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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

I would assume a titan with only two wounds remaining has parts of its interior exposed. On a similar note, a LRBT that was hit by two multi-meltas probably has some weak points in its front armor.

Which brings me to my original point - how immersive either system is mainly depends on whether you want to immerse yourself.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

I would assume a titan with only two wounds remaining has parts of its interior exposed. On a similar note, a LRBT that was hit by two multi-meltas probably has some weak points in its front armor.

Which brings me to my original point - how immersive either system is mainly depends on whether you want to immerse yourself.

Ehh. . . When my S4 anti-infantry Devilgaunts are mathematically incentivised to shoot at vehicles over infantry, as such happens if I'm fighting Custodes, it's a bad look.

Why? As far as I can tell only two FW anti-grav vehicles don't have 2+ armor, T8 or both.

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period. To even line up the minimum 50 lasgun shots while the titan is moving and killing stuff is already a nigh impossible task, and even then the chance is so low it might as well be zero.
It's more likely for the princeps to randomly die of a stroke than for lasguns to kill the titan.

The fact that it can even HURT a titan or any other heavy vehicle with an anti-infantry gun is the problem, not how many ridiculous number of shots on average are needed to kill it.

No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Yes, that is how discussing a topic usually works, Karol.

If you claim that a lasgun shouldn't be able to hurt those things, the burden of proof is on you. Without proof there is no reason to believe you.

No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise. If they could then marins would not be running around with bolters and the scatter laser would be the anti tank weapon of choice for all armies in the setting.

Now GW decided that such a thing as being totaly unable to wound something should not exist. But this is a GW game mechanic choice. They can make it, because they own the game.

But what ever it is good or bad, is a separate idea.

It is like a knight being unable to shot stuff behind cover, but being fully valid as a target to the stuff that hides behind it.

That is not only wrong, but even then you would have to prove this. I can assure you that in some circumstance breathing is not okay for you.

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

 Jidmah wrote:
That is not only wrong, but even then you would have to prove this. I can assure you that in some circumstance breathing is not okay for you.

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Also interesting to note, due to the mechanics of how Void Shields worked in the first Epic game, shooting small arms at Titans with their shields up was actually a valid tactic. Not so much once you were trying to do damage to the structure though. In 2nd edition Terminators had a 3+ save on 2D6 so lasguns and bolters were pretty much useless against them but the game slowed down even more spectacularly than normal if you opened up with a full Tactical squad at a unit of Terminators.

All the arguments about lasguns hurting Titans/superheavies conveniently leave out the number of shots required to do even one wound to something with dozens of wounds on its profile. There's a certain amount of abstraction in any system but I really don't think requiring hundreds of small arms shots to kill a tank is a bad price to pay to ditch the old facing system that caused endless arguments.

And also, let's not forget the joy of playing against an all-knights army in 7th ed. Oh, half the stuff I have on the table is literally pointless, has no reason to be there at all, can't do anything? The knights move over them, they fall back and shoot from them, they can't damage them at all, and they're just there as victory point tokens for when you decide to kill them? Sweet. This is a good tabletop wargame we're playing.

Modern 40k is more dune-like RTS than company of heroes. Everything can always hurt anything and with enough buffs then can even kill it. That doesnt mean it is optimal.

It is more inmersive the old system? Maybe. In the old system the choices were made for you. Right now, players are more free to tackle what they have in front of them.

In reality both systems are badly designed because GW sucks but is not like one is superior to the other. They are just completely different design phylosopies to how the game works.

aphyon wrote:

I'm not talking about the FW flyer rules. I'm talking about the rules for 5th, for Valkyries, in the core game.
Stop moving the goalposts.

I am not, i made it pretty clear our group uses the flyer rules in 5th problem solved

Cool, but there were groups who used the *core* rules, without the FW rules (which were entirely optional).

So, no, in the actual core rules of the game, Ripper Swarms could charge flying Valkyries. Such immersion.

Yeah - why *didn't* vehicles have weapon skill or close combat ability is the point being made here, especially when they're just as cumbersome and lumbering as a carnifex.

