The more that I read and hear about the Heresy rules, the more that I like them. And, even with recent changes to 40K rules, rather than follow GW down the rose-petal path of debugging-for-profit that is 9th (the same path that led me to purchase the infamous hardcover Imperial Agents book at the end of 7th and to hesitate on Shadow War Armeggedon, mistakenly expecting 8th to go that direction...) I would prefer that GW port Heresy rules directly into 40K, instead.

Here, a simple poll asking this question and encouraging discussion on the potential - Bad idea?
Looking forward to results.

I think the game would profit from a reimplementation of:
Armorfacings and firing arks.
Templates.
USR's.

I disagree on the ammount of USR's though especially in the context of 30k having quite a few rules for rending PA to differentiate the units and make PA on PA not such a slug, those wouldn't be needed.
I also prefer the new AP system due to its not all or nothing nature.

I actually prefer heresy-style AP. We've seen how the new system, combined with the uprating of firepower make decent armour much less meaningful, hence all the special rules and tweaks and wound increases to try and increase survivability of marines et al - as well as the widespread dearth of tanks without an invun.

Thematically the new system makes more sense, but crunchwise the old system made better armour more worthwhile - and tank facing mattering too is nice.

I like the heresy to wound chart and the comparison of weapon skill in melee, these feel more thematic for me

 arkhanist wrote:
I actually prefer heresy-style AP. We've seen how the new system, combined with the uprating of firepower make decent armour much less meaningful, hence all the special rules and tweaks and wound increases to try and increase survivability of marines et al - as well as the widespread dearth of tanks without an invun.

Thematically the new system makes more sense, but crunchwise the old system made better armour more worthwhile - and tank facing mattering too is nice.

Did it do that really though, i find the inverted is the case, the old system forced players into the magic AP3 / Ap2 slot, where such weapons were dominating picks and made other weaponry often obsolete due to the player population being marine dominated.
With the new system i often feel like my CSM atleast get a decent saveroll, unlike with the old one.
However i agree about the tanks but that is tied to the Armor value removal and replacement of them being in essence oversensitive monstrous creatures.

Yes, yes and yes again. Bring back weapon skill comparison, bring back an ap system where high armor saves actually matter. Also bring back initiative to 40k for the love of the Emperor and bin the garbage fight first/last we have now. The new reactions seem extremely fun, but most faction specific ones are once per game so you can't spam them like stratagems.

I personally like almost everything about the new heresy rules more than current 40k.

I like the old 3rd-7th rules system for the same reasons that others have mentioned, but what really gets me are the faction rules. Specifically, my faction: Night Lords. Like, why can't the 40k rules team write 8th Legion rules like those? The 30k team absolutely nailed the 8th Legion, IMO.

Oh, and real morale mechanics! Pinning, forced fallback, and sweeping advances! Oh my!

I'd like Heresy Mechanicum be ported to 40K instead, so no. HH rules are based on 40K's worst rules system, 7th edition.
Yes, I'm aware that Forgeworld team has done a lot of work to cut down on the worst offenders of that system, but it's still an aweful basis due to:
- Ap system
- WS system (they added some refinement to not make these totally useless like in 7th, right?)
- unit types (good thing they finally introduced movement values)
- vehicle rules + hull points
- psychic phase
- Close combat aka: we just roll until one side is dead and there's nothing else to do

What would I like?
- 30Ks morale system in 40K
- reaction system instead of stratagems
- some reasonable USRs

These are the only things where HH is superior.
40K's problems lie solely/ mainly in the mission structure and lethality of waepon profiles, while 7th edition is bloated to its core.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I like the old 3rd-7th rules system for the same reasons that others have mentioned, but what really gets me are the faction rules. Specifically, my faction: Night Lords. Like, why can't the 40k rules team write 8th Legion rules like those? The 30k team absolutely nailed the 8th Legion, IMO.

Oh, and real morale mechanics! Pinning, forced fallback, and sweeping advances! Oh my!

Exactly.
Current discussion reflects my thinking, but almost half of respondents feel otherwise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'd like Heresy Mechanicum be ported to 40K instead, so no. HH rules are based on 40K's worst rules system, 7th edition.
Yes, I'm aware that Forgeworld team has done a lot of work to cut down on the worst offenders of that system, but it's still an aweful basis due to:
- Ap system
- WS system (they added some refinement to not make these totally useless like in 7th, right?)
- unit types (good thing they finally introduced movement values)
- vehicle rules + hull points
- psychic phase

What would I like?
- 30Ks morale system in 40K
- reaction system instead of stratagems
- some reasonable USRs

These are the only things where HH is superior.
40K's problems lie solely/ mainly in the mission structure and lethality of waepon profiles, while 7th edition is bloated to its core.

Cortez posted just as I was editing my last post, I was slow...
Thank you for representing that view. But Cortez, what does 7th have to do with anything? 40K originally had movement values, iirc. Maybe vehicles and hull points seem clunky, but imho we are just a short time past the Tiananmen grot in the evolution of the current game, and anything beats starship troopers wrecking a Land raider with small arms. Meanwhile, sneaking up to that same heavy tank with a las-cannon and luckily getting a good shot under the gap of the turret to cripple that same heavy tank makes more sense, to me. I have yet to see such dynamics demonstrated in a game so I am not sure how these sorts of intereactions will play out, but I think that Heresy differs enough from 7th to call it a new thing, no?

(sorry for all the edits...)

 jeff white wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'd like Heresy Mechanicum be ported to 40K instead, so no. HH rules are based on 40K's worst rules system, 7th edition.
Yes, I'm aware that Forgeworld team has done a lot of work to cut down on the worst offenders of that system, but it's still an aweful basis due to:
- Ap system
- WS system (they added some refinement to not make these totally useless like in 7th, right?)
- unit types (good thing they finally introduced movement values)
- vehicle rules + hull points
- psychic phase

What would I like?
- 30Ks morale system in 40K
- reaction system instead of stratagems
- some reasonable USRs

These are the only things where HH is superior.
40K's problems lie solely/ mainly in the mission structure and lethality of waepon profiles, while 7th edition is bloated to its core.

Cortez posted just as I was editing my last post, I was slow...
Thank you for representing that view. But Cortez, what does 7th have to do with anything? 40K originally had movement values, iirc. Maybe vehicles and hull points seem clunky, but imho we are just a short time past the Tiananmen grot in the evolution of the current game, and anything beats starship troopers wrecking a Land raider with small arms. Meanwhile, sneaking up to that same heavy tank with a las-cannon and luckily getting a good shot under the gap of the turret to cripple that same heavy tank makes more sense, to me. I have yet to see such dynamics demonstrated in a game so I am not sure how these sorts of intereactions will play out, but I think that Heresy differs enough from 7th to call it a new thing, no?

(sorry for all the edits...)

I will admit that I haven't read the main rulebook of HH, yet but go from what I've observed about HH during the last years and also what I gathered from reviews, leaks and previews about the new edition. I've yet to see a comprehensive list about what has been changed between HH and 7th.
And I must say I've seen fewer tanks die to small arms since 8th than I saw in 7th (let alone 6th were the vehicle damage table was even worse), where a single plague marine sometimes was more durable than a Rhino-tank. Or a Dreadnought. The whole vehicle rules system broke down because of hull points. HH's solution? They handed out upgrades that ignored several vehicle/ weapons rules (melta, for example) or you just went for superheavies which worked because they also ignore most of the vehicle rules. New edition made walkers not vehicles anymore because of the split between monsters and vehicles. So if vehicle rules just make your vehicles worse they're bad.

