campaings etc...
2. Create houser rules "day one".

:(

Im willing to sacrifice vehicle rules if it means Tau, Eldar, and Grey Knight walk- er, monstrous creatures, magically get to be better than everyone elses walkers.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Wow, Tau just got FAST. Target Lock is definitely gonna be my go to support system for all suits. Removing the penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons (why yes, I do want mobile Broadsides, thank you), removing the penalty for advancing and shooting assault weapons (Crisis Suits moving between 9" and 14" a turn and firing at full BS? Um, all of the yes), and gaining the ability to fire rapid fire weapons after advancing at -1 BS?! Between that, our tanks getting movement 12" and our infantry having 6" or 7", mobile Tau just became godly. A Coldstar Commander (who is finally worth taking!!!!) is moving 40" a turn and still hitting on a 2+. My Tau are very happy with this.

Not to mention Advanced Targetting System. Increasing the AP values of all weapons by 1 (AP 0 becomes -1, AP -1 becomes -2, etc) is just plain good. Nothing more needs to be said, that is just good.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I think Tau, particularly mobile Tau, are gonna be in a good place in 8th. Yeah if you played gunline Tau you may be a bit SOL here, but the army is in a good place no matter how you look at it.

Sorry for the 70 page post but....moble tau...are we talking fish of fury back...because that would be awesome. Tau in 4th/5th where great for being a mobile army with some suit support to go and pick of need to die now targets....if this comes back I guess its Mobile Tau and HH....og my wallet :(

 jballs_85 wrote:
Anyone else not too excited for the Space Marine psychic powers listed so far? There's not enough mind bullets with the only option being the generic smite (which D3 seems too low to make it effective so gotta hope for a roll of 10 or 11 for the D6).

I'm also a bit miffed that Chief libby Tigurius seems to have taken a massive nurf. He was never a beast in CC which I'm fine with and the stat line reflects. However he was always about giving buffs and improving all the units around him. He can sort of do that now based on the index, but the powers are all CC related which is where he shouldn't be.
He also can cast 2 powers, just the same as the bog standard ones. Come one, he is meant to be one of the most powerful imperium Psykers (poss only matched by Mephiston). Sure he can deny the witch one more time which could be useful but he seems to have taken a big nurf on his powers.
The re-roll psychic tests is good and goes with his fluff and previous editions but is not enough, and his rod (no pun intended) has lost all special rules. At least mortal wounds would of been nice.
The -1 to hit him I don't think is going to be that great when I have seen so many +2/+3 BS stats so far pumping out more shots than previous. The least they could of done is give it a bubble effect and/or switched it to a +1 for his to hit rolls.

However I know the indexes are only temporary so hoping that the full codex gives him some boosts.

I'm really hoping we'll get some new psyker lists, my over all feel is 8th edition had psykers nerfed too hard due to how abused 7th was.

personaly I more or less liked how 5th ed did psykic abilities.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Do we have the vehicles pages of the rulebook somewhere? I can only find the basic shooting page in the leaks. Also is there a definition of LoS somewhere in there? There was the caveat that it had to be the body of the model before (Wings Banners etc not counting)

There is no vehicle pages. Vehicles operate just like infantry model with vehicle keyword which comes into play with bespoken rules like haywire.

Yup, vehicles essentially work like this in 8th edition:








Vindicators will no way be silly at all, nope. Oh and banners on models too are seemingly fine to draw los from. Progress? This is sadly not hyperbole, I really wish it were.

Why do people want vehicles to be objectively worse than other models/units? I must be missing something. You can talk about immersion all you want but nothing kills immersion like s model sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Given the new rules, I am actually looking forward to putting my Predator and Storm Raven on the table.

If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.

Median Trace wrote:
Why do people want vehicles to be objectively worse than other models/units? I must be missing something. You can talk about immersion all you want but nothing kills immersion like s model sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Given the new rules, I am actually looking forward to putting my Predator and Storm Raven on the table.

I must simply say that in my humble opinion, for me, nothing kills immersion like needless abstraction that only reduces tactics and overall strategy with very little upside. It's especially disingenuous of people to deride its complexity while brushing over the fact that everything now has split fire for all weapons in this edition, hardly an abstraction and certainly not a mechanic for speeding up game play. There's still plenty to like so far in this edition, but this really is not something I like, in fact I would legitimately say I hate this change. And with good reason. Look at that picture of the raider, look at the cartoon with the banner getting shot, thats literally what the game is now.

Median Trace wrote:
Why do people want vehicles to be objectively worse than other models/units? I must be missing something. You can talk about immersion all you want but nothing kills immersion like s model sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Given the new rules, I am actually looking forward to putting my Predator and Storm Raven on the table.

I would want vehicles to behave vehicles which means they also have their own advantages over infantry and then point costed appropriately.

Competent game designers can do it. Too bad GW is too cheapskate and model oriented to hire even mediocre game designer never mind competent one.

 Mr BugBear wrote:
If having vehicles behave like vehicles puts them at such a disadvantage then I'd say the problem lies in other areas of the game.

I couldn't agree more good sir.

so much whinging from the filthy heretics... their tears are truly delicious! I quite like the lack of fire arcs on vehicles now, while unrealistic it is a lot more helpful in cities of death like terrain where turning/positioning vehicles can be a challenge!

Shouldn't that be the challenge of using vehicles in a city of death though?

 Vulkan Fran'cis wrote:
so much whinging from the filthy heretics... their tears are truly delicious! I quite like the lack of fire arcs on vehicles now, while unrealistic it is a lot more helpful in cities of death like terrain where turning/positioning vehicles can be a challenge!

Cities are SUPPOSED to be challenging for tanks...There's reason infantry are preferred in city enviroment.