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.

 Mezmorki wrote:
One thing I will say is that the rules for 9th (and 8th) edition are much more concisely and precisely written.

disagree here, looking at the current superdoctrines/doctrine interaction from Codex SM and new Supplements, this is a mess and are far from clear (there is an intention what GW might want those rules to be but the rules text says something different)

they try harder than before but the result is not really better

I was referring to just the core rules. I think when you layer in all the stuff from the codexes, in aggregate, it's a more complex game and inevitably that complexity and the ensuing interactions can lead to complications.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I was referring to just the core rules. I think when you layer in all the stuff from the codexes, in aggregate, it's a more complex game and inevitably that complexity and the ensuing interactions can lead to complications.

I don't think it's a reasonable comparison. GW "cleaned up" the core rules for 8th/9th by taking a whole bunch of rules (unit types, USRs, vehicles degrading as they take damage, etc.) and offloaded them into a bunch of slight variations on the same thing in the Codexes. The core rules are "cleaner" in the same way as the cartoon small child who "cleans up" their room by shoving everything into the closet and praying nobody opens the door.

which is one of the problems

just because you write short and simple core rules does not mean you end up with the same mess after adding the other rules

and "the rules" are everything not just the core as the with the core alone you are not able to play a game

so GW moved their problem with complicated rules from Core-Codex to Codex-Datasheet and ended up with the same result

So it's either play 40k-the-Gathering or play with plastic green army men as far as you're concerned? It's not hard to understand that there used to be some semblence of an engaging middle ground with a bit more depth and a little less breadth that a lot of people still prefer. The issue with competative play being pushed by GW itself is whereas before all kinds of play could coexist in a casual pick-up environment, now only one can. Honestly this game's been going consistently downhill since late 5th, and it becomes quite frustrating when any protest against this deterioration is met with a childish "Don't play then!", as if lots of money and time hasn't been invested into this hobby only for the rug to be pulled out from underneath people. I've even seen criticism in this thread of people unilaterally withdrawing to make their own editions, as if they're having a temper tantrum and not trying to salvage their hobby from what it currently is.

Exactly right^^

 kodos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I never said it wasn't. But that's what the rules said

well this came never up in 5th for me, not in the club nor at tournaments and I know no one who read the rules that way

the topic took off while i was at work before i could respond to this-

That is because to justify his argument you have to ignore several rules in the book

1.bases, in several locations it quite specifically tells you that vehicle models without bases use the hull as their base, then it goes on to clarify that all measurements are measured to the base/hull for movement and shooting

2. then it tells you that the direction the firing unit is firing FROM is the side/facing that gets hit. even in the example of the super save extreme angle shot the facing is based on the base/hull not on other bits on the model that my be mounted on different sides

3. In the point in question- all seeing the turret or an exhaust stack does it gives you LOS to be able to shoot the battle wagon. the shots are resolved against the models "base"-as in the side of the base/hull facing the firing model is shooting into, as there is no extreme angled view of the "base" rule #2 takes precedent. so seeing the turret/stack etc still resolves the shots against the front armor facing of the battle wagon because it is the facing of the base side they are on.

5th edition is actually better written than he is giving it credit for by selectively ignoring the combination of all the related rules.

"He" posted a screenshot of the rule explicitly saying that you interpretation #3 is absolutely wrong.
Isn't it funny that people claiming Xth is the best edition ever are always playing the rules wrong or have made significant amendments to them?
Clearly being unable to properly parse rules is a major requirement for the enjoyment of older editions.

The only real argument against the interpretation that was played here is what Mezmorki wrote, and essentially boils down to the only thing actually defining what a facing is being a very vague picture of a LRBT.

And once more, for those people who mistake ad hominem attacks against player groups as rules arguments: This interpretation was played across multiple groups and stores in my area, and was taught that way to me and my friends starting at the same time by a group of ~10 RT veterans.
As a MtG player at that time, visiting multiple stores to play different people and playing in multiple groups for games was normal to me, so I played all kinds of players.
Little did I know that GWs inferior rules-writing simply didn't support that, as every game had to be preceded by an interview to reach a consensus on dozens of loopholes and broken rules. I've done less to apply (and get) a job.

People who just played with a fixed group of players who had a common understanding of the rules simply fail to understand how privileged they were.

