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.

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

I'm fairly certain Mr Carnifex would fall over if he leaned that far off his center of gravity. Therefore he had to step out, and step back, and counts as moving. Thus incurring a penalty to shooting.

Play it as is.

House rule it.

Stay on 7th.

Politely email GW to explain your concerns with the rule, and if enough people do they may publish an Errata document or update the Primer rules.

Play the game with all elements functioning together before deciding it is broken.

These are all better options than filling up a forum with complaints that GW won't read or heed. They've chosen an abstraction that's different to the previous one. Let's see how it plays out eh?

MaxT wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

That's harsh, insulting and unfair. GW have made a deliberate design decision to abstract alot of things to allow battle sized games to occur without taking forever. Clearly in your eyes that abstracted vehicles too much, and to say that is fine, but to go from "i disagree with their design decision" to "they're gak because they didn't do what i wanted" is just wrong. Shame on you.

Vehicle facings and reasonable LOS rules slow game not if game designers are up to their job.

I do my job badly I expect to be told and I take responsibility. Guess GW designers work differently.

Lots of game designers have shown it's possible. Therefore only reason GW didn't do it is because they can't. Incapable. Same reason why 7th ed was bad and unbalanced. Same reason why people are already spotting out badly balanced stuff in 8th ed. Same designers, same result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grinshanks wrote:
I think part of the problem is people are struggling to come to terms with 'vehicles' not being a thing with their own rules anymore.

Ther are no more rules for separate unit types like vehicles, fliers, and MC

There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.

Which is the problem! Vehicles aren't like living things. Vehicles have their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Modeling them as same is recipe for disaster.

Funny how tons of game designers can make fast 40k scaled games with vehicles that work like vehicles and organic things that work as organic thing but GW doesn't.

We got this because players complained about vehicles being poor compared to monsters(balance problem) and GW designers being bad designers didn't want to do it right and have them separate but balanced(that would require skill) so they went instead the easy option and made them same giving illusion of balance.

 Rydria wrote:
Just read the chaos index seems a bit weird that daemon princes have two different stat lines 8 wound CSM ones and the 10 would chaos daemon one. (also them being same pts seems to be a bit of a oversight, when the daemons one costs more power level)

I guess the chaos daemon ones are older, or more favored and a thus more powerful ?

Oh, that's indeed weird! But the CSM one is probably better, as sub-ten wound character they're not targettable.

Lots of game designers have shown it's possible. Therefore only reason GW didn't do it is because they can't. Incapable. Same reason why 7th ed was bad and unbalanced. Same reason why people are already spotting out badly balanced stuff in 8th ed. Same designers, same result.

If you feel this way, maybe you should find one of those other stellar games to play? As for me. I will actually play my tanks as if they had arcs in friendly games, while understanding why the rules work they do for competitive games. Mostly I can't wait to drive over normal vehicles with a Baneblade, now that it is possible.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

UncleThomson wrote:
Because you don't want to.

I tried to see five, I really did.
[spoiler]

UncleThomson wrote:
trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that hey must abandon their own opinions for my own but by all means shoot the messenger, it's been a theme of this threads narrative

If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.

Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.

It's not a hoop at all. You're saying that a tank firing in an arc over a hill, or rolling forwards 3 feet to get line of sight is too absurd, yet a carnifex standing on tiptoes to aim its gun above a wall that the model pokes a hair over isn't ridiculous. And isn't leaning over movement too? You can't use the movement rules for being stationary as a reason, unless you think that it's reasonable that a model moving as fast as they can get -1 to hit, as does someone moving 1 step forwards. It's all an abstraction, that's the point. Maybe this one is too far for you personally, but to many of us it's just the same thing as what every other model is already doing.

tneva82 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.

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.

Considering your rather negative views on their work...why play something you seem to hate so much?

UncleThomson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)

It can't however teleport its bullets and shells to be originating from its comm antenna....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 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.

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.

Considering your rather negative views on their work...why play something you seem to hate so much?

Can we get over the idealogical purity tests and the rampant need for everyone to fawn over all aspects, there will be aspects of the new edition that aren't perfect, that's objective reality my man. If I'm pointing out any issues with 8th it's because I want them fixed.

It can't however teleport its bullets and shells to be originating from its comm antenna....

Neither can any other model in the game, but their rules work exactly the same way, so why is it a problem for the tank?

 alleus wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Spoiler:

UncleThomson wrote:
Because you don't want to.