They do, they are called walkers- a hybrid of vehicle and infantry- tracked or wheeled etc.. vehicles had their own version of close combat-running stuff over or ramming it. it is something we can identify with mentally because it is something that happens for real.

They *did* have their own version, but it was stupid, because as we've discussed, there was no risk unless you chose to stand in the way.

And in as far as "we can identify with that mentally because it's something that happens for real" - I'm sure I'd be able to identify with soldiers scrambling out of the way of the biological tank just as much as I would a mechanical one.

Why the disparity? You can say "but they had a different ruleset", but you're missing the point that this is the problem we're talking about. Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures were treated differently, and this led to "un-immersive" situations (where being run over by a tank posed no risk to you, for example).

Sure, but muh immersion tells me that I should be able to shoot the easily exposed crew that are on the model.

You can't have your "muh immersion" cake and eat it too. You're using gameplay to excuse flaws in "muh immersion" - yet if I tried to do the same with things like 8th' lack of facings, you'd scream about it.
Stop dodging the point, and accept that other editions had stupid logic too.

No they didn't, if you want to be able to shoot the crew, those rules did exist in second edition. they were removed because they were to cumbersome unless you want 2 pages of rules for the damage flow chart against a leman russ ( i have the book, it doesn't really work when you move beyond a skirmish scale game)

You really don't get what the point is, do you?

Yes, we know it wasn't part of the rules. That's the problem. It not being in the rules is breaking "muh immersion" in the same way that a lack of facing break your immersion. Let's phrase this another way:
"If you want to be able to shoot at the weaker rear armour, those rules did exist in 7th edition. they were removed because they were too cumbersome unless you want to argue for two hours about if you were really on rear armour (i have the book, it really doesn't work when you move beyond a skirmish scale game)"

See what I mean? I'm not disputing that the rule existed, but I am saying that, according to "muh immersion", I should be able to shoot at the crew - represented by lasguns being able to damage a tank on a lucky roll.

Do you understand now?

But, in all honesty, how often have you seen a Titan killed by lasguns?

The fact that it is even possible is the problem.

Explain. Why is it a problem that lasguns can kill a damaged Titan with extreme amounts of luck, but have no such issue killing a Terminator who probably has less weak points.

And hey, if a lasgun can hurt a Riptide or Stormsurge

Well honestly many of us feel those should have been vehicles with an AV like a dreadnought

Maybe, but they didn't. Finally, you're beginning to understand that previous editions weren't all perfect "muh immersion" simulators.

Again, it's amusing that you whip out the "well the rules didn't support it but maybe they SHOULD", which is exactly what my arguments about being able to shoot Trukk crews are.

Karol wrote:

No, it's not. That's not at all what "realism" means. We're talking about the concept of verisimilitude, you're talking about representation. Representation doesn't mean realism, in the same way that tanks being able to shoot all weapons from one facing is representative, but not realistic.*

I don't know, if someone told me their WWII soviet army from summer 1944 should not have any tanks in it or artilery support, then it would be rather unrealistic to me, same way if someone said that because of a luck factor there should be an option for infantry to hurt a tank from 30" away. I get point blank shoting through vision slits, but not regular grunts doing stuff like that.

40k isn't a historical game - comparisons to real world game systems don't work. Army compositions aren't part of 40k's verisimilitude.

And why shouldn't grunts be able to shoot through vision slits?

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Which in itself is kinda non-immersive from that standpoint, as, if the gun is literally sticking into the side of the tank, it really shouldn't be able to fire through it's own hull.

Also it's sorta moot because:


These are Redeemer sponsons double-hitting a model on a 25mm base, the smallest available, and still not passing over the tank.

Ah, I must be mistaken. Possibly because my Redeemer has the cannons placed further back.

 Jidmah wrote:

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period.

A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

So, a Titan that's already weakened, likely has great holes and armour panels torn from it, and many exposed weak points that could be exploited?

I don't see the issue.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

I would assume a titan with only two wounds remaining has parts of its interior exposed. On a similar note, a LRBT that was hit by two multi-meltas probably has some weak points in its front armor.

