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.

So, from what we know, vehicles seem to have gained wounds and an armor save. And they seem to have no facing. My concern is that we'll see even more vehicles moving around the battlefield sideways to provide cover for what's behind them.

Do we know? We've seen walkers so far and no other vehicles. Or have I missed it?

Aside from that, there could be special rules on the warscroll granting extra AR or reducing T-value when attacked fro the side/back.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Do we know? We've seen walkers so far and no other vehicles. Or have I missed it?

Aside from that, there could be special rules on the warscroll granting extra AR or reducing T-value when attacked fro the side/back.

Yeah, that could be a reasonable solution. However, it's always been a hassle measuring facings.

Surely you would have to be an absolutely ruthless rules lawyer to argue that even despite spending all your move distance driving forwards you can still rotate your car as necessary to provide cover!

In any case this will only hurt shooting (which is already very powerful) and help the boyz get into CC which can only be a good thing.

I think if you look at the latest Facebook summary they effectively said that vehicle facing won't be important in 8th edition.

 Kroem wrote:
Surely you would have to be an absolutely ruthless rules lawyer to argue that even despite spending all your move distance driving forwards you can still rotate your car as necessary to provide cover!

Rules lawyer for following rules? Do you measure carnifex wheeling then? GW's new mantra is there are no vehicles and monsters, just models.

Yeah, I can't really say I see that as a bad thing. So let them turn it sideways and provide cover. It's a tactic, which makes it better than the alternative of "run everything down the center, guns blasting."

Rules lawyer for following rules? Do you measure carnifex wheeling then? GW's new mantra is there are no vehicles and monsters, just models.

Well rules lawyers will always follow the rules, that's their thing. But the turns are just a game abstraction trying to represent a real time battle. You don't see challenger tanks turning sideways every 5 minutes as they drive along haha!

I totally get why you would do this from a WAAC point of view, but from a cinematic 'forging the narrative' point of view it seems a little silly to me.

 Kroem wrote:

Rules lawyer for following rules? Do you measure carnifex wheeling then? GW's new mantra is there are no vehicles and monsters, just models.

Well rules lawyers will always follow the rules, that's their thing. But the turns are just a game abstraction trying to represent a real time battle. You don't see challenger tanks turning sideways every 5 minutes as they drive along haha!

I totally get why you would do this from a WAAC point of view, but from a cinematic 'forging the narrative' point of view it seems a little silly to me.

Well GW decided they want game to go that way...Best get used to it if you want to play 8th ed.

Cool. Ork battlewagons just got better.

Yeah, being pretty silly looking is my main concern. It could be an advantage for both shooters and mellee units - depending on how movement works and if there will be movement after movement like there is now - flat out. I'd not mind if there were, say, arcs of rotation or pivoting on spot ate up the vehicle's movement - which would probably be the easiest and probably best solution. So you could potentially utilise this tactics of moving and blocking los to your guyz but you'd have to move slower to achieve that.

I just don't like the idea of unrealistic rule exploiting that grants an advantage to one - allready superior - style (mech) vs other (footslogging).

 koooaei wrote:
Yeah, being pretty silly looking is my main concern. It could be an advantage for both shooters and mellee units - depending on how movement works and if there will be movement after movement like there is now - flat out. I'd not mind if there were, say, arcs of rotation or pivoting on spot ate up the vehicle's movement - which would probably be the easiest and probably best solution. So you could potentially utilise this tactics of moving and blocking los to your guyz but you'd have to move slower to achieve that.

Have fun then measuring pivot for tactical marines etc since GW decided all work same.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Cool. Ork battlewagons just got better.

RIGHT! I love the battlewagon model, have 4 of them but the model is so narrow that getting side armor shots is trivially easy. I just hope they also make deffrollas good again, nothing is more orky than a crazed ork just ramming everything with a big spikey steamroller out front

tneva82 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Yeah, being pretty silly looking is my main concern. It could be an advantage for both shooters and mellee units - depending on how movement works and if there will be movement after movement like there is now - flat out. I'd not mind if there were, say, arcs of rotation or pivoting on spot ate up the vehicle's movement - which would probably be the easiest and probably best solution. So you could potentially utilise this tactics of moving and blocking los to your guyz but you'd have to move slower to achieve that.

Have fun then measuring pivot for tactical marines etc since GW decided all work same.

well, not exactly, they'll still have some rule differences and hashtags. #new40k

I don't think there will be any special rules saying the sides and rear are easier to damage, seeing as this edition is all about simplifying the rules and bringing vehicles in line with everything else. I could be wrong but I don't see it happening.
It'd look pretty dumb, but I can see a few people taking advantage of side strafing vehicles to block line of site to units behind. However, who cares? It's a viable tactic if you want to have perpetually skidding vehicles moving up to proetect your units. Shooting armies seem powerful enough for that to be a viable defence.
It actually works for Orks, with their epic driftin' skillz.