Some aspects of the game that were very clunky pre 8th just found an elegant solution, WS for example, despite having 10 different values they meant you always hit on 3s or 4s, very rarely on 5s (okay, with Tau it wasn't that rare), in 8th this got simplified and yet we have more diverse to hit values, ranging from 2+ to 6+. (I know new HH somehow changed the WS problem a bit.)
Tank shock, oh my. 8th just lets a tank assault, problem solved. It's still not very useful to charge with a tank, but at least I don't have to reread 3 pages every time it happens to realize that in the end nothing happens.
Ap system? You just always took AP 2 weapons because every other value didn't matter or only mattered against models whose saves where bad in the first place.
CC? It probably got the best improvement with 8th because now you actually have something to think about as a player, you have to do careful movement, you can react as the defender and as an Ork you aren't screwed because some idiot thought it was somehow a good idea to give Initiative 2 to a squishy CC faction.
Wound allocation - is HH still using the stupid remove models from the front rule? Because when our group read the wound allocation from 8th everybody was like: it took them 20 years to do the most obvious and straightforward thing.

"HH is a rubbish ruleset because it's the same as 7th."
"Have you read the new rules?"
"No."

Wholesale move to heresy ruleset would be silly IMO.

There are aspects that could be ported over (like weapon skill) that would be nice. . .

What 40k really needs is less extra rules (million stratagems) and for them to better utilize the rules structure that's actually in place (Toughness and weapon strength, for example).

I would appreciate the introduction of USRs and the replacement of Stratagems with Reactions. I think some other things would be neat - such as the Heresy change to Plasma Guns.

30k seems to have far reasonable morale (in that morale actually matters) - so bringing over that would be cool.

I've never liked templates and independent vehicle damage rules, while more realistic, create painful and irritating imbalance situations imo. I would prefer those remain in the Heresy.

 Gert wrote:
"HH is a rubbish ruleset because it's the same as 7th."
"Have you read the new rules?"
"No."

Lol. The new rules address almost all of the complaints and it is funny.

arkhanist wrote:I actually prefer heresy-style AP. We've seen how the new system, combined with the uprating of firepower make decent armour much less meaningful, hence all the special rules and tweaks and wound increases to try and increase survivability of marines et al - as well as the widespread dearth of tanks without an invun.

Thematically the new system makes more sense, but crunchwise the old system made better armour more worthwhile - and tank facing mattering too is nice.

Not Online!!! wrote:Did it do that really though, i find the inverted is the case, the old system forced players into the magic AP3 / Ap2 slot, where such weapons were dominating picks and made other weaponry often obsolete due to the player population being marine dominated.

In the past I've been a big proponent of the current AP system (but not how GW has made it silly), and HH1.0 being a Marine-fest highlighted the weaknesses of the old system- everyone's got 3+ or 2+ armor, so AP2 and AP3 are the magic breakpoints and anything less needs high volume of fire to be useful. I don't think the Lightning Guns on my Thallaxi (one shot at S7, and I think AP4) have ever accomplished much of anything.

However, HH2.0 is iterating slightly, with more rules that affect saves. Eg plasma guns are AP4 so no longer flatly ignore power armor all the time, but if you roll a 4+ to wound they ignore armor. Power swords are AP3, but Rending, so chop up power armor but still have some relevance against Terminators. It's more to keep track of- and you could fairly call it bloat- but it does make armor degrade more gracefully, while avoiding some of the issues of a flat modifier. GW's also giving more utility to weapons that previously suffered for lack of AP, like rotor cannons getting Pinning, and chainswords getting Shred (re-roll wounds). So I'm cautiously optimistic to see how it all works out in practice.

There are a lot of examples of things like that in the HH2.0 ruleset. WS matters more now. Reactions allow for player agency within a IGOUGO structure. Little improvements to the core structure, addressing some of the things that were bad about 7th and carried forward to HH1.0- although even then, HH1.0 already addressed what I've seen to be the biggest criticisms of 7th, like Invisibility. It really could use some good player aids, though.

I think it'd be really presumptive to say right now that I'd like 40K on the HH2.0 engine, but it has a lot of promise.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol. The new rules address almost all of the complaints and it is funny.

It's been five years since the AoD Rulebook came out and changed HH from a port from 40k into its own thing. Formations don't exist in HH, the Psychic Powers table was changed to remove the worst problems, summoning is all but non-existent and the balance between the armies is much better due to it being a game based around 6 armies with subfaction variations rather than 20 odd armies with subfaction variations. The biggest problem was the Psychic Phase which was utterly dominated by Tsons and the lack of centralised rules (Custodes being spread over 2 books, generic Legion units being stretched over every book, etc.).

I've found that people who are most opposed to HH being its own thing and not just a port of 9th are the people who haven't actually played the AoD ruleset or even the original ported system, they just assume the worst because it's roughly based the last version of 40k before 8th. There are, of course, people who do want it to go to the 9th style and they are welcome to their opinion, however wrong they may be .

The only thing I'd want to see from HH into 40k is the Reaction system. Could probably replace quite a few stratagems, plus generic army rules are nice.

 Gert wrote:


I've found that people who are most opposed to HH being its own thing ~

It's not that I'm opposed to it, I've just never been sold on why I'd need a whole separate game to play (mostly) Marine vs Marine games.
OK, maybe a 30k specific Codex. But a whole different GAME?

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lol. The new rules address almost all of the complaints and it is funny.

It's been five years since the AoD Rulebook came out and changed HH from a port from 40k into its own thing. Formations don't exist in HH, the Psychic Powers table was changed to remove the worst problems, summoning is all but non-existent and the balance between the armies is much better due to it being a game based around 6 armies with subfaction variations rather than 20 odd armies with subfaction variations. The biggest problem was the Psychic Phase which was utterly dominated by Tsons and the lack of centralised rules (Custodes being spread over 2 books, generic Legion units being stretched over every book, etc.).

I've found that people who are most opposed to HH being its own thing and not just a port of 9th are the people who haven't actually played the AoD ruleset or even the original ported system, they just assume the worst because it's roughly based the last version of 40k before 8th. There are, of course, people who do want it to go to the 9th style and they are welcome to their opinion, however wrong they may be .

You realize that nothing you state about what was being fixed by HH is actually something that I made out as a problem of the rules? 7th wasn't bad because of formations, invisibility, summoning or many books, these were just the worst offenders of a system that was bloated to its core and I've yet to read how HH fixed problems in the base rules. HH is an awesome total conversion mod that is held back by an outdated engine .

Edit:
So after heaving read the goonhammer review of HH I'll say two of my gripes with the system seem to have been solved (WS system and psychic phase) which is good. Wound allocation seems to make more sense than before, I'd say it's probably on par with 9th now. Similar to movement/ unit types, though goonhammer didn't really go deep into that. CC still seems inferior, vehicle rules... will be important to see in practice. It looks like they tried to make vehicles feel more durable, I'm still sceptical about combining hull points with armour values, but obviousely a lot thought has been put in these to make tanks useful in HH.
I never was opposed to templates, the system usually broke down when you had units shooting multiple templates though (say, quadcannons, for example), I'm not sure if that has been fixed, too.
Another gripe might be the lack of split fire.
Ap system seems to be unchanged. too (but I know they tweaked weapons so that weapons without Ap2/1 may have a use now).
So I'll say it looks like a much needed patch, but I'm hesitant to decide whether it's really on par with 9th base rules (I'm pretty sure if we go down to army rules and balance HH will be superior, but that was always 40Ks problem because GW thinks they need to sell us a new book every 3 years for every army)

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
HH is an awesome total conversion mod that is held back by an outdated engine .

A conclusion you come to without actually playing it, or even so much as opening the readme to learn exactly what it changed, apparently.

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
HH is an awesome total conversion mod that is held back by an outdated engine .

A conclusion you come to without actually playing it, or even so much as opening the readme to learn exactly what it changed, apparently.

Read my edit above. The game is not even out so it's hardly possible to make a final conclusion, yet.

ccs wrote:
It's not that I'm opposed to it, I've just never been sold on why I'd need a whole separate game to play (mostly) Marine vs Marine games.
OK, maybe a 30k specific Codex. But a whole different GAME?

