Wh40k 10th Edition Vehicles in 10th + Rhino Datasheet

[tzeentch9]

On 4/14/2023 at 7:15 PM, Arkangilos said:

Center of the model.

 

I know ymmv but I have never experienced anyone who had trouble with facings. Can it be shot in the side at that moment? Yes means it’s a side shot. No means it is shot in the front.

In my experience, never faced anyone who didnt have trouble with facings. In addition the facing / av system invalidates whole swathes of weapons, sometimes whole armies of you’re unlucky. The current system is much better than the old way

[Arkangilos]

3 minutes ago, tzeentch9 said:

never faced anyone who didnt have trouble with facings.

How? Like legitimate question. There are only four sides, and it’s pretty clear when you can hit one of the four sides.

 

4 minutes ago, tzeentch9 said:

In addition the facing / av system invalidates whole swathes of weapons,

Yeah, some weapons didn’t work against tanks. That’s why you take anti-tank weapons. If you don’t take AT weapons you won’t do well against Tanks. I think that’s a good thing. 

[Blindhamster]

The facing stuff always caused arguments in my experience, especially with stuff like tau, eldar and dark eldar vehicles that weren’t square/rectangle 

[Rain]

41 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

How? Like legitimate question. There are only four sides, and it’s pretty clear when you can hit one of the four sides.

 

Yeah, some weapons didn’t work against tanks. That’s why you take anti-tank weapons. If you don’t take AT weapons you won’t do well against Tanks. I think that’s a good thing. 

Right. I recall very occasional facing arguments that required a rolloff, but it was rare. In most cases it was pretty obvious which facing was implicated.
 

There were also occasional arguments about LOS or even range when the little metal lip on the tape measure just about touches a base edge. It happens with an analog tabletop game. If it happens too often with a particular player, don’t play them anymore.

 

That said, facings and damage tables made far more sense than T and degrading stats for a vehicle.

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Blindhamster said:

The facing stuff always caused arguments in my experience, especially with stuff like tau, eldar and dark eldar vehicles that weren’t square/rectangle

But what direction were they being shot from? :p

 

I don’t know, I guess I just can’t fathom it being an issue.

[Blindhamster]

1 minute ago, Arkangilos said:

But what direction were they being shot from? :p

 

I don’t know, I guess I just can’t fathom it being an issue.

All it takes is to have the vehicle on an angle where it could be one of two facings and instantly it would cause arguments (I’m basing that as much on my experience watching games, adjudicating games as a staffer and also playing games myself lol).

 

instantly it would become “well technically it’s slightly more to the *insert most advantageous angle here*”

[spessmarine]

5 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

The facing stuff always caused arguments in my experience, especially with stuff like tau, eldar and dark eldar vehicles that weren’t square/rectangle 

 

Indeed, plays well in imperial mirror matches since those tend to be rectangle vs rectangle slugfests

[Arkangilos]

3 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

6 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

 

All it takes is to have the vehicle on an angle where it could be one of two facings and instantly it would cause arguments (I’m basing that as much on my experience watching games, adjudicating games as a staffer and also playing games myself lol).

 

instantly it would become “well technically it’s slightly more to the *insert most advantageous angle here*”

Ah ok.

 

That’s fair. I would just say, “If he can hit the side of the vehicle it hits the side”

 

or if it is at a perfect in between maybe something like, “on a 1-3 it hits the front, on a 4-6 it hits the side armor”.

 

Some vehicles I think it makes sense to equal out the armor, though. The way they are designed seem to show slopes armor and similar thickness being the same on front and side (like Tau and the Eldar one mentioned earlier). I think that would also make that part of the argument kind of pointless because side or front doesn’t matter so much. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Lemondish]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

That said, facings and damage tables made far more sense than T and degrading stats for a vehicle.

I still really don't see how. Both are abstractions.

[Arkangilos]

1 minute ago, Lemondish said:

I still really don't see how. Both are abstractions.

Because one is less abstract than the other (I prefer less abstract). It also makes more sense to me. It’s less gamy.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

@Arkangilos

 

I’m not sure where you are geographically, but it looks like the majority of people who had bad experiences with arguments over AV/facings are in the UK and the ones who have had fine experiences are in the US, I think I’ve found the toxic player base ruining the game… 

 

Jk, my UK brothers!

