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.

I had the wrong Sv for the land raider. Thought it was 3+ not 2+.

Karol wrote:
then just give each vehicles a base and mark it in 4 places and now it has 4 sides.

So, what base would you suggest for a battlewagon with deff rolla?

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
then just give each vehicles a base and mark it in 4 places and now it has 4 sides.

So, what base would you suggest for a battlewagon with deff rolla?

a rectangular one

PS: we used simple sheets of paper/plasticcard cut to the size of the tank during 5th
no argument needed which side is it as it was clear from the start and if the vehicle exploded you removed it but kept the "base" on the table to mark the crater
simple and effecitve and worked with all kind of vehicles or conversions (some people needed to get used to see a rectangular base unter the flight stand of a skimmer, but after they saw the benefit it was no problem at all)

Facings, fire arcs, templates.... all things that I'm glad they're gone!!!!! They just were what re-rolls are now, things that only slow down the game and don't provide any real interesting mechanic to the game.

Putting bases under very large vehicles like a BW with rolla is impractical, it would be a pain to move that model. Very large bases were good for Warhammer Fantasy, that almost had no scenery, not for 40k.

 kodos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
then just give each vehicles a base and mark it in 4 places and now it has 4 sides.

So, what base would you suggest for a battlewagon with deff rolla?

a rectangular one

PS: we used simple sheets of paper/plasticcard cut to the size of the tank during 5th
no argument needed which side is it as it was clear from the start and if the vehicle exploded you removed it but kept the "base" on the table to mark the crater
simple and effecitve and worked with all kind of vehicles or conversions (some people needed to get used to see a rectangular base unter the flight stand of a skimmer, but after they saw the benefit it was no problem at all)

That's probably a good solution, but 5th also created its own mess with being able to shoot any another facing than the one you were in if you could see it among other issues. My favorite example of this would be hitting rear armor of a battlewagon while standing in front of it by shooting the exhaust pipe in the rear (which can be seen from the front)

In essence, I wouldn't mind facings if there is a 100% watertight rule set behind it with zero room for interpretation and clearly defined facings for every vehicle, especially oddballs like eldar skimmers, defilers or battlewagons. If there is any reason to discuss what facing a model is shooting whatsoever, I prefer them to never come back - they added little to nothing to my games anyways.

There's a difference between facings or templates and re-rolls.

Facing, templates allow for player decisions and choices (do I reveal my vulnerable back to attack my optimal target, do I bunch up behind cover or spread out of cover and many more) So these things add GAMEPLAY.

Re-rolls just happen and have to be done, no player input required. Just like consulting tables or shuffling decks they add tedious UPKEEP.

Players should want maximum gameplay for minimum upkeep. Unless they want their game move from being a game to being a show for them to observe passively.

You clearly never experienced the joy of dropping your melta raptors in behind your mate's brand new land raider and popping it with a single shot...

 Jidmah wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
then just give each vehicles a base and mark it in 4 places and now it has 4 sides.

So, what base would you suggest for a battlewagon with deff rolla?

a rectangular one

PS: we used simple sheets of paper/plasticcard cut to the size of the tank during 5th
no argument needed which side is it as it was clear from the start and if the vehicle exploded you removed it but kept the "base" on the table to mark the crater
simple and effecitve and worked with all kind of vehicles or conversions (some people needed to get used to see a rectangular base unter the flight stand of a skimmer, but after they saw the benefit it was no problem at all)

That's probably a good solution, but 5th also created its own mess with being able to shoot any another facing than the one you were in if you could see it among other issues. My favorite example of this would be hitting rear armor of a battlewagon while standing in front of it by shooting the exhaust pipe in the rear (which can be seen from the front)

In essence, I wouldn't mind facings if there is a 100% watertight rule set behind it with zero room for interpretation and clearly defined facings for every vehicle, especially oddballs like eldar skimmers, defilers or battlewagons. If there is any reason to discuss what facing a model is shooting whatsoever, I prefer them to never come back - they added little to nothing to my games anyways.