I mean it started out as a supplementary ruleset but as 40k progressed to 8th, the system that was already in place worked really well for HH.
The same thing could realistically be said for the Old World. Why does it need to be square bases and rank'n'file when it could just be a campaign book or supplement for AoS?

Having a wider spread of systems to choose from where it's not all the exact same set of rules might be inconvenient but at the same time it won't get monotonous and from personal experience switching between games can really help with fatigue. Heck I did it with HH when I got sick of playing the same thing week after week, so I swapped to 40k to give myself a break.

100% no questions asked the HH system would be better for 40k. The rending, Command point, and new wounding system was an interesting, but ultimately failed experiment. It did not solve the problems that were in the game in some cases like the rending AP system, only exacerbated them further.

Other than going back to templates and the weirdness of dreads vs other vehicles (which feels like a weird lack of commitment to either system), I definitely like what I've seen of HH more than 8th/9th.

Never particularly been a fan of exception based rules design, and the focus on 'bespoke' is irritating, as it misses the point of having a game system. Even though GW's concept of 'bespoke' is often 'same thing with a different name,' rather than 'specially crafted to fit.'

We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

BrianDavion wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

The vast majority of rules in 7th were not complex. The biggest problems with complexity in 7th were the close combat rules, including challenges, initiative and grinding advance. Most of which I think 8th and 9th actually improved on overall.

USRs were never really a problem in themselves it was just how GW decided to convey them. If anything the current plethora of special rules and unit specific rules are far more complicated, it's just that they are easier to reference.

I'm not even going to get started on strategems, secondary objectives, cp, sub army special rules, warlord traits, and however many different pdfs, books, erratas, codexes, and whatever else it seems like you need to play with these days.

Also I really liked the 7th edition aircraft rules.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

The vast majority of rules in 7th were not complex. The biggest problems with complexity in 7th were the close combat rules, including challenges, initiative and grinding advance. Most of which I think 8th and 9th actually improved on overall.

USRs were never really a problem in themselves it was just how GW decided to convey them. If anything the current plethora of special rules and unit specific rules are far more complicated, it's just that they are easier to reference.

I'm not even going to get started on strategems, secondary objectives, cp, sub army special rules, warlord traits, and however many different pdfs, books, erratas, codexes, and whatever else it seems like you need to play with these days.

Also I really liked the 7th edition aircraft rules.

the worst part of 7E for me was the psykic phase, that was a total mess

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

The vast majority of rules in 7th were not complex. The biggest problems with complexity in 7th were the close combat rules, including challenges, initiative and grinding advance. Most of which I think 8th and 9th actually improved on overall.

USRs were never really a problem in themselves it was just how GW decided to convey them. If anything the current plethora of special rules and unit specific rules are far more complicated, it's just that they are easier to reference.

I'm not even going to get started on strategems, secondary objectives, cp, sub army special rules, warlord traits, and however many different pdfs, books, erratas, codexes, and whatever else it seems like you need to play with these days.

Also I really liked the 7th edition aircraft rules.

the worst part of 7E for me was the psykic phase, that was a total mess

I agree there as well. The randomization of psychic powers, deny the witch ranges, and brokenness of certain spells (invisibility) were bad.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

The vast majority of rules in 7th were not complex. The biggest problems with complexity in 7th were the close combat rules, including challenges, initiative and grinding advance. Most of which I think 8th and 9th actually improved on overall.

USRs were never really a problem in themselves it was just how GW decided to convey them. If anything the current plethora of special rules and unit specific rules are far more complicated, it's just that they are easier to reference.

I'm not even going to get started on strategems, secondary objectives, cp, sub army special rules, warlord traits, and however many different pdfs, books, erratas, codexes, and whatever else it seems like you need to play with these days.

Also I really liked the 7th edition aircraft rules.

the worst part of 7E for me was the psykic phase, that was a total mess

I agree there as well. The randomization of psychic powers, deny the witch ranges, and brokenness of certain spells (invisibility) were bad.

and the dice power pool was just a mess. tHH 2.0 looks to be returning to the pre-7th edition rules ffor psykers which... yeah saner

Also 4th edition wound allocation rules. And psychic rules.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I think the game would profit from a reimplementation of:
Armorfacings and firing arks.
Templates.
USR's.

I disagree on the ammount of USR's though especially in the context of 30k having quite a few rules for rending PA to differentiate the units and make PA on PA not such a slug, those wouldn't be needed.
I also prefer the new AP system due to its not all or nothing nature.

Armor facings and firing arcs barely work(or matter) in 30k. Templates are dumb. Some USRs are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 arkhanist wrote:
I actually prefer heresy-style AP. We've seen how the new system, combined with the uprating of firepower make decent armour much less meaningful, hence all the special rules and tweaks and wound increases to try and increase survivability of marines et al - as well as the widespread dearth of tanks without an invun.

Thematically the new system makes more sense, but crunchwise the old system made better armour more worthwhile - and tank facing mattering too is nice.

It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+. 30k's AP system kind of works because there's only 2 types of armor save. 2+ and 3+. So every gun is either 'kills terminators', 'kills marines', or 'kills nothing'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Yes, yes and yes again. Bring back weapon skill comparison, bring back an ap system where high armor saves actually matter. Also bring back initiative to 40k for the love of the Emperor and bin the garbage fight first/last we have now. The new reactions seem extremely fun, but most faction specific ones are once per game so you can't spam them like stratagems.

I personally like almost everything about the new heresy rules more than current 40k.

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

ERJAK wrote:
It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+.

That's mostly an artifact of the most common statline in the game having a 3+ save and an AP5 gun. There weren't a lot of things out there that couldn't ignore a 5+ save, but I definitely felt it when my carapace-armored Storm Troopers had double the survivability against common small arms compared to a normal Guardsman.

But here we are in 9th Ed and everyone's got AP out the wazoo, so if you're not a Marine your armor is still useless, and they had to carve out an extremely clunky special rule just to make Marines feel less paper-thin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

I feel like you must have played a completely different game from me. Because my experience of Guardsmen getting charged by Orks sure wasn't Guardsmen auto-winning thanks to higher initiative. The game I played also had elements like terrain, grenades, and initiative-altering weapons that could change up the order of operations in combat.

I'm not wild on the initiative system but 9th has, for me, been far closer to 'why even roll?' as the lethality escalation means that whoever charges first is likely to wipe out their opponent before they can hit back. That was a lot rarer back in the day.

Polling has shifted significantly to the Yes column…

Eldarsif wrote:The only thing I'd want to see from HH into 40k is the Reaction system. Could probably replace quite a few stratagems, plus generic army rules are nice.

Pretty much this. I love reactions, but the whole system of templates and the convoluted hit and wound chart need to stay away from 40k, and imo, should never have been brought back in Heresy. Also, I prefer that everything just has wounds and not hull points and facing rules and such.

"Convoluted wound chart" is never something I thought I'd read. . .

Each step in difference was a point on the die, with an extra grace of 1 on the end. Max 6, min 2. "Convoluted" pffft.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Convoluted wound chart" is never something I thought I'd read. . .

Each step in difference was a point on the die, with an extra grace of 1 on the end. Max 6, min 2. "Convoluted" pffft.

yeah but that exp[ects them to do Math Insectum, how dare a tactial wargame ask us to THINK!

I thought 7th was rubbish because of all the formation nonsense that got out of hand. And allies. And Hull Points.

That last one may be personal bias.

And those things aren't part of HH (well, Hull Points are, sadly), so what would be the problem?

I'd want the Wound Chart put into 40k. And the morale rules, so 40k can actually have morale rules, rather than a lose-more mechanics that ignore all the structures of causing damage by not using strength/AP/damage and bypassing toughness/saves/wounds completely but I've ranted about this dozens of times now so I'll leave it alone for now... and USRs! 40k would sure do with some shrinking/consolidation of its endless bespoke-but-ultimately very similar rules, cutting them down into a tight series of scalable* USRs. Not keep on blast markers coming back, but flamer templates were fun.


