40k: My Love Hate Relationship with Vehicles

I’ve got some beefs with vehicles in 8th edition – and a big silver lining.

I love 8th edition. It is a breath of fresh air and exciting gamers worldwide. Vehicles perhaps received the biggest update from previous editions – now unified into the standard statline with everything else.  That’s both a boon and a burden for the game.  Here’s some of my beefs and compliments on the new rules philosophy of vehicles.

I could take him – maybe…

Level Playing Field Means More Vehicles

The full spectrum of vehicles have been normalized. The removal of things like super heavies and the vehicle damage table have brought every vehicle in the game closer to each other in overall performance. In earlier editions many classes of vehicles were considered taboo for standard games. In 8th if someone brings a single Baneblade  or Lord of Skulls to a decent sized pickup game – I would feel like I could take it down.  That gets more vehicle models off the shelf and on the tabletop – A boon!

A dream shot – FIRE!

 

I Miss Armor Values

Now I’m happy to not have to deal with the overly complex system of Armor Values, Firing Ports, entry points and all the rest. Vehicles had gotten out of control in the rules department and needed a shave. That said in 8th every vehicle is essentially a directionless flying saucer that could drive into battle backwards.  I enjoyed the tactical challenge of vehicle facing mattering a little. I enjoyed how facing affected both the vehicle owner’s and foe’s tabletop behavior.  Even 15mm Flames of War has a simple two armor value system for vehicle’s front and rear arcs.  Something as simple as a re-roll to wound or +1S for any attacks on vehicles that come from their rear 180 degree arc would bring back some of that tactical flavor.

Looks who’s back!

Utility Vehicles are Useful

With most armored vehicles having about 10 wounds – the days of the rolling coffin are over. Sure you can blow up a Rhino if you focus some firepower on it. But you do have to pay attention and harsh language wont blow it sky high any more. This is opening up the glory days of armies with lots of cheap transports who can now get their occupants into the fight, then drive around causing problems for the foe mid-late game.

HIT DA GAS! I’m coming for you Land Raider!

Vehicle Assaults are Unbalanced

A corollary to the previous point. I like that vehicles can now fight in assault. It gives one unified set of rules to cover everything from a Furioso Dread gloriously kicking butt (COOL), to an Ork Buggy running over a Ratling (LOL!). But the increased survivability of cheap vehicles means you will be seeing lots of very cost effective jamming up of pricey tanks. Land Raiders just shouldn’t have to give up shots to pull out of combat from an ever charging Tau Tetra. I really think something like the Steel Behemoth rule that allows a vehicle to fall back and still fiee should be applied to any vehicle with 10 wounds or more remaining. Alternatively allowing an bonus to overwatch fire on charging vehicles might also put this tactic in check.  It’s one thing to hit a squad of Howling Banshees screaming into your hapless squad in blurring pirouettes – but how hard is it to hit a Necron Monolith floating towards you?

Go ahead and charge me. You’ll just die tired.

Fly May be Undercosted for Vehicles

Fly is a big red line dividing vehicles into two board categories – can be jammed up, and can’t be. The ability of vehicles with fly to flit away and return fire with no ill effects is potent. Add to that – the fact that most flying vehicle are fairly quick and can reposition while passing over intervening models. This makes Storm Ravens, Tau, Eldar and some others very, very good. When fly gets combined with very high durability like Necron vehicles with Quantum Shielding – things can get out of whack real fast.  I’m uncertain of the current point values, but it feels like some vehicles with fly are bargain priced, or maybe it’s the other way around with the non flying tanks being overpriced.

 

Overall I think all of these can be dealt with by FAQs, and some point tweaks.  It’s very early in 8th Edition and the first codex hasn’t even arrived.  I have high hopes.

~ What’s your take on vehicles so far? 

 

 

 

  • Zingbaby

    Funny to mention the Furioso kicking butt when it’s pound for pound the worst dreadnought in the book.

    • But it wins on style points in assault.

      • Zingbaby

        I guess if you’re meaning, “more expensive = better” like my wife seems to believe lol.

        But really otherwise every other dreadnought is just a better choice.

        • LeroyJenkinss

          Too soon

          • Zingbaby

            Hardly. The Furioso is almost always more expensive and far less durable, for the same potential output and in some cases less potential output, especially when measured against a mixed dreadnought.

            The Venerable, the Ironclad and the Contemptor are all far superior, and all cheaper. The plain shooting or double-shooting dreadnought is much more useful, and still cheaper.

            Not to say the Furioso is bad, but this is the “balanced” edition, and he is not balanced when measured against other dreadnoughts.

