Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think releasing transparent bases separately and a mapping table that says which vehicle uses which base would be that big of a deal.

If you are able to get 3 years of games out of it, then that is more than can be said about stuff like index cards, codices, stuff like the PA books, stuff like Crusade books, ...

Karol wrote:
So what. GW is making their games worse to play, on purpose for 30+ years, because they want to save up on bases for tanks. Because it is not like they can't make really big bases. They have the for knights, scenic models etc

I don't think they're "making games worse to play for 30 years" to avoid putting tanks on bases. Putting them on bases and introducing armour facings doesn't objectively make it better to play either. There's some real mental leaps there. Guess what grey knights don't have much of Karol, S8+. Enjoy never damaging a land raider

And for some big stuff, if it would be a problem, they can just decide that unit X is either super tough, or super weak, and it always has one facing. They could even be vehicle upgrades, some sort of sand bags or extra armour or mini force fields, that turns the "side" or maybe even in extrem cases the "back" facing the same as the front.

Which is on some level, what they've done for all tanks.

They can come with handicaps too, as a trade. Either making tanks slower, replacing a weapon or the drain of energy for the fields is so big that maybe the weapons on the tank are weaker. etc.

So a baneblade has the luxury of being slower, not having armour facings despite one of the minis you'd most be able to leverage against historically, having drain on other system etc. just because it doesn't fit on a base in a way that means it can be comfortably played with terrain? Sounds like you've managed to 180 back to not using bases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think I googled the exact same words and results

This is how I would do facings for vehicles, if I were in charge. Basically what seems to look like the middle of the chassis and go from there. I reckon that, depending on the model, it still can happen that you get a weird angle, but this might be more a problem with the "it is enough to see the discarded magazine on the scenic base of a model to be able to shoot the whole damn squad behind that solid wall of concrete".

I think that's ok, but just with 40k as it is, as others have noted, it's not really adding anything and results in more player haggling and disagreement maybe. I've been there when armour facings were a thing, I don't overly miss them compared to a lot of other changes that were made in honestly. Obviously YMMV as we're all people.

I don't think they're "making games worse to play for 30 years" to avoid putting tanks on bases. Putting them on bases and introducing armour facings doesn't objectively make it better to play either. There's some real mental leaps there. Guess what grey knights don't have much of Karol, S8+. Enjoy never damaging a land raider

I don't know much, about prior editions, but after 8th, 9th and 10th, w40k looks to me like a system where GW has to find out the same lessons over and over again. Oh mass re-rolls and garentee results in a game of rolls procing stuff is bad? Who would have thought about it in 10th. Not that it didn't happen in 9th and 8th. Stupid LoS problems , because they want to force true line of sight in to a system not ment for it. How many times does GW have to learn that indirect fire in w40k is bad, and it gets even worse if procs/re-rolls/rules stacking happens.

and having defined and clear facing litteraly makes the game better, when the whole argument against them is that they are hard to decide on (because of model shapes) by two players. A base with facings removes all the problems. I don't understand the Land Raider comment. From what I know about prior editions, Land Raiders were never popular, because armies like eldar were one shoting them with a high chance of killing of the stuff inside.

Which is on some level, what they've done for all tanks.

The problem is the "some" part. Sure eldar vehicles are great.Undercosted, more rules then other factions. Some primaris vehicles are efficient. Ork vehicles can be good when they are cheap. Votan Sagitaurs are good because of being undercosted for the stats and rules. But then you look at something like a rhino or razorback or a dreadnought, and the vehicle is just bad. who takes a chimera or a taurox. Flyers were killed this edition. Knights of the imperial kind were good, till GW killed them, and it is a faction of just vehicles. Their "some" is 100% of the army. If their vehicles are bad the whole army doesn't work.


Post 2024/01/24 14:53:28 Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?

