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.

 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.
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.

Yes, exactly, and this is the problem. I don't like those games. Despite their real-timeness, they usually are not even remotely realistic or believable as military simulations. I like to play Combat Mission, or Close Combat, or Steel Panthers. 40k of old was closer to those games, now it is closer to Red Alert.

 McGibs wrote:
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.

Obviously that's what's happening from a pure rules point of view, but the rules are supposed to be representing what is happening in the "real" battle. Saying "there are no rules for where it shoots from" is just highlighting the problem, there should be rules requiring the model to shoot from its weapons and not count the tip of an antenna poking out above a wall to be "having LOS to a target".

Vehicle facings didn't matter since 6th edition when they got hull points and became the most fragile units in the game ironically. Yes, the rear armour counted sometimes when you attacked Necrons in CC, but those were outliers.
Positioning of vehicles? You can pivot and turn your vehicle as you like in 7th, fire arcs hardly matter already aside from a sponson now and then or the Monolith.

I wonder if the same people that argue about vehicles shooting through their hull argue about infantry firing through their comrades. Never saw a complaint about that - the game is an abstraction after all.

This is the kind of crap you get when you try and 'simplify' the rules this much.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
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.

That in of itself is a sign of a weak game system, One that breaks easily and needs repair.

Backfire wrote:

 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.
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.

Yes, exactly, and this is the problem. I don't like those games. Despite their real-timeness, they usually are not even remotely realistic or believable as military simulations. I like to play Combat Mission, or Close Combat, or Steel Panthers. 40k of old was closer to those games, now it is closer to Red Alert.

Then this is a different argument of personal taste, and not an argument of poor game design. 8th seems pretty deliberate as to the things it wants to be, and its perfectly okay to not like those. I wish chess had cover mechanics in it, but that's not the type of game it is, and I'm not going to deride it for poor game design because of that.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Vehicle facings didn't matter since 6th edition when they got hull points and became the most fragile units in the game ironically. Yes, the rear armour counted sometimes when you attacked Necrons in CC, but those were outliers.
Positioning of vehicles? You can pivot and turn your vehicle as you like in 7th, fire arcs hardly matter already aside from a sponson now and then or the Monolith.

I wonder if the same people that argue about vehicles shooting through their hull argue about infantry firing through their comrades. Never saw a complaint about that - the game is an abstraction after all.

Says nobody who played IG armored companies ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McGibs wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 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.
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.

Yes, exactly, and this is the problem. I don't like those games. Despite their real-timeness, they usually are not even remotely realistic or believable as military simulations. I like to play Combat Mission, or Close Combat, or Steel Panthers. 40k of old was closer to those games, now it is closer to Red Alert.

Then this is a different argument of personal taste, and not an argument of poor game design. 8th seems pretty deliberate as to the things it wants to be, and its perfectly okay to not like those. I wish chess had cover mechanics in it, but that's not the type of game it is, and I'm not going to deride it for poor game design because of that.

I wonder how chess sales are doing nowadays?

We can just pretend that vehicles, like infantry and MC's, are abstracted to a degree and the model's exact physical pose is thematic and not meant to be a literal representation of the exact orientation of the unit in time and space. Much as infantry can shoot "behind" themselves, why not tanks that should have no problem turning around in place to bring weapons to bear and then returning to a different orientation within the timespace of a round.

Antennas and ancillary stuff like that should be treated as the irrelevant bits they are, and not be used to draw LoS for shooting, but at the same time if infantry, bikes, MC's and Artillery can all shoot behind themselves, tanks should be allowed to do so as well.

If we were playing a game with no more than two dozen models on the board and only a couple of vehicles, ok, the scale would be such that facing makes sense, but when there's a hundred infantry and 15 tanks on the board, I'm ok with ditching facings.

Agreed with Vakthati. And I wouldn't be surprised if GW released a pseudo-5th edition at some point with all those details as one of their specialist games like they did with shadow war. But then that game will have the right scale for that, 40K right now with Grots, Nurglings, Hierophants, Thunderhawks on one table simply can't handle overly detailed vehicle rules, as was shown by 6th and 7th edition.

Though I agree that rules like split fire everything or the obliterator rules stand against the whole streamlining.