Which brings me to my original point - how immersive either system is mainly depends on whether you want to immerse yourself.

Ehh. . . When my S4 anti-infantry Devilgaunts are mathematically incentivised to shoot at vehicles over infantry, as such happens if I'm fighting Custodes, it's a bad look.

In much the same way as it was mechanically de-incentivised for heroes to get into combat with a lowly squad sergeant who could Instant Death them? Or spamming mid-strength high-ROF weapons to take out tanks better than actual anti-tank weapons? Neither of which I'd call immersive.

aphyon wrote:

Lasguns cannot kill a titan, period. To even line up the minimum 50 lasgun shots while the titan is moving and killing stuff is already a nigh impossible task, and even then the chance is so low it might as well be zero.
It's more likely for the princeps to randomly die of a stroke than for lasguns to kill the titan.

The fact that it can even HURT a titan or any other heavy vehicle with an anti-infantry gun is the problem, not how many ridiculous number of shots on average are needed to kill it.

But why? And let's go back to Trukks - there's a nice exposed driver there, a much more promising target than a Terminator. So why can't I kill that exposed pilot?

Karol wrote:And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise. If they could then marins would not be running around with bolters and the scatter laser would be the anti tank weapon of choice for all armies in the setting.

Ironic, considering that the scatter laser was considered a premier anti-tank weapon in 6th/7th, because of non-immersive rules.

And sure, maybe Terminators *shouldn't* be killable by lasguns (awfully convenient for you, it may be) - but the point stands that they can be. So, either aphyon needs to accept that Terminators shouldn't be killable by lasguns, or that vehicles can be killable by lasguns.

(As for my personal take, Terminators should be killable by lasguns, but it should be difficult - in the same way that it should be difficult for a lasgun to damage a tank.)

Basically, there just seems to be a lot of dishonest stances coming from people who claim that previous editions were "immersive", considering the amount of bizarre interactions that could be had.

Across all of these edition comparisons/debates, I generally come down to preferring older rulesets for being a bit more fluffy and nuanced - even through there are a bit sloppier in their writing. And conversely, I fully recognize that the newer editions have a tighter and cleaner ruleset.

I wonder to what extent the WAAC attitudes and ever increasing emphasis on competitive play and formats is driving this. Loose rules in older editions work fine in casual and friendly play - but fall apart quickly when people are looking for exploits or adhere too literally to the "rules as written" and the specific verbiage in order leverage an advantage, instead of sticking to the spirit/intent of the rules.

What we may have gained by ease of facilitating competitive play and reducing arguments we lost, IMHO, in terms of narrative and fidelity in the ruleset. The "problems" in older editions were rarely actual problems unless playing with people with a WAAC or highly competitive mindset.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I wonder to what extent the WAAC attitudes and ever increasing emphasis on competitive play and formats is driving this. Loose rules in older editions work fine in casual and friendly play - but fall apart quickly when people are looking for exploits or adhere too literally to the "rules as written" and the specific verbiage in order leverage an advantage, instead of sticking to the spirit/intent of the rules.

I think I've got to agree with that! I'm much more fond of "simplified" rulesets, with plenty of scope for narrative, even if not necessarily "realistic", but I think you're definitely right on how most issues arise from a conflict between what the rules are trying to achieve, versus what the players are trying to get from them.

For me, I find the cleaner and simpler rules work just fine, but pushing those rules to their breaking point is an issue, like it would be in any ruleset.

I have no specific problem with small arms theoretically being able to damage vehicles.
The problem is that mid-power weapons are too good vs vehicles at the moment.
Although, that was rather the case in older editions. Plasmaguns used to be fairly effective anti-tank guns.

I think the system in this regard that GW has gone with can work just fine. Indeed other games (such as Legion) use a similar system.
9th's problems lie else-where.

 Jidmah wrote:

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.

1st through 7th edition. Lol.

Also RL, where spray and pray against MBTs is a waste of ammunition.

To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Prove that they're talking about Lasguns.