[Sky Potato]

Surely all it would take is for diagrams of each vehicle hull in the relevant codex?

 

Much like the Rulebook for HH has done (admittedly its very easy for box shapes as others have pointed out).

 

All it would need is a double page spread, an arial view of each codexes vehicles, and the facings super-imposed over the top. Falcons would probably be the hardest to break down properly into facings.

 

I played Second Ed but I was only a kid - I don't remember facings being an issue. Not sure if that's a facings issue, a second ed issue or a being much stronger than my younger brother issue.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Lemondish said:

I still really don't see how. Both are abstractions.

Vehicle damage should be more binary. A vehicle should be able to bounce an effectively infinite amount of small arms fire and very many glancing shots, but a single penetrating shot should be able to cook off the ammo, or strike the fuel tank, destroying the vehicle in a single shot.

 

In addition, damage results such as weapon destruction, immobilization, and crew shock were less abstract than general stat reductions, representing a shot destroying a gun or tracks/wheels/antigrav projector, without penetrating the crew compartment, or dealing “wounds” to the vehicle.

 

Yes both are abstract, but the old system is far less abstract, and more flavorful.

[apologist]

Yes, I agree with @Rain – I’d also say that abstraction and flavour tend to become forces opposed to one another as the size of the game increases. 
 

In small skirmish games, where you might have one or two tanks, then greater interaction (in terms of things like facing, acceleration, turning arc, weapon, damage etc.) are worthwhile and fun ways to make more of few models. That worked well for 2nd edition 40k, where you could really simulate how the tank interacted with its environment. A modern equivalent is Adeptus Titanicus.

 

In battle games, where you’re commanding a dozen or more tanks, then I’d argue abstraction improves the gameplay. It’s simply too time-consuming and creates  too much ‘mental grind’ for all players to try to keep track of things. This worked well for Epic: Armageddon, where mechanics like blast markers were a good proxy for temporary or minor damage.

 

40k is in an odd place, where it is played both at skirmish and battle level, and there’s no option for simple or advanced rules depending on that game scale. That’s a strength in making things universal ad allowing anyone to play anyone – but I’d argue it’d be useful to have an optional layer of complexity – for things like vehicles – that could be incorporated if both players agree.

 

To take Titanicus as an example, the simple fact the models have bases helps to head off arguments about facing – this would be a good and simple addition to 40k.

Edited April 15, 2023 by apologist

[Lemondish]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

Vehicle damage should be more binary. A vehicle should be able to bounce an effectively infinite amount of small arms fire and very many glancing shots, but a single penetrating shot should be able to cook off the ammo, or strike the fuel tank, destroying the vehicle in a single shot.

 

In addition, damage results such as weapon destruction, immobilization, and crew shock were less abstract than general stat reductions, representing a shot destroying a gun or tracks/wheels/antigrav projector, without penetrating the crew compartment, or dealing “wounds” to the vehicle.

 

Yes both are abstract, but the old system is far less abstract, and more flavorful.

That makes a lot of sense, and as long as vehicles are cheap enough in points that such reliable destruction and degradation doesn't completely tank half your list before you can ever interact with them, then I'd be for it.

 

But I also don't care enough to really champion this idea either way. It would be neat, but facings are just a source of another vector for misunderstanding of intention. Maybe if it were a bit simpler, like only the back armour was different in some way, rather than having 3 different avenues. I don't know, but I do know it ain't happening lol

 

Would this preference for the old rules and the desire to see them return also include firing arcs?

[Tyriks]

=][=    This thread is not about vehicle facings or other old rules. If you wish to discuss those things, please make a dedicated thread for it in the appropriate forum.  This thread is for discussion of the new rules being previewed, so let's keep it focused on that so discussion can continue.    =][=

[Lemondish]

So I imagine next article will be on Transports, yeah?

But imagine this - Mondays have been their "here's a new model" days.

 

Enter: New Land Raider.

Will not happen, sorry.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, apologist said:

Yes, I agree with @Rain – I’d also say that abstraction and flavour tend to become forces opposed to one another as the size of the game increases. 
 

In small skirmish games, where you might have one or two tanks, then greater interaction (in terms of things like facing, acceleration, turning arc, weapon, damage etc.) are worthwhile and fun ways to make more of few models. That worked well for 2nd edition 40k, where you could really simulate how the tank interacted with its environment. A modern equivalent is Adeptus Titanicus.

