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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
You said it yourself, what about the LRBT?

What about it? You have to choose between defense and firepower, and sometimes you don't get to use all of your sponsons (or even any of your sponsons) if you want to sit behind cover with your AV 14 pointed at the biggest threat. I don't see what the problem is.

Also, the LRBT didn't pay full price for its sponson guns.

Or worse, the Land Raider Terminus Ultra?

Apocalypse-only unit. Apocalypse does not matter.

No such thing as apoc anymore.

 Purifier wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


Ah yes... We'll see how you like it when your opponents move those Land Raiders sideways to block LOS to their marines and still shoot all their weapons at you.

Will like it just fine. You make the faulty assumption that everyone that doesn't agree with you still agrees with you. It's really weird.

I am sorry, who is speaking on someone else's behalf here? Could it be you aswell?

Pot, meet kettle.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


Ah yes... We'll see how you like it when your opponents move those Land Raiders sideways to block LOS to their marines and still shoot all their weapons at you.

Will like it just fine. You make the faulty assumption that everyone that doesn't agree with you still agrees with you. It's really weird.

I am sorry, who is speaking on someone else's behalf here? Could it be you aswell?

Pot, meet kettle.

Wait what? I never said you were speaking on anyone's behalf. What are you reading? It sure as hell isn't my text.

ERJAK wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
And let's be honest here, it's really needed to balance the model's point cost. You can now actually use BOTH side sponsons in the same turn.

I didn't know there was a rule blocking the use of two sponson weapons in the same turn.

They wanted to balance the points cost? Make units that don't have to deal with weapon firing arcs more expensive to cover for their heightened maneuverability. Simple.

Cool, how much more expensive should a razorback be than a land raider? Monolith versus Hammerhead? Ghost ark vs battlewagon? What about side sponsons? The second one is clearly worse than the first so how much do they cost? A hull mounted weapon gets worse with every additional sponson how does that wprk.You should be able to tell because it's so simple right?

All those examples? That's smoke and Mirrors - the method with which you address this balance is simple, no matter how much dust you use to cover it.

I don't need to give you a detailed points difference for each vehicle for you to understand this - stop being disingenuous.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
You said it yourself, what about the LRBT?

What about it? You have to choose between defense and firepower, and sometimes you don't get to use all of your sponsons (or even any of your sponsons) if you want to sit behind cover with your AV 14 pointed at the biggest threat. I don't see what the problem is.

Also, the LRBT didn't pay full price for its sponson guns.

Or worse, the Land Raider Terminus Ultra?

Apocalypse-only unit. Apocalypse does not matter.

...... that hasn't been a thing for two editions now. the Terminus Ultra is a valid Lord of War in 8th edition. (Ultramarines only though, which is dissappointing)

Regardless of nitpicking over one specific unit the general trend is that most units with sponsons were able to use both of them at the same time. And even if you couldn't use both of them simultaneously buying coverage for both sides has value. This whole argument seems like little more than "this one time I didn't get to shoot with all of my guns, so make my unit better".

1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.

2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.

It makes LESS sense to have fixed firing arcs that only take into account where the vehicle ended it's move instead of assuming that the tank was driving and shooting all along.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.

But somehow this abstraction doesn't apply to other situations. For example, if you move between two pieces of LOS-blocking terrain I should be able to shoot you while you're in the gap. But there's no point where I can shoot you as long as you end your move in a safe position. So yes, it may not be 100% realistic that vehicles had fixed arcs based on the end point of their move, but at least it was consistent with the rest of the game.

2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.

This argument fails because you don't lose movement distance for this hypothetical turning around. Nor do you have to be able to shoot at a target at any point, a tank sitting still behind an impassible wall with only the tip of a single antenna poking out can still shoot with all of its guns.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.

2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.

It makes LESS sense to have fixed firing arcs that only take into account where the vehicle ended it's move instead of assuming that the tank was driving and shooting all along.

If we are to assume events happen simultaneously why o why are there rules that are so clearly non-simultaneous? The idea that it works because it's simultaneous action is flawed one.

 Peregrine wrote:
Regardless of nitpicking over one specific unit the general trend is that most units with sponsons were able to use both of them at the same time. And even if you couldn't use both of them simultaneously buying coverage for both sides has value. This whole argument seems like little more than "this one time I didn't get to shoot with all of my guns, so make my unit better".

Regardless, GW doesn't see it like you.
Your whole argument is basically, "It's always trading in cover for offensive power".
Which isn't always the case.

I made my case why I think it's a good thing, you made yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Abstraction. The model is an abstraction of a vehicle that is not just parked somewhere on the battlefield but is actually constantly moving.

2) Pilots are not idiots. It's safe to assume that who ever is driving whatever it is has been trained to maximize the effectiveness of their weapons while on the move. Assume that while that landraider was driving from point a to point b that it turned and pivoted as need be to maximize it's weapons effectiveness.