Infantry can be a big threat to heavy vehicles, sure. With weapons other than their battle rifles.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Which in itself is kinda non-immersive from that standpoint, as, if the gun is literally sticking into the side of the tank, it really shouldn't be able to fire through it's own hull.

It's not firing through it's own hull if it has LOS, which I said was required.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
A Titan could be pretty easily downed by Lasguns if it only had a wound or two remaining.

I would assume a titan with only two wounds remaining has parts of its interior exposed. On a similar note, a LRBT that was hit by two multi-meltas probably has some weak points in its front armor.

Which brings me to my original point - how immersive either system is mainly depends on whether you want to immerse yourself.

Ehh. . . When my S4 anti-infantry Devilgaunts are mathematically incentivised to shoot at vehicles over infantry, as such happens if I'm fighting Custodes, it's a bad look.

In much the same way as it was mechanically de-incentivised for heroes to get into combat with a lowly squad sergeant who could Instant Death them? Or spamming mid-strength high-ROF weapons to take out tanks better than actual anti-tank weapons? Neither of which I'd call immersive.

Friendly reminder that reinstating SOME rules from an earlier edition does not necessitate reinstating ALL rules from a prior edition.

Also the mid-strength, high ROF weapons being an issue is arguably a larger problem in this edition, since weapons like the Heavy Bolter couldn't scratch AV 12.

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Insectum7 wrote:Also it's sorta moot because:


These are Redeemer sponsons double-hitting a model on a 25mm base, the smallest available, and still not passing over the tank.

Now move that small base closer. It's at the edge of the Template, and barely hits, so it could move at least 3/4 of the distance between them with no problem and not be able to be shot by both without the unit spreading out, as was referenced. And the LR's own hull blocks LoS to at least one of them

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Considering how much is unarmored, that is a little extravagant to say. Each exposed piece would have to be sufficiently invulnerable to the attack that it could not be warped when hit. A lot of helicopters were downed because their exposed sensitive mechanics were hit by small arms fire.

For a treaded tank that does seem more difficult as most small arms wouldn't affect the track (unless bullets landed just right to disrupt the teeth), but would be best used against operators. Harder to say on some of the Skimmers because we flat out have no idea on how they work, but I have noticed vents in Tau Skimmers, and small arms could affect what is inside them. Monoliths and Obelisks on the other hand seem to be pretty well covered with little exposure.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why? As far as I can tell only two FW anti-grav vehicles don't have 2+ armor, T8 or both.

Yeah, and those are the ones that I shoot at. The units to deal with in the army are occupying a weird mathematical space where they jump from being half-as-easy-to-damage, to equal-to-damage, to twice-as-easy-to-damage all around T 7-8 and save 3+to2+. The current wound system creates very goofy relationships and strange bracketing. The easiest thing to do would to just go back to the old wounding chart. You'd kill the damage "loopholes" and prevent small arms from hurting the tough stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

I did for 6th and 7th, and already mentioned I no longer have my 5th. As stated, LoS is from the Barrel, and the Template is used from the base of the model. No special permission is allowed to place the Template on the Vehicle in 6th or 7th. In fact, Template rules and Vehicle Shooting rules make no mention of each other.

Considering how much is unarmored, that is a little extravagant to say. Each exposed piece would have to be sufficiently invulnerable to the attack that it could not be warped when hit. A lot of helicopters were downed because their exposed sensitive mechanics were hit by small arms fire.

A Land Raider or a termintor does not have un armoured parts. Comparing them to helicopter is like comparing a bucket to a 6x6x6 steel block.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Across all of these edition comparisons/debates, I generally come down to preferring older rulesets for being a bit more fluffy and nuanced - even through there are a bit sloppier in their writing. And conversely, I fully recognize that the newer editions have a tighter and cleaner ruleset.

I wonder to what extent the WAAC attitudes and ever increasing emphasis on competitive play and formats is driving this. Loose rules in older editions work fine in casual and friendly play - but fall apart quickly when people are looking for exploits or adhere too literally to the "rules as written" and the specific verbiage in order leverage an advantage, instead of sticking to the spirit/intent of the rules.

