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.

In the future, all restaurants are Taco Bell. Enjoy the chalupacabra!

This entire thread is an embarressment.

It says you shoot from a weapon that the model can see with.

Land raider las cannons cannot see thru the body of the tank.

Those of you insisting it works otherwise are going to be sorely disappointed with a faq.

Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.

 sfshilo wrote:
This entire thread is an embarressment.

It says you shoot from a weapon that the model can see with.

Land raider las cannons cannot see thru the body of the tank.

Those of you insisting it works otherwise are going to be sorely disappointed with a faq.

Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.

Really? Because in the photo of rules I have read it says unit, not weapon. I guess that is the issue with working from leaks. Do you have acces to the full rules?

 sfshilo wrote:


Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.

They really don't though, they just need to be in range, which for some reason is measure from the base or hull. I have the rulebook FYI so find the polite setting on your interactions menu please.

How long do you think a turn takes in real time? If it is more than just a few seconds, the tank can fire anywhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5XUQ2beGfM

 JimOnMars wrote:
How long do you think a turn takes in real time? If it is more than just a few seconds, the tank can fire anywhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5XUQ2beGfM

Did the count and it takes 14 seconds.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:


Arcs may be gone but the weapon still needs line of sight.

They really don't though, they just need to be in range, which for some reason is measure from the base or hull. I have the rulebook FYI so find the polite setting on your interactions menu please.

In what I am looking at, it states,

range is measured from the weapon being used... and be visible to the shooting model... For the purposes of determining visibility a model can see through other models in the same unit.

So a strange mix there, at max range from center of model, the close sponson weapon can fire, the far one cannot. At max range-model width everything can shoot...

Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?

I get the weirdness issues as illustrated above, but when every other unit type in the game can do that, there's no good balance reason not to allow vehicles to do so as well, and cutting it out also means you can make the rules simpler to boot.

If people want fire arcs, armor facings, etc, then we need to be playing a different, smaller scale of game with such facing and arc attributes applying to far more unit tupes. As is, with the game 40k is, while visually weird, I'm fine with this change.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?

I get the weirdness issues as illustrated above, but when every other unit type in the game can do that, there's no good balance reason not to allow vehicles to do so as well, and cutting it out also means you can make the rules simpler to boot.

If people want fire arcs, armor facings, etc, then we need to be playing a different, smaller scale of game with such facing and arc attributes applying to far more unit tupes. As is, with the game 40k is, while visually weird, I'm fine with this change.

Some folk have serious psychological issues related to their immersion.

If a MC takes a few seconds to scoot ahead, crouch down and twist, that's perfectly acceptable.

If a vehicle takes a few seconds to drive forward, turn and drive back the world ends.

It's not based upon anything rational. In both cases a finite amount of time occurs. In many cases a 41st millennium vehicle could do this faster than the MC, but the deniers will never, EVER, accept this.

Im happy they're gone, they made sense but were the source of many minor arguments. I'd still like front and rear arcs at least, but I'd like those on all monsters and vehicles, not just vehicles.

To be more complete, I see a battle of 40k taking a good part of a day. So each turn is about an hour. Each phase is about 15 minutes. Obviously turns and phases are truly simultaneous; but in the game we abstract this, and that's OK.

If you have 15 minutes to take 1 shot, you could definitely position your tank to do so and retreat back to cover.

If the entire battle is literally 60 seconds, then no, a tank as it appears on the table is really where it is at that instant, with it's firing arcs and facings.

But I see the game as a tactical exercise, not a game of marksmanship. Did I position the troops correctly? Did I give the tank commanders the right orders? Can my forces coordinate and aid each other? It's not a FPS.

It does look like you're still going to have to measure line of sight per-weapon, so technically speaking arcs aren't really gone, they've just gotten a bit wider (or a lot wider, in some cases).

Though that does raise an interesting question about the Shadowsword's cannon. It can technically get LoS to the rear by elevating the barrel, but it's in a welded housing, not turreted, so it technically shouldn't be able to turn around.

That's quite an edge case though. Why would your Shadowsword not be facing its target when you can turn it freely in the movement phase anyway?

Edit:
Oh, if it can see through models in the same unit I guess that means it can see through itself. Well, that works I guess.

So they work like MCs do...

*Shrug*

I miss firing arcs and armor facing, but since MCs work the same way im fine with abstraction. I will think youre an *** for advancing your tanks sideways and firing with everything though.

Btw. Not counting antennae, banners or MC wings at part of model.