It makes LESS sense to have fixed firing arcs that only take into account where the vehicle ended it's move instead of assuming that the tank was driving and shooting all along.

If we are to assume events happen simultaneously why o why are there rules that are so clearly non-simultaneous? The idea that it works because it's simultaneous action is flawed one.

Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.

GW doesn't consider events happening simultaneously so trying to argue lack of arcs on the idea they are happening simultaneously with moving is flawed and false.

tneva82 wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.

GW doesn't consider events happening simultaneously so trying to argue lack of arcs on the idea they are happening simultaneously with moving is flawed and false.

Why?
The lack of fire arcs are a good pointer that they might be seeing it this way.

From what I understand.. while the antenna joke is funny, it isn't accurate?

The antenna doesn't give you LOS, does the rule actually say like an OTV giving you extra LOS?

I interpreted it to mean if the vehicle can get normal LOS then have at it hoss.

That OP picture made me laugh! It's sad, I miss LOS from weapons already

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Regardless, GW doesn't see it like you.

Obviously they don't, but it's well established that GW is incompetent at game design so I'm not sure what your point is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
I interpreted it to mean if the vehicle can get normal LOS then have at it hoss.

What is "normal LOS"? AFAIK there is only LOS, not different tiers of it.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
From what I understand.. while the antenna joke is funny, it isn't accurate?

Dude, I wish with all my heart it wasn't accurate, but it is my man. It really is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
I interpreted it to mean if the vehicle can get normal LOS then have at it hoss.

What is "normal LOS"? AFAIK there is only LOS, not different tiers of it.

Right now the best argument RAI is at least having to measure distance from somewhere on the weapon currently firing. And even that involves interpretation and inference.

ERJAK wrote:
No big loss tbh. It only really effects vehicles with side sponsons anyway and even then it only effected one at a time. Certain armies like SoB or Tau already completely ignored those rules because 360 turrets did.

Hell an exorcist could be completely obscured and still shoot at you without so much as an intervening save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


Speak for yourself! My Land Raider's crew practically make the thing break dance It's amazing how fast a tank that weights 72 tonnes can spin about!

Aha! I knew I'd seen your land raider somewhere before tee hee

btw totally legal even under 7th ed rules

This is actually illegal in 8th ed. Can't go through walls/buildings anymore.

I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.

Have we seen all of the advanced rules?

Demolisher Cannons shooting out of the side of a vindicator annoyed me, it didnt annoy me as much as Riptides, Tau'nars, Stormsurges, Dreadknights and Wraithknights did under the old rules. You know, piloted vehicles that somehow counted as vehicles rather than vehicles. Especially since most of thrm have the vehicle tag now!

 Crazyterran wrote:
I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.

No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.

Demolisher Cannons shooting out of the side of a vindicator annoyed me, it didnt annoy me as much as Riptides, Tau'nars, Stormsurges, Dreadknights and Wraithknights did under the old rules. You know, piloted vehicles that somehow counted as vehicles rather than vehicles. Especially since most of thrm have the vehicle tag now!

Yes, Riptides and similar should have been vehicles, but that has nothing to do with the subject of fire arcs.

 Hanskrampf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Because the game is an abstraction of events.
Your idea that "non-simultaneous game turn" equals "non-simultaneous events happening" is just wrong.

GW doesn't consider events happening simultaneously so trying to argue lack of arcs on the idea they are happening simultaneously with moving is flawed and false.

Why?
The lack of fire arcs are a good pointer that they might be seeing it this way.

Overwatch, above mentioned model moving between 2 LOS blockers safely are just 2 examples.

Sorry. Game doesn't operate on simultaneous action idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.

No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.

That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.

Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.

Slipspace wrote:
One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.

I emphatically and wholeheartedly agree. As with all problems, solution can only be identified after the problem is acknowledged. You've already got people shooting the messenger over this revelation in the main rumor thread. As if a doctor informing a patient of cancer is tantamount to causing the cancer.

They probably didn't need to lose vehicle fire arcs now that they have split fire on everything. Split fire would have made it easier to have all vehicle weapons firing at something at least.

I'm not too sorry to see them gone though, if just to even up vehicles with MCs and the like and to speed up the game.

Just a though, would a workable alternative rule be for the centre of your model to be able to draw a line to the target to shoot? It did irritate me somewhat when I had a squad of outflanking bikers blown away because a riptide's FOOT could see them :(

Slipspace wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.

No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.

That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.

Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.

No it's not equal. You are assuming unit vs unit in vacuum. Howabout unit vs 2 units? With this you can expose yourself JUST enough to fire at one unit blocking other unit from firing back.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.

No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.

That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.

Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.

No it's not equal. You are assuming unit vs unit in vacuum. Howabout unit vs 2 units? With this you can expose yourself JUST enough to fire at one unit blocking other unit from firing back.

And your enemy can do the same to you. Not to mention that is a highly unlikely situation where you can find some cover that shows you just enough that you can fire at one unit, and the second unit can't see you at all, even after manouvering into position. It's completely equal.

