For 40K it could easily become a situation where certain tanks are heavily superior to others. A lot of those big chunky Imperial tanks might even end up really poor choices compared to a lot of sleeker Xenos.
At the same time a lot of Xenos tanks and such don't have side guns.
Honestly that seems like a plus to me. More ways to differentiate units. OR of course you just bisect the model or split it into quads for facing arcs, and then all vehicles are on the same footing again.
And I would consider firing arcs to be a different mechanic than armor facing.
In the end I think it can be a cool mechanic, but its not a good one to have in a modern 2K points 40K game. It slows things down; encourages less terrain use and could be a nightmare for some factions over others.
I have no idea how vehicle facings encourages less terrain.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.
Vehicle facings really, really was a source of arguments for non-imperial vehicles. Almost as bad as rolling scatter dice for blast templates far away from the template and then debating the finer points of 10 degrees that happens to hit/miss 5 or more models. Vehicle facings are a cute idea you could maybe make a case for front/rear only. Show me front, sidesL/R and rear facing on a Dark Eldar venom, that's partially obscured from the view of the firer...
Baragash wrote: I think you could determine crossfire fairly simply for a game of 40k scale. For example, you could define the minimum angle needed between two firing units, let's say 90 degrees, and simply have a cone-shaped template with that angle at the tip you can place on the table, if necessary use laser pointers to extend it the sides if it is marginal, and a lot of the time I would imaginei t would be obvious without needing the template.
Would you need 90 degrees or just do the "If you can draw a line through the taget unit between two of your units."?
90 degrees was just an example that I chose because I thought it was easy to visualise a quadrant template for the example, what the tolerance should be is really a matter of opinion (I think you would find that if you placed unit A in front of the target, and unit B to the side of the target, and then checked the arc was separated by the 90 degree cone, that would look like a reasonable flanking position to grant a bonus, YMMV though).
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.
Tell me where the center of an Eldar falcon or wave Serpent is, and where it's front becomes it's side.
Clearly the center is right around the inner side of the cockpit?
Is there a case where the difference between front/side on the main Eldar tanks matters when they're both AV12?
Maybe delineating the sides and rear is more tricky, but even just drawing a nice box around the whole thing puts the division at the engines which isn't too hard to argue with, and the edge of the engine cowling probably makes the most sense. If you really want a front/side delineation then the split between the first and second wing panel is easy to point to.
Obviously everything would be better if GW just provided diagrams for facings for all vehicles (they did for Knights at one point), but if there was something to be really worried about then it's something to bring up at the start of the game.
Gibblets wrote: Vehicle facings really, really was a source of arguments for non-imperial vehicles. Almost as bad as rolling scatter dice for blast templates far away from the template and then debating the finer points of 10 degrees that happens to hit/miss 5 or more models. Vehicle facings are a cute idea you could maybe make a case for front/rear only. Show me front, sidesL/R and rear facing on a Dark Eldar venom, that's partially obscured from the view of the firer...
Ok.
Find the centre of the Venom. Place an X over it. Now you know where it's f/sides/r arcs are.
Same applies to the Falcon chassis Chaos0xomega wants to argue about.
Gibblets wrote: Vehicle facings really, really was a source of arguments for non-imperial vehicles. Almost as bad as rolling scatter dice for blast templates far away from the template and then debating the finer points of 10 degrees that happens to hit/miss 5 or more models. Vehicle facings are a cute idea you could maybe make a case for front/rear only. Show me front, sidesL/R and rear facing on a Dark Eldar venom, that's partially obscured from the view of the firer...
Ok.
Find the centre of the Venom. Place an X over it. Now you know where it's f/sides/r arcs are.
Same applies to the Falcon chassis Chaos0xomega wants to argue about.
That feels really far forward of where the actual center of the vehicle is.
Gibblets wrote: Vehicle facings really, really was a source of arguments for non-imperial vehicles. Almost as bad as rolling scatter dice for blast templates far away from the template and then debating the finer points of 10 degrees that happens to hit/miss 5 or more models. Vehicle facings are a cute idea you could maybe make a case for front/rear only. Show me front, sidesL/R and rear facing on a Dark Eldar venom, that's partially obscured from the view of the firer...
Ok.
Find the centre of the Venom. Place an X over it. Now you know where it's f/sides/r arcs are.
Same applies to the Falcon chassis Chaos0xomega wants to argue about.
That feels really far forward of where the actual center of the vehicle is.
Tau vehicles suffer from the same, infact any vehicle that is longer than it is wide will have problems with 90 degree quadrants, which iirc is what the rules implied you should use.
No it doesn't specifically matter the vehicle was the same armour all round either, people want facings and they want a bonus of some kind for flank/rear attacks, so if you include one it needs to be able to be applied.
any vehicle with a base is a problem and the solution for odd shaped vehicles without base is simply to add a base with arcs to them
not like something like this does not already exists
of course if one only knows GW games and going with the premises that anything they are not doing must be impossible to do there might be an argument here
but saying that arcs/facings are impossible with odd shaped vehicles when Star Wars games use that without a problem is either ignorance or searching for reasons instead of just saying "I don't like it".
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
Who cares about being a box, it's a game with models. Everything is either geometric enough it has a center line or is a skimmer mounted on a base where you can just measure off of that. I swear everyone who has problems with AV or facings is just down to not treating things logically but encountering facings like it's the first time they played a wargame. Worst case scenario you just mark firing angles on the base itself like multiple star wars fleet games did over the decades.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.
Tell me where the center of an Eldar falcon or wave Serpent is, and where it's front becomes it's side.
Spoiler:
Very confusing and difficult to figure out the center of skimmers when skimmers come with belly buttons to mount stands on.
After 2+ consecutive years of playing a 40k ruleset with facings now I can attest that they, in fact, do not cause issues or slow down the game significantly.
In case of doubt where you are on the edge and not a 100% sure for the facing.. be a good sport and take the option that is worse for you.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
Who cares about being a box, it's a game with models. Everything is either geometric enough it has a center line or is a skimmer mounted on a base where you can just measure off of that. I swear everyone who has problems with AV or facings is just down to not treating things logically but encountering facings like it's the first time they played a wargame. Worst case scenario you just mark firing angles on the base itself like multiple star wars fleet games did over the decades.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.
