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.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
everyone

correction: 4 guys on Dakkadakka lose their minds.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
It's still an abstraction.

If it were a cube, you could still measure that cube down to 0.00000001" to see if there is LOS or not. The vaguely tank-shaped plastic object that we are using as our LOS guide is not a real tank. It's a hunk of plastic.

Effectively it's a vaguely tank-shaped LOS template. You didn't think the flame template was anything other than abstract, did you? the tank-like object sitting in terrain is the same thing. Yours may be a different shape than mine, but it is essentially a binary outcome generator, just like a template.

It is abstract. Just because you like to think it's real, it's not. it's a hunk of plastic which generates an outcome, like dice. it's no different.

By that definition anything would be an abstraction, because no matter how detailed and simulationist you make the rules you aren't having actual tanks and infantry fighting battles with real weapons. You need a definition that draws a meaningful difference between abstraction and literalism, and looking at the actual model vs. an arbitrary volume of space is a pretty good place to draw that line. In determining which weapons can fire you treat the vehicle as an abstract volume of space, assuming that regardless of its actual position on the table it maneuvered to get a clear shot at some point during its turn. But if you're trying to shoot at the same vehicle you suddenly take its exact size and position on the table 100% literally. Even if its movement path the previous turn took it across clear ground where your anti-tank units have LOS if it ends its move out of LOS behind terrain you can't shoot at the tank at all. You no longer assume that it moved across the table and things happened along that path, you only consider the final position. There's no consistency at all between how the two situations are handled.

Actually, this is how exactly works in others game as infinity. If you run across one enemy model he can counter-react to you and shoot you in the mid of your movement.

And to put an example with the RTS metaphor...

Armour facings are something of a game like Company of Heroes. Warhammer40k is Starcraft2 made Tabletop Wargame. You have come to the wrong game looking for that level of individual depth.

Or to be honest, you had come to the right game... 30 years ago. Warhammer40k is not of the scale it used to be.

So where do you determine range and LOS from in 8th edition for firing ranged weapons from vehicles? Center of the vehicle?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
It's kind of crazy that for decades, people have had no problem with infantry, bikes, and MCs having 360 degree firing arcs, but when vehicles get it everyone loses their minds.

Exalted for truth.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
It's kind of crazy that for decades, people have had no problem with infantry, bikes, and MCs having 360 degree firing arcs, but when vehicles get it everyone loses their minds.

Exalted for truth.

Says who?!? Never liked that they had/have 360 degree arcs, those bastards should have a facing too. However, given the other problems in past editions, complaining about 360 degree arcs on infantry and such was just so low on the totem. It would have been like having dinner on a sinking ship that's on fire while fighting off pirates, and complaining that your soup is cold.

They are removing complication, not adding it.

2nd edition had 90 degree infantry fire arcs to the front.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?

Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.

There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.

How many tanks do you run in that game? Not many. 3 tops? Usually less?

0 to 5+, depending from mission, campaign etc.

In 40K, I usually run between 2 to 5 Vehicles in average 1500pts game, depending on army and list. 1 to 3 if I am in a Team game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

You're certainly not going to be running around commanding over a dozen tanks and a dozen infantry units to boot. It doesn't deal with as many vehicles and units in general as 40k does. There's a reason once games start involving larger numbers of tanks and vehicles, that detail falls by the wayside.

In Steel Panthers it is not unusual to have 20+ Vehicles on a side. Steel Panthers uses a system which is very similar to 40K.
OTOH, RTS game like Total Annihilation might have 100+ tanks or combat bots in an attack task force. Hardly comparable to any edition of 40K. (Of course, computer games have the advantage of easily simulating fog of war, which adds tactical depth but it is almost impossible to simulate in tabletop game.)

Also, I find absolutely hilarious that some people argue like vehicle rules were bogging the game down. Shooting from or at vehicles was pretty much the quickest, least cluttered aspect of the game. What slowed down the game was wound allocation of complicated units, psychic powers from armies which had tons of them, complicated assaults and constant looking up and rolling for special rules which had little effect on the game (Soul Blaze, Hammer of Wrath and so on).

