I kind of hope that Q&A isn't real.
Example, associative vs disassociative as intended to create realism. Realism, in a game set 40,000 years in the future, in which by scale pistols can only fire about 80 feet. Sure! "Associative" sounds like a cheap buzzword picked up in a 45-minute motivational meeting, in which "synergy" and "thinking outside the box" created a "market strategy".
The addition of Hull Points is therefore used to make vehicles more inclusive during a game and give them a continued presence even after having taken a few direct hits. Jervis said that it flattened out the extremes. Vehicles used to get obliterated in turn one or take damage that would render them ineffective for a turn or two which really didn’t flow too well. Hull Points therefore allow players to enjoy the attributes of their expensive vehicles without them vanishing off the table having done virtually nothing.
Except that's not true. Vehicles are so much easier to kill now and its very much still possible to blow up vehicles with a well-placed shot. With a string of poorly rolled dice, it was possible in 5e to never kill a vehicle after scoring 100 penetrating hits. Now, the kill is guaranteed in just 4 or fewer glances. And they were clearly very concerned about not killing Flyers at all.
Random charge distances add more drama and tension. Oh, those are two words I want in my fun! Hell, I feel like their application of random is done all backwards. Instead of random psyker powers, how about random effects for Perils of the Warp? Not a difficult thing to "associate"!
Anyway, I should probably get a blog for this type of bitching.