  • Arthfael

    I agree about rear/front armour, removing this was a big mistake, the main thing I don’t like about the new rules. I hope they bring it back next edition.

    • Fergie0044

      Heck i hope they bring it back later this edition! If they could put such a big change in their planned ‘chapter approved’ books. Seriously just a simple re-roll to wound would do it.

      • Thomson

        A reroll to wound is a huge thing, especially for the tougher vehicles. Since 1st round deep strike and all this is much more common now in 8th, you would have to reduce the point cost of some vehicles by a considerable amount to make up for this reduced toughness.

        Something I think would be less devastating would be vehicles which are wounded and fail thier save take one additional wound if they take damage. But this would be a little awkward as a rule.

        • euansmith

          They could give +1S to rear shots, -1S to front shots, +0S to side shots, to even things out. Maybe +1S to shots from the upper floors or ruins/buildings and hilltops.

          • AircoolUK

            Trouble is, that’s bringing back the faffing of nailing down which facing you’re hitting.

            I totally agree that removing armour facing takes a bit out of the game, but perhaps just a simple forward or rear facing would be easier? Or just count the vehicle as being in cover if the shot hits the front facing only (and the vehicle is not already in cover).

          • Joel Fowler

            Also +1 str wouldn’t do much. I’d have front and rear arcs, -1 to saves from the rear. Some tanks like Land Raiders would ignore it.

          • euansmith

            It is a problem with all the weird shapes of vehicles and a lack of coherent bases for vehicles. I guess they could say, draw a notional line across the rear of the vehicle, if the attacking unit is behind this line, they gain a bonus to attacks.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            just sell a template with a big X over it and the centre line marked. Place over vehicle with centre line running front to back. Job done.

          • euansmith

            Genius – and maybe they could use it to determine the radius of blast weapons 😀

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            Novel idea ☺

        • Fergie0044

          Yea I could get behind that. And of course some vehicles (land raiders etc) wouldn’t be affected by this as they’re armoured on all sides.

    • Spacefrisian

      Being able to shoot all weapons from a Russ battletank from 1 random point is indeed silly.

      • Calgar

        Its far better than the days of the Leman Russ sponsons and hull weapons only purpose to decrease the chance your battlecannon is destroyed. Cause they weren’t ever going to kill anything.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          it was the change to Ordnance weapons and Heavy that knackered the Leman Russ. could easily have been sorted but they left it broken for two editions.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        model bendy aerial. Bend down during enemy shooting phase. Bend up and draw line of sight from tip during own shooting phase. Win.

      • Bootneck

        The crucial thing your missing is imagination. By the same token you could say that because an infantry model has his gun pointing a certain direction he can only shoot that way.

        The rule is suppose to represent the vehicle moving/jinking/aligning itself on the spot to engage the target like they would in real life.

        The trouble is people want a nice fluffy artistically posed game with nice models but you cant combine the two with a defined rule set without uncertainty because things like LOS etc will always be invalid or stupid on certain models. Who do you blame ? The designers because they crafted an amazing looking piece or the guys who wrote the rules

        If you want no rules queries – go play chess.

        • UnpluggedBeta

          Adjust points accordingly, keep los and firing arcs.

          All sponsons being able to fire because the tip of a tread is visible from behind a terrain feature is the height of nonsense.

          • Bootneck

            Other than wizzywig and the base/height the rest of it is irreverent. The units datasheet rules are really anyone cares about. It does take the “flavour” way from units making them more generic, but tbh any which makes the game quicker i’m all for. No more messing around with hes not in my arc etc. Split fire for everyone. Choose a unit shoot it move on rinse and repeat.

          • UnpluggedBeta

            I can understand that logic of wanting faster games, but where’s the line?

          • Bootneck

            A very good question. I must admit there are some things i don’t like and others i do. I think just got to roll with it and see where the changes take the game. Biggest overall since 2nd > 3rd imo

    • Zingbaby

      I agreed with you entirely, right up until I played a 30K game the other night and all of that stuff felt clunky and in the way.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        30K felt like a breath of fresh air ti me the other day. 40K now feels like I’m back in the nursery playing smashems with my lego cars.

  • Master Avoghai

    Actually I was asked the interesting question recently : if survivability of the vehicles was the problem, why then not keeping raising their number of HP to a value equal of their current W and remove the damage table?
    Why was it necessary to introduce a T value and a save?

    • Koen Diepen Van

      Simplification. The new edition does away whit all the specific rules for diffrend unit types (mostly) And thus the vechicle rules had to go. I for one am not a fan because it removes the flanking espect from the game

      • Crablezworth

        Agreed

        • LeroyJenkinss

          Disagree. The game is so much more enjoyable now. There is no more rules burden!

