New Warhammer 40,000: Vehicles

They're running out of material , this is literally nothing we don't already know.

>>53303925
To be fair some of this we only knew due to the unofficial leaks.

And those leaks turned out to be wrong on a whole bunch of things, so getting confirmation on this was good.

holy fuck chaos rhinos with destroyers blade

>>53303925
yeah... wish they had shown us full datasheets instead of this bullshit simple statline. Also, they mention ork vehicle upgrades, but then didn't bother putting them on a list to show how that would work.

File: 1494866716807.jpg (85KB, 1024x812px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1024x812px

>melee for vehicles
>deffrollaz are strong again
>wrekkin ballz not going to be useless shit

IT'Z SMASHIN' TIME BOIZ

If vehicles have attacks and can charge, does this mean my orks can finally 9/11 some imperial knights in their dakka jets

File: 94788659.jpg (17KB, 185x273px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 185x273px

>Fighting vehicles
>Marine constantly backing up his rhino so he can keep smashing it into the enemy

>>53303904
So... does that mean vehicles can get locked in combat and have to fall back to get out of it, or no?

>>53304000
Yes to both it would seem.

I hope that disembarking becomes 360 degrees if it isnt we are gona se alot of chimeras/rhinos driving backwards.

File: tfw commissar.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>53303904
Where were you on the day that you could finally drive closer to hit them with your sword?

>>53303973
The thought is very appraling I must admit.
Nothing like smashing a flyer into a Titan.

"Sir, the enemy land raider is charging us!"

"WELL THEN FIX BAYONETS TROOPER!"

File: By-the-throne.jpg (78KB, 500x660px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x660px

>>53304065

>>53303973
>9/11 some imperial knights
fucking kek

>>53303904
If they updated the custom vehicle design rules, I might actually get back in.

File: _Ladies_Show__by_limey404.jpg (76KB, 800x629px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x629px

>>53304016
Or it could work like it currently does where they drive forward and then do the free 180/90 spin to put the squad wherever.

>>53304101
>>53303973
Would be fucking cool if orks actually had rules for their bommers that allows you to kamikaze if you run out of bombs.

>>53303945
>Zerkers running people over with Destroyer Blades and charging out of the Rhino to rape face with Chainaxes.

Khorne approves

>>53304084
>>53304065
I know it's a valid term, but I never liked "fix" as much as "affix." It feels like one of those "should of" and "diamond dozen" type of things.

File: Drive Me Closer!.jpg (53KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 604x483px

>>53303973
>can finally 9/11 some imperial knights in their dakka jets
>implying that isn't the strategy of all Ork flyboyz
I mean, most Ork aircraft are armored like a Land Raider (compared to real aircraft), so having the same tactics as their counterparts in space isn't that surprising.

>>53304035
>Where were you on the day that you could finally drive closer to hit them with your sword?
Or the Ork version:
"GET ME CLOSAH SO I CAN HIT 'EM WID ME CHOPPA!'

>>53304035
I wonder if dozer blades will help in melee?

>>53304121
No, all planes get the ability to vector strike, but Ork planes have to roll to see if they explode due to shitty piloting skills.

>>53304124
I love the visual though I doubt transports can drop troops the same turn the charge. Next turn though...

>>53304121
in apocalypse they do.

>>53304065
> Your tanks can now fix their bayonets too

File: 57628.png (46KB, 317x266px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 317x266px

>>53304154

>>53304164
with how it works in Aos, the KO airships can drop off a unit during the Hero phase, then move and fight normally for the rest of the turn, same with the disembarking unit.

just sigmar my shit up senpai

>tanks now have a general toughness instead of armor values

This is the only thing I don't like about this. making proper use of positions and your frontal armor was a nice thing and a bit realistic.

File: 1493828662778.gif (1016KB, 640x432px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 640x432px

>>53304136
>I wonder if dozer blades will help in melee?
Well, if the rams and Deff Rollas on Ork Trukks and battlewagons help in melee...

Dozer blades theoretically should do the same for IG.

Also, I'm pretty sure an Ork Speed Freek army just became a Tau's worst nightmare.

File: 749456431_preview_squig_run.gif (501KB, 489x358px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 489x358px

>>53303904
>no hint at what they will talk about tomorrow

brace for release date announcement

File: +cheeki+breeki+.png (336KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 750x600px

>>53304035
>>53304132
You an me, fellas. You and me.

File: razorback 5.jpg (123KB, 1000x606px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x606px

>Play 40k
>Walk in store
>Play demo games Dark vengeance
>Marines vs Marines
>Look at every table in store
>Marines vs Marines
>Start playing guard
>every time I go to play is Marines vs Marines except my games
>See 30k
>Obviously its Marines vs Marines
>Decide to try AoS
>Lots of stormcast but at least 8/10 games are against different armies

Why even have other races in 40gay?

>>53304196
You know it to be true.

Heldrakes, on the other hand, get a re-roll to wound when vector striking, but if they fail to cause any wounds, they suffer a wound instead.

>>53304214
It wouldn't surprise me if a dozer blade is just a melee weapon of sorts now.

File: 1495056521837.gif (2MB, 445x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 445x250px

>>53304084
Send in Fabius Bile.

>>53304200
You might be able to before charging but definitely not after charging. Maybe some vehicles with special rules, but now that you just need to be in one inch to engage that would be very strong.

Though if you can disembark while the rhino is engaged it might be worth charging with zerkers or the like still on board, waiting a turn for that combat then bailing out and joining the fray.

We'll just need to see how that all shakes out.

>>53304238
>brace for release date announcement
They did mention after the DEldar announcement they'll be talking about those silly Imperial Knights tomorrow (why they need their own Faction Focus is beyond me).

>>53304265
I think it will depend on how move through cover works, or if it's in the game at all.

So, as a person who is only just now getting into 40k, does this mean I can hide troops behind a cheap transport, let the vehicle charge and take any overwatch shots, then charge my own troops in after their overwatch is spent? Or is overwatch unlimited against all charges made that turn?

>>53303904
>facebook's comment section full of questions about transports
>just wait for their own article :^)

WHY THE FUCK WEREN'T TRANSPORT INFOS INCLUDED IN THIS ONE TO BEGIN WITH?!

