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.
2022/05/05 09:58:51
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then. The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/05 10:00:43
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2022/05/05 10:21:06
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
40k players have always set the bar low for what they consider "tactical" gameplay to mean. They think they're Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but they are really more like Gomer Pyle.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2022/05/05 10:44:39
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then. The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
It's still a flank. No different from using some relocation abilities in XCOM 2 or various other strategy games. Also, choosing poorly where to deep strike usually resulted in the squad getting wiped out, hence why screens and board control was important. So no, it wasn't as easy as "place them where you want and just scatter".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: 40k players have always set the bar low for what they consider "tactical" gameplay to mean. They think they're Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but they are really more like Gomer Pyle.
It's almost as if flanking is a basic military tactic which is literally just moving to the side of the target when it is facing a certain direction. It's really nothing sophisticated in itself, the real challenge is getting there because a competent commander would try to protect the flanks of his units.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/05/05 10:55:58
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
chaos0xomega wrote: You don't really need to bring back armor values to bring back facings. Honestly, the armor value resolution system sucks - not in and of itself but in conjunction with the wounding system used by every other model in the game. In practice there is a disjoint created in the value of weapons in terms of their utility vs other models resulting from the armor value mechanism scaling differently from the wounding mechanism. For the sake of solid game design methodology and streamlined gameplay, its better to just stick with the established to-wound system (though that doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit from tweaks) and introduce the concept of "toughness facings"
Necromunda Ash Wastes is demonstrating what this looks like:
And yeah, either there needs to be an armor diagram for each vehicle (ew) or the arc layout needs to be standardized to 90 degree arcs (yes, this is better) and players need to learn to accept the idea that the increased weight of a real world vehicles frontal armor doesn't magically end at the edges and corners of the vehicles front profile, but does in fact wrap around to encompass the leading edges of the sides.
I like this, I hope that system finds its way into 40k.
What bothered me about the AV system is that it's damage resolution was a little wonky; you had a good chance of not hurting the vehicle, a very, very slight chance of glancing the vehicle, and a good chance of penetrating the vehicle.
Which was weird, because you'd think there would be a greater chance of glancing than to penetrate.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2022/05/05 11:04:08
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Just me, or is anyone else wondering what a solid four pages of re-running the argument over armour facings yet again has to do with the balance data slate?
2022/05/05 11:06:00
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
I always thought it meant a glancing blow, like the weapon hit at an odd angle relative to the tank's armor. If you assume basic competency from the anti-tank gunners, then that probably is pretty rare, relative to hitting the armor square on.
I do see your point though - glancing was only ever 1/6th of possible results. This goes up in 4th, where things like being Obscured or Hull Down or Moving Fast dramatically increases the chances of a glance relative to a pen. This jives with the idea that some action the tank is taking is making it more difficult for the AT gunners to strike the armor square on.
2022/05/05 11:10:10
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: I don't agree with HBMC on a whole lot...
You'll come around eventually.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I always thought it meant a glancing blow, like the weapon hit at an odd angle relative to the tank's armor. If you assume basic competency from the anti-tank gunners, then that probably is pretty rare, relative to hitting the armor square on.
When we did our vehicle rules, our Glancing Hit table was 1-3 "Nothing". It's a glancing hit, it glances off. There's a dent. You did nothing.
The 6 result however was't "Instant Detonation!". It was "Roll on the Penetrating chart". Means it was tough to plink a tank to death with piddly little guns. If you wanted to take a tank out, you used anti-tank weapons.
Meanwhile, in 9th, volley fire Guard wound Warlord Titans on 6's.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/05 11:12:43
Tyran wrote: Getting rid of Armor Values and simplifying vehicles rules to use the same ones as everyone else was one of the best things they did for the game.
But armor facings can work with the T/Sv+ system as shown above. In fact they could be expanded to also work for other large models like monsters.
Giving rhino chassis a 2+ save if shot at the front, a 3+ at the sides and a 4+ at the back would be a nice way to reduce the tokyo drifting rhinos we see so often.
(vindicator with plow could get a 1+ save)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem with +1 save rules and minus damage rules under the current system is the only effect they have is making Anti-Tank guns less efficient while still allowing assault rifles to be as efficient as ever.
Like really? The Dreadnought reduces the effect of Fire Prism Focused fire fairly significantly, but lasguns just ignore all it's defensive systems?
Give all vehicles -1 Damage (that can go down to zero).
Simply deploying a unit in a perfect spot to one-shot a vehicle requires about as much maneuvering as paying 2 CP for a stratagem for mortal wounds on 4+...