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            no tactics burden you mean.

          • UnpluggedBeta

            Why stop there? We can easily remove another three pages if we get rid of those burdensome rules on movement, close combat, and shooting while we’re at it!

      • UnpluggedBeta

        That, changing how cover works, and permanent 360 firing arcs on everything removed flanking from the game.

        Stupid, annoying decision that actively hurts fun.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      change damage table to 2d6 to make explodes less likely would have been my solution.

  • Nicolò Blotto

    Having the “steel behemoth” rule on all vehicles makes sense not just from the rules standpoint, but also for “realism” reason. There’s no way a vehicle can be “stuck” in place by another vehicle, or even by a squad of troops in reality. I know this is Warhammer and realism goes out of the window, but it’s hard to imagine how that Rhino is actually keeping that Land Raider from not firing in my “cinemascope vision” of the battle.

    • OldHat

      …yes there is. You can ram a tank with another tank and they will likely both be stuck. Now just normal dudes… not as much. Unless it clogs the tracks.

      • That’s not how mass works, not for a 30 ton Rhino v a 70 ton Land raider anyway. I can also ram that Land Raider with a Scout Sentinel. It has the same effect.

        • OldHat

          It isn’t about mass. It is about getting in the way. Just look up Soviet tank tactics from WW2. Also… this is a game. EVERYTHING is abstracted.

          • Wow, bit early for shouting where I’m at. It’s inevitable that some abstractions are going to result in absurd situations. It’s disingenuous to argue both the situation isn’t absurd and argue that it’s ok if it’s absurd at the same time.

          • OldHat

            It isn’t shouting. There is no option to bold.

            Also, it isn’t absurd – you said that, not me. I said it is an abstraction of a tactic used in WW2.

          • I think the Sentinel v Land Raider example is absurd, but then absurdity is in the eye of the beholder. In fact, one might even consider it absurd that you accused the Soviets of using “tactics.”

          • UnpluggedBeta

            Whoa, I agree with you about vehicles, but that dig on the Soviets wasn’t called for friendo.

          • Crablezworth

            Yeah the stuff they managed to do with t-34’s to the germans was nothing to sneeze at

          • The T-34 was a great tank available in large numbers. I was mostly joking, but German defeat was inevitable when they failed to take Moscow in 1942.

          • memitchell

            WellSpokenMan, “disingenuous” implies lying or deceit. Not just contradiction. Unless you do mean to impugn another’s character.

          • Disingenuous, as I am using it, means to push an argument that you understand to be wrong. I didn’t use dishonest to avoid the issue of character impugnment.
            That being said, I generally don’t put too much stock in poster’s character on BoLS. What matters to most people on here is what “side” you are on, not the quality of the argument. If the posters here had character you wouldn’t see generalized insults frequently getting the most upvotes. I still come here though, which probably means I’m argumentative or at the very least have masochistic tendencies.

          • Crablezworth

            Which is why it’s objectively worse than prior editions

          • OldHat

            “objectively” AKA your opinion

  • Karru

    Personally, I don’t really like most of the changes that Vehicles went through this edition. The loss of AV, the Damage Table and the Vehicle rules was one thing, but making them into very squishy Monsters is another.

    The problem with vehicles now is that they got a massive price hike while many Infantry units got cheaper either through point reduction to the per model price or their weapon options. Once again, I use the Guard Tanks as my example of the situation. With their massive firepower loss due to most of them being Blasts while still keeping their price relatively same price or increased price, I just can’t justify taking one over multiple Heavy Weapons Squads.

    Most Tanks need to lose no more than 5-6 wounds before their damage table kicks in. For many low BS vehicles, this is a death sentence. A Leman Russ getting reduced to BS 5+ and still getting nothing but D6 shots means it won’t be hitting the broadside of a barn while on the inside.

    The thing is that most Infantry units have multiple “shield models” before the actual firepower starts getting lost. For example, Guard Infantry Squads need to lose no less than 8 models before their Heavy Weapon is getting threatened. “So what is the difference between Vehicles and Infantry in that regard? Vehicles need to lose all their wounds before they stop firing, so it is the same thing right?” Nope. Like I said, Vehicles start to lose effectiveness after losing 5-6 wounds before they start to get crippled. That is one good Lascannon/Missile Launcher shot or 3 successful Autocannon woundings. Meanwhile Infantry requires a successful wound for each model and while Morale can be argued, a smart player takes precautions to avoid this. Since Vehicles can’t be repaired more than once per turn and even then they usually get at most D6 wounds back, they really have no proper way to keep them on the field if the enemy has average loadout of Heavy Weapons.