 Vaktathi wrote:

These are so vastly different as to be incomparable. Dropping facings isn't losing *that* much depth and, again, 40k just is not meant to be a deeply tactical game in the first place to boot. I'll note again nobody seems to care that facing isn't an issue for an Exocrine or IG heavy weapons team or many other units where facing could make sense.

Existing stupidity or lack of depth is not an excuse to add more stupidity or remove existing depth.
Of course in any modelling system you will end up having borderline cases where stuff gets weird. What a smart person does (given that we're talking about wholly fictional universe here) is to avoid designing such units which break the modelling. Something which was repeatedly violated in recent years.

 Vaktathi wrote:

...as opposed to now where a most powerful, heavily armoured battle tank can be hurt by weakest infantry weapons in the game from frontal aspect? That is not unintuitive or weird?

Yes it's weird, but that's a visualization issue, and, more importantly, an issue of execution, not a problem with the fundamental concept or the balance functionality of the mechanic in game. There's lots of weirdness with that, same way it's weird that An'Ggrath would care about a Lasgun shot, but nobody is terribly up in arms about that.

Lack of facings and "everything can hurt everything" wounding is directly problem of fundamental rules concept when it comes to visualization. In 8th edition you will have main battle tanks turning their side armour towards enemy, Grots tying down tanks in assault, and so on. In my books, these issues are much, much serious than supposed 'complication' of old vehicle system. I also note that even the execution of the concept was sloppy, since the wound progression is so boring, doesn't even exist for all models, and end-up explosions are different for every vehicle, totally defeating the purpose of unifying the rules.

By the way, in 7th edition, An'Ggrath was immune to Lasguns.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Scaling problem was entirely because the system was not meant to accommodate superheavies. Which is perfectly reasonable as they simply do not, and will not, fit to the scale 40k is usually played. 8th edition will not be any different in this regard.

And yet there they are, hamfisted into the game as the scale has been pushed ever upwards.

Which is exactly the point, and 8th edition does NOTHING to fix that issue. If anything, quite the contrary, since many of the superheavies are now officially part of the armies and no longer bound by either informal or real restrictions seen in earlier editions.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Of course there was going to be problems when clueless people got around designing Codices. It will be just as much a problem in 8th.

Always will be, but there will be fewer issues with no radically different fundamental unit type now.

Solution for clueless rules designers is not to make rules so simple they cannot screw them up, but to fire clueless rules designers.

Now that we dont have directional armour it's not too bad, I don't really see it changing too much.

Exalted for firing clueless rules designers. Between the aforementioned issues mentioned, alongside flamethrowers doubling as anti-aircraft guns, saying "It's an abstraction" is a hamfisted defense.

You know what game did abstraction? Epic. And Epic didn't have rule mishaps this glaring. Units had an AP and an AT attack value and a save, with a core rule forcing -1 save penalties for flanking and setting up crossfires.

Personally, I'm refusing to play 8th unless several house rule become standard, and the most pressing one IMO is: Measure LOS from the weapon, unless the attacking unit is entirely composed of models with the Infantry keyword.

It's a simple rule, it encourages very basic elementary tactics (fields of fire, flanking to deny overwatch, etc), and gives a unique advantage to Infantry in that they're the only unit in the game with 360* LOS.

 Aipoch wrote:
So where do you determine range and LOS from in 8th edition for firing ranged weapons from vehicles? Center of the vehicle?

Range is determined from the weapon, LOS is determined from the model, RAW. That's what all the fuss is about basically.

You can now down sonic jets with handguns and anti-personnel grenades.

The game has been distilled and abstracted so much, it has lost all flavor. There isn't even a proper morale mechanic anymore, just extra casualties.

I enjoy the simplification. I have no intention of shooting all of my guns from antennas. If my opponent does, good for him, if that's what he wants to do to win he can win. All the girls and fat stacks of cash for winning a game of 40k can be his. And of course he's earned the right to be relentlessly mocked by everyone in the room.

 -DE- wrote:
You can now down sonic jets with handguns and anti-personnel grenades.

