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.

 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.

Ah, that puts that one to bed then.

@crable, if you'd never tried to draw line of sight from it, they'd have said nothing. As it is you can't anyway, so a non issue

 Crablezworth wrote:

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.

Well according to Postel’s Law both are responsible. You should be conservative in what you send (GW was not) but you should be liberal in what you receive (which in that case means, you should try to do your best to make sense with what you receive and don't try to mess things up on intent)

So you usually should validate your interpretation of the data before you draw conclusions out of it. The easiest validation is: Does my interpretation make any sense? If it does not it is probably wrong.

If you manage to completely hide everything but the Aerial of that tank, theyd probably accuse you of being a right sneaky git.

Remember that it works both ways. If you wanna fire everywhere from an antenna of doom, you're gonna get shot at from everywhere as well.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Do you need a reference sheet from GW with every bit from their kits, that don't apply to the rules about vehicles? Or maybe you don't wonder about stabbing people with a kitchen knife just because instructions dont say, that such behavior is not allowed?

@crablezworth
Don't play with people whining about your conversions, nor shoot from the antenna. Simple.

Damn, if GW had just written "hull", people wouldn't entertain themselves with such nonsensical theoretical rulelawyering
Edit: oh wait, they did?

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.

Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:


A......B


xxxxx
......L

A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.

That's how game designers want you to play.

 Crazyterran wrote:
If you manage to completely hide everything but the Aerial of that tank, theyd probably accuse you of being a right sneaky git.

At this point if I don't rip the damn thing off I'm apparently just as bad. Catch 22 they call it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Do you need a reference sheet from GW with every bit from their kits, that don't apply to the rules about vehicles? Or maybe you don't wonder about stabbing people with a kitchen knife just because instructions dont say, that such behavior is not allowed?

@crablezworth
Don't play with people whining about your conversions, nor shoot from the antenna. Simple.

Damn, if GW had just written "hull", people wouldn't entertain themselves with such nonsensical theoretical rulelawyering
Edit: oh wait, they did?

We've been arguing over hull since 5th, for the same reason, GW didn't tell us and had to faq it. Or maybe we all haven't been around since 5th and remember the lovely are wings hull debate? It's not my fault gw wrote this crap. I'm really sorry to tell you this but my silly antenna example asside, it's no different than showing 1% of your tanks hull and being able to fire all weapons at different targets, antennas asside that just as incentivized and thats not my fault or my singular interpretation, its was the rules say

Huh. So, strangeness still looking through the rules a bit more.

There's not even much of a perk to taking a pure Thousand Sons, EC, WE or DG detachment - apparently just taking their Cult Troops is enough to make them Troops on their own.

Talk about 4 pages of redundant rules.

So keyword wise, it is still feasible to just pick....

Death Guard Plague Marines as troops.
Other Legion Bob Plague Marines as Elites.
Oh well, suppose it's going to make filling the Brigade Detachment out even easier in its own strange way just using the keywords of Chaos and Nurgle.

Crablezworth: That tank is beautiful (in orky way of course). I love it!

Some general 8th questions if anyone can help.

1) Is jink indeed gone?

2) For matched play missions, where does it say who/what can score? Or is everything "scoring"?

3) Do flyers just start on the board now?

4) For warlord traits, are the three listed still used for matched play?

6) There's no "instant death" anymore is there?

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:


A......B


xxxxx
......L

A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.

That's how game designers want you to play.

There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?

 buddha wrote:


2) For matched play missions, where does it say who/what can score? Or is everything "scoring"?

It would seem everything scores but possession and denial have changed to whoever has the most models within 3 inches.

It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it

Excuse me? It is not my fault, I did not write the rules nor decide how they are implemented and if I did they wouldn't be rules. My antenna example aside, it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons, how do you not see that regardless of your emotional reaction to the antenna? Projecting GW's failure on to me is not fair and it is not polite either, stop please. Your shooting the messenger.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:


A......B


xxxxx
......L

A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.

That's how game designers want you to play.

There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?