>>53304255
>poor little guard-boy.jpg

>>53304293
new overwatch is unlimited until somebody makes it in

>>53304285

For all those fuckers that bought 3-5 of them to get their peens hard.

>still no Ork faction spotlight

Are you even trying GW, what's this Dark Eldar shit. Who cares

>>53304301
To be fair, they still have at least about 2 weeks to fill in before the earliest rumored release date.

>>53304292
I doubt it will be. There's a bunch of people hailing the decision to treat vehicles like everything else because the old vehicle rules confused them so I'd imagine GW will remove any special impact of moving through cover because the rules were "too confusing".

>>53304315
Well, that's just fucking ridiculous.

i don't understand the attack stat, how does it work ?

>>53304350
I'm not really sure how many more rules they can cover in two weeks unless they start doing more lore spotlights or talk about mission types.

File: 1430792046188.jpg (271KB, 1200x943px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1200x943px

>>53304255
>No Tau or Eldar
Sounds like a nice meta.

But seriously I don't know how common that kind of meta is. My relatively small meta is something like this:
Marines - Salamanders
Marines - Chaos
Renegades w/ CSM alies
Imperial guard / Imperial Knights
Tau
Eldar
Demons Nurgle

Expanded meta
Orks, Orks, Necrons, Tau

Some people even want to play tyranids but can't get over the currant rules

>>53304293
>does this mean I can hide troops behind a cheap transport, let the vehicle charge and take any overwatch shots, then charge my own troops in after their overwatch is spent?
seems so, but the vehicle would need to actually complete the charge

>>53304213
Yeah, vehicles being able to attack at close range is cool and all but i don't see the point of no weakspots in the side or rear in a tanks.

Drop pods can now fight in close combat. With... their doors?

*WHAPWHAPWHAPWHAP*

Goodbye Daemon Prince

>>53304371
Well, no. It just stops you from using a cheap little unit from soaking all the shots and then running in with the big boys. Now, if that cheap little unit does make it, then the enemy is locked in CC and can't overwatch anymore.

>>53304376
Same way it has worked always.

>>53304438
It's possible they have an Attack stat of 0

>>53304438
>Drop pods can now fight in close combat. With... their doors?

It has a storm bolter/missile launcher on it, doesn't it?

>>53304438
Drop pods might have 0 attacks but can still fire their storm bolter while engaged or some shit.

>>53304118
I like the idea of a rhino drifting into battle.

>>53304439
>Same way it has worked always.

sorry i didn't precise, i'm very new to the 40k game so i don't know how it worked on 7e

>>53304466
>>53304438

What controls a drop pod's gun and doors? is it a servo skull inside? or the machine spirit itself

I hope Sentinels will be able to stomp on people.

>>53304438
The mental image of a drop pod smashing someone repeatedly very fast with its door is hilarious I must say.

>>53304478
It's the base number of attacks you get in assault.

>>53304426
>Yeah, vehicles being able to attack at close range is cool and all but i don't see the point of no weakspots in the side or rear in a tanks.
I suspect part of it had to do with vehicles like Land Raiders having all around armor of 14 while other factions had a front armor of 13 AT BEST.

Mildly unfair and lopsided toward one faction in the vehicle department, to be honest. This balances things out so a Space Marine vehicle is just as vulnerable to destruction as, say, an Ork vehicle (depending on how the wounds are dealt out anyway).

File: NANI.png (161KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 640x360px

>>53304470
N-NANI?!

*Eurobeat blaring in the distance*

>>53304426
Because real tanks don't have them?

>>53304438
Well, they've been capturing objectives for an entire edition. This is just an extension.
>the little drop pod that could

>>53304511
It's like that Junji Ito manga with the tree that smashes people into paste if they drink its honey. Or the whomping willow from harry potter.

Walking past the thing as Dark Apostle Grimballs gets driven into the ground like whack-a-mole

>>53304532
AV14 was in no way some massively unfair advantage. Sure you had to actually have a few lascannons or melta guns to deal with it, but it's not like the game was dominated by marine lists spamming land raiders.

>>53304452
>Drop pods can now fight in close combat. With... their doors?
Yes, It offers the opponents free candy and Dakka if only they come inside and take it. Then as they enter it slams the doors shut, crushing the fools.
>Drop pods are all giant venus fly traps now.

>>53304613
That's actually smart. The storm bolter is on the ceiling on the inside.

>>53304613
Can total imagine a Chaos drop pod doing this...
TO ITS OWN TROOPS NO LESS.

Tainted machine spirits man. Can't trust the fuckers.

>no mention about flyers
goddammit i just wanna know if i can spend 205 pontoloons on a marauder and not have to suffer it getting chopped up by orks in melee
>>53304016
this is a valid concern, aside from losing the hull mounted heavy bolter there really isn't a mayor drawback
>>53304541
>flamer squad drifting in
>NIGHT OF FIRE

>>53304639
The Dreadclaw was known for doing shit like this during the heresy, actually. That's why the loyalists stopped using them. They behave like regular drop pods when traitor legions used them though.

>>53304559
>Tanks have the same armor thickness all around

File: 004.png (231KB, 800x1229px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 800x1229px

>>53304438

>>53304532
my main gripe was the bullshit shooting side armor at a +45° angle and getting a lower thickness than shooting the front in a 90° angle which was counter intuitive if you know anything at all about armor pen irl
the landraider was good for this reason but i don't see it as an unfair advantage

>>53304758
well, angling isnt going to help very much, since in warhammer the XBOX hueg shells are going to overmatch your thin side armor

A reminder that with the absence of Tank Shock, Grots can now moveblock Land Raiders. Did you really want that Land Raider to waste its Godhammer Lascannons trying to be able to move again?

File: Carnifex_1.png (1MB, 928x1281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 928x1281px

>>53304796
>mfw

that seems like an incredibly huge oversight

>>53304678
That's what I thought. Thank you for confirming that.

>>53304670
>The Dreadclaw was known for doing shit like this during the heresy, actually.
That's what I was thinking of. I'd say that the Dreadclaws had some ancient Abominable Intelligence fragments in place of machine spirits if the Dreadclaws weren't friendly to the Traitor legions.

On a side note: if Abaddon's little stunt causes any Men of Iron/AI-controlled ships that might be drifting around the galatic core to reactivate... the Imperium's in for a bad time.