As it so happens i have been playing since 3rd at 2 different store where i have had literally hundreds of different opponents (that happens when you have 2 nearby military bases with players moving in and out) over more than a decade and NEVER has anybody tried to play the rules in the way you describe, nobody has ever even tried to bring up that point of view in the 5 editions that had similar rules.

I play with a somewhat fixed group NOW because i have to with covid restrictions forcing us to do invitation only small groups. prior to that you never knew who would show up at the FLGS outside the regulars and since i play multiple different games (10) we had a lot of cross platform play with various players.

"He" posted a screenshot of the rule explicitly saying that you interpretation #3 is absolutely wrong.

I just pulled out my BRB and read all the relevant rules. i am not wrong.

.BRB P3-bases/measuring distances
.BRB P56-vehicle sides & measuring from base/hull
.BRB P60-shooting at vehicles-you can only shoot at vehicles if you can see the hull/base or turret (no the stacks actually don't count but most players allowed it for fun play/LOS rules)
.BRB P60-vehicle facing based on hull/base -Note the turret does not count it has no facings as it is not the hull/base of the vehicle (it is even clearly in the diagram that the hull/base is all that matters)
.BRB P62 Angled shot special save cover rule special may take the shot against the FACING they can see. the HULL/BASE is the facing

It's not my fault you played with a "privileged" group that was playing the rules wrong or made significant amendments to them.

Can we drop the snide remarks, or are we on the level of puberty again?

It can also be a translation error which isn't even unlikely and has also lead to MTG f.e. determining rules language dominance, in order to avoid it after some issues with a chinese translation lead to it beeing played in tourneys to get more efficieny out of some cards.

And knowing full well the "great" translation work in regards to 40k ...... Let's just say that it isn't as unlikely as it should be...

I'm dropping this discussion. There is no rational discussion to be had here, just people trying to justify emotional attachment to an edition they enjoy and vehemently deflecting any and all criticism to "their" edition. Staying polite while doing so also seems to be optional.

Enjoying something imperfect is fine. Not everything you enjoy has to be absolutely flawless and superior to everything else. That's why I enjoy 9th

Not Online!!! wrote:
Can we drop the snide remarks, or are we on the level of puberty again?
It can also be a translation error which isn't even unlikely and has also lead to MTG f.e. determining rules language dominance, in order to avoid it after some issues with a chinese translation lead to it beeing played in tourneys to get more efficieny out of some cards.
And knowing full well the "great" translation work in regards to 40k ...... Let's just say that it isn't as unlikely as it should be...

yes and no, 5th was the last Edition were the German Editors corrected mistakes made with the englisch original if they were known
it just became an issue if the FAQ writers decided to make thinks different for reasons (we don't make mistakes so no matter how stupid it is, was is written is true and not a mistake)

we have seen arguments in 5th based on the englisch rules that were not there in the german version and the rules were a not written very clear, as fluff texts and rules were mixed up making things more compicated
but silly arguements like being able to shoot the back from the front were never ever a thing

and as I said above using rectangular bases to make facings obvious to everyone solves other probelems as well as the vehicle now has a "base" and any shananingens with "hull = base" are gone as well

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm dropping this discussion. There is no rational discussion to be had here, just people trying to justify emotional attachment to an edition they enjoy and vehemently deflecting any and all criticism to "their" edition. Staying polite while doing so also seems to be optional.

difficult, as you come up with problems of an Edition that were a local thing and not more

5th had issues, but there was a wildley accepted tournament FAQ/Errate which solved the ones with the wording
there were tournament scenarios replacing the issues with the RB ones
there were house rules, like accepting bases for all vehicles to solve other problems

the main issue with 5th edition were Codex imbalance with the later books that were overpowered and weak at the same time (as the OP units had no official models and not everyone wanted to use 3rd party items or if there were none, build stuff on their own)
and the problem with wound allocation that shooting more weapons resulted in less casualties as there were wound groups but no weapons groups (something that could have been solved easily)

the main advantage was that for some armies it was the last Edition were they feeled "right" playing them

 Jidmah wrote:
"He" posted a screenshot of the rule explicitly saying that you interpretation #3 is absolutely wrong.
Isn't it funny that people claiming Xth is the best edition ever are always playing the rules wrong or have made significant amendments to them?
Clearly being unable to properly parse rules is a major requirement for the enjoyment of older editions.