    The bottom line is that Utility Vehicles are still relatively nice due to the things pointed above and their price is still “pretty low” compared to their heavier counterparts. Meanwhile most Fighting Vehicles, especially those with Blasts, are having a hard time justifying their cost. The biggest losers in that front are armies like Orks and Guard as their Vehicles are BS 5+/4+ and if they have a Blast weapon as one of their weapons, you shouldn’t be expecting too much actual damage happening.

    • Koonitz

      On the other hand, those 8 wounds the infantry need to take can come a lot faster against more opposing weapons. For instance, a few bolter/combi-bolter/storm bolter/heavy bolter shots will shread that infantry squad, but are likely only going to cause a wound or two on that tank. And those weapons are a bit more common.

      There is definitely the “use the right weapon for the job” argument, and I think, overall, you have a valid point. Just thought I’d point that out, just in case.

  • Luca Lacchini

    With the new rules vehicles perform well, but behave inappropriately.
    I know that’s a fine line, but it’s there nonetheless.

    No difference between side sponsons and turrets gives me nightmares. Well, not really, it just bugs me out.
    No facing/differences in T or saves is another thing with a bad feeling.
    The sillyness of a Land Raider that can’t shoot ’cause it’s being pummeled by grots… nope.
    Flamer weapons being able to target fast flying vehicles… another no.

    I understand simplification for vechicles was in order, but having them all behave like Monstruous Createres robbed them of a lot of defining features.
    It’s something – horresco referens – that needs an extra notch or two of complexity.

    • Crablezworth

      I deeply miss fire arcs

      • Joel Fowler

        Firing arcs is the thing I miss. We may see a lot of that bought back in a “Spearhead” set of rules like the Death from the Skies rules in the main book.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Firing arcs are the thing I miss the least. Well no, access points were even worse of a concept…

        • Luca Lacchini

          Even for the sake of simplification, I can’t get my head around the notion that there’s no tabletop difference between a Demolisher cannon mounted on a Vindicator (fixed forward) and one in a Leman Russ turret (360° arc).
          Or that the side sponsons of Land Raider/Predator/Leman Russ/Baneblade/else can fire at targets standing on the opposite side of the tank itself.

          • Koonitz

            While I agree that it’s jarring, you could be reasonable and maintain immersion by splitting fire with these weapons so they fire within their appropriate firing arcs.

            This may, of course, mean you are making sub-optimal choices within the course of the game, but if both players agree to do so to maintain narrative immersion, it may make it more enjoyable for you.

            Personally, I intend to try to maintain firing arcs and maneuver my vehicle where possible to maintain that immersion. If someone is willing to argue that there is no reason to do so because of the new rules, I counter-argue that there is no reason NOT to.

          • Luca Lacchini

            I’m no stranger to “gentlemen’s agreements” or house rules during boardgames (older games had an ungodly amount of grey areas that needed them), but in my experience such things quickly fall apart in competitive situations such as those that arise in wargames – of any sort – even outside the tournements microcosm.
            So I’d rather have a written rule to fall upon: while it may need adjustements and agreements on a case-by-case basis, it’s still there. Even if poorly or vaguely written, the simulationist, reasonable aspect – no matter how small – would still be perceivable.
            Right now, this specific element (or lack of) is a definite factor for suspension of disbelief, even in a futuristic wargame with aliens and psychic superpowers. It’s just that much implausible.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Well this doesn’t bother me the slightest. In a game with up to 100 models on each side I don’t want to be bothered with drawing LoS from each hull mounted bolter individually.

      • memitchell

        The the rise and demise of fire arcs traces back to 0917.M1 with the British Mk I and the French Renault FT, respectively.

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          0917.M2. Relatively current dates in the game use the suffix M41, with relatively few exceptions.

          • memitchell

            I’ll bet you celebrated the new millennium on January 1, 2001. I seen your kind before.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            That’s how dating works.

    • euansmith

      Bonus points for use of “horresco referens”; it would make a great name for horror story teller.

      • Luca Lacchini

        Latin classes still pay out 24 years later. ;-D

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          consensus ad idem

    • Spacefrisian

      Yeah tanks should be able to ride out of combat without issues. Good thing AM has shoot and smoke orders.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        they should also be able to roll over/through an infantry screen. Might be dangerous if the infantry have anti tank weapons, but should be possible. Having a Land Raider shudder to a halt because it bumps into a zombie is ridiculous.

        • Crablezworth

          Amen

  • Dalinair

    Only thing I don’t like about vehicles in this edition is for ground based ones how they cant shoot after leaving combat, seems a bit crazy a cultist can charge a leman russ and stop it from shooting its weapons as it reverses out of combat.