TBF if anyone pulled that with "well ackshually" i'd just shake his hand and go.
Because the rule is in typicall GW fashion well intended but utter nonsense in practice (and i seriously doubt firing through a vehicle was RAI). Further it's one thing if you sit at a corner f.e and see the left side of a vehicle and front compared to shooting through a Battlewagon to the exhaust pipe.

Simply put GW should've released an addendum to the rule that disallowed to shoot through a vehicle to hit the opposing side and implemented a baseline system as to what counts as side, front , etc. f.e. by adding in schematic for the vehicle in question in the box. Or better rulebook. But that would've been actual work to be done and we can't have that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
There's a difference between facings or templates and re-rolls.

Facing, templates allow for player decisions and choices (do I reveal my vulnerable back to attack my optimal target, do I bunch up behind cover or spread out of cover and many more) So these things add GAMEPLAY.

Re-rolls just happen and have to be done, no player input required. Just like consulting tables or shuffling decks they add tedious UPKEEP.

Players should want maximum gameplay for minimum upkeep. Unless they want their game move from being a game to being a show for them to observe passively.

That is pretty much the best description.

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBF if anyone pulled that with "well ackshually" i'd just shake his hand and go.
Because the rule is in typicall GW fashion well intended but utter nonsense in practice (and i seriously doubt firing through a vehicle was RAI). Further it's one thing if you sit at a corner f.e and see the left side of a vehicle and front compared to shooting through a Battlewagon to the exhaust pipe.

This is how the rule was played in our area. Because that is what the rule said - and the fluff justification was that the squad was making a more difficult shot(there was a penalty) to hit vulnerable parts.

Simply put GW should've released an addendum to the rule that disallowed to shoot through a vehicle to hit the opposing side and implemented a baseline system as to what counts as side, front , etc. f.e. by adding in schematic for the vehicle in question in the box. Or better rulebook. But that would've been actual work to be done and we can't have that.

There also is the issue with the battlewagon being highly modular, so a you would need at least 5-6 diagrams to catch all builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crispy78 wrote:
You clearly never experienced the joy of dropping your melta raptors in behind your mate's brand new land raider and popping it with a single shot...

You also clearly didn't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
There's a difference between facings or templates and re-rolls.

Facing, templates allow for player decisions and choices (do I reveal my vulnerable back to attack my optimal target, do I bunch up behind cover or spread out of cover and many more) So these things add GAMEPLAY.

That wasn't a choice. You bunched up, you lost. Spacing out all my orks 2" was a mandatory part of the game that wasted a lot of my time. At best it was a noob trap that veteran players could exploit to curb-stomp people for easy victories.

Cyel wrote:
There's a difference between facings or templates and re-rolls.

Facing, templates allow for player decisions and choices (do I reveal my vulnerable back to attack my optimal target, do I bunch up behind cover or spread out of cover and many more) So these things add GAMEPLAY.

Re-rolls just happen and have to be done, no player input required. Just like consulting tables or shuffling decks they add tedious UPKEEP.

Players should want maximum gameplay for minimum upkeep. Unless they want their game move from being a game to being a show for them to observe passively.

Not really, it's the illusion of choices.

Putting the single dude with a flamer in the front row when it needed to be there wasn't gameplay, it was the only way to play it from the moment you decided to include a flamer dude in your unit: you screened it since it had the chance to fire. I don't see any tactical decisions in that. And now that casualties are removed by player's choice you could also keep the flamer guy in the front without any problem. Rolling a D3 or D6 (or multiple of them) is faster than counting the models under a blast/temeplate

Facings and arcs were impractical mechanics that only nerfed vehicles to the point that vehicles that were designed to fire and transport models were trash, so were gunboats with short ranged heavy weapons; you basically only saw pure transports, immobile gunboats or some vehicles that had assault/rapid fire weapons, no fire arcs and a single AV value, like Venoms. Those mechanics also slowed down the game due to discussions, so did blasts.

Vehicles mechanics are immensely more interacting now, simplified rules can be good. The problems they may have are all codexes related, not rules related. It's definitely the best edition ever for vehicles and I've never enjoyed mine like I do now.