What we may have gained by ease of facilitating competitive play and reducing arguments we lost, IMHO, in terms of narrative and fidelity in the ruleset. The "problems" in older editions were rarely actual problems unless playing with people with a WAAC or highly competitive mindset.

As someone who was a good deal younger and less experienced with wargames when I played fifth edition, the game system didn't feel to me like it had a ton of narrative fidelity. There were so many arbitrary breakpoints in the old system that would MASSIVELY change the performance of your unit. Your character who could single-handedly fight whole squads of enemy warriors would get absolutely dumpstered on by a single krak missile, but an autocannon with just one point less strength and AP, he could tank 30 shots from before he started to get worried. One game, your vehicle would wade through enemy fire, getting shaken but then coming back, losing a weapon but continuing to fire, eventually becoming immobilized and turning into a stationary gun turret, and the next you'd put it on the table and the first shot that came its way would instantly kill it.

Adding that to units not really acting in any kind of way that made sense given the setting - ravening insane warriors swinging chainsaw-bladed axes would pour out of their transport and....nope, they couldn't charge, they just kind of stand there yelling threateningly so their opponents would get a shot for fairness' sake. Brutal commissars of the most tyrannical regime in human history would refuse to allow the artillery to fire on alien horrors because they might kill one single conscript. The missions were so utterly pointless that generally they'd just get brought up as sort of a tie-breaker at the end of the game and both players would chuckle and crack open the rulebook and try to figure out which mission we were supposedly playing towards.

I started out playing super goofball games with 2 friends, always trying and failing to figure out how to play 3-player games in a way that was satisfying and good, and then I spent years and years just playing the same super kitbashed goofy orks throughout all of 5th and 6th at a fairly casual club with only 1-2 people who cared about the game competitively. It wasn't a WAAC attitude by any means, it was just that the system ultimately has always felt kind of silly and arbitrary and what edition you play just determines what kind of silly arbitrary crap you don't mind and what kind sticks in your craw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Considering how much is unarmored, that is a little extravagant to say. Each exposed piece would have to be sufficiently invulnerable to the attack that it could not be warped when hit. A lot of helicopters were downed because their exposed sensitive mechanics were hit by small arms fire.

A Land Raider or a termintor does not have un armoured parts. Comparing them to helicopter is like comparing a bucket to a 6x6x6 steel block.

I mean. Unless you're talking about the track design, or the fact that there's hatches all over it, or the fact that the weapon tubing and wiring is completely exposed, or that it uses a sponson design that's NEVER been practical, and is modeled off of WW1 tanks that went out of date in a decade for a reason...

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

I did for 6th and 7th, and already mentioned I no longer have my 5th. As stated, LoS is from the Barrel, and the Template is used from the base of the model. No special permission is allowed to place the Template on the Vehicle in 6th or 7th. In fact, Template rules and Vehicle Shooting rules make no mention of each other.

Vehicles don't have bases, and LOS for vehicles is drawn from the weapon. The relevant passage is "a model never hits itself" under the template weapon rules. Otherwise an Immolator would not be able to fire without potentially damaging itself.

Karol wrote:

Considering how much is unarmored, that is a little extravagant to say. Each exposed piece would have to be sufficiently invulnerable to the attack that it could not be warped when hit. A lot of helicopters were downed because their exposed sensitive mechanics were hit by small arms fire.

A Land Raider or a termintor does not have un armoured parts. Comparing them to helicopter is like comparing a bucket to a 6x6x6 steel block.

Read the paragraph after what you quoted for context.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

I did for 6th and 7th, and already mentioned I no longer have my 5th. As stated, LoS is from the Barrel, and the Template is used from the base of the model. No special permission is allowed to place the Template on the Vehicle in 6th or 7th. In fact, Template rules and Vehicle Shooting rules make no mention of each other.

Vehicles don't have bases, and LOS for vehicles is drawn from the weapon. The relevant passage is "a model never hits itself" under the template weapon rules. Otherwise an Immolator would not be able to fire without potentially damaging itself.

