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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Blame sponsons as a design choice lol.. Bu maybe vehicles on bases and divide those into quarters? The current set up of basically terrain being irrelevant for movement and los really sucks IMO.

Given everyone can split fire now, is it as much of a problem? Fire the turret and sponson A at your primary target, whilst firing sponson B at a secondary target..

 Argive wrote:
But I think that ship has sailed... What would you even do with something as ridiculous as a repulsor and how many guns it has? lol

Remove it from the game, recall all products sold so they can be ground down into chips, destroy the mould, delete the CAD files, fire the designer and anyone who approved its production...

Great idea! Can we kill the astreus too? Please?

And maybe flay the designer? It's what Konrad would do.

 Argive wrote:
Vehicle facing [...] And yes bases for vehicles with marked quarters would fix a lot of the problems.

The main reason I was happy to see vehicle facing go was all the arguing about where what facing is. It's a non-issue when facing chimeras and rhinos, but once you involve battlewagons, wave serpents, hammer heads or soul grinders, make sure you have prepared a list of arguments for where which facing is ahead of the game. No fun, do not want.
The Speed Freeks game has a paper gubbin that locks into the buggies' bases and you immediately know where front and side arcs are. If this were possible for WH40k, I'd be all for bringing back vehicle facings, but all vehicles would have be based on oval bases and/or have their own special gubbin to determine arcs.

MW within 3" is quite common for explosions and some powers. Don'ts see why it cant be implemented for weapons.

Note that there core difference between that MW mechanic and old school templates/blasts are that they hit each unit once, no matter how many models it has and how far they are spaced out. Not needing to space out 100+ orks 2-4 times per turn is one of the best things in 8th.
There are also some (rare) weapons which actually use that mechanic - the death strike missile, for example.

Swingy random shootiness for big weapons is also bit silly. The rerolls are there to counter balance this but it makes sense to just spam ROF weapons instead.

IMO, they should move all those auras to how master artisans and deffskulls work. Having one full re-roll takes less time and shifts power from high ROF weapons to single-shot weapons.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given everyone can split fire now, is it as much of a problem? Fire the turret and sponson A at your primary target, whilst firing sponson B at a secondary target..

There are quite a few models which have guns which can rarely, if ever be shoot at anything if you go back to the mount rules, even with split fire - for example the big shootas on the bommers, the big shootas #3 and #4 on battlewagons or the rear mounted big shootas on the scrap jet.

I really prefer model design not being limited by game rules over trying to force realism into an abstract representation of a battle.

necron arks. ghost arks have to broad side. doomsday arks have to loose 2 arrays to aim the main gun.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Vehicle facing [...] And yes bases for vehicles with marked quarters would fix a lot of the problems.

The main reason I was happy to see vehicle facing go was all the arguing about where what facing is. It's a non-issue when facing chimeras and rhinos, but once you involve battlewagons, wave serpents, hammer heads or soul grinders, make sure you have prepared a list of arguments for where which facing is ahead of the game. No fun, do not want.
The Speed Freeks game has a paper gubbin that locks into the buggies' bases and you immediately know where front and side arcs are. If this were possible for WH40k, I'd be all for bringing back vehicle facings, but all vehicles would have be based on oval bases and/or have their own special gubbin to determine arcs.

MW within 3" is quite common for explosions and some powers. Don'ts see why it cant be implemented for weapons.

Note that there core difference between that MW mechanic and old school templates/blasts are that they hit each unit once, no matter how many models it has and how far they are spaced out. Not needing to space out 100+ orks 2-4 times per turn is one of the best things in 8th.
There are also some (rare) weapons which actually use that mechanic - the death strike missile, for example.

Swingy random shootiness for big weapons is also bit silly. The rerolls are there to counter balance this but it makes sense to just spam ROF weapons instead.

IMO, they should move all those auras to how master artisans and deffskulls work. Having one full re-roll takes less time and shifts power from high ROF weapons to single-shot weapons.

I never, ever want to see facings again. Life has been so much better for me in terms of the fun I am having for my games since they've been gone. Ditto for Templates, and Double Ditto for "all or nothing saves."