I think he's pointing out that if the tank had to actually move far enough that it's weapon could see unit B, then unit A would be able to see the tank.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

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?

1) that's an awesome tank
2) at least the antenna on that has a grot spotter at the top, so measuring LOS from that would be A-OK... and inventive. Firing weapons from it wouldn't be but regardless we know that's out now, so happy days!

I'm not a fan of "shoot from any point of the hull" rule myself.
But if we take into consideration shooting from 1% of the vehicle, we also must think about being shot at it.
It doesn't make the rule too
Much better for me, but it does make it more fair.
I sincerely hope, people won't abuse this rule to measure the smallest possible angle of attack..

Ps:@crabzwirth it is a bit, like if you see something racist/sexist in a thing, in which others don't notice it, it is you, that drew the lines.
Well, maybe I'm wrong and it will be a moral failure,only if you actually use the wrongly implemented rule..

I myself will try to find opponents, that will agree to shoot from the guns rather than from the hull. And if they are ok with simple facing addon: +1t in front, "-1" at the back- great!

 Bull0 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

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?

1) that's an awesome tank
2) at least the antenna on that has a grot spotter at the top, so measuring LOS from that would be A-OK... and inventive. Firing weapons from it wouldn't be but regardless we know that's out now, so happy days!

Here's hoping we can at least get a faq on this.

those japanese marines. I cant decide if the poses are great or ridiculous..why not both!

 Crablezworth wrote:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it

Excuse me? It is not my fault, I did not write the rules nor decide how they are implemented and if I did they wouldn't be rules. My antenna example aside, it changes nothing about 1% of hull being able to shoot all weapons, how do you not see that regardless of your emotional reaction to the antenna? Projecting GW's failure on to me is not fair and it is not polite either, stop please. Your shooting the messenger.

Spoiler:

ACCURATE READING COMPREHENSION IS NOT A MORAL FAILING.

Hull is just for range... not LoS? So antenna is fine, as long as the hull is in range. I don't see what's wrong here. You can be in range of something and not see it, while also not see something and not be in range.

I didn't see any rule saying how to get LoS beyond "get behind the model and see if it can see any part of the target model" (or something like that, can't copy the rule".

Has anyone seen the limited edition squad gw just announced that is Japan only?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/31/space-marine-heroes-in-japan/

My current impression after I checked the leaks:

Khorne:

Bezerkers are insanely crazy. This is rediculous. I have to try them out just to check if they are as crazy as they look on paper

Land Raiders are extremely expensive but seem to be pretty good, too

Dark Angels

The best Terminators of all Legions... uh Chapters are now the worst,

Ravenwing/Deathwing synergy is a thing of the past

Darkshroud sucks now.

Ravenwing bikers are now just bikers.

Nephilim is again ridiculously overpriced

Astra Militarum:

Basilisk is a cheap murder machine of Doom.

Wyverns are as crazy as ever.

Hydras are not as pointless as they have been before but too expensive

Chimeras lost everything cool - no fire points, no command vehicle, they even lost amphibious (wow that did make them OP, didn't it?) and are now about as expensive as a Basilisk. I really have to play a game using both to check if this is as ridiculously unbalanced in play as it is on paper.

Super Heavy Tanks got better, but now they get -1 on basically all their to hit rolls if they move. Wow, if a Leman Russ can fire his turret gun on a 4+, why can't a Baneblade?

Leman Russ Variants are not bad, but seem extremely overpriced.

You get so much cheap stuff that you can drown yourself in command points. It seems you can easily have 18 command points with Guard in a 2000 Points game. However, with the restriction of using one Stratagem per Phase in matched it is not as crazy as it sounds.

GW finally recognized that a weapon with BF 4+ is not as good as one with 3+ and therefore cost less

Veteran squads however, can buy the cheap weapons with their BF 3+ and load themselves up until total crazyness. If I didn't read it wrong you can now have 1 heavy flamer, 3 Plasma Guns and a lascannon in one veteran squad.