The game has been distilled and abstracted so much, it has lost all flavor. There isn't even a proper morale mechanic anymore, just extra casualties.

The amount of handguns you'd need to down a flyer would have the flyer flying into a literal wall of lead. It would be the captain of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men just telling his men to fire into the air to create an asteroid belt of bullets.

It's also theoretically possible that all the atoms in your body lign up with all the atoms of the floor and you fall right through it, but it's so improbable as to approach 0. Handguns downing a jet in 8th is equally ridiculous.

Flamethrowers downing jets is non-zero. They auto-hit, wound on 5s, and it's really not that hard to hurt them.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Flamethrowers downing jets is non-zero. They auto-hit, wound on 5s, and it's really not that hard to hurt them.

I mean you might be right. So let's do the calculations. What's the jet and what weapon are you using?

Some of this is really denting my enthusiasm for 8th.

 Purifier wrote:
The amount of handguns you'd need to down a flyer would have the flyer flying into a literal wall of lead. It would be the captain of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men just telling his men to fire into the air to create an asteroid belt of bullets.

You hit on 4+, wound on 5+, and the flyer gets a middling save. It's not impossible at all. And it's certainly possible to shave off those last 2 wounds and bring it down. It was not possible in 3rd-7th and is certainly impossible in real life. You can also destroy a supersonic plane in flight with a hand grenade or engage it in close combat. That's not abstract, that's slowed.

 Purifier wrote:

It's also theoretically possible that all the atoms in your body lign up with all the atoms of the floor and you fall right through it, but it's so improbable as to approach 0. Handguns downing a jet in 8th is equally ridiculous.

No, that's literally impossible and has no bearing on how awful 8th is at simulating what has been present in the previous editions AND fiction.

The game has three model types now: humans, large humans, and humans on scooters with malfunctioning brakes that crash into invisible walls and explode.

Let me add another nonsensical, blatantly untested rule - a vehicle with a plasma weapon now spontaneously combusts on a single roll of 1 when firing, with no recourse. Have a vehicle with 4 plasma shots, chances are it kills itself before turn 2 wraps up, dealing more damage to you than the opponent.

 Purifier wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Flamethrowers downing jets is non-zero. They auto-hit, wound on 5s, and it's really not that hard to hurt them.

I mean you might be right. So let's do the calculations. What's the jet and what weapon are you using?

Try a Flamestorm versus a Dakkajet.

D6 autohits, 3.5 on average (spend a Command Point in case you roll a 1).

4+ to wound, 5+ save, 2 wounds a pop.

By contrast the Lascannon hits on 4, wounds on 3, and does D6 damage. Once.

On average the flamethrower can consistently equal the Lascannon, while potentially one-shotting the Dakkajet, which the Lascannon can't do.

 -DE- wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
The amount of handguns you'd need to down a flyer would have the flyer flying into a literal wall of lead. It would be the captain of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men just telling his men to fire into the air to create an asteroid belt of bullets.

You hit on 4+, wound on 5+, and the flyer gets a middling save. It's not impossible at all. And it's certainly possible to shave off those last 2 wounds and bring it down. It was not possible in 3rd-7th and is certainly impossible in real life. You can also destroy a supersonic plane in flight with a hand grenade or engage it in close combat. That's not abstract, that's slowed.

 Purifier wrote:

It's also theoretically possible that all the atoms in your body lign up with all the atoms of the floor and you fall right through it, but it's so improbable as to approach 0. Handguns downing a jet in 8th is equally ridiculous.

No, that's literally impossible and has no bearing on how awful 8th is at simulating what has been present in the previous editions AND fiction.

The game has three model types now: humans, large humans, and humans on scooters with malfunctioning brakes that crash into invisible walls and explode.

Let me add another nonsensical, blatantly untested rule - a vehicle with a plasma weapon now spontaneously combusts on a single roll of 1 when firing, with no recourse. Have a vehicle with 4 plasma shots, chances are it kills itself before turn 2 wraps up, dealing more damage to you than the opponent.

"blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.

How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.

