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.

I can't wait to see that immobilized Basilisk blast an enemy unit behind it. Forge the narrative!

 amanita wrote:
I can't wait to see that immobilized Basilisk blast an enemy unit behind it. Forge the narrative!

It had enough mobility to do a stuttering turn, not enough to move around. Unfortunately the gear is also locked so it kept turning after shooting, Ended up in the same direction again.

Done. Narrative forged.

 Purifier wrote:

 amanita wrote:
I can't wait to see that immobilized Basilisk blast an enemy unit behind it. Forge the narrative!

It had enough mobility to do a stuttering turn, not enough to move around. Unfortunately the gear is also locked so it kept turning after shooting, Ended up in the same direction again.

Done. Narrative forged.

Nice save.

Anyway, I'd accept drifting becoming a viable tactic. It's not too egregious when most SM and CSM vehicles are rectangles that only increase surface area by a bit, and it would give me an excuse to paint up a Speed Freaks force, for whom it could be argued that drifting is actually the fluffy maneuver to do in combat.

I always thought that one of the advantages of treaded vehicles (like tanks) is the fact that they can turn on the spot without having to move around and make a mutli-point turn like a wheeled vehicle? I mean, I can do the same thing in the zero-turn riding mower I use on a regular basis, so it's not a matter of realism, is it?

To be fair, it would take time to turn the tank to change it's facing. Maybe have a rule included that for each time it rotates any amount, that rotation costs 1 inch of movement? That way, if you wanted to turn, move, turn, it would be at minus 2 inches to the move over just driving forward.

But then you have to ask how skimmers work? Can't they just float sideways or backwards? Maybe they can do that at half speed now.

But what about wheeled vehicles?

But what about bikes?

And what about walkers?

This is the problem with a miniatures game: representation of real-life and fictional elements to handle a battle game for casual, narrative, and/or competitive play. Do we go all in and make it a full simulation? Or do we go more abstract to make the game go quicker?

I am okay with a more abstracted, simple set of the rules. With my experiences with 5th, 6th, and 7th editions 40K, Mk 2 and 3 Warmahordes, Warhammer Fantasy, Battlefleet Gothic, Age of Sigmar, and many other tabletop games, I would prefer the rules that let me get in more games with less rules checking in each game.

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

I really believe that weapon LoS on vehicles will still exist, but you will be able to freely rotate your models during any phase, or they have 360 line of sight like dreads in 5th ed. Firing arcs are always a huge problem at my LGS, the 45 degree angle seems to just be too hard for people to grasp, and there was such an epic gak storm when GW showed knights firing arcs. I think some vehicles like Ghost arks will have a special rule saying that the guns must fire in different directions or something.

It was always possible to bolter a russ to death (well the non siege variants anyway) on a 6. You just don't have to manuever now.

I say this as the friend of somebody who owns an all russ army.