    • AircoolUK

      Likely just a balance issue, otherwise you’d just buy a ton of the cheapest vehicle available and ram & retreat over and over.

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        but instead it encourages people to jam the board with useless but fast units to prevent opponents shooting.

    • Spacefrisian

      Tank commanders, bring them…Shoot and smoke order. Nothing saying you cant use that to loophole like a pro.

      • Kenneth Portner

        How does that address the issue of preventing tanks from shooting by meleeing them?

        • Karru

          It technically does for Guard, but not for everyone.

          The rule he is talking about is the Guard Tank Commander Order “Strike and Shroud!”, which allows you to use one of the GW trademarked oversights to shoot your vehicle after falling back from combat.

          “The ordered model can shoot its weapons and launch its smoke launchers during this phase.”

          Fall Back with your stuck Leman Russ, give it this order and boom, you can shoot.

          • Kenneth Portner

            That order allows the vehicle to pop its smoke launchers and shoot, normally not permitted. It doesn’t say anything about being able to fall back from combat and shoot. So I’m not understanding why you conclude that it permits fall back and shoot.

          • Karru

            Because the rule states you get to shoot your weapon and launch your smoke launchers. The wording is the problem.

            Fall Back states you are not allowed to shoot your weapons. Smoke Launchers can be used instead of shooting your weapons. This rule just states you can shoot, thus it overwrites both the Smoke Launcher rule, as it states in the Order itself, as well as the Fall Back shooting.

            Again, this is just another GW oversight that their huge amount of testing definitely didn’t miss.

            They would have to add extra wording in the end to avoid this situation. “If the model has Fallen Back this turn, it may not shoot its weapons.”

          • Kenneth Portner

            I’m not in the least convinced. You are ignoring the context of the order. The rules have to be read as a whole. And I play AM so there’s no bias here.

          • Karru

            That’s not how these things work. Context has nothing to do with the way the rule “works” when it comes to very bad wording.

            Just for your information, I think that this is extremely stupid, but unfortunately it is how these things work. It is a rule loophole that can be exploited by the more annoying members of the hobby. I would never use this rule this way.

        • Zingbaby

          Keep in mind a vehicle can only do this ONCE.

          EDIT: oops wrong reply, but yeah the smoke trick can only be done once. After the smoke launchers are used (once) that’s it for the rest of the game.

      • Kenneth Portner

        Except that your interpretation of the order is patently unreasonable ……

      • Defenestratus

        I really, really hope I never play against you in a game of 40k.

        Actually, I hope I never cross your path in person. Ever.

        I’m afraid that the taint of insanity would rub off on me and I’d have to commit myself to the care of the state mental institutions.

        • UnpluggedBeta

          Wow, that’s a little harsh just for a wonky interpretation of poorly worded rules man.

      • Zingbaby

        You can do that exactly once though. Smoke launchers are one-and-done.

  • AircoolUK

    I guess the problem with different facing armour values is that because the vehicle can fire in any direction, you’d have to assume that at some point it would expose its weaker armour.

    Perhaps at some point they’ll bring out some ‘advanced rules’ for vehicles…

    …preferably with a large road system, cars with Gunz and call it Dark Future or something 🙂

    • Spacefrisian

      Like weapons and firearc and +1 to wound when facing the rear? Like Bolt Action?

  • Graham Bartram

    No vehicle facings, no vehicle fire arcs, vehicle fire screwed by repeated charges, flyers hit by flamers, plasma is now more unstable at night, and we have range for overwatch (seriously daft considering the chargers are running into the fire zone). Well I can see a few bits of 8th I’m not too happy with. It’s OK though, because my opinion must be wrong, they did two and a half years of play-testing after all…. ..apparently. :/

    • Spacefrisian

      The 9“ thing for flyers should be brought back, stops silly flamers from hitting them.

      • There are other auto hit weapons with more range.

        • Defenestratus

          Like my Hemlock’s heavy d-scythe which ironically makes it a better flyer killer than its cousin, the crimson hunter – whose sole purpose is supposedly shooting down other flyers.

          • I was thinking supper schorcha.
            My preference so far is really anything that does a lot of damage. Kannons doing D6 damage are amazing…if they hit…if it gets through… that’s a lot of if’s.

          • Koonitz

            I believe Forge World has a rule with their super-heavy flyers that all weapon ranges suffer a -12″ when measuring distance, meaning the weapon must have a minimum 13″ range to hit the flyer.

            I feel this would be a simple addition to make to one of the flyer special rules.

          • Horus84cmd

            That rule is there to delineate the difference between small and large flyers; and the higher heights they generally fly at.