>>53304796
>A reminder that with the absence of Tank Shock
>checks article
>"which effectively replaces the Tank Shock rules"
Oh zog me you're right!
CONGRATULATIONS GROTS! YA JUST GOT PROMOTED FROM MINEFIELD-CLEARING TA TANK-BLOCKING! 'AVE FUN YA SCRAWNY GITZ!

I find it sad how the annihilation barge is less tanky than a dreadnought in every regard. It may move fast but if its current weapons don't become relativly better in the new edition I can see the small necron tanks not recieving use for a while yet.

>>53304783
1-2 AV diffrence is hardly thin

So, with a general, low A stat and most shit like Stomp being gone, are big walkers still fucked in melee?
I mean, three swings with a reaper will fuck up whatever it hits, but the other marines in the unit won't care much.

>>53304214
In b4 boyz still suck, so the best ork army is just minimum sized mobs of boyz in melee equipped trucks driving around while the boyz yell from the back, not even disembarking to assault.

>>53304439
>It just stops you from using a cheap little unit from soaking all the shots and then running in with the big boys. Now, if that cheap little unit does make it, then the enemy is locked in CC and can't overwatch anymore.
Why should cannon fodder be useful in 40k? That'd make marine's lack of cannon fodder a weakness. Can't have that.

>>53304796
It can just move out of combat on it's turn if you don't have that No Retreat rule like Wytches. Can't shoot after unless it has the Fly tav, but it's not locked in.

>>53304910
>So, with a general, low A stat and most shit like Stomp being gone, are big walkers still fucked in melee?
>I mean, three swings with a reaper will fuck up whatever it hits, but the other marines in the unit won't care much.
Well, we haven't seen the rules for Walkers yet (unless I missed one), it's too early to tell.

>>53304951
>Why should cannon fodder be useful in 40k? That'd make marine's lack of cannon fodder a weakness. Can't have that.
>implying marines need cannon fodder for their faction
Silly anon, that's what Guardsmen are for!

>>53304275
if it works like AOS, it'll be hard to disembark after getting into combat: disembarking units have to be placed more than 3" from an enemy model.

>>53304318
C'mon anon, they're obviously saving the best for last.

>>53304796
I mean I'm assuming gargantuan creatures were already blocked by units right? One grot standing in the way of a Wraithknight makes even less sense than a grot in the way of a land raider

So from the DE article yesterday, was the writer being a fucking idiot and implying that it'd be smart to charge a raider dull of Wytches into combat without disembarking them so that you could shoot with their pistols on your next turn?

Or, and hear me out here, can units in open-topped transports fight and be targeted in combat (but not overwatch) like chariots currently do? Giving you a reason to jam a raider in and stick around to fire pistols next turn?
Cause Orks and Dark Eldar would become one million times cooler

>>53304796
Disembark Terminators, unload their (rumored to be Assault 3) stormbolters, the Land Raider's own stormbolter and its Heavy 6 heavy bolter and some other guns you can spare.
Meanwhile, use your four lascannon shots to fry multiple tanks.
Charge the blob with Terminators and Land Raider if need be.

File: IMG_2814.jpg (60KB, 1000x175px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1000x175px

>>53305001
Well, we know the Stormsurge and its ten weapons it can fire even when retreating from melee.
Also, we've already seen the Morkanaut's profile.

>>53305064
They literally say you can shoot pistols from an open transport that's in melee.

File: SometimesChangeOnlyTakesYouFurtherFromPerfection.jpg (25KB, 255x351px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 255x351px

>>53304439
>Same way it has worked always.
You mean since 3e.

>>53304796
You could occasionally use them for something similar anyhow, since tank shock means they have to travel in a straight line. This meant they couldn't turn around a corner or more importantly turn between moving and disembarking. It's come in handy in a couple cityfight games at least for me. Four grots and a slaver block a street so that the land raider can't get to the end of the street, and turn to disgorge the assault terminators onto the objective, held by another grot mob.

>>53303916
>stats but none of the special rules or weapon info

Goddamnit tell me what living metal and shielding does now.

>>53304613
Ah, yes. The Venus Drop pod. The newest trick in the book.

>>53305001
>Silly anon, that's what Guardsmen are for!
Thematically appropriate, I'll take it.
Hoping 8th nips this allies-without-a-real-downside thing in the bud a bit though.

>>53305191
Yes exactly. My question is can the pistol firing unit actually fight in the fight phase while inside? Or does the writer really think I'm going to use a boat full of Wytches to fire their pistols in combat instead of just disembarking, charging with them and potentially the transport, and still getting to fire pistols in combat anyways? Cause if that's his example of DE excelling, I'm scared.

>>53304796
But couldn't the Land Raider also move farther by attacking the grots? That's pretty nice too.

>>53305286

>Hoping 8th nips this allies-without-a-real-downside thing in the bud a bit though.

It sounds like that's the idea behind the keyword system, with certain buffs only affecting members of the same faction. They want to stop some of the excessive ally cheese.

>>53303904

Has there been any word on if vehicles have a lower toughness if being shot in the rear armour?

>>53305305
They probably can't fight, but they also can't be attacked. It's not exactly amazing, but the Raider is presumably harder than Wyches and can easily disengage with its, again, presumably greater movement. I can see some use in that.
But, honestly, it's probably of bigger value to Warriors in gunboat mode that get jumped by some unit and need to stave off the opponent for a bit until the transport can disengage.

File: CUM56fnWoAADBg1.jpg (15KB, 600x608px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x608px

>>53305418
>rear armour

>>53305418
Are you stupid?

>>53305418
Facings are gone.

>>53305160
I was referring more to special rules for Walkers like Stomp and such, but fair point.

>>53305418
>Has there been any word on if vehicles have a lower toughness if being shot in the rear armour?
Based on what we know so far, no. Toughness is the same all around. I'd be very surprised if rear armor does have a lower toughness, since it'd be something they would've mentioned in when they first announced armor was being replaced by toughness.

So no, you can't shoot a Dreadnought in the ass and it'll go down because you shot it in the 2nd most embarrassing location on its body.