Agree, the changes implemented with 8th have been good.

I just think that it was a lost opoortunity though.

Since they removed the limit of 10 on S and T, why would they keep guards at S3 and marines at S4?

This way if you want to make bulky guards, they can now arm wrestle with a Tyranid Warrior.

Spoletta wrote:
Agree, the changes implemented with 8th have been good.

I just think that it was a lost opoortunity though.

Since they removed the limit of 10 on S and T, why would they keep guards at S3 and marines at S4?

This way if you want to make bulky guards, they can now arm wrestle with a Tyranid Warrior.

I asked Pete Foley about this a while ago, and he told me they considered it, and tried it out, but it ended up that a wider spread of stats ended up resulting in the majority of rolls needing to be 2s or 6s, so they reverted to a narrower spectrum of values to make the majority of rolls fall within the 3-5 bracket, with 2s and 6s being reserved for "extreme" cases.

 Nazrak wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Agree, the changes implemented with 8th have been good.

I just think that it was a lost opoortunity though.

Since they removed the limit of 10 on S and T, why would they keep guards at S3 and marines at S4?

This way if you want to make bulky guards, they can now arm wrestle with a Tyranid Warrior.

I asked Pete Foley about this a while ago, and he told me they considered it, and tried it out, but it ended up that a wider spread of stats ended up resulting in the majority of rolls needing to be 2s or 6s, so they reverted to a narrower spectrum of values to make the majority of rolls fall within the 3-5 bracket, with 2s and 6s being reserved for "extreme" cases.

That sounds like a case of not testing enough. There's no reason those changes have to lead to those results. The whole point of testing and iterating is to find the sweet spot for these stats where they operate as you want but don't lead to unintended consequences like we have now where D2, high RoF guns are the best anti-tank weapons. Also, you can adjust wound values once you start looking at different S/T values. You don't need tanks with 10+ wounds if you're making them much more resilient to non-AT weapons.

The biggest limiter of the game is really the d6 system, but that's likely not going away anytime soon. But really if they moved to let's say a d10 system, there's a lot more space to add things. D6 is too limiting with all the bonuses/re-rolls they have added on top of the game.

Realistically I hope 9th removes some of the bloat they quickly threw on with 8th, but this GW so even if they remove it, it'll just bloat up again within a couple of years so 10th edition can reduce it and repeat the cycle.

Except how much bloat 9th ed can remove seeing PA's, codexes etc will stay working...

Bloat is in codexes and supplements. Not in rulebook that has how many pages of rules? 20?

The "bloat" we have right now is

1) Core Rules
2) Chapter Approved
3) Codices
4) Supplements
5) Vigilus
6) PA
7) FW indexes

A new edition, would only change 1) unless they trash all of those books with a sweeping change and piss off all the people who aren't already pirating their stuff.

That's the problem I see with any attempt to make 9th edition at this point. You could try to introduce some sort of limit in the core rules to things like rampant rerolls but that's just adding more bloat since it's overriding Codex/supplement rules with new Core rules.

The only thing I can see GW doing with the eventual 9th edition is maybe coming up with proper terrain rules and changing the CP system somehow as those are some pretty self-contained changes that would require little or no adjustments in any other rules material.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
With no really good terrain roles, insane amounts of re-rolls, lots of ap everywhere, and multi damage weapons. There is no real tactics anymore, just shoot w/e you want and don't worry to much about table positioning.

There are a lot of improvements to counter this - vehicles get an armour save again and are not just very poor Monsters as they were previously.

-AP rather than ignore all AP below this is better as combined with the above, often stuff at least gets a save.

Terrain could be improved

Played a 4000pt objective game at the weekend - plenty of positional play and choices as it was irrelevant if one side was dead as it was pure VP based.

Expecting "9th ed" to be like AOS 2 - just tweeks and tideing up....

They won't trash the books, just phase them out over time.

For example, the next Tau book rolls all the PA stuff into its text, replacing two books with one. GSC does the same. Guard includes the Vigilus and PA stuff. Over time they invalidate the supplement books by incorporating the stuff from those books into the new Codices.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They won't trash the books, just phase them out over time.