Karol wrote:
So what. GW is making their games worse to play, on purpose for 30+ years, because they want to save up on bases for tanks. Because it is not like they can't make really big bases. They have the for knights, scenic models etc



I don't think they're "making games worse to play for 30 years" to avoid putting tanks on bases. Putting them on bases and introducing armour facings doesn't objectively make it better to play either. There's some real mental leaps there. Guess what grey knights don't have much of Karol, S8+. Enjoy never damaging a land raider

And for some big stuff, if it would be a problem, they can just decide that unit X is either super tough, or super weak, and it always has one facing. They could even be vehicle upgrades, some sort of sand bags or extra armour or mini force fields, that turns the "side" or maybe even in extrem cases the "back" facing the same as the front.

So a baneblade has the luxury of being slower, not having armour facings despite one of the minis you'd most be able to leverage against historically, having drain on other system etc. just because it doesn't fit on a base in a way that means it can be comfortably played with terrain? Sounds like you've managed to 180 back to not using bases.

If someone has a problem to decide what facing is closer on a baneblade, a tank bigger then most terrain pices in the game, then the baneblade player has more problems with his opponents, then just the facing. Plus in the case of this tank it is an upgrade. It is a fortress on tracks, as tough as it gets from every side. I see no 180 here.

I think that's ok, but just with 40k as it is, as others have noted, it's not really adding anything and results in more player haggling and disagreement maybe.

But that is not true. If the side or back is weaker, and I charge it or shot the side with my weapons, then a str 6-8 weapon suddenly becomes a problem. It also stops vehicles doing some wierd side charges or cliping. A vehicle wouldn't try to do a I===I block if it ment that the models on its side are going to be hiting it at half or 2/3 of its T. It would also breath new life in to melee dreadnoughts.

if there would just be an easy solution

Karol wrote:


and having defined and clear facing litteraly makes the game better, when the whole argument against them is that they are hard to decide on (because of model shapes) by two players. A base with facings removes all the problems. I don't understand the Land Raider comment. From what I know about prior editions, Land Raiders were never popular, because armies like eldar were one shoting them with a high chance of killing of the stuff inside.

In your own words, please tell me what about armour facings instinctively makes the game better please.

Regards the land raider, it was AV14, your army needed made up rules slapped on to stand a chance to actually damage one, because armour value facings are hard stat checks and maths out to a minimum requirement of an ideal strength weapon for an army to possess.

As discussed on previous pages you needed mass s8 generally and you simply maths your way through vehicles without really caring how you damage them in 5th(?) onwards. Earlier to that it wasn't so bad, but it wasn't the armour values that really impacted things. It was the wildly more restrictive weapon rules imo.

Hmmm...

So play with naked, bare plastic, immersion breaking bases is the solution?

Hard pass.

I won't even use bases on some of the 40 kits that come with them (ie. Ridgerunner) because it looks stupid.

I'm engaging with 10th because of how much of it was free. Bring back facings, force me to use bases on things that look stupid with bases and I'm out.

See? Like i said. A vocal segment of folks who have bizarro-world sensibilities and refuse to have bases on their vehicles are ruining the game for the rest of us.

Nevermind the fact that Star Wars Legion players absolutely do gussy up their vehicle bases because - and I know this is crazy - you can have a fancy decorative painted, textured, and flocked base while still leaving the arc markers visible.

PenitentJake wrote:
Hmmm...

So play with naked, bare plastic, immersion breaking bases is the solution?

Hard pass.

It is incredibly easy to base the SW Legion bases and maintain the arc markers on them. I've done it myself several times.

Failing that, you have the same system the bases that the Colossals, Battle Engines and Gargantuans came on in WMH. It had a marker on the lip of the base at the front for the left and right arcs, and two more on each side for front and rear. Done.

Like so-

As for 40K i have put a base on exactly 1 vehicle model that did not come with it. a razorback for kill team/combat patrol games (4th ed rules). it is a pain to transport as all the foam made for vehicles does not include space for the extra size. that being said i am also a player of battletech, infinity, and warmachine MKIII where facing is a HUGE deal. when we play our 5th ed 40K games we never really have that issue because of the attitude of people in our regular group. if there is a question where facing is "on the line" we roll off to see which side it is on.

 aphyon wrote:
As for 40K i have put a base on exactly 1 vehicle model that did not come with it. a razorback for kill team/combat patrol games (4th ed rules). it is a pain to transport as all the foam made for vehicles does not include space for the extra size. that being said i am also a player of battletech, infinity, and warmachine MKIII where facing is a HUGE deal. when we play our 5th ed 40K games we never really have that issue because of the attitude of people in our regular group. if there is a question where facing is "on the line" we roll off to see which side it is on.

