Spitballing vehicle facings into 8th

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Wild idea: if you don’t want vehicles facings in 8th, don’t comment in a thread about ideas to do them in 8th. Nobody walks into your house and pisses in your Cheerios. Don’t do it to someone else.

Wild idea: if you want an echo chamber where nobody says anything against your idea, open a blog where you can moderate the comments section yourself instead of posting in a forum. As long as posts are civilised and ontopic it should be fine.

This is not what an echo chamber is.

[Panzer]

 

 

Wild idea: if you don’t want vehicles facings in 8th, don’t comment in a thread about ideas to do them in 8th. Nobody walks into your house and pisses in your Cheerios. Don’t do it to someone else.

Wild idea: if you want an echo chamber where nobody says anything against your idea, open a blog where you can moderate the comments section yourself instead of posting in a forum. As long as posts are civilised and ontopic it should be fine.

This is not what an echo chamber is.

 

 

It would quickly turn into one without any opposing comments allowed.

[Redcomet]

Bolt Action is a simple rule set (total rules less than 50 pages)

 

They split all weapons in to two catergories.. small arms & heavy weapons.

 

Vehicles have a Damage Value the same as infantry..

 

heavy weapons get a plus to rolls against all DVs

 

heavy weapons get an extra +1 to the roll against side of armoured vehicles *& plus 2 against the rear.... sides and read are calcualted by a 45% from the courner of the vehicle

This would be the way to go imo. Make small arms weaker against vehicles and actual AT weapons stronger against vehicles.

[Marshal Rohr]

Vehicles being impervious to small arms has been something they’ve need to do for a while.

[Slasher956]

the issue GW have with that distinction is.... what is small arms in 40K?

 

lasguns - yep

shuriken cats - yep

splinter rifles - yep

ork shootas - yep? - depends on which fluff you read as to what they are...

boltgun - ? - they are mini mass reactive rockets....

tau pulse rifles - they are plasma....

 

So do you go if its a rifle then its small arms?  how does that work with fluff?

 

As I said the best option would be to re-do ALL weapons to the same as GW have done with apocalypse (ie an AI & AT stat...) THEN look at altering vehicles  IF its still needed.

 

 

Oh for people saying that arcs would take to long to work out .. how about Team Yankee / Flames of War approach?  a horizontal line across the front... if your on one side its a front shot, if behind then its a side with no additional rules for rear

[kombatwombat]

Nah, don't bring any of that back. It slows the game down. Players will take more time positioning units, debating facings, etc

 

People need to understand that one of the biggest hurdles of the hobby is time. Outside of a tournament I don't want to be rushed when I play a game. Even with tournaments restrictions games can take 3 hours, outside of one 4-5 hour games are common place.

 

8th edition is not complicated at all, but it can be slow because it's ever evolving. Every game I play could involve new rules and units, and learning those takes time. Vehicle facings are not necessary at all and destroying vehicles is not hard. It's a mechanic more suited to a detailed, simulation inspired game. 40k is very much abstract in terms of unit interaction on the tabletop, and that's absolutely fine.

Absolutely fine, in your opinion, let’s be clear. There are plenty of people who enjoyed 40k for decades as more of a simulation game and less of an abstracted one.

 

A prime example of the ill-defined ‘takes longer’ argument. How much longer? A few seconds across a whole game? A few minutes? A few years? I’d be genuinely astonished if anybody could handle a hobby that lasted between 4 and 5 hours for a game, but not one that lasted between 4:10 and 5:10. We’re not talking hours’ difference here, we’re talking minutes. Yes these changes currently being debated on this forum will add time, but that added time generally isn’t going to manifestly change the length of the game.

 

8th Ed is extraordinarily complicated. I’d wager that there are maybe twice as many lines of text of rules across all of 8th Ed, than there were in 7th. That’s without counting FAQs/Erratas, and people complained about rules bloat back then. The core rules are brief, but there are legions of extra rules needed to play at a pick-up game level.

 

Also,

 

This is another case of narrative players who perhaps don't play as often, coming up with poor ideas that would damage the experience for many in practice.

You can stick that superiority complex where the sun don’t shine, sunshine. Accept that the odds are that there are many people who post on these forums with a different viewpoint to yours who are better than you at this game, play more often, do so at a higher level and are more successful at it. People’s ideas are not poor or only suited to narrative gaming or damaging to the gaming experience merely because they are contrary to your own. Many of these ideas stem from a desire to change the face of the competitive meta game with learnings from history.

[sairence]

Let's keep it civil, shall we?