Some Vehicles do have bases, actually. And where they don't have bases, you use the hull.

However, the Line of Sight issue still applies, and it would require literally shooting through the hull in order to hit with both, which means it is out of Line of Sight, unlike the Baal Predator which would be shooting DOWN the hull to hit.

 Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:

Considering how much is unarmored, that is a little extravagant to say. Each exposed piece would have to be sufficiently invulnerable to the attack that it could not be warped when hit. A lot of helicopters were downed because their exposed sensitive mechanics were hit by small arms fire.

A Land Raider or a termintor does not have un armoured parts. Comparing them to helicopter is like comparing a bucket to a 6x6x6 steel block.

Read the paragraph after what you quoted for context.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Actually they were not allowed to cover a friendly model. A model is always friendly to itself. The Template is used from the base of the model as mentioned before by others.

Find the relevant passage for vehicles.

I did for 6th and 7th, and already mentioned I no longer have my 5th. As stated, LoS is from the Barrel, and the Template is used from the base of the model. No special permission is allowed to place the Template on the Vehicle in 6th or 7th. In fact, Template rules and Vehicle Shooting rules make no mention of each other.

Vehicles don't have bases, and LOS for vehicles is drawn from the weapon. The relevant passage is "a model never hits itself" under the template weapon rules. Otherwise an Immolator would not be able to fire without potentially damaging itself.

Some Vehicles do have bases, actually. And where they don't have bases, you use the hull.

Are you saying that I drawtge template from the hull of the LR rather than the weapon? Gonna need a source.

However, the Line of Sight issue still applies, and it would require literally shooting through the hull in order to hit with both, which means it is out of Line of Sight, unlike the Baal Predator which would be shooting DOWN the hull to hit.

I've been saying since the beginning that LOS is required. Your point doesn't change any of my assertions.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

yeah thats a classic Karol move.

"My army sucks because its not litterally invincible, Oh and Eldar are OP and should stay unupdated and bad"

Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.

1st through 7th edition. Lol.

That has just as much weight as saying that there's sources that a lasgun *can* damage a titan - being 8th and 9th.
Seeing as this discussion is about how neither system of game mechanics are exactly "accurate" to "immersion", should they not be discounted from "evidence"?

Also RL, where spray and pray against MBTs is a waste of ammunition.

I'd say that fishing for 6s on lasguns to kill a Titan is also a waste of ammunition.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The template from the weapon was explicitly permitted to touch/cover the model firing it, otherwise Immolators and such could not fire their flame weapons.

Which in itself is kinda non-immersive from that standpoint, as, if the gun is literally sticking into the side of the tank, it really shouldn't be able to fire through it's own hull.

It's not firing through it's own hull if it has LOS, which I said was required.

LOS from the gun, or the model?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Ehh. . . When my S4 anti-infantry Devilgaunts are mathematically incentivised to shoot at vehicles over infantry, as such happens if I'm fighting Custodes, it's a bad look.

In much the same way as it was mechanically de-incentivised for heroes to get into combat with a lowly squad sergeant who could Instant Death them? Or spamming mid-strength high-ROF weapons to take out tanks better than actual anti-tank weapons? Neither of which I'd call immersive.

Friendly reminder that reinstating SOME rules from an earlier edition does not necessitate reinstating ALL rules from a prior edition.

Friendly reminder that this is a discussion talking about how those old rules had very severe "immersion" issues, for all their positives, and that the sin of being "immersion-breaking" is carried by practically every edition.

Also the mid-strength, high ROF weapons being an issue is arguably a larger problem in this edition, since weapons like the Heavy Bolter couldn't scratch AV 12.

Arguably, sure - the problem definitely hasn't left, irrespective of if things are better or worse.

the_scotsman wrote:There were so many arbitrary breakpoints in the old system that would MASSIVELY change the performance of your unit. Your character who could single-handedly fight whole squads of enemy warriors would get absolutely dumpstered on by a single krak missile, but an autocannon with just one point less strength and AP, he could tank 30 shots from before he started to get worried. One game, your vehicle would wade through enemy fire, getting shaken but then coming back, losing a weapon but continuing to fire, eventually becoming immobilized and turning into a stationary gun turret, and the next you'd put it on the table and the first shot that came its way would instantly kill it.