          • The issue I have with range rules like that is based on the number of flyers available. wasn’t there just a tournament list with lots and lots of flyers in it? I don’t think that kind of thing needs an extra buff by being even more difficult to play against. So I’m happy with flamer weapons the way they are.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            6 Damage per turn versus up to 18 per turn, with rerolls to Hit for the Exarch, making it effectively BS 10, and rerolls to Wound Flying models, kinda makes that better flyer-killer argument a little weak.

      • Graham Bartram

        It’s an easy fix, and I agree.

    • Defenestratus

      Shhh you heretic. You cannot cross paths with the community groupthink that believes wholeheartedly that 8th is better than 7th.

      • Zingbaby

        Ehhhh… 8th is better than 7th, and not because it’s good, but because 7th, like most editions of 40k was a total mess. 8th is a new mess, still better.

        • Defenestratus

          7th was only a mess when played by adult children with no ability to restrain their inner jerk.

          AKA, the entire “competitive” community.

          • Karru

            Or when you played any of the non-top armies. Even with the casual crowd, many of the old armies were forced to mono-lists, as taking “varied” lists meant losing as many of the units were just that bad.

            I played Orks and Infantry Guard in 7th edition. I also played SM and Eldar. What I noticed was that my SM and Eldar lists would, pretty much no matter how silly, would do great each and every time. In the meantime, my Ork and Guard lists were mediocre at best if I decided to go off my usual list of “strong” units.

            None of the players, including me, in my group are highly competitive when we play together unless someone specifically requests it from their opponent.

            8th edition allows for much more varied lists. I can finally use units that were laying in my shelves for too long. Ogryns, Bullgryns, Ratlings, Kommandos and so on.

          • Zingbaby

            Haha, well I totally, 100% agree with you – however I’d say 8th is still better and really only fails when played by those same ‘adult children’.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            depends what you want from a game. I like depth and tactics. I didn’t really care that some formations weren’t balanced because no-one I play with is a habitual arsehat (though obviously balance is better). Gentleman’s agreements and communication solved almost all the problems of 7th.

            Now we have a game written for the Tournament crew, a predictable game which generates no arguments about templates and scatter and facings and which purports to have balance. And its as dull as hell.

          • Zingbaby

            I mostly agree, 7th with reasonable human beings was a fine game, but even then Eldar were always going to win.

            The “I like depth and tactics” argument is the same thing people said about AoS, and they were wrong. It just has different depth and tactics, no more stupid blocks of troops but it was far less about “net-lists” and more about table-top tactics than WHFB – 8th edition isn’t totally there yet, but I’ve yet to find anyone who thinks it’s dull and while the armies are still not fully balanced it is less about the list than in previous editions.

            If by “depth and tactics” you just mean ‘lists’ well ok, but I personally wanted the game played on the table and not on the army-builder, so I’m more than fine with this.

          • UnpluggedBeta

            I haven’t played AoS; does it have maneuver warfare?

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            If you count everyone charging into the table centre a manoeuvre…

          • UnpluggedBeta

            Ah, too bad. I was curious because I heard they have points now; is there any strategy aside from general’s handbook list building?

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            From the games I’ve watched it depends on the mission.

            Used to be true that a degree of manoeuvres was built into 40k regardless of scenario due to advantages of rear shots etc. Now its same as Aos. Perfectly possible to play now and win without moving with shooty army.

          • UnpluggedBeta

            You just depressed the hell out of me, Christ.

          • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

            30k is still good!

          • Zingbaby

            I’d say try it for yourself, a lot of bs on the intertubes.

            AoS has plenty of strategy and it’s not just based on dumb blocks of troops. I mean if that was your bag then cool, but the game is plenty strategic, same with 8th edition.

          • Zingbaby

            That’s just not at all accurate, at least for 40k. I haven’t played AoS again since the new shooty dwarves.

            Movement is king in 8th.

          • Koonitz

            Don’t play all melee armies in a “Kill the enemy” scenario and that won’t happen as often as everyone seems to cry about. If you and a squad of guys with swords and shields face off against a squad of blood thirsty killers with improvised melee weapons, what do you think is going to happen in reality?

            Note that “draw them into a choke point” is a perfectly valid tactic in AoS too, if you have the terrain to support it, because melee weapons have range (usually 1-2″).

      • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

        surprised and happy to see this article here actually, BoLS starts to feel like the State newspaper of the GW Party after a while.

  • badmojo1966

    We already have a house rule that any hits to the rear of a vehicle are 1 worse for the armour save. It encourages flanking maneuvers and the person takes more care of the vehicles rear. Also in the fight phase we treat any pintle mounted weapon as a pistol. ie It can fire into close combat. You could even allow sponson weapons to fire but only hitting on a 6? This helps clear the rabble which I think you really should be able to either drive over the top of, or reverse back and blast them.