 

I don't really see much benefit to vehicle facings. I quite enjoy being able to actually move my tanks forward without having to worry about basic infantry weapons being able to take them out of commission, instead of having to hug them to some terrain piece to have a chance of surviving. I also enjoy being able to use sponson weapons for more than just what's in front of me, aka there actually being a point to bringing them.

 

Do we really want to go back to a system where the most effective way of moving tanks forward was rear to rear, so they could cover each other's weak points?

[Marshal Rohr]

Why on earth would anyone playing a war game move their tanks :cuss to :cuss?

[Ishagu]

@Kombatwombat

 

How much longer? Significantly, over every single turn.

It's not just about working out the facings but it will dictate how players position the vehicles.

 

As for odds, I feel there is a small number of vocal players - combination of 7th edition apologists or those who want a more narrative or oddly, what they think might be a more realistic ruleset. It would dectract more than it adds.

 

The current rules create a game where play isn't bogged down in details of unit direction or the placement of every model, and instead allow players to focus their strategies around the special rules unique to each faction. It's better this way for a game involving comparatively large forces.

[Grimdark_Garage]

I really like the idea of vehicle facing from a narrative stand point. But it would just slow down a game that is already long enough as it is.

As it relates to vehicle firing arcs, i think about the Repulsor and its varients. Can you imagine tryign to establish which of its 1000 weapons can target what!

 

I dont think vehicles shooting or being targetted are particularly bad. In fact, its 10x better than it was in 7th.

[Slasher956]

because people play to the rules and not to sprit... if you cant see the rear then you cant shoot the rear...

[Ishagu]

because people play to the rules and not to sprit... if you cant see the rear then you cant shoot the rear...

A very common tactic back in 7th

[Marshal Rohr]

because people play to the rules and not to sprit... if you cant see the rear then you cant shoot the rear...

Glad I never met them. Seem like real fun guys to be around.

 

40k already has a baseline ruleset that is hyper-accessible and easy to learn. I think it was Andy Chambers that put out an advanced ruleset for 3rd Edition. They’re not going to change the core rules for 40k and are just going to keep refining Codexes around those 8th Edition core rules. That means it would be a great time to bring an advanced rules expansion out that adds depth to game. They already release things for the ‘three ways to play’. Matched play can stay the same and they could do the expansion for narrative. Narrative play doesn’t have to be hyperbalanced and benefits from some asymmetry. A land raider in matched play should certainly be killable. It’s matched play. It’s multiplayer. Now they need to devote some time to Narrative play. Even Psychic Awakening is already leaning toward matched play even though it’s a narrative release.

[Panzer]

Why on earth would anyone playing a war game move their tanks to ?

 

Same reason people move their tanks sideways to block more line of sight etc. Because it's effective.

[Panzer]

 

because people play to the rules and not to sprit... if you cant see the rear then you cant shoot the rear...

Glad I never met them. Seem like real fun guys to be around.

 

40k already has a baseline ruleset that is hyper-accessible and easy to learn. I think it was Andy Chambers that put out an advanced ruleset for 3rd Edition. They’re not going to change the core rules for 40k and are just going to keep refining Codexes around those 8th Edition core rules. That means it would be a great time to bring an advanced rules expansion out that adds depth to game. They already release things for the ‘three ways to play’. Matched play can stay the same and they could do the expansion for narrative. Narrative play doesn’t have to be hyperbalanced and benefits from some asymmetry. A land raider in matched play should certainly be killable. It’s matched play. It’s multiplayer. Now they need to devote some time to Narrative play. Even Psychic Awakening is already leaning toward matched play even though it’s a narrative release.

 

 

You know what, as optional rules for Narrative Play I'd be fine with it since it's not the optimal way to play anyway with endless summoning, stratagem and psychic power spam and so on. It already throws reason out of the window. Nobody I knows plays it because of some of those things and so things like vehicle facings would simply not be a thing for our group ... and from what I've gathered over the years it's similar for most people out there.

[MARK0SIAN]

I liked vehicle facings and bringing them back is an interesting idea.

 

However (as others have said) I wouldn’t want any mechanic that made it even easier for small arms to wound vehicles. A lot of vehicles are already very fragile so I don’t want to see that increase.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

because people play to the rules and not to sprit... if you cant see the rear then you cant shoot the rear...

Glad I never met them. Seem like real fun guys to be around.