>>53305418
no

everything is a monstrous creature now

>>53304951
But they are? You just can't have a single ripper charge a Guard blob and take all the lasgun shots to the face, so that they big monsters can come in unmolested. Now your cannon fodder units have to actually make it into contact with the enemy to negate their Overwatch. That is, if the rule will work like we think.

>>53304559
What tanks are you talking about?

>>53303916
Well passengers shooting pistols out of open-topped transports while engaged makes a lot more sense.

I'm also also kinda amused by the prospects of a trukk full of boyz just plowing straight into an enemy squad while blazing away with sluggas.

File: IMG_0341.jpg (166KB, 1010x1024px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1010x1024px

If you want armor facings just houserule -1 T for the sides and -2 T for the rear. We won't really know if it's gone for good until we get the actual rules. Sucks if it is though, since that rewarded flanking vehicles.

>>53305476
>>53305475
And good riddance. The only thing about facings that'll be a shame to see gone is the Imperial Knights' shield mechanic.

>>53305530
And now it rewards flanking by being able to tie them down in melee by surrounding them and thus restricting their movements.

>>53305541
They now have a 4++ all sides all the time

>>53304584
Wasn't that because a) landraiders didn't do that much damage to be a combat tank and b) the threat of grav turning your landraider into a 250pt paperweight was too great.

>>53304657
We know that 8th ed has rules for the fly keyword. I.e. they can fall back and still shoot. Even if your flyer gets charged, you can just leave combat and carry on shooting.

>>53305636
that was for a battlesuit though
hardly the same thing as a 7th ed flyer

>>53305444
I assume you're right honestly. I just can't believe that was an example of how DE have improved.

>>53305528
>Speed Freaks vs Wytch Cults
>Vehicles racing all over the board
>Ramming each other
>Then making boarding actions
Please GDubs. Please.

>>53305582
Sure, but that's boring. I enjoyed the hard choices the old system forced you into.
>Do I protect my left, where there's a Vanquisher?
>On my front there's a few lascannons. Might be more sonsible to guard against multiple hits.
>Or do I guar my rear against deepstriking meltas I know are waiting in the wing?

>>53304996
The point is the Grots move 1.1" away from said Land Raider. (Or it could be anything else. Eldar Jetbikes are the most likely candidate), while also blocking transport exits. The Land Raider's only choice is to charge, where it most likely misses. The Grots move back and continue jamming your overpriced WHFB chariot.

>>53304657
>>53305649
Flyers have their own FOC slot. Given they'll all be specifically designated as a result I'm sure they'll have a number of special rules to handle that stuff.

Fly is pretty generic though. I suspect skimmers will have it too at least. Otherwise why wouldn't they have called it "Jet Pack" or something?

>>53304678
They do. The weak point on an Abrams tank is it's underside and to a lesser extent it's tracks.

WWII era tanks had weaker armor facings.

File: 99120103012_TrukkNEW02.jpg (59KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x620px

>>53305662
Boarding Plank's time to shine.

>>53304865
The annihilation barge is 11 av on all sides base in 7th. That's rhino levels of toughness.

They'll probably have quantum shielding as part of their special rules.

>>53305670
I don't disagree although the shield was annoying as it changed during the enemy shooting phase making maneuvering around it impossible requiring you to have multiple anti-tank weapon squads to remove it,considering how a knight was also typically the only vehicle on the field.(in my meta anyways)

>transports can now be used to soak up overwatch

TAU ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>53304911
Don't feel bad. IG in the same boat. Buy minimum guardsmen and load them into Chineras.

>>53304796

You say this like LRs aren't guaranteed to have a "fire after falling back" rule. Power of the Machine Spirit, anon.

>>53305760
Not only that, but with transports being as big as they are, I think if you angle it right they'll end up within 1" of multiple squads easily.

>>53305672
They could certainly have a rule like "vehicles may move freely through infantry models as long as their movement brings them complete past those models" or something. That wouldn't eliminate blocking, but it would make it much less practical under common circumstances.

>>53305672
The land raider does have a twin linked heavy bolter and presumably, other units in the army to shoot at the grots.

>>53305721
>The weak point on an Abrams tank is it's underside and to a lesser extent its tracks.
Is there any tank which does not have its tracks and underside as a weak point?

File: diorama-tau-01.jpg (43KB, 312x320px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 312x320px

>>53305721

The weakest points on an Abrams (as an example) is the top and bottom. Tracks constitute a mobility kill. The sides and back are much thinner (can be buffeted by SLAT/ERA blocks)than the front of the hull.

For example the RHA of the turret is 800-900mm while the front Glacis is 590-700, same with lower front hull. We can only assume (because the necessary addition of SLAT/ERA) that those same spots on the sides and back have to be thinner as well as lacking the multiplicative effect of sloping to mitigate damage.

>>53304213
Yes I loved my ork battlewagons. "I have front armor 14, what do you mean you are hitting my side? Thats because my front is like 1 1/2 inches wide and my side is a foot. This is bullshit"

>>53305922
ones specifically modified for mine clearing, probably

File: 1474584953896.jpg (165KB, 700x512px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 700x512px

>>53306051
Pic related?

File: 18600721_1446877268707241_805706061_n.jpg (100KB, 960x498px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x498px

Outta my way infantry fucking shits!

>>53306075
I always wonder if there was anyone during WW2 that managed to kill an enemy combatant with a mineflail. That sounds too awesome to ever happen.

>>53305160
>>53303916
I feel slightly disappointed they didn't use the damage table for the annihilation barge as an elegant way of representing quantum shielding. You could give it a better toughness & save until it's lost a wound or two, then it drops to the weaker statline of T6/4+.

File: 873.png (480KB, 671x502px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 671x502px

>>53304266

>>53305825
>Not reading the goddamn rules
You can fire Overwatch an unlimited number of times. So now your transpoet is getting shot, and the dudes.

>>53306419
Except that is how it works, because the unit stuck in CC can't overwatch. Overwatching unlimited times only matters if you kill every unit that charges you during it.

Retard

>>53306460
You fire all Overwatch now before anyone gets to engage.

>>53305922
Like another anon said, there is a vehicle that is literally designed to drive over AT mines and survive. It's name escapes me though.

>>53305721
>Abrams tank
Yeah... whatever it works for you NATOABOO

>>53306536
The order is declare charge targets -> target fires overwatch (Engaged units cannot fire overwatch) -> roll your charge distance -> if you can move within 1" the target unit is engaged.