Tell me where the center of an Eldar falcon or wave Serpent is, and where it's front becomes it's side.
Spoiler:
Very confusing and difficult to figure out the center of skimmers when skimmers come with belly buttons to mount stands on.
You can tell that that belly button mount is not actually in the center of the model, right? It's the point the model balances on (in theory), clearly not the center of an imaginary rectangle.
I loved vehicle facings as a mechanic but determining facings for eldar vehicles was always a challenge (source: eldar player). Sure it's doable when looking at a picture, but it's more tricky in real life/on the tabletop. It gets more fun when you realize the wave serpent and fire prism have extended posteriors, meaning their center is at a slightly different spot than the falcon's, despite the chassis being the same otherwise. And do you count the spirit vanes (whiskers) on the wave serpent too when determining the box? Because you should, and that broadens the front and rear faces of the imaginary box compared to the other grav tanks.
I half suspect gw gave them all the same front and side armor values to sidestep this issue back then. This is the main reason unclear facings didn't slow down gameplay for eldar vehicles; it rarely mattered.
The idea of painting facing markings on the base would work, but not with the current tiny skimmer disks. Those are far too fragile to glue on imo. You'd need actual full-sized vehicle bases.
So, applying the standard caveat of the 90 degree quadrants, it's entirely possible to be behind a hammerhead in cover and if the SMS is the only visible part sticking out, you're hitting it on front armour despite being behind and to the side of it.
If a blast lands loosely 130 degrees to the rear of a tank, but not directly on (so on the table but the blast marker hits the hull) good luck accurately working that one out.
You can paint arcs on bases, but look at the repulsor, it hangs over the base by a large amount making it both harder to extrapolate and again means the "front" doesn't make sense.
If you acknowledge a 90 degree arc doesn't always fit and want to use "logical" side arcs - where are those on eldar and necron vehicles?
All these things can and did come up and people act like it's easy or obvious to have a consensus with an opponent you maybe are just meeting for the first time. If you then add competitive play on top then "always take the worst result" when there are 2 players and either option is worse for one of them, creating a paradox, is time consuming and annoying the more it happens.
Same with templates, it's all fine to agree it's something you can negotiate fairly until you hit that one person who insists on perfect coherency due to not wanting an inherent disadvantage and wastes all your game time faffing with movement, arguing over scatter distance/direction, arguing over how many partials etc.
In the end I think it can be a cool mechanic, but its not a good one to have in a modern 2K points 40K game. It slows things down; encourages less terrain use and could be a nightmare for some factions over others.
I have no idea how vehicle facings encourages less terrain.
Because we have Baneblades. Big chunky tanks that take up a lot of board room and need space to turn to face where the player wants them too. They already encourage reduced terrain just to move around and that's without a facings system. Yes you can argue that its very thematic that you could bum-rush a Baneblade that gets stuck between buildings, but on the flipside that would either encourage people not to use them at all or to build boards that have fewer such spots and tight areas.
Again most of the games you see with facings tend to be skirmishers with vastly smaller model counts and often smaller models; whilst those with larger ones tend to be naval in nature with much more open terrain setup than your typical 40K board uses/needs to function. Granted that's also because the naval games are often doing wheel turns whilst at least tanks can turn on the spot
Taken to extreme GW can just print pictures in the codex with shaded parts of the model and say "this is the front, this is the side" etc. If you really want to get into vehicle minutiae, you don't even need to define things by front/side etc, you can breakdown the armour values of different parts. And people can learn where to shoot by playing the 40k equivalent of War Thunder etc etc. You can make this system as complex as you want.
I admit however to thinking this doesn't really serve to make the game more fun. If you want a game where maneuvering to hit people from the flank or back is the key skill, I think you fundamentally have to change how movement and IGOUGO works. Have some sort of mechanism like in X-Wing or something. At which point you are playing a completely different game.
Dudeface wrote: So, applying the standard caveat of the 90 degree quadrants, it's entirely possible to be behind a hammerhead in cover and if the SMS is the only visible part sticking out, you're hitting it on front armour despite being behind and to the side of it.
If your line of sight is only to the (front/side/rear), why is it a problem that you can only hit the model on the (front/side/rear)? Unless you have a rule to ignore solid walls to determine line of sight, this is how it would work "in reality" and is not a disconnect to the rules system. Or do I not get your example?
If a blast lands loosely 130 degrees to the rear of a tank, but not directly on (so on the table but the blast marker hits the hull) good luck accurately working that one out.
Straight line from the center of the blast marker hole to the middle of the vehicle or "always from the direction of the shooting unit" are two examples how to solve it.
All these things can and did come up and people act like it's easy or obvious to have a consensus with an opponent you maybe are just meeting for the first time. If you then add competitive play on top then "always take the worst result" when there are 2 players and either option is worse for one of them, creating a paradox, is time consuming and annoying the more it happens.
Have you ever been in the situation where you wanted to let a complete stranger go in front of you and they wanted to let you go first as well? If that causes issues, then change it to "if you are the attacker, then take the worse result for yourself when in doubt".
Same with templates, it's all fine to agree it's something you can negotiate fairly until you hit that one person who insists on perfect coherency due to not wanting an inherent disadvantage and wastes all your game time faffing with movement, arguing over scatter distance/direction, arguing over how many partials etc.
A game system should try to minimise situations where a discussion about the proper application of the rules comes up, but a person like that does not sound like you would want to play a second time, anyway.
That actually reminds me - most games that are designed for facings also print them on the base. Warmachine, Infinity - both have little notches on the base to denote the front and sides of the model.
Starwars Armada has them on the base too and whilst Naval games often don't use bases for their models, they do generally have fairly simple ship designs that make it mindlessly easy to tell which is the front and which is the side.
So basically games that use facings often use tools to aid them. GW tanks don't even come on a base and skimmer bases don't have any orientation notches or markings.
The game isn't built for it nor designed for it and whilst you can impose it on the game, the game doesn't have the gameplay aids to make it easier to use. So adding it might mean adding new functions (including tank bases) and other elements to make it work.
Thing is with how GW changes edition to edition I suspect many wouldn't adapt to the change because it could be all gone in 3 years time.
Kothra wrote: Obviously everything would be better if GW just provided diagrams for facings for all vehicles (they did for Knights at one point), but if there was something to be really worried about then it's something to bring up at the start of the game.