I'm here to roast things and block line of site, and I'm all out of promethium!

I would not play anyone twice who turned tanks sideways after full movement to provide cover to troops behind them. Might not even finish the game. Just pack up and split. Better off painting at home listening to batreps.

 jeff white wrote:
I would not play anyone twice who turned tanks sideways after full movement to provide cover to troops behind them. Might not even finish the game. Just pack up and split. Better off painting at home listening to batreps.

Regardless, will probably still see it in tournaments a lot.

Deciding if the shooter can spot a side or another one was too controversial in several occasions, I think it's a good thing that vehicles now have a single T value instead of three different AV.

 Blackie wrote:
Deciding if the shooter can spot a side or another one was too controversial in several occasions, I think it's a good thing that vehicles now have a single T value instead of three different AV.

100% agree

Yeah but side-sliding vehicles can be problematic.

The world will always be full of silly gamey gak. You get to choose who/how you play the game. If you end up in tournaments you'll always scrape the bottom of the barrel for cheese curds. (mmm...cheese curds).

If you play with normal people, this shouldn't be a problem. Doing something like that would get a down-the-nose stare from everyone in our play-group. However we frequently skip/break rules to match fluff/lore or reality.

I dont see the problem. Infantry have been using tanks for cover since tanks were invented. Even in the current rules I turn my Rhinos sideways and use them for cover.

 jeff white wrote:
I would not play anyone twice who turned tanks sideways after full movement to provide cover to troops behind them. Might not even finish the game. Just pack up and split. Better off painting at home listening to batreps.

Why? How is this the game breaker? It feels perfectly fine and within the scope of the game to me, and it's in no way going to make armies completely unbalanced strong. It's a very small advantage that may be useful for getting some melee crew into combat, but may also end up hurting them if done poorly. And before you start wailing on me, I play Skitarii. My tanks are walkers on a perfectly circular base.

This is the one real good argument I see for keeping firing arcs in. Sure rhinos will sidle across the board anyway, but frankly if they were the right size you wouldn't need to do that to hide infantry behind them. It would keep the larger blastier tanks from doing the electric slide while destroying the opposition since they actually need to be pointed at it.

 koooaei wrote:
So, from what we know, vehicles seem to have gained wounds and an armor save. And they seem to have no facing. My concern is that we'll see even more vehicles moving around the battlefield sideways to provide cover for what's behind them.

Yes, this is going to happen.

No, it's not a problem.

Games are always going to have some interactions that come about to exploit the rules of the game that wouldn't necessarily happen in real life. This is because games are inherently an abstraction. We accept this because we want to play games that don't require advanced degrees to understand the rules, and can be played in a reasonable amount of time.

If you want a game that does its utmost to simulate reality on the tabletop, play Advanced Squad Leader. It has a set of rules that looks like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

40K is a fun space-fantasy scrum. Realism isn't what it's striving for.

Powerslide edition!

It might actually be a good thing. People will be less concerned about facing their rear armour against a building or other piece of terrain to hide it, etc. You can now just drive up and place your tanks normally. Sure, there will be the tools that side turn their vehicles for cover or to get further movement for access doors, but it won't be a big deal I don't think. 40K as a game has not looked good visually for a long time with enormous monsters/titans and flyers packed into the table, why would a few side turned vehicles make it any worse?

Screw facings, unnecessary complication and it was silly in assault. Make Leman Russ Battle Tanks great again!

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, from what we know, vehicles seem to have gained wounds and an armor save. And they seem to have no facing. My concern is that we'll see even more vehicles moving around the battlefield sideways to provide cover for what's behind them.

Yes, this is going to happen.

No, it's not a problem.

Games are always going to have some interactions that come about to exploit the rules of the game that wouldn't necessarily happen in real life. This is because games are inherently an abstraction. We accept this because we want to play games that don't require advanced degrees to understand the rules, and can be played in a reasonable amount of time.

If you want a game that does its utmost to simulate reality on the tabletop, play Advanced Squad Leader. It has a set of rules that looks like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

40K is a fun space-fantasy scrum. Realism isn't what it's striving for.

Exactly! It seems that so many people want to play a much more realistic simulation of warfare, and while that is fine, that is not the direction of 40K.

Personally, I think I used a tank to block line of sight like a half-dozen times. When I'm pivoting my tanks it is to protect rear/side armor or bring the sponsons into line of sight of a target. Getting rid of armor values is perfectly fine with me. Heck, there might even be a "+1 to hit when aiming at the model's rear", but even that could be abused or cause arguments.

Who knows perhaps all models gain faceings : )