More amusing is the fact that both Loyalists and Heretics have access to regular and overcharged profiles, when overcharging was originally a Chaos-specific thing.

Fun fact: Gets Hot only applied to Chaos Space Marines in 2nd and in exchange they got to fire them every turn as opposed to every other turn.

nekooni wrote:
"blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.

How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.

Dude, you just confirmed what I wrote. Yes, you need to overcharge the gun. But without it, it's worthless - 1 damage is nothing in this edition. So you overcharge and die, or spend over 100 points for a babysitter and waste even more points on a sub-par weapon. And still run the risk of rolling that 1 in a 36 result and go poof.

Flyers can now be engaged in melee. That is a fact. Sure, it's only jump/jetpack infantry, but it's certainly possible. You just admitted to it. Try hitting a speeding plane with your fist while strapped to a rumbling, roaring jet engine. Apparently warriors of the 41st millenium are THAT skilled. All of a sudden.

Nobody used fire arcs the way they were supposed to anyways. If they did, then vehicles like a Stormraven would never be able to shoot anything within about 8" of it's base. The Stormwolf/Stormfang lascannon/frost cannon would never be able to shoot at anything below the vehicle itself. The Stormtalon/Stormhawk has the same problem. Basically, any flyer unless it was modeled pointing down at the ground, and then that could invoke the "modeling for advantage" rule.. The Land Raider Redemmer would never be able to shoot both it's flame storm cannons at the same target. My favorite was any hull mounted weapon. So many players would move their vehicle at combat speed, then pivot the model at the end of the move to get the most targets in an arc...

I say good riddance.

 -DE- wrote:

nekooni wrote:
"blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.

How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.

Dude, you just confirmed what I wrote. Yes, you need to overcharge the gun. But without it, it's worthless - 1 damage is nothing in this edition. So you overcharge and die, or spend over 100 points for a babysitter and waste even more points on a sub-par weapon. And still run the risk of rolling that 1 in a 36 result and go poof.

Flyers can now be engaged in melee. That is a fact. Sure, it's only jump/jetpack infantry, but it's certainly possible. You just admitted to it. Try hitting a speeding plane with your fist while strapped to a rumbling, roaring jet engine. Apparently warriors of the 41st millenium are THAT skilled. All of a sudden.

Yes, they are. (And I can't encounter a Image of some Night Lords doing the same thing)


Just like a guy with a hammer can destroy a Giant Robot. If you don't like it thats fine, but is part of the fantasy of the universe.

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Or it's an acknowledgement that the level of detail you are imposing becomes onerous for the scale one is playing at. If you're a battle commander dealing with 60 troops and 7 vehicles, the crew's ability to operate their vehicle appropriately in a combat area is not your responsibility, but rather you count on their training and experience (or instinct or whatever) to ensure they are handling their vehicle in the most optimal manner. Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?

Yes. RTS games typically are based on players ability to click fast. Build more, gain area, choose targets faster than your opponent. I have found most RTS games as extremely shallow tactically. And I absolutely HATE damage modelling most RTS games have - everything works on everything from any angle, units are durable and killed by focus firing an entire army on one unit, then move on the next etc.

There are exceptions - like Close Combat. Guess what, in Close Combat tanks are cumbersome and slow, they can blow up from single shot, and flanking them matters.

How many tanks do you run in that game? Not many. 3 tops? Usually less?

0 to 5+, depending from mission, campaign etc.

In 40K, I usually run between 2 to 5 Vehicles in average 1500pts game, depending on army and list. 1 to 3 if I am in a Team game.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Close Combat games I've played (it's been....way over a decade) or watched have like 1 or 2 tanks, they really don't have many. With 40k games, some armies run 1-2 tanks, some 2-5, but others can and do easily run 10 or 12 vehicles in a 1500pt game. My last mech IG army ran like 12 distinct armor elements in a 1500pt game.

In Steel Panthers it is not unusual to have 20+ Vehicles on a side. Steel Panthers uses a system which is very similar to 40K.