If facings were to return, this is the solution that's needed - heck, GW could even do a card pack release per faction with an index card for each vehicle in a faction illustrating the facings from a top-down perspective.
If you heavily convert or scratchbuild something, use the original as a guide - and use the interpretation that's worse for you if it comes up.
Dudeface wrote: So, applying the standard caveat of the 90 degree quadrants, it's entirely possible to be behind a hammerhead in cover and if the SMS is the only visible part sticking out, you're hitting it on front armour despite being behind and to the side of it.
If your line of sight is only to the (front/side/rear), why is it a problem that you can only hit the model on the (front/side/rear)? Unless you have a rule to ignore solid walls to determine line of sight, this is how it would work "in reality" and is not a disconnect to the rules system? Or do I not get your example?
I'll do my best with some brief knock ups, excuse the rubbish paint job. Here are 90 degree quadrants centred over the base mount hole (which means the middle point would be different if it was built on it's landing gear), there is a section of the front wings that despite being visible side on, become "front", likewise the rear of the thrusters become "side".
The other image with a dodgy wall and a red base is showing that despite being to the rear and side of a tank, because of the weird quirk you could be forced to fire at the front facing from an implausible angle. (it shoved them at the bottom and I can't seem to move them)
If a blast lands loosely 130 degrees to the rear of a tank, but not directly on (so on the table but the blast marker hits the hull) good luck accurately working that one out.
Straight line from the center of the blast marker hole to the middle of the vehicle or "always from the direction of the shooting unit" are two examples how to solve it.
So you still need to measure to the "middle" which is ill defined and it still doesn't help visually work out which 5 degree angle it falls in whether it's side or rear. and "always direction from the shooting unit" isn't clear? If I'm to the right of a vehicle, my blast lands on the rear/left boundary, are you suggesting it'd be a rear shot?
All these things can and did come up and people act like it's easy or obvious to have a consensus with an opponent you maybe are just meeting for the first time. If you then add competitive play on top then "always take the worst result" when there are 2 players and either option is worse for one of them, creating a paradox, is time consuming and annoying the more it happens.
Have you ever been in the situation where you wanted to let a complete stranger go in front of you and they wanted to let you go first as well? If that causes issues, then change it to "if you are the attacker, then take the worse result for yourself when in doubt".
You've introduced a social contract to handle a situation that's unfortunately based on ambiguity and as such isn't going to fly in the fact of needing a rules clarity from a judge or whatever. There does need to be a right or wrong answer eventually.
Same with templates, it's all fine to agree it's something you can negotiate fairly until you hit that one person who insists on perfect coherency due to not wanting an inherent disadvantage and wastes all your game time faffing with movement, arguing over scatter distance/direction, arguing over how many partials etc.
A game system should try to minimise situations where a discussion about the proper application of the rules comes up, but a person like that does not sound like you would want to play a second time, anyway.
That's a fair point, but again it's a valid issue with the way the rules were as written.
Kothra wrote: Clearly the center is right around the inner side of the cockpit?
Is there a case where the difference between front/side on the main Eldar tanks matters when they're both AV12?
Maybe delineating the sides and rear is more tricky, but even just drawing a nice box around the whole thing puts the division at the engines which isn't too hard to argue with, and the edge of the engine cowling probably makes the most sense. If you really want a front/side delineation then the split between the first and second wing panel is easy to point to.
Obviously everything would be better if GW just provided diagrams for facings for all vehicles (they did for Knights at one point), but if there was something to be really worried about then it's something to bring up at the start of the game.
Is it? The bulk of the wave serpent is basically behind the cockpit, do you consider the wings protruding towards the front of it to be part of the hull? If so, then the centerpoint of some of the forgeworld vehicles, such as the Scorpion and the Lynx, is actually in front of the cockpit in empty space.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
Who cares about being a box, it's a game with models. Everything is either geometric enough it has a center line or is a skimmer mounted on a base where you can just measure off of that. I swear everyone who has problems with AV or facings is just down to not treating things logically but encountering facings like it's the first time they played a wargame. Worst case scenario you just mark firing angles on the base itself like multiple star wars fleet games did over the decades.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.
Tell me where the center of an Eldar falcon or wave Serpent is, and where it's front becomes it's side.
Spoiler:
Very confusing and difficult to figure out the center of skimmers when skimmers come with belly buttons to mount stands on.
Ah, but thats not the center of the vehicle, according to Kothra. Nor is it the center of the vehicle according to geometry.
And this is why facings didn't work, because they were unclear and arbitrary and GW didn't do the work to actually set up a ruleset where centerpoints and arcs were clearly defined for every vehicle.
Tau vehicles have a similar problem, where depending on where you define your centerpoint, parts of the vehicle are considered to be in its front arc despite only actually being visible from the side or the rear.
I think I googled the exact same words and results
This is how I would do facings for vehicles, if I were in charge. Basically what seems to look like the middle of the chassis and go from there. I reckon that, depending on the model, it still can happen that you get a weird angle, but this might be more a problem with the "it is enough to see the discarded magazine on the scenic base of a model to be able to shoot the whole damn squad behind that solid wall of concrete".
Why not just put each vehicle on a base the same way all other models are, mold quarters in to the base and then what ever is the quarter of the base you see closest is the facing you are shoting, charing or using your abilities on.
All the problems with facing come with trying to add non abstract LoS in to a system with abstract LoS , to what degrees is irrelevant, for everything else.
If a unit has a base that decides the facing then it doesn't matter how the vehicle looks like, if the player modeled it doing a wheele or a front stand. Add arbitrary hight for all units, terrain etc and almost all LoS problems, terrain probles etc are gone from w40k. But GW design team, for some reason wants to have elements of a skirmish 10 model per side game in their mass combat one.
Karol wrote: Why not just put each vehicle on a base the same way all other models are, mold quarters in to the base and then what ever is the quarter of the base you see closest is the facing you are shoting, charing or using your abilities on.
That is how most games that do facing handle it - thing is GW tanks have historically only had bases if they were a skimmer, otherwise they don't have them. so it means releasing bases for those tanks and then having base sizes for the tanks and getting everyone to start upgrading.