That's probably a good solution, but 5th also created its own mess with being able to shoot any another facing than the one you were in if you could see it among other issues. My favorite example of this would be hitting rear armor of a battlewagon while standing in front of it by shooting the exhaust pipe in the rear (which can be seen from the front)

that's the most idiotic argument i could see anybody making. if you tried you would quickly run out of people to play with.
it is also contrary to the actual written rules and example picture given of the bisected vehicle. granted in most cases where the vehicles are curved like eldar the side AV is the same as the front.

So lets look at the vehicle in question with and without the roller



the shape of the hull is clearly rectangular so using the base diagram



If you are in the front arc you can only shoot the front no matter what odd piece is sticking out of the back (much like being able to see the side sponsons on the pred in the diagram from the front doesn't mean you get a side shot), it is much like the rule discounting wings, banner poles weapon bits etc... from being used to target models behind LOS blocking cover.

 Blackie wrote:
Putting bases under very large vehicles like a BW with rolla is impractical, it would be a pain to move that model. Very large bases were good for Warhammer Fantasy, that almost had no scenery, not for 40k.

You know, you can cut that base to only slightly bigger than the model it goes under.... Like just enough so that you can see it. A few MM extra will work. And here's an idea will blow your mind - You can even magnetize it so that it moves right with the model & can be removed to become the crater!
So if moving the model is a pain? It must be a user error.

The rear compartment of of a battlewagon isn't rectangular at all though?

The rule I'm referring to cared about which arcs you could *see* though. By blocking sight to the facing you are in with terrain, a rhino or chimera, you could basically shoot rear armor from the front.

If you care enough, you can probably dig up one of those 10+ page threads in YMDC about why exhaust pipe can be shot in 5th. It was also unclear whether a deff rolla was part of the hull, which - depending on which way that argument went - might or might not change the size of the front arc.

It's not just the exhaust pipe. If you build the wagon like you see in my avatar, the turret was in the rear arc as well.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Simply put GW should've released an addendum to the rule that disallowed to shoot through a vehicle to hit the opposing side and implemented a baseline system as to what counts as side, front , etc. f.e. by adding in schematic for the vehicle in question in the box. Or better rulebook. But that would've been actual work to be done and we can't have that.

you know this was the time were GW said "our game is perfect therefore we neither need a FAQ no an Errata and everything is written as we mean it (RAW=RAI)"

 kodos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Simply put GW should've released an addendum to the rule that disallowed to shoot through a vehicle to hit the opposing side and implemented a baseline system as to what counts as side, front , etc. f.e. by adding in schematic for the vehicle in question in the box. Or better rulebook. But that would've been actual work to be done and we can't have that.

you know this was the time were GW said "our game is perfect therefore we neither need a FAQ no an Errata and everything is written as we mean it (RAW=RAI)"

Yes, it's about the only attestable improvement GW had since Kirby went to the 7 circles of hell.-
The quality overall though still hasn't improved.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
The rear compartment of of a battlewagon isn't rectangular at all though?

The rule I'm referring to cared about which arcs you could *see* though. By blocking sight to the facing you are in with terrain, a rhino or chimera, you could basically shoot rear armor from the front.

If you care enough, you can probably dig up one of those 10+ page threads in YMDC about why exhaust pipe can be shot in 5th. It was also unclear whether a deff rolla was part of the hull, which - depending on which way that argument went - might or might not change the size of the front arc.

It's not just the exhaust pipe. If you build the wagon like you see in my avatar, the turret was in the rear arc as well.

Then you abstract the wagon into 2 d realm. That is no issue if you handle the thing correctly as are eldar vehicles which you'd also handle that way.

 Jidmah wrote:
The rear compartment of of a battlewagon isn't rectangular at all though?

The rule I'm referring to cared about which arcs you could *see* though. By blocking sight to the facing you are in with terrain, a rhino or chimera, you could basically shoot rear armor from the front.

.

True LoS is one of the worse ideas had for its game. Only two worse are skirmish style stats and rules for a 200+model games and the no interaction turns for players. All the terrain problems in 8th came from the fact that we had true LoS, which ment any cloak, banner or dynamic model was a downgrad option for any army to play with.