The process is then repeated for the next unit you want to declare a charge with.

>>53306536
nope
>Overwatch can also be fired multiple times per phase, but as soon as the unit is engaged, they will no longer be able to fire back.

as written in charge article

>>53304865
T6 and less armor(save) than a MEQ for a "Tank" is pretty sad. Maybe being able to hover means we can leap frog from cover to cover... I don't know why I would spend points on it for 8th just like 7th

>>53304865
I'm almost positive the benefit to Necron vehicles will be a special rule while they're at full wounds or something.

>>53306994
12 " movement should help. this is not a close combat vehicle, will possibly get special rules and it's not even clear how many points it'll cost. stop bitching.

>>53306019
But now we're probably just 12 equivalent all around. Yes, getting glanced by bolters in the ass was annoying, but when the enemy was forced to deal with the 14 it was the best feeling.

>>53307149
No feeling like having a battelwagon cruise on through all the enemy fire to unload all 20 boyz unharmed right into the enemy's face.

>>53307079
Being at full wounds is difficult when it is that easy to wound, but as has been pointed out the whole equipment set is yet to be revealed.
>>53307148
It has a power level of 7 which means it will be cheaper if not the same points as the updated rubrics.

>>53307148
>it's not even clear how many points it'll cost.

Won't matter, still a heavy support slot.
People will figure out the new edition in less than a day and we will be back to square one points adjustments or no.

>>53307280
I'm saying it'll have a special rule when at full wounds that makes it less easy to wound. Like if it's just a 2+ save until it gets hurt. Or maybe they'll go another route and just give it an invuln save so it's gonna keep that 4+ even against heavier weapons.

>>53307280
1 point of power level is roughly 20 points, since 5 accounts for a marine squad with full upgrades. 140 seems relatively fair with the size of the gun it has.

>>53307331
I hope WWB becomes a ward save and they get wargear that allows them to regen models.

Necrons really need hit nail home they are the most durable army in the game, period.

>>53304285
>Come back tomorrow to learn about the slicey, dicey, stabby, bashy world of close combat weapons.
I'll assume they updated the article for you, rather than judge your ability to read.

Whats the point of melta weapons now?

>>53307481
Vehicle is a type of tag likely, and melta will likely do bonus antisave against them when within half range.

>>53307427
From yesterdays DEldar Faction Focus:
>Come back in a few days for a closer look at Imperial Knights.
However you're also correct about them saying they're going to go into close combat weapons tomorrow.
>tfw Choppas suddenly get that 'Fuck yo armor, you take 4+ save now!' ability back
One can dream I guess...

>>53307481
>>53307541
We already know the melta bonus, and it's rolling twice and taking the highest for damage while within half range.

The benefit is that's very reliable damage compared to a Lascannon. You aren't gonna whiff and only deal 1 very often, and you have a solid chance of getting 6 wounds.

>>53307481
They do more wounds now instead of being more likely to damage. They also affect everything now, not just vehicles.

>>53307388
Personally I'm hoping they buff up Immortals and Lychguard to 2 wounds a piece.

File: image.png (176KB, 502x502px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 502x502px

>>53304880
All shells are HESH

>>53307710
>HESH
>Useful past the 60s
Nice meme

I like this change a lot, it gives an opportunity for your tougher vehicle to eat overwatch or lock a unit to assault it with the real thing and it also gives shooty armies the chance to stop your transport before its too late whereas before there wasnt any stopping it since you could just tank shock forward.

A lot more options and things to do during the game, loving it.

>>53304507
>This whole article

Wow, it's fucking nothing. Fuck you geedubs how about you give us transport rules in, you know, the fucking VEHICLE teaser.

Jesus Christ.

File: Screenshot_2017-05-18-14-24-13.png (282KB, 720x1152px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 720x1152px

>>53304238
What?

>>53303916
Ok thinking about this statline how are Chariot Lords gonna work?

Are they going to have 2 attack values or is a Lord just going to have 3 more warscythe attacks?

Also is it still going to be 8 wounds and a 4+ or is it gonna end up getting the greater save (Lord) and combining wounds?

>>53307921
>I love to rage for the sake of raging

>>53307934
Heres hoping they give statlines for all the iconic racial weapons like chainfists, warscythes, and big choppas. As well as what's going to happen with initiative 1 weapons

>>53307934
They edited that shit. It wasn't there initially.

>>53304255
>AoS
>Worth playing
Only if it becomes reskined 8ed 40k

>>53307921
You know what a teaser is right anon? They aren't going to tell you everything because they still want you to buy the book

>>53308180
But we already knew everything in this fucking teaser except one half ass stat line, not even a datasheet.

>>53308246
And film trailers show the same three scenes over and over. If this annoys you just avoid bullshit marketing for a few weeks and get the actual rules

>>53307574
I never consider vague time periods to be any sort of commitment when coming from a company or a person, so I trust "tomorrow" more than I would trust "in a few days".

>>53308094
>Unironically thinking 8th ed isn't AoS reskinned with a few more tweaks.

LMAO. You got transports and deepstrike, and a ton of more shit, from us bitch.

>>53308094
He's >>53308484 right you know.

I too thought AoS was a shit game when it first came out, but since the General's Handbook and release of individual Battletomes it actually looks pretty fucking solid. The few things I still hated about it have been removed by 8th ed 40k. It's basically just slightly improved AoS.

8th edition?

More like BASED Edition.

>Some maybe melee dunecrawlers
DEFILER CRAB BATTLE WHEN

>>53303965
LOOKS LIKE ORKZ ARE BACK ON THE MENU BOYS!

>>53304266
Post the pasta pls.

File: OSC.png (2MB, 1247x842px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1247x842px

Are Mechanical Monster, like Riptides, considered vehicles now?

>>53308880
No, they're infantry, everything is infantry, even the land raiders.

>>53308751
Why in the hell would you put a vehicle who's strongest aspect is it's shooting into melee where it can't shoot unless you absolutely had to, at which point you've probably fucked up pretty hard.

>>53309005
For science.

>>53309038
Reddit please leave.

>>53309079
Are you autistic?