So it means a huge rework of existing models and so forth to make it work. At which point you've got a 3 year cycle to consider; how many are going to rebase and add bases to everything only to have the risk that next edition they vanish as a mechanic.
Plus things like baneblades are big enough; adding a base makes them marginally even bigger
Plus we have to account for the fact that none of the vehicles were built for a facings style game. Their scale compared ot infantry and the board is not good for allowing facings to be practical along with everything else.
So what. GW is making their games worse to play, on purpose for 30+ years, because they want to save up on bases for tanks. Because it is not like they can't make really big bases. They have the for knights, scenic models etc
And for some big stuff, if it would be a problem, they can just decide that unit X is either super tough, or super weak, and it always has one facing. They could even be vehicle upgrades, some sort of sand bags or extra armour or mini force fields, that turns the "side" or maybe even in extrem cases the "back" facing the same as the front.
They can come with handicaps too, as a trade. Either making tanks slower, replacing a weapon or the drain of energy for the fields is so big that maybe the weapons on the tank are weaker. etc.
Karol wrote: Why not just put each vehicle on a base the same way all other models are, mold quarters in to the base and then what ever is the quarter of the base you see closest is the facing you are shoting, charing or using your abilities on.
All the problems with facing come with trying to add non abstract LoS in to a system with abstract LoS , to what degrees is irrelevant, for everything else.
If a unit has a base that decides the facing then it doesn't matter how the vehicle looks like, if the player modeled it doing a wheele or a front stand. Add arbitrary hight for all units, terrain etc and almost all LoS problems, terrain probles etc are gone from w40k. But GW design team, for some reason wants to have elements of a skirmish 10 model per side game in their mass combat one.
Because theres a very vocal segment of the community that thinks its gross to put vehicles on bases, for some inexplicable reason. And that aesthetic judgement is seemingly influencing (and by extension compromising) sound game design.
Its also not just 40k, if you notice most vehicles don't have bases in LI either.
Overread wrote: Plus we have to account for the fact that none of the vehicles were built for a facings style game. Their scale compared ot infantry and the board is not good for allowing facings to be practical along with everything else.
Well, that's just factually untrue - the vast majority of vehicle designs were released (or, at least, originally released) prior to 8th edition, when the game did use facings.
I don't think releasing transparent bases separately and a mapping table that says which vehicle uses which base would be that big of a deal.
If you are able to get 3 years of games out of it, then that is more than can be said about stuff like index cards, codices, stuff like the PA books, stuff like Crusade books, ...
Karol wrote: So what. GW is making their games worse to play, on purpose for 30+ years, because they want to save up on bases for tanks. Because it is not like they can't make really big bases. They have the for knights, scenic models etc
I don't think they're "making games worse to play for 30 years" to avoid putting tanks on bases. Putting them on bases and introducing armour facings doesn't objectively make it better to play either. There's some real mental leaps there. Guess what grey knights don't have much of Karol, S8+. Enjoy never damaging a land raider
And for some big stuff, if it would be a problem, they can just decide that unit X is either super tough, or super weak, and it always has one facing. They could even be vehicle upgrades, some sort of sand bags or extra armour or mini force fields, that turns the "side" or maybe even in extrem cases the "back" facing the same as the front.
Which is on some level, what they've done for all tanks.
They can come with handicaps too, as a trade. Either making tanks slower, replacing a weapon or the drain of energy for the fields is so big that maybe the weapons on the tank are weaker. etc.
So a baneblade has the luxury of being slower, not having armour facings despite one of the minis you'd most be able to leverage against historically, having drain on other system etc. just because it doesn't fit on a base in a way that means it can be comfortably played with terrain? Sounds like you've managed to 180 back to not using bases.
This is how I would do facings for vehicles, if I were in charge. Basically what seems to look like the middle of the chassis and go from there. I reckon that, depending on the model, it still can happen that you get a weird angle, but this might be more a problem with the "it is enough to see the discarded magazine on the scenic base of a model to be able to shoot the whole damn squad behind that solid wall of concrete".
I think that's ok, but just with 40k as it is, as others have noted, it's not really adding anything and results in more player haggling and disagreement maybe. I've been there when armour facings were a thing, I don't overly miss them compared to a lot of other changes that were made in honestly. Obviously YMMV as we're all people.
I don't think they're "making games worse to play for 30 years" to avoid putting tanks on bases. Putting them on bases and introducing armour facings doesn't objectively make it better to play either. There's some real mental leaps there. Guess what grey knights don't have much of Karol, S8+. Enjoy never damaging a land raider
I don't know much, about prior editions, but after 8th, 9th and 10th, w40k looks to me like a system where GW has to find out the same lessons over and over again. Oh mass re-rolls and garentee results in a game of rolls procing stuff is bad? Who would have thought about it in 10th. Not that it didn't happen in 9th and 8th. Stupid LoS problems , because they want to force true line of sight in to a system not ment for it. How many times does GW have to learn that indirect fire in w40k is bad, and it gets even worse if procs/re-rolls/rules stacking happens.
and having defined and clear facing litteraly makes the game better, when the whole argument against them is that they are hard to decide on (because of model shapes) by two players. A base with facings removes all the problems. I don't understand the Land Raider comment. From what I know about prior editions, Land Raiders were never popular, because armies like eldar were one shoting them with a high chance of killing of the stuff inside.
Which is on some level, what they've done for all tanks.
The problem is the "some" part. Sure eldar vehicles are great.Undercosted, more rules then other factions. Some primaris vehicles are efficient. Ork vehicles can be good when they are cheap. Votan Sagitaurs are good because of being undercosted for the stats and rules. But then you look at something like a rhino or razorback or a dreadnought, and the vehicle is just bad. who takes a chimera or a taurox. Flyers were killed this edition. Knights of the imperial kind were good, till GW killed them, and it is a faction of just vehicles. Their "some" is 100% of the army. If their vehicles are bad the whole army doesn't work.
Post 2024/01/24 14:53:28 Subject: Has 10th Edition drained the soul from 40K?