No, because the strat only requires me to have CP, deepstriking behind a tank requires me to have done something so there is room for my unit (force my opponent to pull his guns to another side of the table or simply kill stuff so that there is room for me).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/05 12:49:05
2022/05/05 12:51:15
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
If deep striking is a flank, then I don't see why we need Armor Facings to encourage maneuver when people still maneuver (deep strike) to get hard targets in 9th edition.
Rihgu wrote: If deep striking is a flank, then I don't see why we need Armor Facings to encourage maneuver when people still maneuver (deep strike) to get hard targets in 9th edition.
Right now we deepstrike for two reason : keep our guns safe from enemy fire, kill some wimpy unit thats camping on a objective behind a building.
adding more reason why deepstriking is relevant would be a bonus
2022/05/05 12:53:10
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
Hammer of the Emperor isnt a real rule, its a patch for people to stop crying the codex is complete ass and will be gone in a few months when the codex releases.
2022/05/05 12:55:07
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
Hammer of the Emperor isnt a real rule, its a patch for people to stop crying the codex is complete ass and will be gone in a few months when the codex releases.
Mmhm, and I am sure the codex will de-power Guard so that their lasguns are actively less good than they are now.
There is no way that lasguns or infantry squads can be buffed by the codex releasing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/05 12:56:52
2022/05/05 12:59:11
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
Hammer of the Emperor isnt a real rule, its a patch for people to stop crying the codex is complete ass and will be gone in a few months when the codex releases.
Or its a preview from the codex, and GW is fully intent on keeping it because they think it 'solves the problem.'
I can't manage the level of faith required to accept that the new codex will wrap up Guard's issues without resulting to this sort of jank (or worse jank).
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2022/05/05 13:37:16
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Rihgu wrote: If deep striking is a flank, then I don't see why we need Armor Facings to encourage maneuver when people still maneuver (deep strike) to get hard targets in 9th edition.
Right now we deepstrike for two reason : keep our guns safe from enemy fire, kill some wimpy unit thats camping on a objective behind a building.
adding more reason why deepstriking is relevant would be a bonus
I'd also say that deep striking units as a threat spread out an opponent's army, defusing its strength. Because if the opponent doesn't, those deep striking units can cause havoc in the opponent's back. Either way, it tends to slow/break up the concentrated force of the opposing army. And that's before scooping up easy to get positional secondaries with them.
Done right, and deep striking units work very much like paratroopers. All my armies feature extensive deep strike capability (Terminators, jump troops, Reivers, GSC). Even if I don't put into deep strike more than a single unit (which I find less is more with deep strikers), it can and should affect my opponent's deployment and always have them keeping an eye out for where I might place them until they hit the table. All which I would argue can be more important than the first two reasons you brought up. Which are also pretty important.
2022/05/05 13:47:20
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Going back to actual balance discussion rather than theoreticals, I'm surprised I haven't see that much actual discussion about Tyranid imbalance issues.
Like sure we can agree they are a problem being the current strongest codex (although arguably not as much as a problem as Harley's and releseDE were), but looking at the lists winning tournaments, there is actually a quite decent diversity with different subfactions and units being used.
Sure there are units that are more common than others, double flyrant is common, everyone brings a maleceptor, zoanthropes and a neurothrope. And yet none of these units is being spammed.
So again, while everyone can agree there is a problem, I actually haven't seen a lot of talk identifying which are the specific problems and suggested fixes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/05 13:50:57
2022/05/05 15:07:18
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then.
The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
The definition of flanking doesn't require a particular method of achieving it, only the final position of being at an opponents side. It was achieved through movement, deep strike, or just plain board control. But it was all 'flanking'.
Also, deep strike in earlier editions was absolutely an abstraction of playing a "mobile army." GW obviously intended for that to be the case.
Imperial Guard Drop Troops doctrine was intended to reflect airmobile regiments with Valkyries and other orbital drop platforms. All it did was give your Infantry units Deep Strike, though - the army was apparently non-maneuverable and slow according to some people here.
2022/05/05 16:54:24
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Lore wise the IG is a slow army outside of the airmobile regiments. The tanks and artillery in particularly do not have not a lot of deployment or redeployment options.
2022/05/05 17:12:46
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: Lore wise the IG is a slow army outside of the airmobile regiments. The tanks and artillery in particularly do not have not a lot of deployment or redeployment options.
until Creed hides a baneblade behind a mailbox post
I do miss being able to run all my mass valkrie and drop troop storm troopers from end of 5th. its wasn't the strongest army but looked cool on the table and was fun to play
10000 points 7000 6000 5000 5000 2000
2022/05/05 17:36:36
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Insectum7 wrote: This was especially true for Eldar weapons, many of which were S6. AV 13+ was immune, but AV 11 on the side meant those fast moving skimmers with Scatter Lasers or Starcannons could get good hits in.