Bottom Line:
It does not seem as out of whack as 7th, but to call this "balanced" is a bold move. It may really be the most balanced edition of 40k ever, but the problem is for balance in 40k the bar is extremely low...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:


A......B


xxxxx
......L

A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.

That's how game designers want you to play.

There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?

Yes by unit B. Not by unit A. That's the point. You expose 1mm of your vehicle to unit B so that unit A doesn't get LOS. If you had to expose your vehicle like 7th ed either you would be choosing "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
It is your fault for implementing the rules thusly. If a person tries to be thick as hard as he can and shoot your from the antenna, while pointing with his finger at the rule and looking at you with eyes open like this O.O don't waste time on games like this. Or don't think in so low of your fellow hobbyists before you encounter such behavior.
Tneva82 I'm sorry for your gaming group, if such a play style characterizes it

Ah lovely. GW can write everything they want and it's always fault of player playing the game as designers wanted you to play.

Ah GW white knights are funny.

You're taking the rulelawyering example to the extreme and I pointed that out, as well as I dislike new vehicle rules regarding facing and hull shooting several times. But calling me a white GW knight is a go, i guess.

tneva82 wrote:
"do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"

Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

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.

Then again it's not just with antenna...Consider this:


A......B


xxxxx
......L

A is enemy unit, B is enemy unit. x is wall, L is land raider. Land raider can put one slice of track so that it can draw LOS to B, fire every gun from it while preventing LOS to A. Without drawback.

That's how game designers want you to play.

There is a drawback though; you can get shot, can't you?

Yes by unit B. Not by unit A. That's the point. You expose 1mm of your vehicle to unit B so that unit A doesn't get LOS. If you had to expose your vehicle like 7th ed either you would be choosing "do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"

If the track is "looking" at A, A is also looking at the track. The track needs a line between itselt and A to be able to see it, so you should be able to fire with both A and B.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm an idiot who read this example incorrectly

 His Master's Voice wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
"do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"

Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.

Well now hiding is default...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
You're taking the rulelawyering example to the extreme and I pointed that out, as well as I dislike new vehicle rules regarding facing and hull shooting several times. But calling me a white GW knight is a go, i guess.

You are shifting blame from the crappy GW writers to players. Blame for players using this lies squaredly on _game designers_. They decided the game works like this. Not players.

 buddha wrote:
Some general 8th questions if anyone can help.

1) Is jink indeed gone?

2) For matched play missions, where does it say who/what can score? Or is everything "scoring"?

3) Do flyers just start on the board now?

4) For warlord traits, are the three listed still used for matched play?

6) There's no "instant death" anymore is there?

1. Jink USR is gone, Dark Angles now have that rule, but it works different now.
2 .Everything scores.
6. No more "instant death"

tneva82 wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
"do I want protection or do I want to use all guns"

Game pieces are in the game to be used. If the choice is between using a piece or hiding it, in a game where you have circa five turns to activate it, then using it should be the default option. Using stuff is fun and interesting. Hiding it generally is not.

Well now hiding is default...

No, the default is "I can use my vehicles" with the addition of being able to protect them efficiently. Previously, it wasn't even "hide or use" because vehicles were terrible and not running them was generally the correct method of usage.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

If the track is "looking" at A, A is also looking at the track. The track needs a line between itselt and A to be able to see it, so you should be able to fire with both A and B.

Sigh hard to explain with ascii but land raider is positioned so that the track sees only unit B. Due to angles and wall in between unit A sees just the wall. Ergo land raider fires every gun at unit B but enemy can only retaliate with unit B(assuming it didn't die). For unit A to shoot it needs to move.

Before this would have resulted in at least 1, possibly all guns from land raider seeing neither unit. Now you can hide from 1 unit completely while shooting at will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
No, the default is "I can use my vehicles" with the addition of being able to protect them efficiently. Previously, it wasn't even "hide or use" because vehicles were terrible and not running them was generally the correct method of usage.

Default is hide them behind walls.

And you don't need rules like that to make vehicles worth it. Only crappy game designers like GW hires could possibly think so.