 

In battle games, where you’re commanding a dozen or more tanks, then I’d argue abstraction improves the gameplay. It’s simply too time-consuming and creates  too much ‘mental grind’ for all players to try to keep track of things. This worked well for Epic: Armageddon, where mechanics like blast markers were a good proxy for temporary or minor damage.

 

40k is in an odd place, where it is played both at skirmish and battle level, and there’s no option for simple or advanced rules depending on that game scale. That’s a strength in making things universal ad allowing anyone to play anyone – but I’d argue it’d be useful to have an optional layer of complexity – for things like vehicles – that could be incorporated if both players agree.

 

To take Titanicus as an example, the simple fact the models have bases helps to head off arguments about facing – this would be a good and simple addition to 40k.

What games are you referring to where people are commanding a dozen or more tanks?

 

even a guard armored list doesn’t typically constitute a dozen more tanks.

[Borbarad]

12 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

Competitive play has consistently been the key factor in dumbing down (or streamlining as GW calls it) the game for over a decade now. Immersion has been sacrificed for faster games in the tournament environment or to appeal to a broader audience (ie younger players) at the sacrifice of a more in depth experience. 

Since the third edition, various groups of players - from competitive players to newbies - have been accused of ruining the game with the pretense that GW exclusively caters to them by dumbing down the game at the expense of people who play 40k “how it’s meant to be played”. 

That is an audacious marginalization of a portion of the player base and doesn’t have any grounds in reality as the game got progressly more elaborate over the past editions with the introduction of new mechanics (e.g. flyers, subfactions, secondaries, etc). 
 

I’m tired of reading that apparently players like myself are ruining the game for “real” 40k player just because we wish to have a streamlined game that can be completed in less than 3 hours without engaging in rules discussions and ambiguities that ultimately leave both winner and loser with a bad aftertaste. 

 

[Emperor Ming]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What games are you referring to where people are commanding a dozen or more tanks?

 

even a guard armored list doesn’t typically constitute a dozen more tanks.

Indeed you see about six ruses and maybe some sentinels, deffo not a dozen 

[ZeroWolf]

3 hours ago, Lemondish said:

So I imagine next article will be on Transports, yeah?

But imagine this - Mondays have been their "here's a new model" days.

 

Enter: New Land Raider.

Will not happen, sorry.

While it would be nice to see, I think they're focusing the new model reveals on those you get in the box (I.e. everything you saw in the trailer), so hopefully it'll be more nid reveals!

 

Now transport rules speculation, aside from letting marines of all types ride (aside from sensible restrictions like terminators/Aggressors riding in a land raider only), and possibly confirming that we can assault out of vehicles. What else can they do with the rules?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Indeed you see about six ruses and maybe some sentinels, deffo not a dozen 

12 russes currently are just under 2000k without any upgrades lol so yeah seems unlikely that anyone is playing a dozen or more tanks

[jaxom]

I wonder if certain tanks will still have -1D or if Orks will keep Ramshackle.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:14 AM, Mogger351 said:

I'm not sure how I feel about the reduction/removal of degrading profiles.

 

In my play group we started ignoring degrading profiles. It doesn't have a large impact on unit effectiveness (they typically got one extra turn), and for my friends who didn't get to play alot it made the games go a lot faster (they'd look up the profile multiple times per turn to make sure they were doing things right now they can just memorize a stat block). I do get your concerns though because this is the classic GW well that unit type sucks better give it 3 buffs at once.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 12:32 PM, Zoatibix said:

I hope they push monster Toughness values up, too. 
 

The value of this toughness increase will depend on how many weapons get anti-vehicle or some other rule that adds to wound rolls or simply removes them (we have already seen the latter)

 

I'm hoping monster T values vary quite a bit, it always felt weird how many of them had the same toughness. 

 

[apologist]

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What games are you referring to where people are commanding a dozen or more tanks?

As the example goes on to state: ‘Epic: Armageddon’.
 

The point – and the relevance to the thread – is that 40k is neither a battle game (favouring abstraction) nor a skirmish game (favouring simulation); and its rules should reflect that. 

The rumoured rules look promising, though where your particular ‘sweet spot’ for balancing these opposing principles will vary.