Adding that to units not really acting in any kind of way that made sense given the setting - ravening insane warriors swinging chainsaw-bladed axes would pour out of their transport and....nope, they couldn't charge, they just kind of stand there yelling threateningly so their opponents would get a shot for fairness' sake. Brutal commissars of the most tyrannical regime in human history would refuse to allow the artillery to fire on alien horrors because they might kill one single conscript.

All excellent examples. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 5th very much. But holding it as this paragon of "immersive rules" just ain't right.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.

1st through 7th edition. Lol.

That has just as much weight as saying that there's sources that a lasgun *can* damage a titan - being 8th and 9th.
Seeing as this discussion is about how neither system of game mechanics are exactly "accurate" to "immersion", should they not be discounted from "evidence"?

It was mostly a joke. But if we're going to commit to taking it seriously then I'd say that precedent has a place in consideration. The precedent in this case has set expectations about how the fictional universe operates.

Also RL, where spray and pray against MBTs is a waste of ammunition.

I'd say that fishing for 6s on lasguns to kill a Titan is also a waste of ammunition.

At the moment we have the situation where a squad of GEQ firing Lasguns at a Leman Russ achieves the same average output that firing a dedicated AT weapon Krak Missile does.

10 Lasguns, RFing: 20 x .5 x .17 x .333 = .5661
1 Krak Missile: .5 x .5 x .666 x 3.5 = .58

So rather than "wasting ammunition" you're actually getting the same result. This encourages behavior that is the opposite of how units actually deal with armored threats in RL. If you can find examples in RL of trained infantry blazing away at heavy armor with their rifles with the expectation of damage, I'm all ears/eyes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
LOS from the gun, or the model?

The gun, as I've acknowledged since the beginning.


Ignoring the rest of the post.

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No it's not, you're wrong.

See how that works when you aren't providing any arguments?

Does he need to? Is it required to write a 2 paragraph disertation that eating glass is not good idea. A lascgun should never be able to hurt a vehicle like a knight, Land raider or a titan.

Eating glass... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
No, there are things you do not have to prove. You don't need to make arguments why breathing is okey for you.

And lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks or termintors lore wise.

heheheheehehehehehehe I see what you did there lol.

"Lasguns should not be able to hurt tanks....also incidentally my ENTIRE fething ARMY should just happen to be immune to the baseline guns and melee of multiple factions im making such a good common sense argument look at me."

How many M16s does it take to kill an M1 Abrams tank? More than 50? More than 50 for how long? I got common sense all day long... I bet it takes your rifles longer than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jidmah wrote:
That is not only wrong, but even then you would have to prove this. I can assure you that in some circumstance breathing is not okay for you.

Unless you provide a source showing that a lasgun can't ever damage a titan (which is a tripple-moved goalpoast already) in any way under no circumstances, you are just expressing an unfounded opinion which I am free to call worthless and irrelevant to the question what is immersive and what is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add something of actual value, a quote from Forge of Mars:

Despise infantry if you must. Crush them underfoot, by all means. But do not ignore them. Battlefields are littered with the wreckage of Titans whose crews ignored infantry.

Also interesting to note, due to the mechanics of how Void Shields worked in the first Epic game, shooting small arms at Titans with their shields up was actually a valid tactic. Not so much once you were trying to do damage to the structure though. In 2nd edition Terminators had a 3+ save on 2D6 so lasguns and bolters were pretty much useless against them but the game slowed down even more spectacularly than normal if you opened up with a full Tactical squad at a unit of Terminators.

All the arguments about lasguns hurting Titans/superheavies conveniently leave out the number of shots required to do even one wound to something with dozens of wounds on its profile. There's a certain amount of abstraction in any system but I really don't think requiring hundreds of small arms shots to kill a tank is a bad price to pay to ditch the old facing system that caused endless arguments.

I got a clue for you, it wasn’t the facing system that caused those arguments...