In the hundreds of games I played against eldar while facings still existed, they either used lances, d-scythes or melta to go through the front armor like it was side armor or used flanking/scout/deep strike to put stuff in my rear arc. It was probably the army which cared the least about maneuvering, they either ignored facings or had the freedom to be wherever they are.
"maneuvering" to hit the side arc only ever happened when a deep striker scattered and someone started to argue that the guy with the special weapon was still in the side arc.
"flanking/deep striking/scouting" are all still maneuvering in addition to just a traditional move-unit-here. Your army is using tools available to it to get side/rear armor shots for advantage. Remember when Eldar would run 6+ Wave Serpents and spread them around the board? Those WSs would fire their S7 Wave attack from across the board, and if they're firing at AV 11 instead of 13-14, that's a big deal.
Honestly with the amount of shots you could generate from a Serpent shield in 6th, even AV13 wasn't a big deal. Nobody bringing AV14 vehicles either.
2022/05/05 17:50:35
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: Going back to actual balance discussion rather than theoreticals, I'm surprised I haven't see that much actual discussion about Tyranid imbalance issues.
Like sure we can agree they are a problem being the current strongest codex (although arguably not as much as a problem as Harley's and releseDE were), but looking at the lists winning tournaments, there is actually a quite decent diversity with different subfactions and units being used.
Sure there are units that are more common than others, double flyrant is common, everyone brings a maleceptor, zoanthropes and a neurothrope. And yet none of these units is being spammed.
So again, while everyone can agree there is a problem, I actually haven't seen a lot of talk identifying which are the specific problems and suggested fixes.
As I see it you have a similar sort of situation to DE after the initial balance pass. Tyranids are the best army - but nowhere near as dominant Harlequins were, or frankly Tau/Custodes. I've whinged about some of their abilities - and feel like if their game plan works certain lists can't do anything. But equally, quite a wide range of armies are blowing them up.
I think the problem is that - while I think the big unit are a bit undercosted - its hard to have all the big tools and simultaneously enough meat to hold objectives/board position. So its a bit like an inversed old Custodes. You both mutually destroy each other, but then find the Tyranid player has lost out on primary.
2022/05/05 18:28:28
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
A veteran squad can get it down to like 5 lasguns for a T8 2+ target without Armor of Contempt.
I may be missing something here, but what effect does AoC have on veterans firing lasguns at that target profile? They don't have any AP to lose, do they?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2022/05/05 18:37:33
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
A veteran squad can get it down to like 5 lasguns for a T8 2+ target without Armor of Contempt.
I may be missing something here, but what effect does AoC have on veterans firing lasguns at that target profile? They don't have any AP to lose, do they?
Veterans have a stratagem to add -1 AP to any weapons they shoot.
If you could use that stratagem on multiple units (big if I know), equivalent points of veterans armed solely with Lasguns averages a one-shot on an Imperial Knight (6 squads, 360 pts, 54 lasguns).
That's a single platoon of regular (admittedly well trained) guys with assault rifles and no upgrades taking down one of the largest and most powerful war machines in the Imperium of Man, second class only to the Legio Titanicus. This same platoon of men also kills a Baneblade on average rolls (again, if they can use the stratagem on 4 units).
2022/05/05 19:49:33
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
Jidmah wrote: In this thread: eldar claiming they were doing genius tactical maneuvers because their super hard to kill flying units with insane movement speeds allowed them to shoot vehicles from whatever side they wished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I see, so flanking did happen then.
The entire purpose of fast units and deep strike is to flank the enemy.
Just to be clear, you think that putting a unit wherever you want and rolling for scatter is "a tactical flanking maneuver"?
It's still a flank. No different from using some relocation abilities in XCOM 2 or various other strategy games.
Also, choosing poorly where to deep strike usually resulted in the squad getting wiped out, hence why screens and board control was important. So no, it wasn't as easy as "place them where you want and just scatter".
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: 40k players have always set the bar low for what they consider "tactical" gameplay to mean. They think they're Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, but they are really more like Gomer Pyle.
It's almost as if flanking is a basic military tactic which is literally just moving to the side of the target when it is facing a certain direction.
It's really nothing sophisticated in itself, the real challenge is getting there because a competent commander would try to protect the flanks of his units.
It also didn't happen that often. No one really took vehicles and the vehicles that did get taken were camped up against a board edge. Or yunno...free. Even if it was worth using a deepstriker to kill a vehicle (usually wasn't) you ended up shooting the front a lot of the time anyway.
Tyran wrote: The real problem is that lasguns are autowounding on 6s.
The real problem is that Lasguns are wounding at all.
Bring back the double = no wound part of the S/T comparison chart.