Rolling off is a mature, reasonable bandaid for the situation. That said, I do remember finding the need for such bandaids quite frustrating when there are various ways to simply write less ambiguous rules. Rolling off can get a bit frustrating over time if you're fairly sure your opponent is actually in your front arc, but you're too polite/conflict-averse to press the point.

chaos0xomega wrote:
See? Like i said. A vocal segment of folks who have bizarro-world sensibilities and refuse to have bases on their vehicles are ruining the game for the rest of us.

Nevermind the fact that Star Wars Legion players absolutely do gussy up their vehicle bases because - and I know this is crazy - you can have a fancy decorative painted, textured, and flocked base while still leaving the arc markers visible.

GW doesn't listen to me any more or less than listen to you, so I ain't ruining the game for no one, and neither are you. Neither of us have that power.

I doubt this game will ever be as good for my preferences as it was in 9th. I bought every dex that I might remotely want to play during that edition- more money than I've ever spent on an edition. And I did it because I knew that 10th would oversimplify and remove all the good RP-type stuff it took them three years to develop. I thought- "Well, if the game is never again as good as it is now, at least I can keep doing this.

Maybe they should just give wargamers what they say they want- return ridiculous scatter dice, templates, AVs, eliminate all faction flavour rules so that the only difference between factions is which units they can spam due to FOC shenanigans, make it so that the whole measure of tactics is stuff that every faction can do- suppression fire, crossfire- whatever other dull wargamey junk you want. No faction can do anything that any other faction can't- except for FOC exception shenanigans.

If they ever do, I'll be sure to note how many people that said they wanted these things are still complaining; I'm sure that many will be... And to be fair, to a certain extent, that's what forums are for.

At least then I have the excuse to say- yeah, 9th or the highway.

Because right now, I'll play 10th... since it's pretty much free, and the changes, while they bother me, aren't severe enough that I'm unwilling to try something that doesn't cost me a dime. I bought Tyrannic War, and it's the only thing I've paid for this edition. I'm on the fence with Pariah, and probably won't bother. Depending on the Goonhammer reviews, I might get the Sisters dex and I might get the Drukhari dex, but that's probably it. Another factor will be whether or not we get new units that I like for those factions. Oh.... I'll end up with a Tau dex, because I want the Kroot box.

But there's no way in hell I'm buying 11 dexes again. Not with the mess they made of psychic powers, equipment options and sub-faction differentiation.

10th to me is the Limbo edition: not good enough to make me super enthusiastic about playing it, but not bad enough to let me fully retreat to my 9th edition sandbox.

 kodos wrote:
if there would just be an easy solution

Yeah, I find it obnoxious how discussions of armor facings as a mechanic always end up being an argument about how 40K used to do it versus how 40K does it now.

Some folks here really need to play other games and get some exposure for how game design is evolving outside the frankly out-of-touch GW studio.

People hate change.

See also: my signature.

I'm wholeheartedly in the no-bases camp. And They're really not needed.

My proposal, I think like others have also said, is to just use a template. I'd make a template that was split into a pair of quadrants, one that bisects the model (because I find it's easier to center a template if you have a straight line running down the middle of the model), and the other quadrant for the traditional Front, Side, Rear arcs. No need to draw lines through the invisible corners of weird models, and no need for bases on vehicles. If you really wanted to, you could use the same template for doing a simple Front/Back on certain units if you wanted to further differentiate.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.

Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.

Who cares about being a box, it's a game with models. Everything is either geometric enough it has a center line or is a skimmer mounted on a base where you can just measure off of that. I swear everyone who has problems with AV or facings is just down to not treating things logically but encountering facings like it's the first time they played a wargame. Worst case scenario you just mark firing angles on the base itself like multiple star wars fleet games did over the decades.

chaos0xomega wrote:

ccs wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.

Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.

I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.

Tell me where the center of an Eldar falcon or wave Serpent is, and where it's front becomes it's side.

Spoiler:

Very confusing and difficult to figure out the center of skimmers when skimmers come with belly buttons to mount stands on.

You can tell that that belly button mount is not actually in the center of the model, right? It's the point the model balances on (in theory), clearly not the center of an imaginary rectangle.

I loved vehicle facings as a mechanic but determining facings for eldar vehicles was always a challenge (source: eldar player). Sure it's doable when looking at a picture, but it's more tricky in real life/on the tabletop. It gets more fun when you realize the wave serpent and fire prism have extended posteriors, meaning their center is at a slightly different spot than the falcon's, despite the chassis being the same otherwise. And do you count the spirit vanes (whiskers) on the wave serpent too when determining the box? Because you should, and that broadens the front and rear faces of the imaginary box compared to the other grav tanks.

I half suspect gw gave them all the same front and side armor values to sidestep this issue back then. This is the main reason unclear facings didn't slow down gameplay for eldar vehicles; it rarely mattered.

The idea of painting facing markings on the base would work, but not with the current tiny skimmer disks. Those are far too fragile to glue on imo. You'd need actual full-sized vehicle bases.

It is the center of the vehicle. It's the point of balance which is the center of mass which is the best point to place the center of the angles at. The problem is caring about some utter RAW perfection and arguing over that vs taking the simplest course of least resistance (oh hey the stand at the center of the mass of the model) and drawing the lines from there, unless GW were to ever print specific facings. This is what I mean about how the only problem with facings is people, not armor values and their respective facings. It only becomes a mountain because for whatever reason, 40k players specifically seem to have difficult conniptions with the subject and make it far more complex an issue than it needs to be. Which is also partly why I feel that in event of protracted turn times in the wargame too, just use a bloody chess clock if things get too ridiculous.

at the scale 40k plays at, detailed arcs are unneeded.

You only need 2 to create meaningful tactical decision making.

Draw a line perpendicular across the front most part of the vehicle hull.

And attack that comes from the forward side of the line is a front attack, and any other that draws from the other side is a rear attack and grants a bonus.

====| <-- front attacks
====|
^
Rear attacks


the point of the rule is create tactical challenges for manoeuvre and unit positioning. But it shouldn't take any longer than normal to determine to avoid slowing down the game.


Any template you use will generate arguments over where the central point should sit on the model, unless each model comes with a centre point modelled onto it.

If you absolutely must have more than 2 facings, then you can do the same thing as above, but make a T:


rear ====| <-- front attacks
-------------|
------====|
^
side attacks

^While I think that model is pretty good, I favor the quad arcs because it can make for interesting and characterful variaton between chassis. The old Leman Russ vs. Eldar Falcon example is a good one. The fact that the fast skimmer was equally protected around the front and side, because it was expected to flank the opposition. But the Imperial Guard tank emphasized forward facing protection, expecting a more frontal/siege doctrine.

"the scale of 40k"
the game itself does not have any scale is it has the amount of details you would go with a 10 model skirmish game and there facings on vehicles make sense, but at the same time uses much more models and adds rules for units/formations were none of those details makes sense

a squad based game that tracks individual model movement but ignores if a tank need to expose the weak side to fire all weapons is badly written

chaos0xomega wrote:
People hate change.

yet people still play 40k that changes on a regular bases and everyone knows in advance that things will be different very soon
for wargamers in general, I disagree, because people like changes and therefore they play different games or switch between rules
what they don't like is if games change for the sake of change (hence what 40k calls a balance update is already a new Edition in other games, and a new Edition for 40k is a new game for everything else)

this attitude for rules is linked to GW games most of the time
facings are the worst and impossible to use, is just now because the current rules don't have it and if GW ever brings it back the very same people will say that this is the best rule ever and just what 40k needed

everything is bad unless GW is doing it but if GW is doing it than there is no other possible way to handle it

the main reason why I have given up on making rules for 40k community, because if you are making a change people will argue how your change kills the game and removes the "40k feeling" from it (as example remove the vehicle damage table or vehicle facing) and than after GW is doing the very same with the next edition, you are the idiot for keeping those things in your version of the rules because no one ever liked that and it just causes endless problems were there is no possible solution
and no one will ever changes bases for their models just because of a small rules changes (but re-bases the whole army from 25mm to 28mm)