Ach...I feel the pain of loss of firing arcs. Why? I like my tanks. I like my tanks to behave as tanks. Units like the riptide were powerful because instead of being vehicles they were MC, so GW decided they needed to double down on that rule to fix the breaks that it caused. I had hoped my tanks would have become more tankie, not less with 8th ed. Alas my tanks are now more like Godzilla than a bunch of dudes in a steel container. Facing and fire arcs are part of what made vehicles feel like vehicles. I guess I now longer have to dream of painting "front towards enemy" on my demolishers dozer blades.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Ach...I feel the pain of loss of firing arcs. Why? I like my tanks. I like my tanks to behave as tanks. Units like the riptide were powerful because instead of being vehicles they were MC, so GW decided they needed to double down on that rule to fix the breaks that it caused. I had hoped my tanks would have become more tankie, not less with 8th ed. Alas my tanks are now more like Godzilla than a bunch of dudes in a steel container. Facing and fire arcs are part of what made vehicles feel like vehicles. I guess I now longer have to dream of painting "front towards enemy" on my demolishers dozer blades.

I guess you could always paint "front is irrelevant" (not tryin to be crual, I feel your pain)

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Ach...I feel the pain of loss of firing arcs. Why? I like my tanks. I like my tanks to behave as tanks. Units like the riptide were powerful because instead of being vehicles they were MC, so GW decided they needed to double down on that rule to fix the breaks that it caused. I had hoped my tanks would have become more tankie, not less with 8th ed. Alas my tanks are now more like Godzilla than a bunch of dudes in a steel container. Facing and fire arcs are part of what made vehicles feel like vehicles. I guess I now longer have to dream of painting "front towards enemy" on my demolishers dozer blades.

I guess you could always paint "front is irrelevant" (not tryin to be crual, I feel your pain)

I like that!
I guess the silver lining is that light vehicles may become useful again. Charge of the salamanders! Oh wait, I bet FW will not update the rules for them as they no longer produce them.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I mean, you can shoot from your antenna, they can shoot your antenna... seems like you break even at that.

No, it's not a break even change because the vehicle only has to be visible to the unit it's shooting at, which may not be the unit your opponent wants to shoot at the vehicle. And it doesn't have to literally be an antenna, you can poke 0.00001" of the side corner of a vehicle out from cover while keeping that 0.00001" out of LOS of the main anti-tank threats.

That goes both ways though, so it is break even. Your opponent can do the same to protect their own units from threats while getting shots at you. It's no different to what you can do in 7th with non-vehicle units so I don't have a major problem with vehicle units being able to do it now.

Is the "shooting from your antenna" thing weird and immersion breaking? Yes it is, but let's not pretend there aren't similarly immersion breaking things in 7th, or any other wargame. The main question for me is, does it work in game? I can't say for sure right now but I don't see why not. One thing I would like to see is a clarification of what counts as part of the model for LoS purposes, which I think would be welcome and useful.

No it's not equal. You are assuming unit vs unit in vacuum. Howabout unit vs 2 units? With this you can expose yourself JUST enough to fire at one unit blocking other unit from firing back.

But what if instead of 2v1 it was actually 2v3? My God, then it wouldn't be equal, but in the other direction! I assume nothing.

I really don't get how this is a difficult concept to grasp - both players have access to the same set of rules and tactical concepts so in this case the overall effect of the rules doesn't favour one player over another. If one player can use it more to their advantage than another that sounds like good tactical play to me.

 Peregrine wrote:
Regardless of nitpicking over one specific unit the general trend is that most units with sponsons were able to use both of them at the same time. And even if you couldn't use both of them simultaneously buying coverage for both sides has value. This whole argument seems like little more than "this one time I didn't get to shoot with all of my guns, so make my unit better".

Also, the sponsons are MEANT to be limited. There is a reason why few real world tanks used sponsons (and none today). They're just not that good.
Only problem with sponsons was that they were sometimes priced too high, as if they were a turret weapon (which is much more flexible).

One thing which was good in the old system was that tanks might lose entire weapons, with rest of the tank remaining fully operational. This was both realistic, and gave you interesting challenges. Oh crap, your Leman Russ Battlecannon was destroyed. Good thing I still have Heavy Bolter sponsons! Now I only have to move closer and play the tank much more aggressively than before. Fortunetely I did buy those extra weapons, otherwise my tank would be useless!

By contrast, in 8th edition, none of that happens. The tank shoots exactly like before, just slightly worse. A damage progression which happens in same fashion in every single game you play.
It is just so BORING.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

I really don't get how this is a difficult concept to grasp - both players have access to the same set of rules and tactical concepts so in this case the overall effect of the rules doesn't favour one player over another. If one player can use it more to their advantage than another that sounds like good tactical play to me.

"Tactical play" is not same thing as "abusing holes in the ruleset".
Rhino sniping and diversificated wound allocation were 'tactics' available for both players. They were still stupid, and took away from the realism and entertainment value of the game.