    • I like that. Great use of a houserule.

    • Zingbaby

      The armour facings and sponson rules of old, despite being more realistic, I am so happy to leave behind and I didn’t realize that until I played 30K after several games of 8th.

      However your house rule with -1 Armour save for Rear shots is brilliant, consider that stolen!

  • Defenestratus

    The whole ruleset of 8th is a silly farce.

    I purposely position my tanks and flyers backwards just to illustrate a point.

    • Marc Berry

      Yeah it’s very silly

    • memitchell

      You could have done that with Land Raiders in the last edition. Or, any vehicle with the same all-around armor factor. But, I’m sure your making the tabletop look absurd really drives home your disdain. You should turn your tanks and flyers upsidedown, too.

      • Koonitz

        Don’t forget those monstrous creatures that could always be facing whatever direction they wanted.

        And those non-vehicle, non-monster models (ie: infantry). Best make sure your entire army is facing backwards. They would be upside down, too, but wobbly model syndrome, so I have them facing up, but they are actually upside down.

    • Koonitz

      I too like being facetious and ruining the fun and immersion for my opponent to drive a point he likely doesn’t care about home.

      No, wait. No I don’t.

      • UnpluggedBeta

        I’m with you, but I think this is a case of the guy wanting other people to start caring about the point by intentionally demonstrating how ridiculous it is.

    • The Basement Gamer

      That’ll teach them!

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      haha must try that at a GW!

  • KingAceNumber1

    I’d love to have separate T values for each vehicles facing. It wouldn’t have been hard to implement. I also miss LoS being drawn from the gun itself. I highly approve of vehicles catching the same overall template as everything else, but they could have added just a bit more complexity.

    • Marc Berry

      Could alway houserule all vehicles use the Los from the weapons

  • Defenestratus

    I have high hopes.

    Prepare to be disappointed.

  • Horus84cmd

    HAHAHA. Love it. Bloody hilarious. Plenty of people complain for years that vehicles should have T, W and Sv and function MORE in line with everything else in the game. Vehicles get given all this and people complain that the don’t have Av and function more inline with everything else.

    http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1231ce3e644f437f7d27e3513495eb7976b93070a9ae80600aaa94034166024d.jpg

    • Karru

      It is the usual “can’t satisfy everyone” situation. Those that were crying out that they want this system are now silent while those that didn’t want this are now loud.

      • Horus84cmd

        True enough. Still the funniest of things ahahhaha

    • Mira Bella

      Could it be that we (People on the internet) not all share the same opinions?

      Also, People criticise that there is no Bonus for shooting the rear of a vehicle. Nobody said this could not be done with wounds imstead of AV values.

      • Koonitz

        There was a house rule someone mentioned using previous in this comment section where a vehicle suffers -1 saves against rear arc shots against it.

        It’s a nice, clean and simple method that utilizes mechanics already existing in the new edition.

        • Mira Bella

          Good mechanic.
          As you say simple and clean.
          Should have been in the rulebook.

      • Horus84cmd

        Does not make the complaining any less laughable.

        • Mira Bella

          Yes because any complaining about a Product that you consider Perfect is laughable.
          Got it.

          I actually thought you are quite a likable Guy.
          But with 8th the only thing you keep doing is telling other People that their concern about whatever is invalid because you don’t Share it.
          That my friend is laughable.
          It’s like you enjoy your Hobby less, because some random Person does not share your opinion, that literally everything is awesome.

          Breaking News.
          Whatever you like, I guarantee you there is at least one Person on the net who hates it with a passion.

          I haven’t the faintest idea why this is bothering you so much that you feel the need to reply to every single comment that doesn’t praise 8th as the best thing since sliced bread.

          • Horus84cmd

            http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d345ef9e09b6bc4551afbb1d0f13d18515e1888e388d91d82add6dcb8202007.jpg

            Hmm well god-dawg-it you’ve gone a told me….feel better?

            There’s just so much irony in gamers throwing the toys out of the pram; or simply not being able to read/comprehend correctly.

          • Mira Bella

            Dude all I wanted to tell you is that all that commenting is useless.
            That you rather should spend your time doing something productive like painting models writing fluff for your army or whatever. 🙂
            Your comments won’t change anyone’s opinion, just like mine won’t change your opinion.
            All this is wasted time.
            There is no war to win here. (Other then on the tabletop)
            No opinions to sway.

            I think from what if read that you are not an unreasonable guy.
            I bet we could have a blast playing whatever tabletop game against each other.
            Neither of us is super competitive and we are both interested in giving our opponent a good time too.