For example, the next Tau book rolls all the PA stuff into its text, replacing two books with one. GSC does the same. Guard includes the Vigilus and PA stuff. Over time they invalidate the supplement books by incorporating the stuff from those books into the new Codices.

It is the only sane way to do it. If they just kept adding supplements and fracturing rules I'd lose it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They won't trash the books, just phase them out over time.

For example, the next Tau book rolls all the PA stuff into its text, replacing two books with one. GSC does the same. Guard includes the Vigilus and PA stuff. Over time they invalidate the supplement books by incorporating the stuff from those books into the new Codices.

It is the only sane way to do it. If they just kept adding supplements and fracturing rules I'd lose it.

*looks at user's recent posts*

...too late?

I expect 9th to be tweaks and cleanup. I like 8th for the most part except for the pile-on that has been the stratagems and related stuff.

Hope vehicle facing stays dead. Vehicle facing works in games like X-Wing where the bases are explicit and the entire gameplay revolves around it. In 40k it just made a large portion of the vehicles nigh unusable and some kits you could accidentally model for disadvantage(Land Raider sponsons).

Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

 Dysartes wrote:


*looks at user's recent posts*

...too late?

Eh. Depends on the day.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

It feels like 8th has put focus back on infantry though - in previous editions the game always seemed to revolve around vehicles, monsters, bikes, beasts and jump troops. Infantry was usually riding transports, (suicide-)deep striking or some sort of deathstar combo.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

It feels like 8th has put focus back on infantry though - in previous editions the game always seemed to revolve around vehicles, monsters, bikes, beasts and jump troops. Infantry was usually riding transports, (suicide-)deep striking or some sort of deathstar combo.

yes... let's not bring back rhino rush, terminator s in land raiders, and death company in land raiders as the best ways to play. it was often two sides of vehicles and any non T4 3+ armor infanty would get regularly removed. while i liked 5th for some reasons the vehicle lists towards the end were quite boring

 Eldarsif wrote:
...Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

As opposed to "my antenna shoots your antenna"?

I'm reasonably sure the rules still have the stipulation that aerials and antennas don't count for line of sight purposes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
...Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

As opposed to "my antenna shoots your antenna"?

true. I hate the fact that just because some GK termintor models comes with a back banner, they are twice as a higher as a normal termintor, and get sniped while standing behind cover. Same with hiting models that have rised weapons like halabards or dreadnoughts having back banners.

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm reasonably sure the rules still have the stipulation that aerials and antennas don't count for line of sight purposes.

If you can find it be my guest. All the core rulebook says about line of sight is "...if any part of the target is visible."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm reasonably sure the rules still have the stipulation that aerials and antennas don't count for line of sight purposes.

If you can find it be my guest. All the core rulebook says about line of sight is "...if any part of the target is visible."

It would be in the KT rulebook, not the 40k one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
...Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

As opposed to "my antenna shoots your antenna"?

true. I hate the fact that just because some GK termintor models comes with a back banner, they are twice as a higher as a normal termintor, and get sniped while standing behind cover. Same with hiting models that have rised weapons like halabards or dreadnoughts having back banners.

Like every time this comes up, that is a terrain problem. Not a problem of the army. Not everything is "Woe is me and my GKs..."

So you want to tell me, that because GW designed rules in a certain way and then made GK models in a specific way, now the whole store has to adjust and buy or build terrain just to fit in GK termintors, specially as GW did not see the need to give rised long pole arms, swords or banners?

And it isn't even a GK problem. A guy that started playing BA at our store made very nice kit bashes of AoS models and primaris parts to make his smash captins. he was devasted, after first game, when his descending from the sky captin got shot while standing behind a 2 tier building, because part of the wing was visible. The fact that most marines players model their captins and chapter masters crawling or kneeling is a disgrace.

I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

1) that was a rule in 7th.

2) it doesn't matter if some guy says some crap in something that is not rules. Put it in a faq errata or it doesn't matter.

A TO can make that a rule, though.

Martel732 wrote:
A TO can make that a rule, though.

A TO can also make it a rule that all models must feature the color pink. A TO can make ANYTHING a rule.

I know. That's really the last line of defense vs GW.