People really take their plastic cars and planes quite seriously here, don't they? Browsing these forums really makes you wonder if some of these people have fun while playing 40k or are just angry grumbling the entire time.

Of course there's an abstraction to a casual hobby about space men and aliens. This is a game were artillery guns are a mere football field away from guys fighting with swords and shields. Its meant to be a fun pastime, no sense in getting upset over silly minutia. Firing arcs just purposely made some vehicles worse for no reason. Look at how stupid knights were, with how they couldn't even shoot someone in front of them.

Have they leaked rules from the actual rule book yet? I only ask because the rules I've seen are from the quick start rules and GW has already said they are just a frame work designed to help people get models on the table quickly. As an example the fight subphase rules don't actually explain how wounds are allocated or how damage is determined. They list them as setups but the steps arent actually covered. They skip from make attacks to check morale.

For all we know the full rules still have the bit about decorative stuff not counting for line of sight.

Don't really care, although like a lot of the basic rules for AoS/40k 8th edition they're not meant to represent anything except absolute abstraction. It's a hard break from what many of us are used to where the rules are written to explain what's happening on the table. Now it's trying to explain what's happening on the table to justify the rules. Of the things that caused issues or slowdowns though this wasn't very high on the list, and works fine in other systems.

 McGibs wrote:

Then this is a different argument of personal taste, and not an argument of poor game design. 8th seems pretty deliberate as to the things it wants to be, and its perfectly okay to not like those. I wish chess had cover mechanics in it, but that's not the type of game it is, and I'm not going to deride it for poor game design because of that.

Well, this is like saying that St. Anger is not a bad Metallica album, just different and it's a matter of taste...

I think that I'm done with most of Dakkadakka. This is just one of many pointless salt filled threads and really it's just a bummer to be surrounded by this much negativity.

I'm gonna go have fun enjoying the game, you guys have fun screaming about how your little plastic space men aren't hyper realistic.

Many of these changes are designed to avoid disputes and make the game faster.

I actually like this. Flamers on tanks were the biggest joke on the planet. You had to be RIGHT on top of something to hit it, and even then, you're probably only hitting with 1 sponson.

Now, your land raider crusader can actually do something.

One thing, it has made the points for vehicle weapons much more balanced. If you have limited gun arcs, the bolter on a russ sponson is less useful than one in the turret of a chimera. With the unified weapon costs, these two guns really need to be of a similar use. Getting rid of weapon arcs helps this.

I think that the current system is fine. The one thing that comes to mind being weird is for vehicles with guns all pointing different directions, such as the Malcador Defender:

This is a vehicle that is supposed to drive into the enemy and act like a pillbox, firing in all directions. It would be a bit weird if it could fire it's 5 bolters at the same target, spinning like a top. I guess I am ok with the new rules but I would much prefer to play with people who purposefully limited themselves from taking advantage of the edge case weirdness that some vehicles present. I know that I am in some cases. For instance, my tanks are going to point at what they shoot at, none of that "sideways for more cover" nonsense. I know it is a fault of the rules that it is even allowed, but we have to deal with what we have.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
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.

I can agree in the part about seeing the obvious holes and reporting them to GW. But abusing them?

When you encounter a bug in a system or a videogame you should report it to the manufacturer to be repared. But if you abuse it, you are gonna ve banned or receive other type of repercusion.

You don't play with GW when you play Warhammer, you play with random people or your friends. If you abuse those holes you aren't punishing 40k, you are making a bad experience for the people in the other side of the table.

If you play in a big competitive tournament with GW presence, then I can agree here to make a statement.

This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.

This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.

 amanita wrote:
This debate reminds me of an RPG many years ago. During combat my friend always enjoyed describing in exquisite detail how he was dealing with his foe in close combat, imagining creative ways to thwart an enemy through sheer imagination and fortuitous die rolling. Until one GM wished to try out a new game system. All the creative input was ignored for consultation on a table which never made much sense. After a bit my friend just droned in a very bored monotone "I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching...I'm kicking...I'm punching"...and so on. Yawn, and the GM never grasped the problem.

This is Warhammer 40K 8th Edition now for vehicles.

that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.

When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
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.