The only real argument against the interpretation that was played here is what Mezmorki wrote, and essentially boils down to the only thing actually defining what a facing is being a very vague picture of a LRBT.

You know why that pic only vaguely looks like a LRBT?

 Jidmah wrote:
And once more, for those people who mistake ad hominem attacks against player groups as rules arguments: This interpretation was played across multiple groups and stores in my area, and was taught that way to me and my friends starting at the same time by a group of ~10 RT veterans.
As a MtG player at that time, visiting multiple stores to play different people and playing in multiple groups for games was normal to me, so I played all kinds of players.
Little did I know that GWs inferior rules-writing simply didn't support that, as every game had to be preceded by an interview to reach a consensus on dozens of loopholes and broken rules. I've done less to apply (and get) a job.

Oooh, the good old Appeal to Authority argument.... Has it ever dawned on you though that maybe, just maybe, those ~10 RT vets were wrong? And taught you wrong?

I mean my last post on the topic of Jidmah was outright ignored, so I thought he'd given up. I see he was just ignoring it because it was inconvenient for his argument...

Or rather, he addressed it with spurious nonsense that didn't really answer my questions and instead simply brought up new points. (Sorry, were we discussing the facing of vertical bits of the tanks such as turrets, or the myriad ways armor facings could be drawn?).

 Jidmah wrote:
This is the official diagram in 5th edition's ruleset:

According to that picture, anything in the triangle that says "rear armor" is rear armor. If I can see any part of the hull in that triangle and no part of the hull in the "front armor" triangle, I can shoot rear armor from the front. Unlikely for a LRBT, but GW clearly didn't think about xenos vehicles at the time of writing that.

This is where you're wrong. Because the facing is concerned with the position of the firing model, not the target model.

Otherwise, in the 5th edition diagram, what facing is that predator's turret in, assuming I can only see the turret? And do try to directly answer my question this time instead of dodging it.

I am not sure how many xeno vehicles are really affected by facing ambiguity. Surely facings only matter where they actually have different values. Somebody mentioned the wave serpent, in 7th ed it is 10,12,12 so with side and front facings being the same it hardly matters that the funny forward facing wings do not create a nice box shape and the back is flat enough. Dark eldar skiffs are 10 all round etc.

Well, if it is the same anyway, then why we want facings in the first place?

 Tyran wrote:
Well, if it is the same anyway, then why we want facings in the first place?

This is like saying "well, if most Marine models are T4, why do we even need Toughness anyways?" while ignoring all the other ways in which it was effectively used and ignoring corollary mechanics (in the case of AV, offering immunity to different weapon systems depending on where those weapon systems maneuvered relative to the target. Even if two sides were the same, the rear was different for most vehicles.

 Tyran wrote:
Well, if it is the same anyway, then why we want facings in the first place?

so that units could kill tanks in melee that were hard to kill by shooting them from the front

 SolarCross wrote:
I am not sure how many xeno vehicles are really affected by facing ambiguity. Surely facings only matter where they actually have different values. Somebody mentioned the wave serpent, in 7th ed it is 10,12,12 so with side and front facings being the same it hardly matters that the funny forward facing wings do not create a nice box shape and the back is flat enough. Dark eldar skiffs are 10 all round etc.

Eldar (of all stripes) and Necrons had the same FA and SA for all their vehicles. With Orks, their vehicles were notably rectangular with the Battlewagon being such a stretch limo that it was painfully easy to get side-armor shots on it. In theory, Tau should have been the spoiler since their vehicles were unusual in shape while having different front and side values (even the Piranha speeder!). However, Hammerheads & Skyrays tended to castle in a corner anyway, Piranhas tended to be fielded in squadrons, and nobody ever used the Flyers.

 Tyran wrote:
Well, if it is the same anyway, then why we want facings in the first place?

They are not ALL the same.

Facings with different resilience is a nice concept that simulates some tactical considerations present in real warfare, particularly tank warfare. The actual way it is implemented in 40k might be up for some criticism but as a game element it is a really nice thing to have.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
I am not sure how many xeno vehicles are really affected by facing ambiguity. Surely facings only matter where they actually have different values. Somebody mentioned the wave serpent, in 7th ed it is 10,12,12 so with side and front facings being the same it hardly matters that the funny forward facing wings do not create a nice box shape and the back is flat enough. Dark eldar skiffs are 10 all round etc.

