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.

 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.

The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.

 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!

"They don't like what I like, I had better insult them and say their tears are delicious"
- Stereotypical new poster

But do you really want to model your Land Raider with a huge antenna when doing so makes it an easy target for all those lasguns?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 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.

The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.

So because GW designers are voefully incompetent rules had to be made so they make zero sense. GG. Why not hire at least one competent designer?

Problem is flat out that GW designers aren't even mediocre at the job. They are horrible. Mediocre designer could make more sensible balanced rules. Competent one could make even better.

I think its a brilliant way to find out who the win at all cost players are , stoop down to check if a target is visable . If you want to say that because a track is poking out that the target is visable ,you at not the type of person i would like to play against .

 Nostromodamus wrote:
But do you really want to model your Land Raider with a huge antenna when doing so makes it an easy target for all those lasguns?

I see what you did there...

ian wrote:
I think its a brilliant way to find out who the win at all cost players are , stoop down to check if a target is visable . If you want to say that because a track is poking out that the target is visable ,you at not the type of person i would like to play against .

Why? That's what GW designers WANT you to do. They deliberately wrote the rules so that it works like that. That's how it's supposed to be played.

Hell as it is that's what players have been asking for...

ian wrote:
I think its a brilliant way to find out who the win at all cost players are , stoop down to check if a target is visable . If you want to say that because a track is poking out that the target is visable ,you at not the type of person i would like to play against .

It's amazing how quickly the fault of the rules writers gets shifted on to the players, astonishing in fact.

So vehicles are a good one for an early FAQ/update. OK. And yeah, the image of the land raider firing all its weapons from the antenna of death is funny. I expect this will get fixed. Firing a lascannon through its own vehicle to hit a target not in arc can't be what was intended, just not thought through enough.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 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.

The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.

I understand it's a hard thing to solve, I just think they've taken away a few too many things that make a tank feel like a tank.

I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should

 Mr BugBear wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 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.

The problem was the fact that vehicles and monstrous creatures were never truly on par. Either one was good and the other sucked or vice versa. And it seems the response was to simply go down the monster route - which to be fair, speeds things up rather a lot. Vehicle rules were clunky. They were this odd thing that became more and more bloated as they attempted to balance them more and more. They had random extra steps compared to everything else in the game, behaved completely differently in most situations in the game and I can see why their current incarnation might have had to go.

I understand it's a hard thing to solve, I just think they've taken away a few too many things that make a tank feel like a tank.

Exactly, I can be pragmatic and live without armour facings, although I still prefer them, but removing weapon arcs is such a bridge too far, it also takes away although beautiful nuance from vehicle to vehicle.

ian wrote:
I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should

Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.

They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.

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

ian wrote:
I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should

You can certainly choose to draw and measure los from wherever you want on a vehicle as well as position vehicles wherever you so choose, the problem however is your opponent is under no obligation to do the same. IE if you start accusing them of being that guy for targeting part of your model they themselves can draw los too, even if it's an antenna or banner, well, they're just following the rules guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

You could and it was terrible.


Here's an example

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

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

They're not the ones responsible for the antenna of doom, how you could infer anyone's intentions from following the incredibly un specific super short rules is beyond me my good sir.

tneva82 wrote:

ian wrote:
I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should

Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.

They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.

Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?

Becuase there unspecific is exactly why its necessary to apply common sense, each to there own if you want to play the antenna of doom thats fine . But you dont have to play it like that ,
what ever happened to this being a hobby wbere you created the worlds it seems to have turned into a ridgid law of how to play

Im really looking forward to narrative play myself

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

ian wrote:
I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should

Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.

They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.

Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?

What are we misinterpreting, enlighten us.

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.

ian wrote:
Becuase there unspecific is exactly why its necessary to apply common sense, each to there own if you want to play the antenna of doom thats fine . But you dont have to play it like that ,
what ever happened to this being a hobby wbere you created the worlds it seems to have turned into a ridgid law of how to play

Im really looking forward to narrative play myself

You don't have to play it like that, but you can't play it with differing interpretation on your opponents part, regardless of what side they find themselves in. It's fine to house rule, but its not always easy to get other on board.

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

ian wrote:
I just take responsibility for my gaming ,just becuase i can do somthing dosnt mean i should

Then you are playing it against what designers thought game should be played.

They deliberately designed it so that it works like antenna of doom.

Or maybe, just maybe, they thought people won't pose themselves as imbeciles, that rulelawyer something like, you can shoot from or be shot at the antenna. And maybe you shouldn't waste time on games with such "players".
Does every microwave company have to put in their instructions, that cats mustn't be dried inside of it?

If they didn't want that they would have WRITTEN IT SO! They listened players say "make vehicles and monsters equal" so they did that.

They gave players what they wanted. Now players must learn to live with it. Say hello to antenna of dooms.

Is it too late to trademark antenna of doom?

This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.

Arguing rules as if this will be a common occurrence just makes the whole discussion pointless

Facing vs abstraction is just preference, no one is going to prove one side wrong, it's not because the rules are hard to write or GW is incapable or any such laughable nonsense - it's a design decision.

ian wrote:
Becuase there unspecific is exactly why its necessary to apply common sense, each to there own if you want to play the antenna of doom thats fine . But you dont have to play it like that ,
what ever happened to this being a hobby wbere you created the worlds it seems to have turned into a ridgid law of how to play

Im really looking forward to narrative play myself

Yeah, it's pretty sad to see some folks needing a hand to walk them through every little detail, while not being able to apply simple logic on how to imrove their hobby, their time playing

Just like kids:"you told me to go play outside, so I am" while holding a phone in their hands
"You said I could shoot from any point of the miniature, so I am" while holding a tape measure from the SM sarge backbanner

Vorian wrote:
This is such a pathetic argument. If someone is actually going to put a massive aerial on a tank to abuse a rule then it's all on them.

Here's a tank I built for my orks, what, do you think, will I be accused of, regardless of when it was built? Will be forcing playeres to remove antennas and banners from vehicles built possible multiple editions ago?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:

Yeah, it's pretty sad to see some folks needing a hand to walk them through every little detail, while not being able to apply simple logic on how to imrove their hobby, their time playing

Excuse me? No one has suggested not finding a solution, but that's difficult if there's no consensus on whether it's a problem. Whether we focus exlusively on the positive changes or the negative ones, it really doesn't alter the fact that either exist and the negatives will need to be addressed. We have already had it inferred that, as always, actually endeavoring to follow the rules accurately is derided.

In other news, mass rescue in work to save those stuck on high ground.

Core Rules, p176, left-side column;

Distances in Warhammer 40, 000 are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.

So, unless you count antennae or flagpoles as hull, it's a non-issue.

 Flood wrote:
Core Rules, p176, left-side column;

Distances in Warhammer 40, 000 are measured in inches between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.

So, unless you count antennae or flagpoles as hull, it's a non-issue.

Where you measure from and where you draw los from are not the same it would seem. All they've done there is give antenna of doom a range boost if it happens to be further from the target than the closest point on the hull.

page 179:



"in order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model."


Also, here's what the internet tells me a hull is


hull1
həl/Submit
noun
1.
the main body of a ship or other vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings. So I'll make sure to meditate for the next twelve house on the common sense interpretation that in no way will be subjective.

Just like kids:"you told me to go play outside, so I am" while holding a phone in their hands
"You said I could shoot from any point of the miniature, so I am" while holding a tape measure from the SM sarge backbanner

Maybe it's just my area, but this would never be an issue. Even if there is some initial disagreement, talking it over always works.