 

40k already has a baseline ruleset that is hyper-accessible and easy to learn. I think it was Andy Chambers that put out an advanced ruleset for 3rd Edition. They’re not going to change the core rules for 40k and are just going to keep refining Codexes around those 8th Edition core rules. That means it would be a great time to bring an advanced rules expansion out that adds depth to game. They already release things for the ‘three ways to play’. Matched play can stay the same and they could do the expansion for narrative. Narrative play doesn’t have to be hyperbalanced and benefits from some asymmetry. A land raider in matched play should certainly be killable. It’s matched play. It’s multiplayer. Now they need to devote some time to Narrative play. Even Psychic Awakening is already leaning toward matched play even though it’s a narrative release.

 

 

You know what, as optional rules for Narrative Play I'd be fine with it since it's not the optimal way to play anyway with endless summoning, stratagem and psychic power spam and so on. It already throws reason out of the window. Nobody I knows plays it because of some of those things and so things like vehicle facings would simply not be a thing for our group ... and from what I've gathered over the years it's similar for most people out there.

 

 

See! There's so many ways to make the game work for everyone. Imagine a narrative game of only tanks on open terrain for a 40K Kursk where moving and angling for a shot is a key part of the tactical thrill. That would be awesome. Urban terrain? Don't use vehicle facings to represent the close in nature and elevation of the buildings. 

[kombatwombat]

How much longer? Significantly, over every single turn.

It's not just about working out the facings but it will dictate how players position the vehicles.

That’s exactly the same thing though - wishy washy ill-defined notions of ‘more’ and ‘significant’. Quantify! Objectify! How much time do you think this will add, and why? Here, I’ll even concede directly to you that it will add more time. How much more though? Is it enough to count? If it is, is it enough to matter? If it is, is it worth the trade off? For the benefits? Why, or why not? Tell us exactly why we’re wrong rather than just raining on our parade because you love 8th Ed and don’t want these changes.

 

As for odds, I feel there is a small number of vocal players - combination of 7th edition apologists or those who want a more narrative or oddly, what they think might be a more realistic ruleset. It would dectract more than it adds.

I’m going to try and keep this civil for the sake of not getting the thread locked, but could you please try treating people with an opinion contrary to yours with a measure of respect?

 

Calling people ‘7th Ed apologists’ is deliberately conflating them with certain other things best not discussed on a hobby forum. 7th Ed was not a Morally Bad Thing. It was a game with no more or fewer flaws than 8th Ed. A number of people, some of them well-informed and experienced in wargaming, preferred some of the older mechanics and would like to see them added to the current game to resolve issues and/or elements of the game they dislike, as shown by the current crop of these discussions on this forum. Dismissing these people as a vocal minority is a poor argument; they’ve proven that they are vocal by the current discussions, it’s on you to prove that they’re the minority before you try and dismiss them.

[Ficinus]

I don't understand, at all, how this idea will introduce a level of precise model placement that will drastically slow down the game. Precise model placement is already part of the game! Screens have to be placed precise distances away from each other and the main army with precise spacing between models to deny deepstrike. Screens have to be precisely positioned differently to prevent charging units from charging through gaps between models. Units have to snake back to aura bubbles, each model perfectly spaced in a long line, to get certain buffs. Chargers have to be precisely placed to wrap their target or so they can attack one unit but consolidate into another. Fliers already have facings they need to take into account when moving.

 

If all of this isn't "precise movement" then how is this stuff all that precise?

[Marshal Rohr]

Unit snaking is as bad of an offender to 'abstraction' as moving vehicles rear to rear. There was an AoS game where the game board looked like a DMV queue so the units could get benefits. 

[Slasher956]

they removed templates to speed up the game but kept auras....

 

so the time saved on templates has now been lost (with extra) on checking auras and exacting movement....  

[Panzer]

Speeding up the game was only part of their reasoning. Templates also often caused friction between players even if it's just a short argument that got solved by a 4+ roll. They wanted to avoid that and I'm thankful for that.

[Noserenda]

A simple rear arc bonus would be nice, something like the +1 to wound as nearly every useful tank design suffers there but significantly weaker side armour is much rarer (Though the shots are easier :D ) so id just stick with that myself. 

Admittedly ive been playing eliter armies in 8th but is small arms destroying tanks really that common? Frankly i welcome the possibility as it lets me field tank armies withouting people whining :P  

[Guest Triszin]

first question:

 

what is considered small arms?

 

Str 2?

str 3?

[Marshal Rohr]

Fastest way to do it would be any rapid fire, flame, and pistol weapon since they’re almost all infantry rifles. The exceptions that aren’t infantry rifles would be addressed individually (inferno/plasma pistols come to mind immediately). They could alter the weapon profiles like the have Extra Damage in Aeronautica with Anti-Tank meaning they can penetrate vehicle armor.