 JimOnMars wrote:
But I see the game as a tactical exercise, not a game of marksmanship. Did I position the troops correctly? Did I give the tank commanders the right orders? Can my forces coordinate and aid each other? It's not a FPS.

This is why vehicle facings and firing arcs were important. It made the game a tactical exercise of positioning your tanks and finding the best tradeoff between maximizing your shooting and keeping your tanks behind cover with their front arcs pointed at the biggest threats. And it made countering tanks a tactical exercise of trying to flank the tanks and hit them from their weaker sides, both in arc coverage and AV. Now there's less of that tactical exercise involved, you hide your tanks except for 0.000001" poking out from behind cover to shoot at the enemy, and there's no reason to reposition your anti-tank units once you can see that 0.000001".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?

Who said we weren't bothered by those things? For example, I think the 6th-7th edition rules for artillery were incredibly stupid and artillery never should have had 360* shooting. They should have stayed as immobile vehicles with 45* hull-mount arcs. Poor handling of one part of the game doesn't excuse poor handling of other parts.

 JimOnMars wrote:
To be more complete, I see a battle of 40k taking a good part of a day. So each turn is about an hour. Each phase is about 15 minutes. Obviously turns and phases are truly simultaneous; but in the game we abstract this, and that's OK.

That makes no sense with movement distances. Each turn in 40k is indisputably a few seconds, maybe 30 seconds to a minute at most.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I will think youre an *** for advancing your tanks sideways and firing with everything though.

IOW, "how dare you play by the actual rules of the game instead of my personal unwritten rules about how the game is 'meant to be played'". No thanks.

You just know that Orks that do take Battlewagons are going to Tokyo Drift them side-by-side for maximum LOS blockage now, with no actual drawback.

Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
For the example of the landraider shooting its lascaonons out of the antennae, it's an abstraction. As far as the game is concerned, It's not shooting out of any particular point anymore. Can the landraider see the target? Yes. Then it can fire at it. Can the opponent see the landraider? Yes, but it's obscured and so gets a cover bonus (Though I'd doublecheck the rules for disregarding bits like wings, banners, or antennae). That's all the game system cares about. You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.

8th is more like a tabletop version of command and conquer in terms of its systems.


Units have health pools and they shoot at each other if they can see them. Nice and simple. The tactical depth comes from choosing who shoots at what, and how combinations of units interact with each other moreso than creating a realistic simulation of battlefield maneuvering/positioning/line of sight. These things are still there to a degree, but they're much more streamlined and binary to allow for some extra variables in the systems, but not be a pain in the ass like they were in 7th (Heldrake anyone?).
Can a unit see its target? Yes/No
Is it in cover? Yes/No
Is it in range? Yes/No

But no more playing peekaboo with the Taurox turret hiding behind a chimera.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why are people only bothered about arcs for vehicles, but not MC's, heavy weapons infantry, artillery or other such units?

Who said we weren't bothered by those things? For example, I think the 6th-7th edition rules for artillery were incredibly stupid and artillery never should have had 360* shooting. They should have stayed as immobile vehicles with 45* hull-mount arcs. Poor handling of one part of the game doesn't excuse poor handling of other parts.

I dont recall such complaints, particularly on any widespread scale, except in relation to vehicles. I can't think of any instance in which MC's were decried as being "less tactical" because they didnt have facings and could shoot 360* around them, except in reference to how poorly vehicles performed.

I get the tactical aspects of facing, but the 40k of the last almost 20 years is simply ay the wrong scale for that to be appropriate, a company commander isnt going to be micromanaging the facings of individual tanks when there's a half dozen, dozen, or bakers dozen of 'em on the field (or more), and having facing only ever matter on vehicles but nothing else was wonky.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I can't think of any instance in which MC's were decried as being "less tactical" because they didnt have facings and could shoot 360* around them, except in reference to how poorly vehicles performed.

Really? Because I know that was a complaint, and one I definitely made.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
But I see the game as a tactical exercise, not a game of marksmanship. Did I position the troops correctly? Did I give the tank commanders the right orders? Can my forces coordinate and aid each other? It's not a FPS.

This is why vehicle facings and firing arcs were important. It made the game a tactical exercise of positioning your tanks and finding the best tradeoff between maximizing your shooting and keeping your tanks behind cover with their front arcs pointed at the biggest threats. And it made countering tanks a tactical exercise of trying to flank the tanks and hit them from their weaker sides, both in arc coverage and AV. Now there's less of that tactical exercise involved, you hide your tanks except for 0.000001" poking out from behind cover to shoot at the enemy, and there's no reason to reposition your anti-tank units once you can see that 0.000001".