Honest question, how many people willingly, like out side of a tournment, sit down for a second game of 40k with you?

 Vaktathi wrote:
We can just pretend that vehicles, like infantry and MC's, are abstracted to a degree and the model's exact physical pose is thematic and not meant to be a literal representation of the exact orientation of the unit in time and space.

Dang, I wish I could write a sentence like that. THIS.

Can someone show me where in the 8th edition rules line of sight can be draw from a vehicles extra bits?

Even though weapons have lost firing arcs, I'm under the assumption they still draw line of site from the vehicle's hull. Making the overly dramatized picture in the thread completely bunk (although humorous).

Is there definitive proof yet that rules of written says you can draw line of sight from ANY part of a vehicle, otherwise the people creating the hysteria in this thread really need to calm down their Yeah, that's not going to fly. - Lorek

takonite wrote:
Can someone show me where in the 8th edition rules line of sight can be draw from a vehicles extra bits?

Shooting phase, page 179: 2. Choosing Targets. "...must be within range of the weapon being used... and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible."

No mention of different parts of models being excluded, or having to draw line of sight from or to any particular piece of a model.

takonite wrote:
...calm down their *****

That's a bit childish...

 Vaktathi wrote:
We can just pretend that vehicles, like infantry and MC's, are abstracted to a degree and the model's exact physical pose is thematic and not meant to be a literal representation of the exact orientation of the unit in time and space.

That's a nice thought, but it directly conflicts with all the times when a model's exact pose does matter as a literal representation. For example, kneeling/prone models that can't shoot over a wall that they could easily see over if they were modeled in a standing position, drawing LOS to a model because you can see a tiny bit of antenna poking out from behind a building, etc. 8th is an awkward mess of trying to have it both ways, sometimes vehicle models are very literal representations, sometimes they're abstracted, and there's no consistency at all.

 Trickstick wrote:

takonite wrote:
...calm down their ******

That's a bit childish...

See exhibit A:

 Peregrine wrote:

8th is an awkward mess of trying to have it both ways, sometimes vehicle models are very literal representations, sometimes they're abstracted, and there's no consistency at all.

It's an abstraction. It has been for years.

So... if you have to stoop down behind a model to see what it can see, that means facing matters! Even for infantry, finally!

At least the guys looking back can now shoot at a different unit as they "watch their backs," if anything model placement and facing is much more strict if sponsons have to attack what can be seen in front of a model.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's an abstraction. It has been for years.

Except, as I said, it isn't always an abstraction. When you're drawing LOS you don't use some abstract volume of space that the model could be in, you look at the exact model down to 0.00000001" differences in pose/location. I notice you cut out the following sentences, where I gave some examples of the rules being extremely literal about a model's pose/position and not using that supposed abstraction. It's an inconsistent mess where abstraction vs. literalism goes back and forth depending on the exact rule, because nobody at GW seems to have any kind of overall concept for how it should work.

And nice "Exhibit A" remark for a pretty blatant rule #1 violation. I think it says something about the level of discussion that pointing out GW's inconsistency in game design is considered "{censored}".

The human eye can only discern to .03"...

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind losing true line-of-sight, as it would help with the consistency of abstraction and allow for cooler modelling options without incurring an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except, as I said, it isn't always an abstraction. When you're drawing LOS you don't use some abstract volume of space that the model could be in, you look at the exact model down to 0.00000001" differences in pose/location. I notice you cut out the following sentences, where I gave some examples of the rules being extremely literal about a model's pose/position and not using that supposed abstraction. It's an inconsistent mess where abstraction vs. literalism goes back and forth depending on the exact rule, because nobody at GW seems to have any kind of overall concept for how it should work.

I cut out sentences to emphasize hyperbole. Is it reaaally "a mess?" Do you really think "nobody at GW [has] any kind of concept for how it should work"?

Can you really not assume you don't draw line of sight from an antennae? Or give some "gentlemans leeway" for a crouched model? Just use some common sense.

 Peregrine wrote:

And nice "Exhibit A" remark for a pretty blatant rule #1 violation. I think it says something about the level of discussion that pointing out GW's inconsistency in game design is considered "{censored}".

Feel free to point out inconsistencies. You can do that without hyperbole though.