File: IMG_3699.jpg (205KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 800x600px

>>53309005
>this should never be in melee
Really now

>>53307778
Hey now, HESH is actually quite useful as an anti-building/barricade round. The British still use it for the challies. Primary reason why they stick to a rifled barrel.

>>53309005
Hopefully it will be good in both this go round.

>>53309079
You first shit posting cancer

File: AdMecOnagerDunecrawler01-600x620.jpg (60KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x620px

>>53309406
i was referring to the dunecrawler he mentioned

>>53304209
This
>>53305530
Flawed as fuck, some of the new rules are pretty cool, but the loss of initiative and this vehicle bullshit really irks me. Not fuck this edition bad, but really makes me want to houserule it if it turns out like I think it's going to.

>>53309005
Because CRAB BATTLE, were you not paying attention?

>>53309443
I thought we stuck to a rifled barrel because it's more expensive both to manufacture and maintain, and the MOD is spectacularly incompetent at procurement.

>>53306083
What is this from?

>>53309079
Fuck off, Mars spits on you.

>>53306051
No, the mineclearing vehicles get fucked just as any tank if a mine explodes under it. You have a mineplow fixed to the front that either moves the mines to the side of the road or detonates then. The tank is there to keep the crew safe from shrapnel and for survivability because It might need to plow a hole in frontlines.

>>53308880
I hope stealthsuits get updated model. they are so bulky and monopose.

>>53309641
Is annoying i love the design but not for stealth, theyd be beautiful for a melee or heavy armour unit.

>>53309641
I just use the old XV-15 style myself. Still monopose, but way less bulky looking.

>>53309582
Maybe a little but the primary reason you haven't switched to 120mm smooth bores is because you limeys love HESH rounds for building busting and HESH works best out of rifled.

File: B02820_Wasteland_Bases_32mm_Round.jpg (1MB, 2926x2051px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2926x2051px

>>53309641
They were leaked a little while ago

>>53309727
kek

>>53304213
This. And now that it's pretty much confirmed, I'm really disappointed. Now tanks are just as tough from all angles and positioning means nothing. Oh, so fun... So tactical...

>>53309766
unless a tanks armour save is modified by where its shot

>>53309800
that would be good

>>53309766
So.... now its realistic ?

>>53309800
Don't you think they would have included that in this update?

>>53309828
That isn't realistic at all idiot

>>53304796
Tiananmen Square grot.

For getting into the game as Skitarii, is two of the Start Collecting boxes very efficient to start off with? With what I've been reading, the tank and vanguards / rangers included are Skitarii's best units, but can I field two of the Tech Priest Dominus-es?

>>53310011
You may iirc, but id just wait for 8th edition to see what else is coming, theres rumours for lotsa admech shit

>>53309005
>He hasn't heard of orkz

These new rules are fucking amazing for orks. Now Trukks and wagons can disembark their troops then eat the overwatch for them.

>>53310218
>Now Trukks and wagons can disembark their troops then eat the overwatch for them

implying they will be able to make it across the board in SHOOTHAMMER 40000, 8th EDITION

>>53310267
Trukks can move 24" in one turn in the current rules so they will be fast in 8th. Add 2d6 inch charge and that's a long threat range. Trukks aren't meant to survive past turn 2.

>>53310267
>Trukks are more durable now
>Have more wounds
>Can't randomly explode
>Armor save stacks with cover

Yeah, twin-linked weapons being double the number of shots instead and heavy weapons being able to move isn't quite gonna make up the difference.

>>53303973
i fully expect fliers to have a complete different set of rules / restrictions (cant charge/be charged)

>>53304255
Space Marine players ruin the game that's why!

File: mornin' brew.jpg (156KB, 484x326px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 484x326px

>>53303973
Flying 'eadbutt best make a comeback in 8th ed!

>>53310267
>he specifically refereed to an admech walker
>b-b-b-but what about orks?

>>53309685
>>53309693
No, the bulk make them cool.

Make the stealth field look like some heavy duty equipment and justifies why it's not standard issue equipment.

>>53304511
It makes me think of a starfish throwing a tantrum

>>53304796
this is going to be the stupidest fucking edition ever

If open topped trasports can drop off units while locked in combat, Dark Eldar Raiders could become hilariously good.

File: FPCougar.jpg (137KB, 1024x753px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x753px

>>53306632

You're looking for the MRAP

>>53305721
Warhammer isn't based on modern warfare you dipshit
For most of the time that tank warfare existed, tanks have had different armor thicknesses on different facings, with the rear being the weakest.
Get the fuck out of here with your "it's realistic" bullshit

>>53310740
Not him but the point stands that removing armor facing from beer and pretzels game like Warhammer 40K is not a bad thing.

What the fuck does it matter if there's been different armor thickness in the past, this is the 41st Millennium get over it.

>>53310460
>can't follow a reply chain
>b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but I maek the person I'm replying to look silly

>>53310828
I see that GW's attempt at drawing in the normie demographic is working excellently
why bother playing a tactical wargame if there are no tactics
vehicles are just giant glorified infantry characters with bigger guns now

>>53310828
>>53310872
You're forgetting that the vast majority of vehicles didn't have majorly different armor facings anyway. Some of them like the Leman Russ were pretty huge with 14 in the front and 10 in the back, but most of them are barely a 2 point difference.

I do hope they introduce special rules to let those vehicles with heavier front armor get rerolls or something from that direction, but it doesn't need to be as in depth as it was for every single vehicle.

>>53310931
that two point difference may not have always been major, but it provided a decisive advantage to any unit that could get behind it.
Without armor facings, a major reason for deep striking is now invalid.
There was a lot of depth to the previous editions. Yes there was a lot of bloat, too. But it feels like they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in 8th.

>>53310830
>reply has nothing to do with the post it's responding to
>maybe if I pretend I know what the conversation was about they won't realize I'm retarded

>>53310964
>a major reason for deep striking is now invalid.
>a lot of depth
Yeah skyhammer annihilation forces are the epitome of tactical depth.

>>53310872
This
>>53310931
I play Imperial Guard with a lot of lemon Russ's and even I didn't feel there was much reason to be tactical with your fucken vehicles, or anything. The only tactical thing to do is take deep striking melta squads and bubble wrap tanks with dudes

>>53311014
GW making retarded formations that ruin certain mechanics don't really make the mechanics any less sound. Even with the current system GW could find some way to fuck it up but that wouldn't really say anything about the mechanic itself.