You are right, although when I said "tactical" I meant "operational," which seems to be the direction GW is going with the game.

 McGibs wrote:
You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.

Could the Land Raider "maneuver within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear" if that wall was just slightly taller and blocked the tip of the antenna? No. Therefore it is shooting out of the tip of the antenna.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:
You are right, although when I said "tactical" I meant "operational," which seems to be the direction GW is going with the game.

Not really, because GW is simplifying away strategy everywhere. Unit types are homogenized (flyers getting easier to hit, vehicles having infantry stat lines, etc), positioning and maneuvering are less important (turn-1 charges everywhere), and the game is generally being reduced to an exercise in mindless dice rolling. Vehicle facings aren't gone because of a high-level choice to focus on broad strategy over single-unit tactics, they're gone because GW wants to simplify the game for small children.

 Peregrine wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
You're the one making up the narrative saying it's firing lasers out of a metal wire. It's just as easy to create a narrative that the landraider is maneuvering within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear.

Could the Land Raider "maneuver within the space and time of its abstracted turn to bring its weapons to bear" if that wall was just slightly taller and blocked the tip of the antenna? No. Therefore it is shooting out of the tip of the antenna.

*shrug* all the game systems care about is it can see its target or not. Landraider cant see, so it's not going to take the shot. This whole thing works a whole lot better when you engage with it on a systemic level, rather than a simulation level. Like basically every game ever made. Explaining things as they are literally happening will eventually fall apart as you continue up the chain.

 McGibs wrote:
*shrug* all the game systems care about is it can see its target or not. Landraider cant see, so it's not going to take the shot.

Exactly, all the game cares about is if it can see its target or not, and whether it can see its target or not is determined by the tip of that antenna. All the talk of maneuvering for shots is irrelevant, the Land Raider is shooting out of that antenna tip.

This whole thing works a whole lot better when you engage with it on a systemic level, rather than a simulation level. Like basically every game ever made. Explaining things as they are literally happening will eventually fall apart as you continue up the chain.

This is incompatible with things like caring about whether a unit's sergeant is armed with a sword or an axe, or exactly which model in a unit is carrying the melta gun. Again, this is not a case of GW focusing on high-level strategy over simulation, it's GW being incompetent at writing rules for the simulation-style game they're trying to create.

No. The landraider is shooting.
There's no point at which its shooting out of, it just IS shooting.

The narrative point at where it's shooting out of is entirely up to you to figure out and entirely subjective. As far as the game system are concerned, the landraider is just shooting.

if the "firing by antenna" doesn't make sense, and I agree, agree not to, I know I'll not be using some silly things. I'll draw my LOS from the "hull" of my tanks.

 McGibs wrote:
Eh, I'm totally fine with this change, because the overall gameplay mechanics are so much stronger now, instead of a whole heap of fiddly "simulations" from 7th that honestly, not anywhere near realism so lets not kid ourselves.
*snip*

Too early to tell if the mechanics are stronger. simplified, which in general is a good thing, yes but maybe not stronger.

I beg to differ. When there are obvious holes in a rule system, it's up to the players to very visibly abuse those rules so GW corrects them. It's not impossible. Remember Power Scrolls in 8th? Or Wolf Guard Terminators in 2nd?

Breaking a game shows you care enough to see it get fixed.

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

Have you played a game yet?

It's a simplification, and honestly not a terrible one.

Being able to shoot at anything probably represents the mobility of vehicles - they may shoot at things as they move and turn.

As for vehicle weapons needing line of sight, I don't think that's true either. All the rules say is a firing model, not weapons, need LoS.

This is probably best shown by flyers. if the guns on flyers that have minimum move values and fixed turn radius have to see their target, flyers are going to be almost entirely useless, as they can't fly off the table and reengage.

I personally always thought it was ridiculous that FMCs could fly over a target and shoot behind it, but if everyone can do it, I guess it's balanced.

I for one look forward to my death blossom attack from my obelisk, which is known for its agility and ability to spin like a top. Sarcasm by the way, it's fething stupid, but it appears to be RAW, which means we will have to put up with it until someone FAQs it. I imagine ti will be one of the more common house rules, LoS from weapons not model, and torso or legs or main body for Line of sight instead of shooting someone in a dangling purity seal.