Karol wrote:
So what. GW is making their games worse to play, on purpose for 30+ years, because they want to save up on bases for tanks. Because it is not like they can't make really big bases. They have the for knights, scenic models etc
I don't think they're "making games worse to play for 30 years" to avoid putting tanks on bases. Putting them on bases and introducing armour facings doesn't objectively make it better to play either. There's some real mental leaps there. Guess what grey knights don't have much of Karol, S8+. Enjoy never damaging a land raider
And for some big stuff, if it would be a problem, they can just decide that unit X is either super tough, or super weak, and it always has one facing. They could even be vehicle upgrades, some sort of sand bags or extra armour or mini force fields, that turns the "side" or maybe even in extrem cases the "back" facing the same as the front.
So a baneblade has the luxury of being slower, not having armour facings despite one of the minis you'd most be able to leverage against historically, having drain on other system etc. just because it doesn't fit on a base in a way that means it can be comfortably played with terrain? Sounds like you've managed to 180 back to not using bases.
If someone has a problem to decide what facing is closer on a baneblade, a tank bigger then most terrain pices in the game, then the baneblade player has more problems with his opponents, then just the facing. Plus in the case of this tank it is an upgrade. It is a fortress on tracks, as tough as it gets from every side. I see no 180 here.
I think that's ok, but just with 40k as it is, as others have noted, it's not really adding anything and results in more player haggling and disagreement maybe.
But that is not true. If the side or back is weaker, and I charge it or shot the side with my weapons, then a str 6-8 weapon suddenly becomes a problem. It also stops vehicles doing some wierd side charges or cliping. A vehicle wouldn't try to do a I===I block if it ment that the models on its side are going to be hiting it at half or 2/3 of its T. It would also breath new life in to melee dreadnoughts.
and having defined and clear facing litteraly makes the game better, when the whole argument against them is that they are hard to decide on (because of model shapes) by two players. A base with facings removes all the problems. I don't understand the Land Raider comment. From what I know about prior editions, Land Raiders were never popular, because armies like eldar were one shoting them with a high chance of killing of the stuff inside.
In your own words, please tell me what about armour facings instinctively makes the game better please.
Regards the land raider, it was AV14, your army needed made up rules slapped on to stand a chance to actually damage one, because armour value facings are hard stat checks and maths out to a minimum requirement of an ideal strength weapon for an army to possess.
As discussed on previous pages you needed mass s8 generally and you simply maths your way through vehicles without really caring how you damage them in 5th(?) onwards. Earlier to that it wasn't so bad, but it wasn't the armour values that really impacted things. It was the wildly more restrictive weapon rules imo.
So play with naked, bare plastic, immersion breaking bases is the solution?
Hard pass.
I won't even use bases on some of the 40 kits that come with them (ie. Ridgerunner) because it looks stupid.
I'm engaging with 10th because of how much of it was free. Bring back facings, force me to use bases on things that look stupid with bases and I'm out.
See? Like i said. A vocal segment of folks who have bizarro-world sensibilities and refuse to have bases on their vehicles are ruining the game for the rest of us.
Nevermind the fact that Star Wars Legion players absolutely do gussy up their vehicle bases because - and I know this is crazy - you can have a fancy decorative painted, textured, and flocked base while still leaving the arc markers visible.
So play with naked, bare plastic, immersion breaking bases is the solution?
Hard pass.
It is incredibly easy to base the SW Legion bases and maintain the arc markers on them. I've done it myself several times.
Failing that, you have the same system the bases that the Colossals, Battle Engines and Gargantuans came on in WMH. It had a marker on the lip of the base at the front for the left and right arcs, and two more on each side for front and rear. Done.
As for 40K i have put a base on exactly 1 vehicle model that did not come with it. a razorback for kill team/combat patrol games (4th ed rules). it is a pain to transport as all the foam made for vehicles does not include space for the extra size. that being said i am also a player of battletech, infinity, and warmachine MKIII where facing is a HUGE deal. when we play our 5th ed 40K games we never really have that issue because of the attitude of people in our regular group. if there is a question where facing is "on the line" we roll off to see which side it is on.
aphyon wrote: As for 40K i have put a base on exactly 1 vehicle model that did not come with it. a razorback for kill team/combat patrol games (4th ed rules). it is a pain to transport as all the foam made for vehicles does not include space for the extra size. that being said i am also a player of battletech, infinity, and warmachine MKIII where facing is a HUGE deal. when we play our 5th ed 40K games we never really have that issue because of the attitude of people in our regular group. if there is a question where facing is "on the line" we roll off to see which side it is on.
Rolling off is a mature, reasonable bandaid for the situation. That said, I do remember finding the need for such bandaids quite frustrating when there are various ways to simply write less ambiguous rules. Rolling off can get a bit frustrating over time if you're fairly sure your opponent is actually in your front arc, but you're too polite/conflict-averse to press the point.
chaos0xomega wrote: See? Like i said. A vocal segment of folks who have bizarro-world sensibilities and refuse to have bases on their vehicles are ruining the game for the rest of us.
Nevermind the fact that Star Wars Legion players absolutely do gussy up their vehicle bases because - and I know this is crazy - you can have a fancy decorative painted, textured, and flocked base while still leaving the arc markers visible.
GW doesn't listen to me any more or less than listen to you, so I ain't ruining the game for no one, and neither are you. Neither of us have that power.
I doubt this game will ever be as good for my preferences as it was in 9th. I bought every dex that I might remotely want to play during that edition- more money than I've ever spent on an edition. And I did it because I knew that 10th would oversimplify and remove all the good RP-type stuff it took them three years to develop. I thought- "Well, if the game is never again as good as it is now, at least I can keep doing this.
Maybe they should just give wargamers what they say they want- return ridiculous scatter dice, templates, AVs, eliminate all faction flavour rules so that the only difference between factions is which units they can spam due to FOC shenanigans, make it so that the whole measure of tactics is stuff that every faction can do- suppression fire, crossfire- whatever other dull wargamey junk you want. No faction can do anything that any other faction can't- except for FOC exception shenanigans.
If they ever do, I'll be sure to note how many people that said they wanted these things are still complaining; I'm sure that many will be... And to be fair, to a certain extent, that's what forums are for.
At least then I have the excuse to say- yeah, 9th or the highway.
Because right now, I'll play 10th... since it's pretty much free, and the changes, while they bother me, aren't severe enough that I'm unwilling to try something that doesn't cost me a dime. I bought Tyrannic War, and it's the only thing I've paid for this edition. I'm on the fence with Pariah, and probably won't bother. Depending on the Goonhammer reviews, I might get the Sisters dex and I might get the Drukhari dex, but that's probably it. Another factor will be whether or not we get new units that I like for those factions. Oh.... I'll end up with a Tau dex, because I want the Kroot box.