Except that changes nothing realistically. The amount of lasguns you need to do one wound on a LR equivalent is ridiculous
9? You can reliably put one wound on a Land Raider with 9 lasguns in rapid fire with FRFSRF after Hammer of the Emperor.
A veteran squad can get it down to like 5 lasguns for a T8 2+ target without Armor of Contempt.
I may be missing something here, but what effect does AoC have on veterans firing lasguns at that target profile? They don't have any AP to lose, do they?
Veterans have a stratagem to add -1 AP to any weapons they shoot.
If you could use that stratagem on multiple units (big if I know), equivalent points of veterans armed solely with Lasguns averages a one-shot on an Imperial Knight (6 squads, 360 pts, 54 lasguns).
That's a single platoon of regular (admittedly well trained) guys with assault rifles and no upgrades taking down one of the largest and most powerful war machines in the Imperium of Man, second class only to the Legio Titanicus. This same platoon of men also kills a Baneblade on average rolls (again, if they can use the stratagem on 4 units).
8 Repentia and a repentia superior kill a knight on average. 152pts of ladies in tennis-shoes swinging chainsaws. No stratagems needed. Although they can kill 2 with the right combination of stratagems and buffs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/05 20:01:24
2022/05/05 21:53:51
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
It also didn't happen that often. No one really took vehicles and the vehicles that did get taken were camped up against a board edge. Or yunno...free. Even if it was worth using a deepstriker to kill a vehicle (usually wasn't) you ended up shooting the front a lot of the time anyway.
If we're talking free vehicles, we're talking 7th. And it'd hardly be fair to characterize all of 3rd-7th by what went on during 7th. But even if we're gonna talk 7th, you could still flank Knights (and use your free Drop Pods to do it )
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If we brought back armor values, and facing, wouldn't that also require us to bring back directional shooting arcs? Because if you park your Demolisher tank facing the squad of marines 24" in front of it, it CANNOT then shoot at the unit of marines 6" behind it. This is where 8th made it simpler and harder, they removed the concept of facing, but in part ruined the ability to balance vehicles.
I don't think armor facings necessarily require the reintroduction of firing arcs on vehicles. I'd prefer it personally. But not required.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum? The Schrodinger's Tank as it were? And what about vehicles with no defined front or rear or sides, ala the necron Obelisk, or the flyers? Honestly I can say anything with fly just doesnt get an AV system, but then you get into things like Jetbikes being sturdier against anti-tank weapons than a actual Tank.
I would say AV could work, but it would require FAR more tact and care than GW is willing to give it. At this point, for better or worse, I think AV systems are not coming back in any future edition, but I will be cautiously surprised if they did.
2022/05/05 23:33:02
Subject: New balance datasheet due Easter week (slate out, pg 14)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If we brought back armor values, and facing, wouldn't that also require us to bring back directional shooting arcs? Because if you park your Demolisher tank facing the squad of marines 24" in front of it, it CANNOT then shoot at the unit of marines 6" behind it. This is where 8th made it simpler and harder, they removed the concept of facing, but in part ruined the ability to balance vehicles.
I don't think armor facings necessarily require the reintroduction of firing arcs on vehicles. I'd prefer it personally. But not required.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum?
Just ignore it, as it's not really a conundrum. Vehicle facing matters when attacking it, but weapons on the vehicle fire freely. That's ok by me. We can re-implement firing arcs for advanced users or whatever, but I don't mind not having them for the sake of expediency
And what about vehicles with no defined front or rear or sides, ala the necron Obelisk, or the flyers? Honestly I can say anything with fly just doesnt get an AV system, but then you get into things like Jetbikes being sturdier against anti-tank weapons than a actual Tank.
I would say AV could work, but it would require FAR more tact and care than GW is willing to give it. At this point, for better or worse, I think AV systems are not coming back in any future edition, but I will be cautiously surprised if they did.
I'm not necessarily saying a return to AV either, just defensive arcs to provide some bonus to flanking and further differentiate vehicles. And ideally different vehicles would be treated differently in that regard. Some vehicles might not have defensive arcs at all, essentially being "unflankable". Vehicles would use a template drawn from the center of the model, and use quarters, front/back, or none. A Necron Obelisk could be one of those units which has no defensive facing.
How would you propose to avoid the "My vehicle is facing in all directions constantly" conundrum?
And what about my infantry/biker/monster guy is facing in all directions constantly conundrum? Why only vehicles have to have firing arcs? I've never understood it.
The AV systen I get it to make vehicles sturdier (since why only vehicles have to be weaker on the flank or rare?) but with the current game design if that's the goal just give all vehicles some ability to reduce damage or to mitigate the to wound roll. This way jetbikes wouldn't be sturdier than tanks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/06 07:07:42
~4100
~1660
7000 