But speaking of bases and different front, side, backs. What if GW did make them different. What if an ork vehicle had a huge front like all of the base counting as the models front aside for the back line. On the flip side something like an eldar skimer could have only sides armour all around. While an imperial Lego tank would have a distinct front, side and back. It could synergise with unit anti tank rules, maybe some units would do more damge to front, side or back. Maybe pumping 6 shots in to the back of a warwagon could be very effective, but at the front not so much. this would enhance the need for melta/lascanon like weapons would would always be good at damaging tanks, but if you got them in to the right position. They would be outright deadly.

Not Online!!! wrote:
That is no issue if you handle the thing correctly as are eldar vehicles which you'd also handle that way.

It clearly was an issue, and one of the prime reasons, if not the only one, why people are happy that armor facings went away. I don't have the patience to type out all the possible interpretations of "rear" for battlewagons or wave serpents, but from hundreds of games and dozens of arguments on this topic, I can tell you that there is no one correct way to define the arcs of either vehicle.

If you care enough, you can probably dig up one of those 10+ page threads in YMDC about why exhaust pipe can be shot in 5th.

Again, as when 5th was the current edition you try that GAK at my FLGS and you will quickly find nobody will want to play you.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
That is no issue if you handle the thing correctly as are eldar vehicles which you'd also handle that way.

It clearly was an issue, and one of the prime reasons, if not the only one, why people are happy that armor facings went away. I don't have the patience to type out all the possible interpretations of "rear" for battlewagons or wave serpents, but from hundreds of games and dozens of arguments on this topic, I can tell you that there is no one correct way to define the arcs of either vehicle.

Then i loathe to say it , but the onus of fault still lies between gw and your playing group.

And not the ruleconcept, now instead we got a lackluster System further disadvantaging whole unit classes ontop of a frankly idotically concived wounds Chart.

That is not improvement.

 aphyon wrote:

If you care enough, you can probably dig up one of those 10+ page threads in YMDC about why exhaust pipe can be shot in 5th.

Again, as when 5th was the current edition you try that GAK at my FLGS and you will quickly find nobody will want to play you.

Peer pressure is not a replacement for good rules.

And the whole criticism remains true if you replace exhaust pipe with "rear turret", which explicitly were valid things to be shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Then i loathe to say it , but the onus of fault still lies between gw and your playing group.

My playing groups at that time were my friends, another group of people I knew from various parties/mtg games and the people playing at one of the three GW stores and two FLGS with tables in my area.

There was no consensus on any of these models, in none of those groups. You *had* to clarify these kind of things, among many others, before the game or it would turn into a gak-show as soon as the situation came up.

I think the luxury of always playing with the same handful of like-minded people has blinded you guys for the glaring issues 5th and its codices had.

Lots of wrongness about the 5th edition rules.

If you were in a facing you couldn't see in 5th and got shot at, you didn't hit the facing you could see - you instead hit the facing you were in, AND the tank got a 3+ save instead of a 4+ for cover.

There's actually a really clear example in the book featuring a Rhino vs. Fire Dragons, one in which they can see the front armor (but only half so a 4+ Obscured save) and one in which they can see the side armor only but were in the front (so they shot the front armor but because the entire facing was obscured it got a 3+ Obscured save).

If they could only see the pipe on the back of a battlewagon but were in the front, your battlewagon got a 3+ Cover Save and the benefit of its front armor, unlike now where it gets nothing.

If you care enough, you can probably dig up one of those 10+ page threads in YMDC about why exhaust pipe can be shot in 5th.

This might very well in allowed per the RAW, but it runs so against the spirit of game I'm rather mortified (although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised) that people would interpret them this way and be cool with going along with it. I call it a bastardization of the rules.

We always just took a look what you can see of a vehicle and drew LoW towards the center of what was visible. That's what facing you hit. For vehicles where the facing weren't that clear, (a) a lot of times front and side armor wasn't different so it didn't matter anyway, (b) pretty easy to imagine a rectangle at the outer bounds of the hull. Draw diagonals through it and use that to determine facing, (c) if it's still unclear, use the golden rule and have players roll off, with the winner deciding. That last one is a rule for a reason.