*In the sense of not having Bulky, Very Bulky and Super-Duper Bulky, but a single scalable rule like HH has, where you just have Bulky (X), and "X" = how many slots you take up in a transport. Scalable rules like that are fantastic.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Convoluted wound chart" is never something I thought I'd read. . .

Each step in difference was a point on the die, with an extra grace of 1 on the end. Max 6, min 2. "Convoluted" pffft.

yeah but that exp[ects them to do Math Insectum, how dare a tactial wargame ask us to THINK!

Hehe. They gotta do math now! Not even addition but multiplication to determine if S is double T.

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

Full circle would imply that the same people wanting this, also did not want 7th ed style rules.

Many people, MANY people and momentum behind HH is proof that there are a LOT of people who are not happy with the 8th style rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We've come full circle to people wanting 40k to use Heresy rules, as though Heresy rules aren't just an older edition of 40k rules.

anyone remember when people where claiming that the 40k rules (at the time 7th ed) where too complex and that "we needed to adopt rules more like AOS"

The irony of this, is that the new HH rules were actually written by the AoS rule writers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the morale rules, so 40k can actually have morale rules, rather than a lose-more mechanics that ignore all the structures of causing damage by not using strength/AP/damage and bypassing toughness/saves/wounds completely but I've ranted about this dozens of times now so I'll leave it alone for now...

I'm actually really excited for HH2.0's changes to morale:
-Marines are generally Ld7, with Ld8 on sergeants,
-More weapons cause pinning checks (and some apply modifiers to those checks),
-More things cause morale modifiers,
-And most importantly, being pinned or falling back precludes you from using the new reaction system.

So put it all together: Marines will be falling back a bit more, they'll be getting pinned a LOT more, and pinning will be a valuable tool to keep a unit from reacting, which can be very powerful (eg overwatch against a charging unit at full BS). Using indirect fire weapons to suppress infantry in preparation for close assault? In my GW game? It's more likely than you think. Certainly very different from the Ld9 ATSKNF stoicism of 3rd-7th.

That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

Have them be immune to the Fear special rule.

Being pinned/suppressed or forced to abandon forward positions by weight of fire and ferocity of an assault isn't necessarily a move motivated by fear - military necessity and a pragmatic recognition of the need to preserve oneself as an instrument of military power can both motivate that. A breakdown in local leadership can also explain that sort of thing as well, and there are more ways for that breakdown to occur than "PANIK" or a pure fear response.

Being scared of giant scary demons/monsters/etc is definitely a human failure though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

Let's go back to 4th edition. ATSKNF = can attempt to regroup when below half strength. Marines still fall back and get pinned by suppressing fire but they're never so broken that they can't rally and get back into the fight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

I'd probably give loyalist Marines a bonus (eg roll 3, drop highest) to rallying- you can pin them with sheer firepower or force them to fall back to cover their wounded, but the instant you ease up they're back in the fight. The old ability to still regroup when under half strength as CadianSgtBob mentioned always struck me as an elegant way to represent Marine tenacity without negating morale altogether, but HH2.0 doesn't appear to have the restriction against regrouping when under half strength.

To me, the only reason to use a special rule like ATSKNF would be to show that Marines handle morale differently from other factions. In a setting containing undead robots, bug aliens, and literal demons that has to be something more than just ignoring or being resistant to morale. Making them still vulnerable to morale, but having the tenacity to keep coming back, has a classically heroic quality.

That said, the 'superhuman, but scrappy underdogs in a universe of horrors' characterization of Marines has been slowly eroded over the past two decades in favor of raw better-than-you power fantasy, so if the goal is to just make them care less about morale, then just give them higher Ld and be done with it.

(From a meta perspective, as much as I like Unit's idea thematically, giving the most popular faction an army-wide ability to ignore Fear would render it largely useless. Ask Night Lords players how they feel about Marines in 9th, for example)

 Gert wrote:

Having a wider spread of systems to choose from where it's not all the exact same set of rules might be inconvenient but at the same time it won't get monotonous and from personal experience switching between games can really help with fatigue. Heck I did it with HH when I got sick of playing the same thing week after week, so I swapped to 40k to give myself a break.

Still not sold on the "why.-would-I-need-this?". I don't see how playing mass battle 40k with templates etc one day & 40k with 9e rules the next would break up the monotony. It's still just 28/32mm mass battle SMs in the 40k universe.
When my circle wants a break from whatever we're playing alot of? We actually switch to completely different games/genres/scales. WWII (FoW for 15mm/Bolt Action - depending upon scale of battle), sometimes Team Yankee, some sort of plane/spaceship game, some sort of navel game, any # of different skirmish lv games, Sigmar/some edition of WHFB, Gaslands, Battletech, some sort of 6mm-15mm Napoleonic's/historical ....

I mean you're massively oversimplifying 40k but k. You do you man.
That being said, I assume you're also against the Old World because why would we need that when Aos exists right? Or any variant historical game because they're all just humans fighting humans. Who needs a game set during the dominion of Rome AND a game set during the Norse invasions of Britain because they're both just games about dudes with Swords fighting each other.
I mean having multiple GW systems to choose from is just dumb because nobody could ever only play GW games because that might be the only thing that can be played in their area.

Actually, if GW retconned the last few years, back to pre formation freebies, saying that it was a bubble from when fantasy was obliterated but somehow the bubbles had been re unified and the Old World returns plus new stuff since introduced and the same with 40K, with restartes and astartes both marines again as if GW simply updated the old model range, and rules misadventures corrected with HH’s crunchy new rules style, they could fix a lot of broke imho. One way to go would be to offer customizable modes of play, from basic simple to adding elements like realistic terrain and morale interactions, reaction dynamics, and so on. Alongside this, GW may offer three ways to pay for upgrades etc, being CP type, points per wargear or power level so that people who want to buy their cards can do that and those who want a wargame can use points instead. Game play should be easy to coordinate, as players stipulate which mods they want to use as they plan their games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds interesting. It also sounds like an actual freakin' morale system, and not one that just kills you and... no, I said I'd leave that alone for now.

But let me ask you Catbarf:

In such a system, assuming you had to, how would you implement ATSKNF?

Have them be immune to the Fear special rule.

Being pinned/suppressed or forced to abandon forward positions by weight of fire and ferocity of an assault isn't necessarily a move motivated by fear - military necessity and a pragmatic recognition of the need to preserve oneself as an instrument of military power can both motivate that. A breakdown in local leadership can also explain that sort of thing as well, and there are more ways for that breakdown to occur than "PANIK" or a pure fear response.

Being scared of giant scary demons/monsters/etc is definitely a human failure though.

The name gives it away, doesn’t it?

ERJAK wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
Yes, yes and yes again. Bring back weapon skill comparison, bring back an ap system where high armor saves actually matter. Also bring back initiative to 40k for the love of the Emperor and bin the garbage fight first/last we have now. The new reactions seem extremely fun, but most faction specific ones are once per game so you can't spam them like stratagems.

I personally like almost everything about the new heresy rules more than current 40k.

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

Well that's....just wrong. First of in heresy combat is inherently less lethal than 40k partly because of the comparison charts. If a unit has more WS than you, you hit on 5+ and there are not a lot of re-rolls in heresy as opposed to 40k where every faction gets them up the wazoo. Secondly the scenario you are describing is just 40k right now....the game is so lethal that whatever combat unit gets the charge off wins...or you can make a unit fight last and it dies.

Face it, the current fight first/last system in 40k is neither more streamlined, nor is it more balanced. Having initiative in the statline offers GW another balance lever that does not require a million extra special rules and offers more granularity and faction differentiation (classic squishy but fast eldar vs tough but slow orks).

Also spreadsheet wars? Are you joking? How hard is a comparison chart to remember in practice, honestly? If you have more you hit on 3s, same you hit on 4s, less you hit on 5s with fringe cases being able to hit on 6s and 2s when the difference is big enough. You make it sound waay more complicated than it actually would be in practice.

Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

And add an extra stat on the datasheet?? theres no room for that , it would confuse players way too much. Instead we should stick it on a stratagem somewhere for simplicity


/s

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

And add an extra stat on the datasheet?? theres no room for that , it would confuse players way too much. Instead we should stick it on a stratagem somewhere for simplicity


/s

Good point and we should also make sure we let peole know that this thing fights first, but not actually first first it fights only first if this other units fight first is not listed.

I'm intrigued that GW is finally attempting to create a 'reaction phase', something we've used for some time. It still looks like a less than optimal implementation, however. It seems the ability to react is relegated to 1 unit per phase only (though wargear or special rules allows up to 3). Instead of individual units reacting to enemy action, a player must choose which unit can react, much like a stratagem that allows only one vehicle to pop smoke. Overall however, this is a move in the right direction.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Second for bring back initiate, there was no reason to get rid of it, it did not slow down or compicate the game in any way, The rule were really cut and clear, init steps made perfect sense.

And add an extra stat on the datasheet?? theres no room for that , it would confuse players way too much. Instead we should stick it on a stratagem somewhere for simplicity


/s

Yeah you can't confuse players like that. More stratagems it is.

Seriously I'd really like to know how GW evaluates their "streamlining" process, because when you compare 9th and the new heresy edition, 9th is definitely NOT easier to get into....while heresy offeres a system without the extreme levels of lethality and (imo) a lot more granularity.
Also I personally think that they did a really good job in representing the different legions in the new heresy rules. Most if not all of the new legion rules really fit into their respective faction in my opinion without feeling useless (like Iron Warriors rerolling wounds against buildings in 40k...).

ccs wrote:
When my circle wants a break from whatever we're playing alot of? We actually switch to completely different games/genres/scales. WWII (FoW for 15mm/Bolt Action - depending upon scale of battle), sometimes Team Yankee, some sort of plane/spaceship game, some sort of navel game, any # of different skirmish lv games, Sigmar/some edition of WHFB, Gaslands, Battletech, some sort of 6mm-15mm Napoleonic's/historical ....

I really don't want to know what sort of game involves gamers playing with each others' navels...

ERJAK wrote:

Armor facings and firing arcs barely work(or matter) in 30k. Templates are dumb. Some USRs are fine.

I play HH since 2017 and started 40k in 2004.
Armour facings and firing arcs work fine.
Templates are fine.
USRs are fine.

ERJAK wrote:

It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+. 30k's AP system kind of works because there's only 2 types of armor save. 2+ and 3+. So every gun is either 'kills terminators', 'kills marines', or 'kills nothing'.

In HH 2.0 they introduced a new rule called Breaching and several weapons received it. If you roll a certain amount to wound you have AP2. For example if you have a Breaching 4+ weapon you have 50% chance to have AP2. This makes weapons with worse AP than AP2 better. Also Autocannons received Rending 6+.
In other words many weapons that were before worse got buffed. Love this Breaching rule.

ERJAK wrote:

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

I dont know about which game youre talking about but certainly not HH. Initiative is fine.
There are some legions or units that benefit from having higher Initiative like Emperors Children. This for example make them different to World Eaters who try to maximise the number of attacks they make.

Cheers.

Glumy wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Armor facings and firing arcs barely work(or matter) in 30k. Templates are dumb. Some USRs are fine.

I play HH since 2017 and started 40k in 2004.
Armour facings and firing arcs work fine.
Templates are fine.
USRs are fine.

ERJAK wrote:

It didn't make better armor more worthwhile, it made worse armor useless. Every save worse than a 3+ might as well have been 7+. 30k's AP system kind of works because there's only 2 types of armor save. 2+ and 3+. So every gun is either 'kills terminators', 'kills marines', or 'kills nothing'.

In HH 2.0 they introduced a new rule called Breaching and several weapons received it. If you roll a certain amount to wound you have AP2. For example if you have a Breaching 4+ weapon you have 50% chance to have AP2. This makes weapons with worse AP than AP2 better. Also Autocannons received Rending 6+.
In other words many weapons that were before worse got buffed. Love this Breaching rule.

ERJAK wrote:

You must be trolling. Initiative? Are you serious? Fething spreadsheet wars?

Of all the rules 8th threw out Initiative was BY FAR the worst. Every melee combat was decided before it happened. Initiative completely eliminated ANY tactical consideration from the combat phase in favor of 'MY NUMBER BIGGER THAN YOUR NUMBER'.

There's literally no reason to even have a combat phase when you use the initiative system. You could just do 'if a unit enter engagement range with another unit, the one with the lowest initiative dies.' and it would change VERY little.

I dont know about which game youre talking about but certainly not HH. Initiative is fine.
There are some legions or units that benefit from having higher Initiative like Emperors Children. This for example make them different to World Eaters who try to maximise the number of attacks they make.

Cheers.

A lot of the stuff in HH2.0 looks good and for the better, and im with you on Templates, Armor facings, and fireing arcs they all worked fine.
People who say they dont 90% of the time had a problem not with the rule, but with players that would abuse them. Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly.
The problem would always be, someone would find a way to argue about which facing you are hitting or which way its scattering, the common tactic always being rolling the scatter die way the hell away from where the hit was so that you could conveniently shift the direction just enough to not be able to tell.

GW made the vain attempt to remove these things in favor of "Reducing arguments" but all the ended up doing was shifting what people argued about, the same peole that would try and abuse scatter and armor facings just argued over other crap in 9th.

So again, all those rules were fine and im super happy they made a come back in HH 2.0, and if 40k adopts the HH rule set, god willing, then ill go back to playing 40k.

The game has always been ruined by donkey-caves...not gonna change any time soon.

Man so so true. Ended up changing what they argue about… so true,

donkey-caves gonna donkey-cave & dicks gonna be Dicks. Water is wet and so on...

Racerguy180 wrote:
donkey-caves gonna donkey-cave & dicks gonna be Dicks. Water is wet and so on...

Water is not wet though.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly.

Oh? How do you determine facings on a Tau Barracuda, a triangle-shaped model? Or an Eldar tank? Facings were only very clear if you only played with Imperial boxes and their nice clearly defined corners.

The problem would always be, someone would find a way to argue about which facing you are hitting or which way its scattering, the common tactic always being rolling the scatter die way the hell away from where the hit was so that you could conveniently shift the direction just enough to not be able to tell.

Or because of good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the game state in situations where all the stuff on the table makes it difficult to get a tape measure in there and measure accurately. TFGs added more arguing and trying to exploit the rules but there were absolutely cases where normal players would disagree and there was no clear resolution.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly.

Oh? How do you determine facings on a Tau Barracuda, a triangle-shaped model? Or an Eldar tank? Facings were only very clear if you only played with Imperial boxes and their nice clearly defined corners.

The problem would always be, someone would find a way to argue about which facing you are hitting or which way its scattering, the common tactic always being rolling the scatter die way the hell away from where the hit was so that you could conveniently shift the direction just enough to not be able to tell.

Or because of good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the game state in situations where all the stuff on the table makes it difficult to get a tape measure in there and measure accurately. TFGs added more arguing and trying to exploit the rules but there were absolutely cases where normal players would disagree and there was no clear resolution.

Super easy, put a point in the middle of the model and draw an x, gives you a front, side and back facings, its literally in the rule books on how to do it, it even has pictures.
The only way you can not interpret this, or understand it, is if you are being willfully ignoring of how the rule work.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Super easy, put a point in the middle of the bodle and draw an x, gives you a front, side and back facings, its literally in the rule books on how to do it, it even has pictures.

But what is the angle of the X?

The book literally has pictures for this.
You are being willfully ignorant.

You Draw and X with the angles facing out directly to the front and side of the vehicles.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You Draw and X with the angles facing out directly to the front and side of the vehicles.

Please explain how I draw an X with "the angles facing out directly to the front and sides of the vehicles" when the Barracuda is a triangle and the Falcon has no clearly defined front.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You Draw and X with the angles facing out directly to the front and side of the vehicles.