But there's no way in hell I'm buying 11 dexes again. Not with the mess they made of psychic powers, equipment options and sub-faction differentiation.
10th to me is the Limbo edition: not good enough to make me super enthusiastic about playing it, but not bad enough to let me fully retreat to my 9th edition sandbox.
kodos wrote: if there would just be an easy solution
Yeah, I find it obnoxious how discussions of armor facings as a mechanic always end up being an argument about how 40K used to do it versus how 40K does it now.
Some folks here really need to play other games and get some exposure for how game design is evolving outside the frankly out-of-touch GW studio.
I'm wholeheartedly in the no-bases camp. And They're really not needed.
My proposal, I think like others have also said, is to just use a template. I'd make a template that was split into a pair of quadrants, one that bisects the model (because I find it's easier to center a template if you have a straight line running down the middle of the model), and the other quadrant for the traditional Front, Side, Rear arcs. No need to draw lines through the invisible corners of weird models, and no need for bases on vehicles. If you really wanted to, you could use the same template for doing a simple Front/Back on certain units if you wanted to further differentiate.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
Who cares about being a box, it's a game with models. Everything is either geometric enough it has a center line or is a skimmer mounted on a base where you can just measure off of that. I swear everyone who has problems with AV or facings is just down to not treating things logically but encountering facings like it's the first time they played a wargame. Worst case scenario you just mark firing angles on the base itself like multiple star wars fleet games did over the decades.
Wyzilla wrote: I really don't get the arguments about facings because deciding what facing is being shot at is extremely trivial when you are playing a game which requires a tape measure. If your opponent is being a dumbass, it ain't hard to literally draw a physical line from the model shooting to the armor facing. Even better if you carry around a laser pointer keychain or the like.
Not every vehicles a box where it's clear what facing you're looking at.
I guarantee you that every vehicle in 40k will fit in a box & that you can determine where the center of that box is.
Tell me where the center of an Eldar falcon or wave Serpent is, and where it's front becomes it's side.
Spoiler:
Very confusing and difficult to figure out the center of skimmers when skimmers come with belly buttons to mount stands on.
You can tell that that belly button mount is not actually in the center of the model, right? It's the point the model balances on (in theory), clearly not the center of an imaginary rectangle.
I loved vehicle facings as a mechanic but determining facings for eldar vehicles was always a challenge (source: eldar player). Sure it's doable when looking at a picture, but it's more tricky in real life/on the tabletop. It gets more fun when you realize the wave serpent and fire prism have extended posteriors, meaning their center is at a slightly different spot than the falcon's, despite the chassis being the same otherwise. And do you count the spirit vanes (whiskers) on the wave serpent too when determining the box? Because you should, and that broadens the front and rear faces of the imaginary box compared to the other grav tanks.
I half suspect gw gave them all the same front and side armor values to sidestep this issue back then. This is the main reason unclear facings didn't slow down gameplay for eldar vehicles; it rarely mattered.
The idea of painting facing markings on the base would work, but not with the current tiny skimmer disks. Those are far too fragile to glue on imo. You'd need actual full-sized vehicle bases.
It is the center of the vehicle. It's the point of balance which is the center of mass which is the best point to place the center of the angles at. The problem is caring about some utter RAW perfection and arguing over that vs taking the simplest course of least resistance (oh hey the stand at the center of the mass of the model) and drawing the lines from there, unless GW were to ever print specific facings. This is what I mean about how the only problem with facings is people, not armor values and their respective facings. It only becomes a mountain because for whatever reason, 40k players specifically seem to have difficult conniptions with the subject and make it far more complex an issue than it needs to be. Which is also partly why I feel that in event of protracted turn times in the wargame too, just use a bloody chess clock if things get too ridiculous.
at the scale 40k plays at, detailed arcs are unneeded.
You only need 2 to create meaningful tactical decision making.
Draw a line perpendicular across the front most part of the vehicle hull.
And attack that comes from the forward side of the line is a front attack, and any other that draws from the other side is a rear attack and grants a bonus.
====| <-- front attacks
====|
^
Rear attacks
the point of the rule is create tactical challenges for manoeuvre and unit positioning. But it shouldn't take any longer than normal to determine to avoid slowing down the game.
Any template you use will generate arguments over where the central point should sit on the model, unless each model comes with a centre point modelled onto it.
If you absolutely must have more than 2 facings, then you can do the same thing as above, but make a T:
rear ====| <-- front attacks
-------------|
------====|
^
side attacks
^While I think that model is pretty good, I favor the quad arcs because it can make for interesting and characterful variaton between chassis. The old Leman Russ vs. Eldar Falcon example is a good one. The fact that the fast skimmer was equally protected around the front and side, because it was expected to flank the opposition. But the Imperial Guard tank emphasized forward facing protection, expecting a more frontal/siege doctrine.
"the scale of 40k"
the game itself does not have any scale is it has the amount of details you would go with a 10 model skirmish game and there facings on vehicles make sense, but at the same time uses much more models and adds rules for units/formations were none of those details makes sense
a squad based game that tracks individual model movement but ignores if a tank need to expose the weak side to fire all weapons is badly written
yet people still play 40k that changes on a regular bases and everyone knows in advance that things will be different very soon
for wargamers in general, I disagree, because people like changes and therefore they play different games or switch between rules
what they don't like is if games change for the sake of change (hence what 40k calls a balance update is already a new Edition in other games, and a new Edition for 40k is a new game for everything else)
this attitude for rules is linked to GW games most of the time
facings are the worst and impossible to use, is just now because the current rules don't have it and if GW ever brings it back the very same people will say that this is the best rule ever and just what 40k needed
everything is bad unless GW is doing it but if GW is doing it than there is no other possible way to handle it
the main reason why I have given up on making rules for 40k community, because if you are making a change people will argue how your change kills the game and removes the "40k feeling" from it (as example remove the vehicle damage table or vehicle facing) and than after GW is doing the very same with the next edition, you are the idiot for keeping those things in your version of the rules because no one ever liked that and it just causes endless problems were there is no possible solution
and no one will ever changes bases for their models just because of a small rules changes (but re-bases the whole army from 25mm to 28mm)
Maybe they should just give wargamers what they say they want- return ridiculous scatter dice, templates, AVs, eliminate all faction flavour rules so that the only difference between factions is which units they can spam due to FOC shenanigans, make it so that the whole measure of tactics is stuff that every faction can do- suppression fire, crossfire- whatever other dull wargamey junk you want. No faction can do anything that any other faction can't- except for FOC exception shenanigans.