Nope. See below.

Also a good way of implementing facing is just to have a top-down schematic of the tank on its datasheet and highlight the parts of the hull that are different AVs.

E.G. a Wave Serpent top down might look like:

Where Green is AV12, Yellow is AV11, and Red is AV10 (yes I know historically yellow would be AV12 but bear with me).

Then, the default rules for determining facing would be to pick the closest point of the hull to the firing model and use that "facing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Nope. See below.

Ah, so your vehicle got a 3+ cover save, but they could hit the facing they can see. Now, the question is, why does the front of an exhaust pipe count as rear armor? I think my group always got it wrong then. (Also worth noting in 9th edition you'd still get nothing whatsoever and they can still shoot your exhaust pipe so I'm not sure what's better now).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
your battlewagon got a 3+ Cover Save and the benefit of its front armor, unlike now where it gets nothing.

My battlewagon already had a 4+ cover save 99% of the time and 3+ didn't matter when something like a shuriken cannon, assault cannon or multi laser could destroy the BW because it was hitting on AV10.

Right now the same battlewagon has a 4+ save, the same 5+ to ignore their shots (T7 vs S6), and doesn't have a 50% chance to die every time you fail a save.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
your battlewagon got a 3+ Cover Save and the benefit of its front armor, unlike now where it gets nothing.

My battlewagon already had a 4+ cover save 99% of the time and 3+ didn't matter when something like a shuriken cannon, assault cannon or multi laser could destroy the BW because it was hitting on AV10.

Right now the same battlewagon has a 4+ save, the same 5+ to ignore their shots (T7 vs S6), and doesn't have a 50% chance to die every time you fail a save.

It doesn't have a 50% chance to die every time you failed a save in 5th, either, considering penetrating hits only killed on a 5+ iirc and glances on a 6.

Also, I still contest that the front of your exhaust pipe is still front armor, considering they're in the front arc and they can see the tank. Just because the pipe is placed on the rear doesn't mean it's rear armor. It's like saying you're hitting a Wave Serpent in the rear when you can only see the turret, because the turret's on the back of the tank...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also a good way of implementing facing is just to have a top-down schematic of the tank on its datasheet and highlight the parts of the hull that are different AVs.

E.G. a Wave Serpent top down might look like:

Spoiler:

Where Green is AV12, Yellow is AV11, and Red is AV10 (yes I know historically yellow would be AV12 but bear with me).

Then, the default rules for determining facing would be to pick the closest point of the hull to the firing model and use that "facing".

Assuming those diagrams exist for every single vehicle, that would be an acceptable option. Measuring closest part to something like a defiler or a kopta might be a PITA though.

 Jidmah wrote:
Nope. See below.

Ah, so your vehicle got a 3+ cover save, but they could hit the facing they can see. Now, the question is, why does the front of an exhaust pipe count as rear armor? I think my group always got it wrong then. (Also worth noting in 9th edition you'd still get nothing whatsoever and they can still shoot your exhaust pipe so I'm not sure what's better now).

Further up on this page is the LRBT diagram from the same page. Essentially, any part of the vehicle that was in the rear quadrant of the model was "rear facing".
There also was the hilarious interaction when people declared the deff rolla to not be hull, but a weapon. An eldar or a guardsmen standing right in front of it (suicide melta) would then be too small to see past the deff rolla and therefore was unable to shoot the BW's hull.
5th could have been a lot better if GW was as good at writing rules as they are now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doesn't have a 50% chance to die every time you failed a save in 5th, either, considering penetrating hits only killed on a 5+ iirc and glances on a 6.

Open topped, and immobilize was the same as wrecked from an ork's perspective, plus two "weapon destroyed" results also were an immobilize
So glances "killed" on 5+, pens on a 3+, melta on a 2+.
Losing 4 battlewagons before they moved was not uncommon if my KFF rolls failed me.

Also, I still contest that the front of your exhaust pipe is still front armor, considering they're in the front arc and they can see the tank. Just because the pipe is placed on the rear doesn't mean it's rear armor. It's like saying you're hitting a Wave Serpent in the rear when you can only see the turret, because the turret's on the back of the tank...