Please explain how I draw an X with "the angles facing out directly to the front and sides of the vehicles" when the Barracuda is a triangle and the Falcon has no clearly defined front.

Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Read the rule book, it will tell you exactly how to determine armor facing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Please stop trying to substitute rudeness for a valid argument.

The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Please stop trying to substitute rudeness for a valid argument.

The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

You should probably continue to read your rule book then because there is more in there, that if you read it you would have your answer.
But since you dont wanna do that, ill do it for you.
Every rule book that used armor facings had this nice little blurb somwehre in the book that was not directly related to armor facing but was related to every rule with in the book.
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

What you are trying to do, literally is addressed in the rules.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

The funny part about this is, the more you argue with me, the more you jsut prove my point.
Facings in my some 15 year playing this game never once was a problem because if we were unsure we just reached an agreement, the only time it became and issue was with argumentative players who wanted to specifically take advantage of a system.

By that standard it works, because you would only have to do that if there was an argumentative case, no one can argue that "BS of 4 means you hit on a 3" there is nothing to argue about the rule says that. "25% of the model is obscured gives you cover" now that we can debate over what 25% is, but the vast majority of players its a none issue.

Like the waves serpent issue, litearlly before a game, "Hey what do you wanna consider the side, front and back of this vehicle?" Solve the problem before the game even starts, Hey look! we know exactly what the side front and back arc of this none box vehicle is.
WOW! look at that.

You are just making my point, all of the rules that got removed because "It caused arguments" were only every done by people who just liked to argue, and when they were taken away, they just argued about new things.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to that point, If all these things were horrible and everyone hated them and clearly they had no place, why is it then we are seeing them come back in HH? Clearly a very large amount of people had no issues with them because GW decided to include them in the relaunch of HH.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

You know you have a say in who you play...

Don't like playing against donkey-caves, easy fix. I'd rather not play than play with someone so completely obtuse to be back to a flat line.

The whole facing argument is just ridiculous. A handy template can be produced by taking the rulebook, photocopying(or scan depending on equipment availability) the page and taking a pair of scissors to excise the extraneous paper and viola. Something you can stick over any model in the game and determine where the front (on the vehicle in question it ) is, then all the rest will fall in line.

It's almost like you'd kinda need to be a dick to say that isn't going by the rules, cuz it literally came from the rulebook.

Racerguy180 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

You know you have a say in who you play...

Don't like playing against donkey-caves, easy fix. I'd rather not play than play with someone so completely obtuse to be back to a flat line.

The whole facing argument is just ridiculous. A handy template can be produced by taking the rulebook, photocopying(or scan depending on equipment availability) the page and taking a pair of scissors to excise the extraneous paper and viola. Something you can stick over any model in the game and determine where the front (on the vehicle in question it ) is, then all the rest will fall in line.

It's almost like you'd kinda need to be a dick to say that isn't going by the rules, cuz it literally came from the rulebook.

This, there are so many way's you can solve this problem, which is not even really a problem because agian, its laid out in the rule book.
Is it perfect? no it could be done better, hell if i had my way every vehcile would be based and said base would have armor facing markings on it, but we dont live in that world.

It takes you all of 3 min to talk to your opponant and say, "Hey man, thats a kinda awkward shaped vehicle, what do you consider the facings on it?"
If the guy is an arse about it, guess what you can do? not play with him, just walk away, its that easy.

How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Like the waves serpent issue, litearlly before a game, "Hey what do you wanna consider the side, front and back of this vehicle?" Solve the problem before the game even starts, Hey look! we know exactly what the side front and back arc of this none box vehicle is.

Thank you for conceding the point. This is what you wrote originally:

"Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly."

A rule which requires a pre-game discussion with your opponent about how to handle a situation the rule doesn't cover is not "very clear, can't be interpreted incorrectly".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

And what if you're in that ambiguous region where you can't tell whether you're to the front or to the side without measuring, and the vehicle is a triangle that can't have the X lines drawn according to the rules?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

Exactly its not, and you know i can understand the issue with vehicles that are not boxes, and i can sympathize with the difficulty of that, like this for example.




What is the correct answer? The answer of course is, well its what ever you two agree on, and generally is done before the game starts. At that point, its no longer an issue because no matter which one of the three you pick, at that point, you now know the facings and they are already determined.

CadianSgtBob wrote:The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this. The mechanic of going through the corners clearly only works for systems where all vehicles have clearly defined corners, but that's hardly the only way to implement such a mechanic.

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this.

Because it wasn't 90 degree angles. You drew lines from center to corner, and you had things like ork battlewagons with their notorious huge side arcs and tiny front arc making it really hard to use their front armor.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Like the waves serpent issue, litearlly before a game, "Hey what do you wanna consider the side, front and back of this vehicle?" Solve the problem before the game even starts, Hey look! we know exactly what the side front and back arc of this none box vehicle is.

Thank you for conceding the point. This is what you wrote originally:

"Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly."

A rule which requires a pre-game discussion with your opponent about how to handle a situation the rule doesn't cover is not "very clear, can't be interpreted incorrectly".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

And what if you're in that ambiguous region where you can't tell whether you're to the front or to the side without measuring, and the vehicle is a triangle that can't have the X lines drawn according to the rules?

Wow its like a did not lie and what i said was true, the rules ARE clear, because the rules litearlly tell you as well "If the rules are not clear, decide with your opponent."

The rules include a way to determine what to do if you are having issues with one of the rules. Read your rule book, it will tell you that lol. It has built in saftey catches LITERALLY for issues like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this.

Because it wasn't 90 degree angles. You drew lines from center to corner, and you had things like ork battlewagons with their notorious huge side arcs and tiny front arc making it really hard to use their front armor.

Orks having crappy ram shackle vehicles that are not reliable? seems pretty ork to me.

And again, the rules cover that, determine what you agree to be the corners of the vehicles before the game starts, if you are having issues termining them.

On the subject though of walkers for example, i agree with you, those should nto have even been armor facings and guess what HH 2.0 addressed that, they made them toughness for dreads because it was to annoying to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this. The mechanic of going through the corners clearly only works for systems where all vehicles have clearly defined corners, but that's hardly the only way to implement such a mechanic.

The reason it gets argued is exactly what i said it was before, its only ever argued by people who just generally enjoy arguing over rules.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
the rules ARE clear, because the rules litearlly tell you as well "If the rules are not clear, decide with your opponent."

A rule which can only be resolved by appealing to the "if the rules are not clear, decide with your opponent" is by definition not clear. You can't simultaneously invoke a rule saying "this rule is unclear" and argue that the rule is actually clear after all.

The rules include a way to determine what to do if you are having issues with one of the rules. Read your rule book, it will tell you that lol. It has built in saftey catches LITERALLY for issues like this.

And then we're right back to what I said before: by that standard literally ever single rule ever printed in the entire history of wargaming is clear and the phrase "this rule is clear" has no meaning.

Orks having crappy ram shackle vehicles that are not reliable? seems pretty ork to me.

Yes, and I didn't say that it was bad or un-fluffy or anything. All I said what that it wasn't 90* angles.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this.

Because it wasn't 90 degree angles. You drew lines from center to corner, and you had things like ork battlewagons with their notorious huge side arcs and tiny front arc making it really hard to use their front armor.

I take it back, I misremembered. Was thinking of Epic/BFG with their facing compass.

Yeah, that's stupid. Fortunately, it's easily fixed.

 catbarf wrote:
I take it back, I misremembered. Was thinking of Epic/BFG with their facing compass.

Yeah, that's stupid. Fortunately, it's easily fixed.

It does nicely illustrate my point though, Backspacehacker can throw around insults about WILLFUL IGNORANCE all he likes but here you are demonstrating a 100% good-faith mistake in interpreting how facings are supposed to work.

And yeah, it's easily fixed but it's still revisionist history to say that it always worked perfectly in the past unless you were TFG.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I take it back, I misremembered. Was thinking of Epic/BFG with their facing compass.