>>53311014
>one OP formation is worth invalidating an entire mechanic
take your head out of matt ward's ass and actually look at what I said.

>>53310872
If you want proper facing you should've played fantasy.

Having half your model give a Damn about facing and half don't isn't tactics, just piss poor rules.

>>53310964
>Yes there was a lot of bloat, too. But it feels like they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in 8th.

They've been trying to tune 40k since fucking 3rd edition and every 'fix' they did added more useless bloat and things that remained due to tradition more than anything, 40k needed a total re haul. Staying on the same 3rd edition rules and just 'fixing' certain things is just doing the same shit they've been doing for years, the baby grew into a tumor ridden abomination and needed to go to hell.

This needed to happen and if you dont like it then you can just homebrew certain things or play an older edition.

>>53311037
>>53311046
The epitome, not the standard. Standard deepstriking is still very cheap tactics wise, it's literally just plonking a unit where it needs to be. There is no tactics there.

The inverse is just as bad, placing your tank line with its ass up against the imaginary line so as to avoid having shots put up it is just as empty tactically.

>>53303904
>https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/18/new-warhammer-40000-vehicles-may18gw-homepage-post-4/
Sounds pretty great.

Vechicles getting to charge means I can throw an empty transport at an enemy, then they have to either fall back, or keep trying to punch the tank until it's dead.

>>53311114
On the flipside your vehicles can now be tarpitted or have to give up a turn of doing anything of value.

File: ss+(2016-01-10+at+09.03.51).jpg (29KB, 580x314px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 580x314px

>>53311084
>if you cared about facing you should have played a now defunct fantasy wargame dissimilar to 40k

>>53304118
Except if it dies, your dudes are a few inches back, which sucks for fighty dudes.

Might as well drive in reverse at times.

Why are you guys so excited for charging vehicles?

They only have WS of 6+

>>53311147
Because they can eat the overwatch and lock up certain units which gives more freedom to your choppier units to do their thing.

>>53311131
Yeah and you didn't, so stop pretending to care about facing. If facing was so fucking "tactical" why did none of you tacticfags want it on infantry?


Fucking liars.

>>53311172
I feel terrible
I must have missed out on the Facing Illustrated issue that featured Fantasy
fuck I feel so stupid now, I'm going to throw out my "Talk To My Facing" tshirt and my "Monday Facing" coffee mug

>>53304678
Most modern ones do. No way to tell were that insurgent's rpg is gunna come from.

Top and bottom might be weaker.

>>53309727
I chortled.

>>53311037
I love deep striking but even discarding some of the stupider shit that broke it it didn't really give me tactical decisions in general or with regards to armor facing, except for defending against it by just putting a bunch of dudes in the way.

Even on the side where you're using it you literally just put the unit where you need it and hope the dice don't fuck you.

That actually sums up the game for the most part right now.

>>53311322
It doesn't really seem that there will be any less of that under the new rules other than that it will now apply to every angle. Especially with the fact that AT weapons are doing random amounts of damage.

>>53309641
Shit your whore mouth, those models are fucking ace!

>>53309727
Darn. It's Golden Daemon levels of skill.

>>53304255
Because (until next month) you have a tank perfectly tailored to MURDER space marines!

>>53304390
There's something about a Cadian, a Tallern, a Catachan, a Kreiger, a Voystrian, a Legionary, and a Voystrian charging together across the battlefield that just warms my heart...

>>53304580
DWARVEN ATOM SMASHERS RETURN TO THE FUTURE!

>>53311390
That's why I'm not fussed about the removal of armor facing. I can use lists guys for bubble wrap and I will never again are you as somebody about whether they're in my front side or rear armor.

Though depending on how things have Shake out my default weapons from my drop squads might change if plasma is better against more targets

>>53311698
The fact that most deep strike is probably going to be over 9 inches away also hurts melta teams. Even the long range versions like Tau Fusion Blasters won't be able to get into range with that. You could use multi-meltas, but those will probably count you as having moved and thus be less accurate.

Plasma might be nice, but I'm not sure if it'll deal extra damage. It might deal 2 points like Dark Eldar disintegrator weapons, but even with that it doesn't seem very good against vehicles.

>>53311762

As a Sisters player, I honestly can't say I feel even remotely sad about "muh deep striking melta! How will we cope!?" because we've been doing it the old fashioned way since forever. TLMMolators are only going to be that much better now.

>>53311147
I play FAST orks

finally I can put deff rollaz on and turn my trukks into a high-speed wall of Fuck You

File: 8E.png (765KB, 1794x2922px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1794x2922px

>>53308879
This?

>>53311871
I'm hoping to stick retributors with 4 mulitmeltas into a Valkyrie this coming edition and make tanks squirm. But that's probably why they got so expensive.

>>53307977
they touched on that, init 1 weapons are going to have be basically -1 to hit, but hit REALLY HARD.

>>53308910
>even the land raiders.
ESPECIALLY the Land Raiders.

>>53311977

I finally broke down and ordered my suite of MM because I've never needed them. I'm debating getting a chinaman Repressor and putting them in that.

Also, as of right now, you can't start the MM inside the Valkyrie, so unless something changes...

>>53310696
yeah, and I'm fuckin STOKED!

File: AdMech_Scientific_Method.jpg (24KB, 423x363px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 423x363px

>>53305569
actually, that kinda fucks over non-walker vehicles now

>Nearby Russ
>It meekly fires once
>gets charged, can't shoot
>voluntarily falls back out of combat, can't shoot
>gets charged, can't shoot

That is some retarded shit right there.
>a tank crushing someone under their treads hits on a 6+, wounds on a 3+ and allows an armour save

I was looking forward to eighth, but what the actual fuck

>>53312104
That's what I'm hoping changes with all of the new faction keywords I'm hoping dedicated transports will be a little more open. Like Drop pods might still be astartes only, but they'll be less stingy with other transports.

>>53312237
>Lumbering behemoth this model May Fire after disengaging and takes no penalty for firing heavy weapons while moving

>>53312326
let's be honest, either THIS, or always take hflamer sponsons.

>>53312326
>>53312393
Or god forbid, actually have some infantry to counter charge with.