I tried to see five, I really did.
[spoiler]

UncleThomson wrote:
trying to convince everybody else that because I don't like it they are not allowed to like it either does not make much sense to me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that hey must abandon their own opinions for my own but by all means shoot the messenger, it's been a theme of this threads narrative

If you are not trying to convince anyone I am having a hard time understanding yours (and anyones really) motivation to keep posting here and complaining. If it's just to vent your frustration, haven't you already done that? We get it, you think it's dumb, now get over it and give it a rest already. Same to everyone who is arguing for the rules as well. This thread has stopped being a discussion on rumours and more an argument on rules.

Now that everything is leaked anyway maybe this thread should seriously be closed. People can continue their arguments in YMDC or somewhere else.

No, sorry, you don't get to do that. I and otheres have posted plenty of new and relevant information about 8th edition and dicussed said information, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you get to dictate who can comment. It doesn't work like that.

If I'm pointing out any issues with 8th it's because I want them fixed.

But many of us don't find that to be an issue. Because every other model uses the same rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:
If you can suspend your disbelief so far that you can imagine a carnifex or a wraithknight moving and turning to fire its weapons why not a tank?

I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow a Land Raider to:

1. Fire the guns on one side of its hull through its hull to something on the other side.
2. To fire all the guns on a tank, no matter where they are located, at any target in LOS to a tiny part of its hull, even if it's behind a giant rock.

For example:

But you can if a Carnifex or Wraithknight can pull the same thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:
anyone notice scout snipers might actually be amazing.

roll a 6 and you do one normal savable wound AND a mortal wound

Yeah, they look pretty good.

 Crimson wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Just read the chaos index seems a bit weird that daemon princes have two different stat lines 8 wound CSM ones and the 10 would chaos daemon one. (also them being same pts seems to be a bit of a oversight, when the daemons one costs more power level)

I guess the chaos daemon ones are older, or more favored and a thus more powerful ?

Oh, that's indeed weird! But the CSM one is probably better, as sub-ten wound character they're not targettable.

The non legion one does not have the death to the emp rule so no extra attacks on 6's
legion one is sub 10 s can hide from direct targetting
legion pricne ability of re-roll 1's extends to legion and daemons, other one just daemons
legion one is ld10 vs ld9 (not that it makes much diff)
non legion on gets extra 'mark' buffs

they're different units with good and bad points

Eyjio wrote:
You're saying that a tank firing in an arc over a hill

And how does one arc a lascannon shot?

Eyjio wrote:
... or rolling forwards 3 feet to get line of sight...

That sounds a lot of like... oh what's the word for it... oh yes: Movement!

Presumably a vehicle whose guns are stuck behind a giant rock that wants LOS would need to move to make sure it's guns are no longer behind said rock. And 40K, amazingly enough, has a whole phase dedicated to such a thing: The movement phase.

Would seem odd to include a whole set of rules to cover the pesky business of movement, and even put rules into the weapons (heavy) that govern what happens when you fire said weapons after moving, and even give some tanks a way to overcome that (Russ turrets) only to then say that movement in the shooting phase is an... abstraction?

... yet a carnifex standing on tiptoes to aim its gun above a wall that the model pokes a hair over isn't ridiculous.

Justyn wrote:

If I'm pointing out any issues with 8th it's because I want them fixed.

But many of us don't find that to be an issue. Because every other model uses the same rules.

Many is not the majority. A tank cannot move to adjust to it's surroundings. You can suggest it moves forwards, fires, then moves back all you want. I'd say ok, then if it moves forwards to fire, my guys get to fire back and still target it. Because they sure as hell are not going to sit there and wait for some judge to tell them it's their turn. I'm not sure why GW changed it from using the viewpoint of the weapon itself.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So the tank rolled forward (or backwards as needed), fired, and then moved back behind cover. Seems perfectly logical.

Well no, that doesn't work as a counter-point because the rules explicitly point out what happens when a tank moves (if suffers penalties to hit with heavy weapon shooting). So now you're abstracting movement as well?

The entire game is abstraction, why get hung up on vehicles when you've been able to do the EXACT SAME THINGS with MCs?

UncleThomson wrote:
I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)

Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.

Justyn wrote:
If you feel this way, maybe you should find one of those other stellar games to play?

That's a pretty nonsensical statement given how much market dominance games workshop has. For an overwhelming majority of people, it's historicals or GW.

 Crablezworth wrote:


It can't however teleport its bullets and shells to be originating from its comm antenna....

If you still insist that an antenna is part of a vehicles hull, I would say that tanks are able to make pretty high jumps to raise temporarily over obstacles and are still able to fire their gun precisely due to their stabilizers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:
I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)

Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.

quick get casting periscope conversion kits for models, RICH gonna be RICH

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
How is this any different to the old MC rules we used to have? Why one and not the other? Is it so hard to imagine the tank moving out from cover to fire, then going back again?