Steel Panthers is a dramatically simpler game built on hexsides that fundamentally lends itself to that kind of tactical detail. It's not trying to worry about portraying all the stuff 40k wants to. It's intended as a tactical battle simulator where 40k is not and does not claim to be. It doesn't have to worry about portraying half naked armorless weeny infantry and power armored super soldiers or giant monsters, it doesn't have to worry about portraying teleporting units or thunderhammers vs power swords, it doesn't have to worry about psychic powers or skimmers, etc.

One can look at most other tabletop games, almost none of them deal with vehicle facing the way 40k does, and of those that do, they have waayyyyyyyyyyyy smaller unit/model counts. Nobody tries to worry about front/side/rear arcs and things like sponson and hull mounted weapons with distinct firing arcs, in games that can routinely have double digits worth of these units on the table, in addition to having many dozens of other models that ignore facing entirely on the table at the same time.

Also, I find absolutely hilarious that some people argue like vehicle rules were bogging the game down. Shooting from or at vehicles was pretty much the quickest, least cluttered aspect of the game. What slowed down the game was wound allocation of complicated units, psychic powers from armies which had tons of them, complicated assaults and constant looking up and rolling for special rules which had little effect on the game (Soul Blaze, Hammer of Wrath and so on).

There's lots of things that slow the game down, vehicle shooting isn't the sum of facing, stuff like fiddling with armor arcs to get it *just* right, arguing over whether some dude is in side arc or front arc, cover issues when you can see side but not front but are in the front arc, etc, and that's not even getting into the balance issues that have been endemic with vehicles in every single edition (as shown by how wildly the vehicle rules change every single edition despite the basic rules for other types of units remaining largely unchanged).

Existing stupidity or lack of depth is not an excuse to add more stupidity or remove existing depth.

It is if that extra depth creates balance issues and is only selectively applied. If you're playing chess and the rules say that Queens must fight with RPG level detail, character sheets, feats, magic weapons, D100 rolls, etc, but nothing else does, well, most people are going to be ok with removing that depth because it just doesn't fit with the rest of the game.

Again, never heard about anyone complaining about Exocrines or IG heavy weapons teams not having facings. Nobody ever seemed to think there was a lack of depth there or that that was stupid given the scale 40k is played at. I don't recall any great demand for facing to be a thing on other units in say, 4E or 7E or 5E.

I'll give you another example. Shadowrun has extremely detailed rules for grenade explosions. These are very realistic and make using grenades in enclosed spaces (like pillboxes or small bunkers) extremely devastating (as they are meant to be). The problem is that it does this by getting into ridiculous detail about the explosive shockwaves bouncing off walls multiple times and causing extra damage but also losing strength each time they're reflected, and this gets to be both painfully tedious and functionally unnecessary when they could just do something like "X3 damage bonus in enclosed spaces as designated by the GM", and most people (at least that I've seen in my personal experience with Shadowrun) houserule grenades as a result.

Of course in any modelling system you will end up having borderline cases where stuff gets weird. What a smart person does (given that we're talking about wholly fictional universe here) is to avoid designing such units which break the modelling. Something which was repeatedly violated in recent years.

Aye, and that cat is out of the bag and will never go back in. That ship has sailed unfortunately. I'm in total agreement with you there, but that point has come and gone.

Lack of facings and "everything can hurt everything" wounding is directly problem of fundamental rules concept when it comes to visualization.

Sure, I will happily acknowledge that, but lets acknowledge that visualization is a separate issue from functionality and balance.

In 8th edition you will have main battle tanks turning their side armour towards enemy, Grots tying down tanks in assault, and so on. In my books, these issues are much, much serious than supposed 'complication' of old vehicle system. I also note that even the execution of the concept was sloppy, since the wound progression is so boring, doesn't even exist for all models, and end-up explosions are different for every vehicle, totally defeating the purpose of unifying the rules.