Yeah, that's stupid. Fortunately, it's easily fixed.

It does nicely illustrate my point though, Backspacehacker can throw around insults about WILLFUL IGNORANCE all he likes but here you are demonstrating a 100% good-faith mistake in interpreting how facings are supposed to work.

And yeah, it's easily fixed but it's still revisionist history to say that it always worked perfectly in the past unless you were TFG.

Its not an insult to say you are being willfully ignoring if you are blatantly ignoring the rules.
If you dont know what the armor facing is, the books tell you to discuss it with your opponent, to determine what you agree upon the facings are.
If you are choosing not to accept that the rules tell you to do that, when you are both unsure on a rule, thats being willfully ignorant of it.

Facings are not an issue because the game provide you a way to address issues that might come up with facings and other rules.


I dont know what you mean by Revisionist history, i have been playing for like 15 years now, and every group i played with, we never had problems with vehicles facings because once again, we just talked ot each other before the game and said yep these are the facings.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you dont know what the armor facing is, the books tell you to discuss it with your opponent, to determine what you agree upon the facings are.

Thank you for again conceding that the rules for determining facing were not clear like you originally claimed. As soon as you appeal to the "if the rule isn't clear discuss it and 4+ it" rule then you have just admitted that the original rule is not clear.

I dont know what you mean by Revisionist history

You said that arguments over these things only came up with TFGs who love to argue. I pointed out how the rules create ambiguous situations that people can have good-faith disagreements over. And it is absolutely revisionist history to pretend that reasonable disputes never happened and that the rules were perfectly clear.

Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

So murky as hell for the unreasonable and uncivil....

I don't want every rule back...

But I liked 7th more than 8th. Part of that is nostalgia, but part of it is definitely 7th had a more robust base.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

But it wasn't. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had to make up your own rules for how a Barracuda's facings worked because the rules did not cover it. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had situations where you could not measure scatter accurately.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

But it wasn't. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had to make up your own rules for how a Barracuda's facings worked because the rules did not cover it. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had situations where you could not measure scatter accurately.

Oh no, the horrors of a house rule :O

Today I learned that anytime anyone fired at a non-rectangular vehicle in earlier editions, the game exploded.

Which is weird because I played then and I play now and I don't remember communities collapsing or stores exploding....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that anytime anyone fired at a non-rectangular vehicle in earlier editions, the game exploded.

Which is weird because I played then and I play now and I don't remember communities collapsing or stores exploding....

The game did explode. The jank 7th edition ruleset couldn't handle non-rectangular vehicles. Horus Heresy still can't. It was PLAYERS who made that rule at all functional. Fixing GW's shoddy rules and the silly notion that future tanks only have enough armor for the front swoops and not the giant flat back where the engine is (another problem with the ruleset) took opponents working together to fix; even as the game disincentivizes doing so.

GW's diagram of where the firing arcs and facings on a Knight were is mostly lost to time, but it was atrocious and one of the few rules utterly dismissed by the community.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

But it wasn't. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had to make up your own rules for how a Barracuda's facings worked because the rules did not cover it. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had situations where you could not measure scatter accurately.

Oh no, the horrors of a house rule :O

If you have to houserule it to make it work, it's a broken rule. Why would you WANT to keep broken rules in your game? Especially when vehicle facings added literally nothing to 7th and don't make much of a difference in current HH either.

Or do you guys spend a whole lot of time getting into the rear arcs of Spartan's and Dreadnoughts now? Is that something you do in current HH? For the tictacs?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that anytime anyone fired at a non-rectangular vehicle in earlier editions, the game exploded.

Which is weird because I played then and I play now and I don't remember communities collapsing or stores exploding....

Well clearly you are just remembering revisionists history because no one was able to simply discuss with their oponants before hand what would work.
/s

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that anytime anyone fired at a non-rectangular vehicle in earlier editions, the game exploded.

Which is weird because I played then and I play now and I don't remember communities collapsing or stores exploding....

Well clearly you are just remembering revisionists history because no one was able to simply discuss with their oponants before hand what would work.
/s

The fact that you had to meant the rule was broken.

Also, sidebar, I love that new Horus Heresy made bushes even scarier. What greater threat is there to a Space Marine, the Emperor's Angels of War, than a small shrub, or mild incline?

SO much immersion. .

The best parts of the new Horus Heresy rules are the stuff they ripped off from Sigmar.

That's what we should do! 40k and Horus Heresy have just been aping Sigmar mechanics for years already. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to just convert both to the Sigmar ruleset wholesale!

I've figured out the best solution. You can all go home now.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oh no, the horrors of a house rule :O

Thank you for finally admitting that house rules were required, contrary to your original claim that the rules were already perfectly clear and only TFGs would have a problem with them. I'm glad we're now in agreement that even reasonable players needed to change the rules to make them work.

Oh yeah dangerous terrain now? horribly scary like terrifying now.

I would not say they rip off sigmar, but they are greatly inspired by it you know....considering it was written by the same people. To which honestly? i would be ok with, AoS rules are actually pretty damn good, the lore is the big poopa but the game is actually quite fun and enjoyable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oh no, the horrors of a house rule :O

Thank you for finally admitting that house rules were required, contrary to your original claim that the rules were already perfectly clear and only TFGs would have a problem with them. I'm glad we're now in agreement that even reasonable players needed to change the rules to make them work.

What ever makes you happy kid, We ran some 15 years never running into issues with the rules, the rule book complexly told you how to deal with it, so.

Ill let you have your last word if you want but i think we can both agree this is going no where.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
We ran some 15 years never running into issues with the rules

Because, as you admit, you house ruled them to something that did work.

Old dangerous terrain was awful:

"Brother-Captain Erasmus Bane is a veteran of 3,000 years of constant combat.

A Daemon-Hunter without peer, Captain Bane has personally banished fourteen Greater Daemons, one of them four times over!

After twenty years in seclusion, he learned the dreaded True Name of Gathrak the Mindshredder, a pernicious Keeper of Secrets that plagued the Aquila Sector for close to two centuries!

Now, in the twisted wastes of Elfor VI, he and his company have come after a new quarry: A man recentlh ascended to Daemonhood, one who has forsaken all his oaths to the Emperor, one who has...

Oh no! A tree root!

... and thus ended the saga of Brother-Captain Erasmus Bane."

Later down the line you could save against that, but originally it was't good.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Old dangerous terrain was awful:

"Brother-Captain Erasmus Bane is a veteran of 3,000 years of constant combat.

A Daemon-Hunter without peer, Captain Bane has personally banished fourteen Greater Daemons, one of them four times over!

After twenty years in seclusion, he learned the dreaded True Name of Gathrak the Mindshredder, a pernicious Keeper of Secrets that plagued the Aquila Sector for close to two centuries!

Now, in the twisted wastes of Elfor VI, he and his company have come after a new quarry: A man recentlyh ascended to Daemonhood, one who has forsaken all his oaths to the Emperor, one who has...

Oh no! A tree root!

... and thus ended the saga of Brother-Captain Erasmus Bane."

I enjoy the simplicity at least of difficult terrain, just a -2 to movement. But i think the big thing is to make dangerous, and hazerdous terrain feel better is just to appropriately lable what they are, like a tree root should obviously NOT be dangerous terrain.

My point was more that it was one of those rules that blatantly went against all the structures of causing damage that exist in the rules* (strength v toughness/AP vs saves/damage v wounds/etc.) in favour of a straight out wound that couldn't be saved or negated in any way.

It didn't make any sense that a Lascannon blast can be saved, but some terrain could fell the mightiest warlord with some awkwardly placed footing.


*A bit like the 8th/9th morale rules that I promised I would stop bringing up.

OH yeah im not a fan of that though.
Yeah i never was a fan of just something wounds you out right. Personally i enjoy and think the better method is "Take a S x hit at AP -" because that at least feels a bit better.