Because an MC can lean around a corner. Last I checked, a Baneblade can't lean (unless it's in cartoon, set to a comically high pitched noise as it leans around with its' faithful dog, Scooby Do). And what's so hard about it moving out and firing and moving back in? I dunno... the movement rules? The shooting rules? The things that govern that a unit moves, then shoots. You realise that you're arguing for abstracting out non-movement movement done in the shooting phase to justify why a Baneblade can draw LOS with all of its guns by measuring from its track sticking out from behind a massive rock.

Meanwhile Mr. Carnifex just, y'know, leans to the left, just like you or I can do.

You're creating more and more logical hoops for yourself to jump through to try and make sense of something that doesn't make sense.

Eyjio wrote:
I mean, I get the point, but at least be consistent.

I am being consistent.

If you wanted to go with a cartoon car peeking around corners Speed Buggy would have been a better choice.

And considering some of those said MCs were basically vehicles (Riptides, Dreadknights, ect) its still the same dang problem.

If TLOS was still in the game and we still had to check to see which weapons could see the opponent then you,d have a valid complaint, but when I can measure LoS from a Carnifex's TAIL it goes out the window.

Many is not the majority. A tank cannot move to adjust to it's surroundings. You can suggest it moves forwards, fires, then moves back all you want. I'd say ok, then if it moves forwards to fire, my guys get to fire back and still target it. Because they sure as hell are not going to sit there and wait for some judge to tell them it's their turn. I'm not sure why GW changed it from using the viewpoint of the weapon itself.

But you are saying a Carnifex can, when it is a giant lumbering clumsy looking monster, but damn if it has 1mm of one claw sticking out from behind that same rock, no problem it can shoot everything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

UncleThomson wrote:
I guess you underestimate the agility of tanks or vehicles. If you would like to be "realistic" a tank should have a move of 30" and a flyer of 300". And a tank can turn on the spot faster than an Elephant can - or a Giraffe (and change its direction during much higher speeds far more radically without toppling)

Tell me how a Baneblade turning on the spot would allow it to better overcome this obstacle.

It leans round the corner. That baneblade was actually a Decepticon all along.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The entire game is abstraction, why get hung up on vehicles when you've been able to do the EXACT SAME THINGS with MCs?

Except, as I keep pointing out, it's not. A living creature (or even a suit like a Crisis Suit, where the person is immobile and the suit kinda "becomes" their body, and moves as they think it), is far more manoeuvrable than a solid lump of a tank. They can physically change their shape by crouching, laying flat, flattening themselves up against walls and, yes, leaning out to fire their weapons without having to move from their position. They are flexible. It's why infantry are so good in high cover areas, because they can better navigate and use the terrain to their advantage.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sturmpanzerwagen, he's going to have a bit of a problem doing just that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If TLOS was still in the game and we still had to check to see which weapons could see the opponent then you,d have a valid complaint...

That is my complaint. How have you not got that so far?

My problem is that they've dumbed the rules down so much that "vehicles" aren't even a thing, so now a Land Raider can fire its Lascannon through itself.

 Grinshanks wrote:
I think part of the problem is people are struggling to come to terms with 'vehicles' not being a thing with their own rules anymore.

Ther are no more rules for separate unit types like vehicles, fliers, and MC

There are now just models. They each have rules and some have common keywords, but in the end they are all treated the same by the rules. So what applies to a grot applies to a baneblade and so forth.

That's where I feel the abstraction/streamlining can go a bit too far and create a bland experience. What sounds fun to me personally is for scurrying grots, grinding tanks and lumbering monsters to behave in a way that befits what they are, inherit limits/disadvantages and all, and with a few elegant rules I like to think they could bring that out more. ATM it feels like there's a focus on ensuring everything can dish out maximum damage all the time with less tradeoffs. That being said I am actually excited for 8th

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
You're saying that a tank firing in an arc over a hill

And how does one arc a lascannon shot?

Mirrors and a squad of "volunteers" to hold them.

 Bull0 wrote:
It leans round the corner. That baneblade was actually a Decepticon all along.

That's actually a very good point Bull. When Starscream wants to shoot around a wall at Bumblebee he doesn't land and stay in his jet form and then just fire through the wall. He turns into a man and leans around - because people can do that and giant lumps of tanks cannot.

If we're not allowed real life examples as analogies, I don't think Transformers is gonna cut it with the mods, guys!