Eldar (of all stripes) and Necrons had the same FA and SA for all their vehicles. With Orks, their vehicles were notably rectangular with the Battlewagon being such a stretch limo that it was painfully easy to get side-armor shots on it. In theory, Tau should have been the spoiler since their vehicles were unusual in shape while having different front and side values (even the Piranha speeder!). However, Hammerheads & Skyrays tended to castle in a corner anyway, Piranhas tended to be fielded in squadrons, and nobody ever used the Flyers.

Though do keep in mind that some of this is GW's design approach where they write an interesting mechanic (things like AA weapons and leadership) and then construct stats that make it irrelevant (most AA weapons couldn't engage the 12/12/10 flyers they kept writing, everyone got to be rerollable stubborn Ld10 or unsweepable or Fearless). Left to their own devices GW wrote very few vehicles with different armour in every facing, especially towards the end (off the top of my head in 7th that'd be the Leman Russ, Devilfish/Hammerhead chassis, Predator/Vindicator chassis, and Battlewaggon), while Forge World wrote loads (Contemptor Dread, Deredeo Dread, Baneblade chassis, Fellblade chassis, Sicaran, Karcinos, Krios, Malcador chassis, Macharius chassis, Minotaur, Brass Scorpion, Warhound, Decimator, Blight Drone, Blood Slaughterer, Battle Fortress, Ork Killtanks, Grot Mega-tank, Manta).

 SolarCross wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Well, if it is the same anyway, then why we want facings in the first place?

They are not ALL the same.

Facings with different resilience is a nice concept that simulates some tactical considerations present in real warfare, particularly tank warfare. The actual way it is implemented in 40k might be up for some criticism but as a game element it is a really nice thing to have.

Yeah try telling a guard player that AV facing wasn't important on his chimeras (12/10/10) but then again it was a box so the base/hull was really easy to segregate.

As for tau vehicles the hammerhead front end makes a nice big flat facing making front/side easy to figure out. but it only really matters on a heavy tank (hammerhead/skyray) since the transports are all the same as eldar being the same front/side AV (12)

This is where you're wrong. Because the facing is concerned with the position of the firing model, not the target model.

Unit1126PLL
I brought that up to and referenced the BRB rules page for it.


MagicJuggler

The only piranha that i know of that had different armor values was the FW TX 42 heavy variant with the cockpit cowl givinig it AV 11 in the front similar to the FW landspeeder tempest variant.
This was a big deal because you were no longer afraid of basic bolter fire spam from the front.

“So how is 9th?”

<devolves into this forum’s 4723rd discussion of armour facings, which are not a thing in 9th>

Dakka. Dakka never changes.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“So how is 9th?”

<devolves into this forum’s 4723rd discussion of armour facings, which are not a thing in 9th>

Dakka. Dakka never changes.

If you actually read the topic he said how is 9th....compared to the older edition he is used to playing, the OP also referred to older editions in his own discussion points. it is a valid part of the topic.

Yes, pinning, falling back, stunning, and shaking vehicles were some great breaks on the whole 'overwhelming firepower' thing that was going on.

Nurglitch wrote:
Yes, pinning, falling back, stunning, and shaking vehicles were some great breaks on the whole 'overwhelming firepower' thing that was going on.

They made sense with the rate of fire of older editions. Now rate of fire is massively superior and with more lethality around the last thing we need is the abiltiy to invalidate enemy units in addition to casualties.

Now rate of fire is massively broken and with more lethality than is reasonable

There fixed it for ya.

 aphyon wrote:

Now rate of fire is massively broken and with more lethality than is reasonable

There fixed it for ya.

Considering a heavy bolter or assault cannon once were the pinnacle of dakka per weapon, and now 4 shot weaponry isn't even rare anymore, not even going into the nonsense that is the reaper chaincannon....
Ya i tend to agree.

I remember the hubbub/outrage when the Punisher Gatling first canon came out. A Heavy 20 weapon? What is this nonsense!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I remember the hubbub/outrage when the Punisher Gatling first canon came out. A Heavy 20 weapon? What is this nonsense!

Given that the Vulcan mega-bolter you get on a Warhound was only Heavy 15 at the time...