Maybe they should just give wargamers what they say they want- return ridiculous scatter dice, templates, AVs, eliminate all faction flavour rules so that the only difference between factions is which units they can spam due to FOC shenanigans, make it so that the whole measure of tactics is stuff that every faction can do- suppression fire, crossfire- whatever other dull wargamey junk you want. No faction can do anything that any other faction can't- except for FOC exception shenanigans.

If they ever do, I'll be sure to note how many people that said they wanted these things are still complaining; I'm sure that many will be... And to be fair, to a certain extent, that's what forums are for.

Well, well.... i do love my templates, scatter dice and AV, however as a person who is still actively playing oldhammer i still maintain that the older editions had far more flavor in most cases that reflected the lore than anything since. far beyond just the FOC. nearly every themed 40K army had a page or 2 of special rules that made them feel and fight differently on the table top.
It was the time of gaming nerds making games for nerds. when games workshop was a workshop for games, not "a model company that happens to have a game attached to them".

As for complaining, nah we fixed all the problems and we don't have to worry about GW every screwing it up again, now we just have fun, as Kodos said-

because people like changes and therefore they play different games or switch between rules
what they don't like is if games change for the sake of change

i can still enjoy classic 40K for what it is because it isn't all there is. of the dozen or so different game systems i own and play(or the ones i play that other friends bring) they are all different in their own way. it keeps it fresh and interesting while also avoiding burnout.

If all you play is 40K i could see where it becomes a problem, especially if you do not get to play very often. If i didn't get to play 12+ hours every weekend (usually on the same day) i would not be in the hobby as the investment would be to high for the returns.

The reason this topic has meandered along for over 60 pages is because it is a hobby and a universe that we love and want to enjoy. something we have invested time and effort into to the point it is part of us. We simply want it to be good from our perspective. i do not think GW can give that to us anymore and is the reason i walked away from them 3 editions ago. It is a relief really to get off the churn train since they can't screw you over again.

I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.

Jarms48 wrote:
I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.

If by "shenanigans", you mean wound allocation, something that only a handful of units (barely even ten!) could take full advantage of (out of hundreds). then that is a problem of the unit entries, not the rule itself.

We've seen too many times in recent editions of GW swinging the axe wildly when it is only a few problem units that need reigning in, creating further problems that never existed in the first place.

the problem was not only the units receiving but also units with mixed weapons doing less damage if they used all their weapons instead of 1 type

Just allocate wounds in order of AP. Basically solved the wound stacking problems against anything which isn't Nobs or Paladins.

Jarms48 wrote:I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.

Grimtuff wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.

If by "shenanigans", you mean wound allocation, something that only a handful of units (barely even ten!) could take full advantage of (out of hundreds). then that is a problem of the unit entries, not the rule itself.

We've seen too many times in recent editions of GW swinging the axe wildly when it is only a few problem units that need reigning in, creating further problems that never existed in the first place.

Lord Damocles wrote:Just allocate wounds in order of AP. Basically solved the wound stacking problems against anything which isn't Nobs or Paladins.

Already solved this, we use 4th ed wound allocation in our 5th ed games-owning player chooses who takes the wounds, wounded models must be removed first as casualties in the case of multi-wound models. rolling armor saves is based on majority save/toughness.

Dudeface 811846 11634778 wrote:
In your own words, please tell me what about armour facings instinctively makes the game better please.

Regards the land raider, it was AV14, your army needed made up rules slapped on to stand a chance to actually damage one, because armour value facings are hard stat checks and maths out to a minimum requirement of an ideal strength weapon for an army to possess.