If they ever do, I'll be sure to note how many people that said they wanted these things are still complaining; I'm sure that many will be... And to be fair, to a certain extent, that's what forums are for.
Well, well.... i do love my templates, scatter dice and AV, however as a person who is still actively playing oldhammer i still maintain that the older editions had far more flavor in most cases that reflected the lore than anything since. far beyond just the FOC. nearly every themed 40K army had a page or 2 of special rules that made them feel and fight differently on the table top.
It was the time of gaming nerds making games for nerds. when games workshop was a workshop for games, not "a model company that happens to have a game attached to them".
As for complaining, nah we fixed all the problems and we don't have to worry about GW every screwing it up again, now we just have fun, as Kodos said-
because people like changes and therefore they play different games or switch between rules
what they don't like is if games change for the sake of change
i can still enjoy classic 40K for what it is because it isn't all there is. of the dozen or so different game systems i own and play(or the ones i play that other friends bring) they are all different in their own way. it keeps it fresh and interesting while also avoiding burnout.
If all you play is 40K i could see where it becomes a problem, especially if you do not get to play very often. If i didn't get to play 12+ hours every weekend (usually on the same day) i would not be in the hobby as the investment would be to high for the returns.
The reason this topic has meandered along for over 60 pages is because it is a hobby and a universe that we love and want to enjoy. something we have invested time and effort into to the point it is part of us. We simply want it to be good from our perspective. i do not think GW can give that to us anymore and is the reason i walked away from them 3 editions ago. It is a relief really to get off the churn train since they can't screw you over again.
Jarms48 wrote: I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.
If by "shenanigans", you mean wound allocation, something that only a handful of units (barely even ten!) could take full advantage of (out of hundreds). then that is a problem of the unit entries, not the rule itself.
We've seen too many times in recent editions of GW swinging the axe wildly when it is only a few problem units that need reigning in, creating further problems that never existed in the first place.
Jarms48 wrote:I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.
Grimtuff wrote:
Jarms48 wrote: I just want a streamlined 5th editions with the shenanigans removed.
If by "shenanigans", you mean wound allocation, something that only a handful of units (barely even ten!) could take full advantage of (out of hundreds). then that is a problem of the unit entries, not the rule itself.
We've seen too many times in recent editions of GW swinging the axe wildly when it is only a few problem units that need reigning in, creating further problems that never existed in the first place.
Lord Damocles wrote:Just allocate wounds in order of AP. Basically solved the wound stacking problems against anything which isn't Nobs or Paladins.
Already solved this, we use 4th ed wound allocation in our 5th ed games-owning player chooses who takes the wounds, wounded models must be removed first as casualties in the case of multi-wound models. rolling armor saves is based on majority save/toughness.
Dudeface 811846 11634778 wrote:
In your own words, please tell me what about armour facings instinctively makes the game better please.
Regards the land raider, it was AV14, your army needed made up rules slapped on to stand a chance to actually damage one, because armour value facings are hard stat checks and maths out to a minimum requirement of an ideal strength weapon for an army to possess.
As discussed on previous pages you needed mass s8 generally and you simply maths your way through vehicles without really caring how you damage them in 5th(?) onwards. Earlier to that it wasn't so bad, but it wasn't the armour values that really impacted things. It was the wildly more restrictive weapon rules imo.
If a vehicle has t12 at the front and t6 at the back, then landing at its back and shoting/assaulting it from that facing is a valid way to counter a vehicle. Especialy for factions like my, where GW somehow forgot to add heavy weapons, in an edition full of vehicles.
It also stops vehicles from doing stupid pile ins the long way, because with different wounding values depending ona facing it would be a risk. Sometimes a big one, if the said tank was charging in to a unit of lets say str 6-10 models. Now they could still do it, but it would be a risk. It would also mean that vehicles that have the same T value all around. On ork player with a buggy or truck having the same T on every facing wouldn't have to worry about doing a belarussian roll. Same with Land Raiders.
It would also make flyers and skimers being easier to kill, because something that drops to t5-6 is easier to kill then having t10-11+ all the time. Etc etc.
Also the "wide restrictive" in how GW implements often means, that 50% of armies are restriced 40% are not so much, and some have thing X so unrestricted that it feels, as if they were playing a different edition or even a game. My dudes have practicaly zero re-rolls, marines have some, and then there are armies that get 30+CP worth of re-rolls through out the game.
chaos0xomega wrote: See? Like i said. A vocal segment of folks who have bizarro-world sensibilities and refuse to have bases on their vehicles are ruining the game for the rest of us.
Nevermind the fact that Star Wars Legion players absolutely do gussy up their vehicle bases because - and I know this is crazy - you can have a fancy decorative painted, textured, and flocked base while still leaving the arc markers visible.
Who cares what legion players are doing?
Vehicles on bases looks dumb. Its fine on knights as they would just fall over without them.
Not only do I not base my vehicles, I don't even decorate my infantry bases. I like them subtle so the eye is drawn to either the model or the surrounding terrain/ground.
If GW had made top-down diagrams for each vehicle they could have done interesting things like giving that Eldar vehicle strong side armor and weak front and rear armor, on account of the giant wing-like things that look stronger than the front.
Dudeface 811846 11634778 wrote:
In your own words, please tell me what about armour facings instinctively makes the game better please.
Regards the land raider, it was AV14, your army needed made up rules slapped on to stand a chance to actually damage one, because armour value facings are hard stat checks and maths out to a minimum requirement of an ideal strength weapon for an army to possess.
As discussed on previous pages you needed mass s8 generally and you simply maths your way through vehicles without really caring how you damage them in 5th(?) onwards. Earlier to that it wasn't so bad, but it wasn't the armour values that really impacted things. It was the wildly more restrictive weapon rules imo.