            I have been on this site daily for the last 10 years.
            So there is a large chance that I read almost every single comment you ever posted here.
            My feeling is that you are not as positive as you used to be.
            Pretty much all your recent comments have reply’s to people “attacking” 8th edition.
            Why don’t you tell us about your positive experiences with it instead! Tell us about the cool games and cinematic moments.
            This is how you further the hobby.

            I’m not looking for a fight with you Horus.
            I’m not angry or anything.
            I’m just a little sad about the fact that even usually level headed members of our community, are now starting pointless internet fights.

            I would be crushed if Euansmith would start to randomly insult people BolS. 😀

          • Horus84cmd

            Seems to bother you much more than it bothers me…anyhow I’m off to continue, as you say, “attacking people” that talk about 8th…Toodle-pip.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      Fair comment, but things are complicated and nuanced.

      I was one of the people advocating these changes, but it has been carried out so ineptly that the result is bad.

      They should have kept (but modified) the damage chart, added a chart for MCs, had different toughnesses for different facings (or a generic -1T side -2T rear which could be changed by a special rule for Land Raiders etc) and added an armour save for vehicles.

      I approve of M, I like the loss of access points, I like Wounds, I like T. But the end result to these present rules is the loss of ‘feel’ and tactics. Tanks don’t feel like tanks any more and the game is far less tactical.

      • Horus84cmd

        TBH it’s early days and a big departure from what people are used to. It will be interesting to see how people feel in a few months or even a years time as more codex’s and the such come out. Once they’ve gotten their armies and minds around the best tactics for using these kinds of units.

    • UnpluggedBeta

      If it was implemented in a way that improved things for everyone then you probably would have seen massive praise from both crowds. You see a lot of examples of this in Warmahordes land these days; sometimes they get it right and everyone decides that it was great despite their initial misgivings.

      I’m sure there are plenty of examples in GW land; the one that stands out to me is the nerf to relative character power levels from 2nd to 3rd edition 40k.

  • Marc Berry

    A good house rule would be infantry keyword cannot ‘tie up anything with the ‘vehicle’ keyword in close combat and the vehicle is free to move in the following movement phase

  • LunaWolf

    The inability to back out of combat has been huge so far. Ork Trukks keeping Land Raiders and Predators from shooting for several turns.

    • Koonitz

      Now, I’m not sure about the Ork trukk, but this would be a good example as to why the Rhino doubled in points cost. In addition to its survivability, its utility vastly increased.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    In every batrep I’ve watched so far, Vehicle-heavy lists, with cheap support infantry, dominate. As such, I’m content with how the changes to vehicles have impacted the game, and I’m glad I can play an Armoured Company-style list without any serious disadvantage, provided of course I take the right tools for the job (I.E.: volume-fire tanks, like Punishers, Stormlords, Land Raiders Crusader and the like, for dealing with Infantry, Damage Queens like Land Raiders, Demolishers, Achilles, etc., for answering Tanks and Monsters, all backed up by stuff that likes to fight).

  • Commissar Molotov

    Looks like I ain’t the only one who doesn’t like vehicles being reduced to sacks of meat on wheels.

  • Michael Garrett

    how about every time a model with more than 10 wounds flys over enemy models, that unit may overwatch, but counts as moving for the purpose of shooting. just a thought.

  • Danny Carr

    I think vehicles are a bit too weak atm, I think GW underestimated how much damage d3 and d6 weaponry would actually cause to vehicles. Fighting against Imperial Guard while using vehicles can be painful, heavy weapons teams hurt now and there’s a decent number of them to the extent they will wreck a vehicles effectiveness or even wipe a vehicle per turn if there’s enough of them or the guy rolls lucky enough times.

    I feel armour values been gone and the vehicles having the same statline as everything else could work, if the vehicles were harder to damage. A whole tactical layer also went with firing arcs and damage taken from the sides and backs all going. I think making vehicles tougher, bringing back firing arcs and increased damage or re-rolls to hits or wounds to the sides and rear would help make vehicles more interesting.

  • Ronin

    Wow at all the grumbling. I thought everyone wanted vehicle rules to be simpler and more in line with monstrous creatures and now that we have that, we want to go back? OK, well if gw decides to put vehicle facings and firing arcs back, I demand the same treatment on monstrous creatures too. 😉

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      MCs not having arcs and facings is one of the things that makes/made them feel different to vehicles, but I would have liked to see a damage chart for MCs, representing the fact they can be blinded, headshot, lose a leg or arm etc.

  • UnpluggedBeta

    It doesn’t make any sense that they vehicles can’t fire weapons in close combat; they need to change that asap.