For shooting a vehicle normally, this is correct. If the arc you are in is blocked though, you can shoot any arc you can see. The exhaust pipe is part of the rear arc, as is the eldar turret in your example.

Man, all these talks about useless vehicle facings and armor values need to die finally and can possibly resurrected once GW feels about releasing a 40K between Kill Team and 1000points max with not more than 3 vehicles per side, no superheavies and facings for all units not just vehicles for arbitrary reasons. 40K today is far too big for that fiddly nonsense and people had to learn that the hard way in 6th and 7th Edition were being a vehicle was a classification that let you know: this unit is super squishy, has very clumsy movement and can never shoot all the weapons you pay for.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also a good way of implementing facing is just to have a top-down schematic of the tank on its datasheet and highlight the parts of the hull that are different AVs.

E.G. a Wave Serpent top down might look like:

Spoiler:

Where Green is AV12, Yellow is AV11, and Red is AV10 (yes I know historically yellow would be AV12 but bear with me).

Then, the default rules for determining facing would be to pick the closest point of the hull to the firing model and use that "facing".

Assuming those diagrams exist for every single vehicle, that would be an acceptable option. Measuring closest part to something like a defiler or a kopta might be a PITA though.

 Jidmah wrote:
Nope. See below.

Ah, so your vehicle got a 3+ cover save, but they could hit the facing they can see. Now, the question is, why does the front of an exhaust pipe count as rear armor? I think my group always got it wrong then. (Also worth noting in 9th edition you'd still get nothing whatsoever and they can still shoot your exhaust pipe so I'm not sure what's better now).

Further up on this page is the LRBT diagram from the same page. Essentially, any part of the vehicle that was in the rear quadrant of the model was "rear facing".
There also was the hilarious interaction when people declared the deff rolla to not be hull, but a weapon. An eldar or a guardsmen standing right in front of it (suicide melta) would then be too small to see past the deff rolla and therefore was unable to shoot the BW's hull.
5th could have been a lot better if GW was as good at writing rules as they are now.

You parsed facing differently than I did. It has nothing to do with what part of the vehicle is where, and everything to do with where the model shooting the vehicle is standing. When shooting at something sticking up out of the vehicle, you shot based on the facing you were standing in. In fact, I would argue that's the only way to parse it. If you can only see the turret of a Leman Russ, what facing are you in? The turret is dead center. What about a Baneblade whose turret you can see? The turret is back behind the center of the vehicle, but also slightly offset to one side IIRC... it becomes a mess if you don't parse facing as "the place the model is standing relative to the target" when shooting at sticky-uppy bits.

But yeah, even so, GW's shoddy writing doesn't make the whole concept of armor facing irrelevant. And yes, that top-down thing should exist for every vehicle in the game if you want to implement facing. It only makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
For shooting a vehicle normally, this is correct. If the arc you are in is blocked though, you can shoot any arc you can see. The exhaust pipe is part of the rear arc, as is the eldar turret in your example.

If you're in front of the tank and can see the front of the pipe (or the turret) then you can see the front arc of the tank. To say that the specific location of the pipe or turret is relevant is a That Way Lies Madness scenario, given how many sticky uppy bits a person could potentially see.

These posts prove to the OP that "Yes, 9th is good". I have been playing since 4th, and this streamlined edition is great to get back into the game. Once you get back in, will your interest last for long ? It is no longer a wargame IMO (and most opinions here in this thread froim what I understand), it takes slightly less time to play and the core mecanics are EZ to learn, especially for someone who played 40k, even if that was a long time ago.

If you like, or think you might like, strategy in a "semi wargame, semi MTG card like game, with (much) better balance than prior editions", with great models, the lore you love, etc. then go for it (I like 9th a lot, but I am really unsure whether I will still like it after 50+ games).

BUT, if you want to get back into the wargame (vehicule facings, monsters being different from vehicules, etc.) you remember, then I suggest you borrow an army for your first games. Because you might find this version a bit shallow in terms of the importance of manoeuvering