As discussed on previous pages you needed mass s8 generally and you simply maths your way through vehicles without really caring how you damage them in 5th(?) onwards. Earlier to that it wasn't so bad, but it wasn't the armour values that really impacted things. It was the wildly more restrictive weapon rules imo.

If a vehicle has t12 at the front and t6 at the back, then landing at its back and shoting/assaulting it from that facing is a valid way to counter a vehicle. Especialy for factions like my, where GW somehow forgot to add heavy weapons, in an edition full of vehicles.

It also stops vehicles from doing stupid pile ins the long way, because with different wounding values depending ona facing it would be a risk. Sometimes a big one, if the said tank was charging in to a unit of lets say str 6-10 models. Now they could still do it, but it would be a risk. It would also mean that vehicles that have the same T value all around. On ork player with a buggy or truck having the same T on every facing wouldn't have to worry about doing a belarussian roll. Same with Land Raiders.

It would also make flyers and skimers being easier to kill, because something that drops to t5-6 is easier to kill then having t10-11+ all the time. Etc etc.

Also the "wide restrictive" in how GW implements often means, that 50% of armies are restriced 40% are not so much, and some have thing X so unrestricted that it feels, as if they were playing a different edition or even a game. My dudes have practicaly zero re-rolls, marines have some, and then there are armies that get 30+CP worth of re-rolls through out the game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
See? Like i said. A vocal segment of folks who have bizarro-world sensibilities and refuse to have bases on their vehicles are ruining the game for the rest of us.

Nevermind the fact that Star Wars Legion players absolutely do gussy up their vehicle bases because - and I know this is crazy - you can have a fancy decorative painted, textured, and flocked base while still leaving the arc markers visible.

Who cares what legion players are doing?

Vehicles on bases looks dumb. Its fine on knights as they would just fall over without them.

Not only do I not base my vehicles, I don't even decorate my infantry bases. I like them subtle so the eye is drawn to either the model or the surrounding terrain/ground.

If GW had made top-down diagrams for each vehicle they could have done interesting things like giving that Eldar vehicle strong side armor and weak front and rear armor, on account of the giant wing-like things that look stronger than the front.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 811846 11634778 wrote:
In your own words, please tell me what about armour facings instinctively makes the game better please.

Regards the land raider, it was AV14, your army needed made up rules slapped on to stand a chance to actually damage one, because armour value facings are hard stat checks and maths out to a minimum requirement of an ideal strength weapon for an army to possess.

As discussed on previous pages you needed mass s8 generally and you simply maths your way through vehicles without really caring how you damage them in 5th(?) onwards. Earlier to that it wasn't so bad, but it wasn't the armour values that really impacted things. It was the wildly more restrictive weapon rules imo.

If a vehicle has t12 at the front and t6 at the back, then landing at its back and shoting/assaulting it from that facing is a valid way to counter a vehicle. Especialy for factions like my, where GW somehow forgot to add heavy weapons, in an edition full of vehicles.

It also stops vehicles from doing stupid pile ins the long way, because with different wounding values depending ona facing it would be a risk. Sometimes a big one, if the said tank was charging in to a unit of lets say str 6-10 models. Now they could still do it, but it would be a risk. It would also mean that vehicles that have the same T value all around. On ork player with a buggy or truck having the same T on every facing wouldn't have to worry about doing a belarussian roll. Same with Land Raiders.

It would also make flyers and skimers being easier to kill, because something that drops to t5-6 is easier to kill then having t10-11+ all the time. Etc etc.

Also the "wide restrictive" in how GW implements often means, that 50% of armies are restriced 40% are not so much, and some have thing X so unrestricted that it feels, as if they were playing a different edition or even a game. My dudes have practicaly zero re-rolls, marines have some, and then there are armies that get 30+CP worth of re-rolls through out the game.

So your one selling point is "s5-10 models can kill tanks easier" after they spent an edition making tanks harder to kill? You're happy to make it easier to bolter down vehicles on the condition you have an army wide ability to get behind them? Please try to be a little more objective.

Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.

Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.

None of this is remotely objective.

Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.

In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.