Which may all bear out to be a giant clusterfeth as well, I'm not denying that. My point was that many successful games don't deal with facing and that the lack of it in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. *how* GW does this and how it ends up playing out, we'll have to see. I'm not holding my breath, and looking at the leaked stats for stuff like IG tanks (and updated profiles for things like Lascannons), I don't think they got it right (in practice for instance, a Russ is not going to be meaningfully more resilient against anti-tank weapons than a Wyvern, Chimera or Rhino, while a Valkyrie will be even without its hard to hit rule) and I think there will be problems of implementation for some time, but they'll be easier to address, in theory, given that they operate like everything else now. Whether they actually do so or not...

 -DE- wrote:

nekooni wrote:
"blatantly untested rule" indeed. Plasma weapons only explode when overcharged to S8 / D2. And you could park a character with a rerollable 1's aura next to it.
And no, you can't engage a supersonic jet while it's not hovering unless you yourself are able to fly.

How about actually reading the rules? Certainly that'd be more productive than what you're doing here right now.

Dude, you just confirmed what I wrote. Yes, you need to overcharge the gun. But without it, it's worthless - 1 damage is nothing in this edition. So you overcharge and die, or spend over 100 points for a babysitter and waste even more points on a sub-par weapon. And still run the risk of rolling that 1 in a 36 result and go poof.

Flyers can now be engaged in melee. That is a fact. Sure, it's only jump/jetpack infantry, but it's certainly possible. You just admitted to it. Try hitting a speeding plane with your fist while strapped to a rumbling, roaring jet engine. Apparently warriors of the 41st millenium are THAT skilled. All of a sudden.

So how much playtesting have you done that you're confident that anything that's Damage 1 is utter garbage? I'm pretty sure a normal plasma shot is quite effective against a ton of things (it's still AP-3). I don't think the overcharge mechanic is worth using with the risk e.g. Leman Russes take, but a SM Dreadnought with a Heavy Plasma Cannon only takes a single mortal wound on a 1, seems worth it in that instance.

And yeah, I like to be honest and present the full rule instead of saying "omg flyers can be engaged in combat, totes unrealistic, sky's falling" which implies that a Tac Squad could charge a Vendetta at supersonic speeds. Same with the overcharge.

And to be honest, I'm fine with the image of a flying unit being able to melee another flying unit. It's pretty epic to have an Assault Marine with a Thunder Hammer smash a Dakkajet out of the sky. He's literally a super soldier with a jet pack and a super weapon, why wouldn't he?

Pedroig wrote:

 Aipoch wrote:
So where do you determine range and LOS from in 8th edition for firing ranged weapons from vehicles? Center of the vehicle?

Range is determined from the weapon, LOS is determined from the model, RAW. That's what all the fuss is about basically.

The distance required is determined from the weapon's stats. Range is measured from the hull or base.

Pink Horror wrote:

Pedroig wrote:

 Aipoch wrote:
So where do you determine range and LOS from in 8th edition for firing ranged weapons from vehicles? Center of the vehicle?

Range is determined from the weapon, LOS is determined from the model, RAW. That's what all the fuss is about basically.

The distance required is determined from the weapon's stats. Range is measured from the hull or base.

That is not what the rules say:

In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model.

The parenthesis is clarifying that the range is defined by the weapon's profile. Nothing is contradicting that the range to the enemy unit is measured from anywhere else besides the weapon being used. There is absolutely no mention of hull or base in determining targets. Any weapon that does not have an enemy unit within range cannot fire.

 -DE- wrote:
You can now down sonic jets with handguns and anti-personnel grenades.

I've been knocking jets out of the sky with grenades since 6th edition. And now 8th is a problem all of a sudden?

Pedroig wrote:

That is not what the rules say:

In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model.

The parenthesis is clarifying that the range is defined by the weapon's profile. Nothing is contradicting that the range to the enemy unit is measured from anywhere else besides the weapon being used. There is absolutely no mention of hull or base in determining targets. Any weapon that does not have an enemy unit within range cannot fire.

Line of sight is mentioned for determining targets, and you do that by looking over the table.

Measuring is from the hull or base, and that's explained in an earlier section.

Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you're measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such is the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model's hull instead.

The parenthetical statement makes the statement very clear: "the range of the weapon being used" is something you look up in a book, not something you figure out with a ruler.