>>53312431
>guard
>willingly countercharging
Hope there's a commissar handy.

>>53312643
With battle shock, why wouldn't you?

>>53304639
>>53304613

Dreadclaws can lift off on their own, so they would lure people in with false promises, close the doors then fuck off.

>>53312237
>I was looking forward to eighth, but what the actual fuck

You're right, time to panic. Surely it's not possible for tanks to be given a special rule which would allow them to shoot after disengaging. If only GW had anticipated this eventuality but once in their thousands of hours of playtesting.

>>53312668
true

>>53304131
'fix is literally shorthand for affix

>>53310740
>For most of the time that tank warfare existed, tanks have had different armor thicknesses on different facings, with the rear being the weakest.

And it will be like that forever unless people start fighting with symmetrical boxes

>>53315252
>People design homing missiles that specifically loop around to hit a vehicle in its rear
>Become super widespread
>Tanks now designed with really heavy rear armor compared to other sides

War has changed

File: 1304277850796.jpg (73KB, 873x771px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 873x771px

>>53315252
>>53310740
Like how the defenses of a carnifex, dread knight, or a riptide are so much weaker at the back right?

The new wounds and toughness for vehicles is a good abstraction that makes them much easier to balance. The main problem was they had a weakness (rear armor) and vulnerability to stingy dice rolls that monstrous creatures didn't. Now they are on even footing as far as balance goes.

File: Capture+_2017-05-18-22-33-56.png (3MB, 1413x1458px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1413x1458px

>>53304541
>>53304470

DEJA VU

>get out of the trukk
>use the vehicle to eat overwatch and tie up the fire warriors in close combat
>immediately charge with boyz to a unit that was trying not to get run over
I like this idea

>>53306407
It actually worries me that they didn't show any of the usual necron vehicle rules off with it. They didn't even reference living metal jokingly like they have with other units special stuff.

>>53315784
I like it a lot. Even if the tank isn't doing damage, it's like a more strategic tank shock, where you can actually take advantage of the distraction caused by a big block of steel barreling towards your enemies.

Could theoretically work even for a shooting army too. Have them pile out of a transport, enemy gets close, transport charges the enemy. Enemy is either stuck wailing on the transport or has to fall back and end up exposed for your next turn.

>>53315803
If all of the usual Necron vehicle stuff disappears, then Barges better be dirt fucking cheap because that stat line really worries me as is.

>>53315818
Yeah, really like it as a new tank shock. I guess it's hard to fire overwatch at the orks charging you when there's a god damn spikey piece of shit plowing through your unit

>>53316428
Yeah. It really feels like this edition is gonna kinda be trench warfare in a way. Lots of ways to get cover bonuses and hit penalties, not as many ways to ignore them, and the best way to dig someone out of cover it so roll up in a tank and hit them with a shovel.

HAHA, FUCKING JOKES ON YOU TAU PLAYERS. YOU CAN'T OVERWATCH BECAUSE WE PUT A BRICK ON THE RHINO'S ACCELERATOR. HAVE FUN TRYING TO DODGE A 25-TON TRANSPORT WHILE WE CHARGE IN.

>>53317419
>tfw you stand in front of a bus and there's a >80% chance you won't even feel a tickle

>>53317515
More like a chance you're not dumb enough to stand in the way of a tank.

>>53305530

That tank commander is doing one hell of a plank.

>>53305530

The barge is T6. with that house rule it would be T4 on rear facing.

Lasguns should not be able to take down a tank man.

>>53305530
>houseful armor facing without looking at the profiles
>realize bolters are wounding a battle barge on a 4+ from the rear
>anything wounds a battle barge on a 5+ at very worst from the sides or rear

Nigga your solutions are just bad.

>>53313178
Yes, I know, I said it was a valid term, but it still sounds like someone who misunderstood the word.

>>53318769
Not Grot Blastas!

>>53305785
I didn't like it in 5e, I won't like in in 8th.

>>53317556
But you're stopping it moving past you. Unless all vehicles get a USR, which apparently we don't have anymore.

>>53304213
to be fair the vehicle facing rules were really finicky, varied wildly from vehicle to vehicle, and were overall very annoying to use in a game where you could have potentially dozens of vehicles per side with no clear reference point.

You were heavily encouraged to take vehicles that were wide across but short in length to get a ridiculously wide front armor facing, while things like Battlewagons would have hilariously narrow front arcs and just end up getting shot in the side most of the time.

File: 1490907979086.jpg (563KB, 1303x1200px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1303x1200px

>>53315436
First of all, dread knights and riptides should be walkers.
Second of all, carnifexes are organisms. They are armored roughly all around and dont have any internal organs that aren't covered by the same thickness of skin. It wouldn't make sense to have them be vehicles since they're 100 percent living creatures.
Thirdly, you seem to think I'm defending AV. Personally I thought it was a decent system. Sure, it meant vehicles exploded easily, but it also made sense; obviously a stubber isn't going to be able to pierce the armor of a tank. If it could penetrate it would do damage, but the point is it couldn't penetrate in the fist place.
However, this is a new edition.
These stigmas regarding facings, with asinine shit like "hurr durr walkers arent vehicles" or "riptides lmao" is idiotic, because those problems with 7th that arent relevant to 8th.
All I wanted was a continued support for the mechanics of armor facings. Sure, vehicles would have positional weaknesses unlike MCs, but they could have made up for it with good armor saves and powerful weapons.
Furthermore, so what if a unit has a weakness? Spontaneously exploding is one thing, but I think it's perfectly balanced that an unstoppable force of firepower like the leman russ should have a weakness. Something as simple as different armor saves or toughness values would be great!
My point is not that the existing 7th ed system is ideal - it's not. I've brought this up numerous times and each time someone makes some dumb response that is clearly confusing my intentions. I simply want some form of armor facing to continue to exist.
It fits the nature of the game, provides weaknesses to armored armies that might seem otherwise indomitable, and provides an advantage that a clever commander could exploit with careful positioning.
I believe that removing the concept of armor facings entirely is just a small step in GW's plan to not just streamline the game, but casualize it at the expense of tactical depth.

>>53303904
RIP imperial guard

>>53305727
>Charge into combat with trukk
>boys may get out and attack without getting overwatched

Plz gw