If a vehicle has t12 at the front and t6 at the back, then landing at its back and shoting/assaulting it from that facing is a valid way to counter a vehicle. Especialy for factions like my, where GW somehow forgot to add heavy weapons, in an edition full of vehicles.
It also stops vehicles from doing stupid pile ins the long way, because with different wounding values depending ona facing it would be a risk. Sometimes a big one, if the said tank was charging in to a unit of lets say str 6-10 models. Now they could still do it, but it would be a risk. It would also mean that vehicles that have the same T value all around. On ork player with a buggy or truck having the same T on every facing wouldn't have to worry about doing a belarussian roll. Same with Land Raiders.
It would also make flyers and skimers being easier to kill, because something that drops to t5-6 is easier to kill then having t10-11+ all the time. Etc etc.
Also the "wide restrictive" in how GW implements often means, that 50% of armies are restriced 40% are not so much, and some have thing X so unrestricted that it feels, as if they were playing a different edition or even a game. My dudes have practicaly zero re-rolls, marines have some, and then there are armies that get 30+CP worth of re-rolls through out the game.
So your one selling point is "s5-10 models can kill tanks easier" after they spent an edition making tanks harder to kill? You're happy to make it easier to bolter down vehicles on the condition you have an army wide ability to get behind them? Please try to be a little more objective.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Genuinely I don't see any problem with any of that. If vehicle armor facing shifts army balance around a bit, then so be it. It gives another potential method of engaging a subset of high value targets, and encourages more positional play.
Karol may play GK and loathe Eldar, but that bias doesn't automatically make him incorrect.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Genuinely I don't see any problem with any of that. If vehicle armor facing shifts army balance around a bit, then so be it. It gives another potential method of engaging a subset of high value targets, and encourages more positional play.
Karol may play GK and loathe Eldar, but that bias doesn't automatically make him incorrect.
I think it does in the context of 10th ed 40k. Flanking a vehicle is generally fairly easy to accomplish for a lot of forces and would unfairly punish those that have a larger vehicle contingent (looking at the low 40's% WR knights over there).
In a world where it was a Tactical challenge to pull off and there was space to value the maneuvering? Sure why not. All that would encourage in 40k now is that vehicles either don't get taken, sit at the back or are worth a lot less suddenly and as a result, get spammed.
To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Dudeface wrote: To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Depends how the facings were implemented - if we're talking facings + AV, then lasguns are usually unable to penetrate even the weakest armour (AV10) on a verhicle.
I may have missed how people were talking about implementing them earlier in the thread, admittedly.
What looks dumb is not basing vehicles, as it makes your based infantry models look larger by comparison.
Genuine question, how big are you making a baneblade base? I'd like to visualise it.
I'm not, lol. Not only do I not own any, but theres no point in basing a Baneblade - doing so isn't supported by the rules (and might in fact be considered an illegal modeling for advantage type thing). While it would, I think, enhance the representative scaling between the vehicle and the surrounding infantry, its not worth the headaches that doing so would entail if GW isn't going to support it in their game.
Dudeface wrote: To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Depends how the facings were implemented - if we're talking facings + AV, then lasguns are usually unable to penetrate even the weakest armour (AV10) on a verhicle.
I may have missed how people were talking about implementing them earlier in the thread, admittedly.
Insectum7 wrote: Sure, they made vehicles tougher. But if you flank them, they can be less tough again. Straightforward reasoning for a roundabout tactic.
Yes, but not land raiders, a unit Karols army has acces to, but points out skimmers which they’re on record as having a rage against Eldar. They want to make it easier to kill vehicles with small arms, which is singularly the point of people wanting facings back. They reference mid strength melee dropping in behind targets, as the owner of an army with a deep strike special rule.
None of this is remotely objective.
Having attacks to the rear seems relevant to a game without army wide teleportation, ability to opt to walk in behind stuff later in the game, penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, or penalties for advancing and firing weapons in some cases. Or a game where it's about 500 points too large smushed into a shrunken table size.
In the current environment adding that in is pitched singularly to make GK better at the cost of devaluing vehicles for the entire game because it ignores the other 4 editions worth of making movement irrelevant.
Genuinely I don't see any problem with any of that. If vehicle armor facing shifts army balance around a bit, then so be it. It gives another potential method of engaging a subset of high value targets, and encourages more positional play.
Karol may play GK and loathe Eldar, but that bias doesn't automatically make him incorrect.
I think it does in the context of 10th ed 40k. Flanking a vehicle is generally fairly easy to accomplish for a lot of forces and would unfairly punish those that have a larger vehicle contingent (looking at the low 40's% WR knights over there).
In a world where it was a Tactical challenge to pull off and there was space to value the maneuvering? Sure why not. All that would encourage in 40k now is that vehicles either don't get taken, sit at the back or are worth a lot less suddenly and as a result, get spammed.
To add to that, I thought you were against vehicles dying to mass lasguns? Not making it easier to accomplish.
Squaring that circle is easy. 10th is bad (see thread title), and in the ideal world where small arms (or maybe even heavier ones) couldn't scratch a vehicle from the front, flanking is great mechanic.
But even in 10th (*barf), I'm pro-flanking because not all armies have the same number of AT solutions. Providing potential alternatives (that aren't Strats or bespoke special rules) is still great. If some rebalancing has to happen, then so be it.
Star Wars Legion, technically Warmachine though vehicles are relatively few and far between, Battletech, technically age of sigmar (steam tanks are on bases, as are hurricanums and luminarks, amongst others), etc. all put vehicles on bases, plenty of older games predating 40k did so as well.
Star Wars Legion, technically Warmachine though vehicles are relatively few and far between, Battletech, technically age of sigmar (steam tanks are on bases, as are hurricanums and luminarks, amongst others), etc. all put vehicles on bases, plenty of older games predating 40k did so as well.
Vehicles in BT are as often not on bases as they are on bases.
RaptorusRex wrote: Vehicles in BT are as often not on bases as they are on bases.
So there are - in fact and contrary to the original statement - other systems that do use bases for their vehicles. Glad we could clear that up so quickly.
(I think you would find that if you placed unit A in front of the target, and unit B to the side of the target, and then checked the arc was separated by the 90 degree cone, that would look like a reasonable flanking position to grant a bonus, 