Oh bro 8th and 9th moral sucks, just loosing more models to moral then shooting feels really bad.

 jeff white wrote:
Actually, if GW retconned the last few years, back to pre formation freebies, saying that it was a bubble from when fantasy was obliterated but somehow the bubbles had been re unified and the Old World returns plus new stuff since introduced and the same with 40K

........... ... wut?

dude, lore and rules are two very differant things

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oh no, the horrors of a house rule :O

Thank you for finally admitting that house rules were required, contrary to your original claim that the rules were already perfectly clear and only TFGs would have a problem with them. I'm glad we're now in agreement that even reasonable players needed to change the rules to make them work.

They don't need to change any rules, they just need to agree on where the "corners" are for determining arc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They don't need to change any rules, they just need to agree on where the "corners" are for determining arc.

Agreeing to add imaginary corners to treat a triangle as a rectangle is a house rule, one that only needs to exist because the rule as printed couldn't handle vehicles that weren't rectangles. And it absolutely refutes the original claim that the facing rules were perfectly clear unless you were TFG because the printed rules give no guidance whatsoever on where these new corners should be on your triangle.

Photocopying the x solves that....

Racerguy180 wrote:
Photocopying the x solves that....

What angle are the lines of the X when dealing with a triangle model?

Racerguy180 wrote:
Photocopying the x solves that....

Thats what we always did, or just clarified what we decided the corners of vehicles were.

I'm a pretty big proponent of armor facings as a gameplay mechanic but I will fully agree with CadianSgtBob that 'work it out with your opponent' is a pretty poor rule for a wargame. You shouldn't need to come to a mutual agreement about such a basic mechanic, particularly if the answer is not obvious, as is the case with Eldar skimmers.

Again, not like it's hard to fix- 90 degree arcs work, or just having front/back 180 degree arcs is a pretty common system in wargames- but corner-to-corner only works well when all the vehicles in play are boxes (as in HH).

ERJAK wrote:
The best parts of the new Horus Heresy rules are the stuff they ripped off from Sigmar.

That's what we should do! 40k and Horus Heresy have just been aping Sigmar mechanics for years already. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to just convert both to the Sigmar ruleset wholesale!

I've figured out the best solution. You can all go home now.

Er, hell no - any system where a Goblin finds it as easy to hit and wound a freaking Bloodthirster as it does another Goblin is a system that has fundamental flaws, and should not be aped.

As for the vehicle facings "debate", I don't recall ever having problems with it back in t'day. I will say, however, that it would certainly have been a good idea to provide a top-down diagram showing the facings in the Codex (or IA book, in the case of silly anime flyers), as that would prevent most potential "discussions" without taking up too much space.

 catbarf wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent of armor facings as a gameplay mechanic but I will fully agree with CadianSgtBob that 'work it out with your opponent' is a pretty poor rule for a wargame. You shouldn't need to come to a mutual agreement about such a basic mechanic, particularly if the answer is not obvious, as is the case with Eldar skimmers.

Again, not like it's hard to fix- 90 degree arcs work, or just having front/back 180 degree arcs is a pretty common system in wargames- but corner-to-corner only works well when all the vehicles in play are boxes (as in HH).

The thing is, you are not arguing about the mechanic or settling on the mechanic. The mechanic is clear cut and not up for debate.
To determine the facings you draw a line from opposite corners. Thats it, thats how they are done

The agreement is on "Hey what is the corner of this vehicle that is not a box?"
I agree we SHOULD not have to do that, and gw SHOULD say what the corners are of none box vehicles. But we dont live in should land.

There is no issue with the rule because the rule tells you what and how to do it, you just need to determine it with your opponent prior. Its no different then agreeing on what a cocked die is. The common community agreement is, if you can set another die atop it, its not cocked, thats not in the rules, thats just a agreed upon community rule for determining if a die is to cocked.


But either way, are there better ways to do it? sure, but is there any real issues with the current armor facing set up? no because the rules tell you how to settle it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also armor facing aside because that train has reached the end of its tracks at this point.

Moving on to AP, i for one lord the return of the all or nothing AP system, and the way HH is doing it by reducing AP3 and 2 across the board but instead are handing out a lot more breaching and rending i think is a great idea, offers a lot more room to balance, and it once more makes Sv 2 mean something again.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Its no different then agreeing on what a cocked die is. The common community agreement is, if you can set another die atop it, its not cocked, thats not in the rules, thats just a agreed upon community rule for determining if a die is to cocked.

It's not the same at all. "Cocked die" has a meaning that is understood even outside of gaming, the only question is exactly what degree of cocking is required for it to count. But whatever angle you settle on you're still dealing with the same concept. With the Barracuda situation you can't draw an X between the corners of a rectangle because the Barracuda is a triangle and doesn't have four corners. You have to completely set aside the "draw an X through the corners" rule and make up an alternative method that is not found anywhere in the rules. You can use a fixed 90* angle for the facings regardless of model shape, you can draw a bounding box around the Barracuda and draw an X through the corners of the box, etc. None of those are found in the rules, and nothing in the rules suggests a preference for any of the possible answers.

And of course the bigger problem here: two reasonable people can disagree on the answer. I think it's A, my opponent thinks it's B, we roll off on a 4+ and it's B. Except next game another opponent thinks the answer is C, so now we roll off on a 4+ for A vs. C and get A. Game after that, A vs. D and it's D. You have to keep having disputes over how to resolve the situation and you're never going to find a final answer. And strategic questions like "how vulnerable is my vehicle to rear armor shots" become impossible to plan for since you don't even know which possible options you're going to have to 4+ between until you sit down with a list and start having the pre-game dispute with your opponent.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Photocopying the x solves that....

What angle are the lines of the X when dealing with a triangle model?

Well if you're photocopying it out of the book the angles are set in stone by GW. How is that not clear???

At this point I'm beginning to think you're being purposefully contrarian.

Racerguy180 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Photocopying the x solves that....

What angle are the lines of the X when dealing with a triangle model?

Well if you're photocopying it out of the book the angles are set in stone by GW. How is that not clear???

At this point I'm beginning to think you're being purposefully contrarian.

That is the default way to do it, but the GW rules say, "Draw from corner, to opposite corner." so the question becomes, "Well what is the corner of a wave serpent?"
To which we have been arguing that its super easy to determine that by just simply asking your opponent or telling them. "Hey this point on my model, i consider this the corner in regards to facings, you cool with that?" and then look, its no longer an issue.

But yes i to agree with the contrarian stance.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Well if you're photocopying it out of the book the angles are set in stone by GW.

"Use the angles for the Rhino example in the book" is a house rule. Remember that the angles in the book were not set in stone, they were explicitly different for each vehicle.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Photocopying the x solves that....

What angle are the lines of the X when dealing with a triangle model?

Well if you're photocopying it out of the book the angles are set in stone by GW. How is that not clear???

At this point I'm beginning to think you're being purposefully contrarian.

That is the default way to do it, but the GW rules say, "Draw from corner, to opposite corner." so the question becomes, "Well what is the corner of a wave serpent?"
To which we have been arguing that its super easy to determine that by just simply asking your opponent or telling them. "Hey this point on my model, i consider this the corner in regards to facings, you cool with that?" and then look, its no longer an issue.

But yes i to agree with the contrarian stance.

this is just proof that xenos are the real problem with 40k, get ridda em

in all seriousness though, yeah the problem with "model bases rules" is GW doesn't really think of those things in the design phase. they just go with "what looks cool"

you can be certain when GW designs something like the wave serpant no one asked "so what about figuring out the angles on this?"

 Backspacehacker wrote:
That is the default way to do it, but the GW rules say, "Draw from corner, to opposite corner." so the question becomes, "Well what is the corner of a wave serpent?"
To which we have been arguing that its super easy to determine that by just simply asking your opponent or telling them. "Hey this point on my model, i consider this the corner in regards to facings, you cool with that?" and then look, its no longer an issue.

Okay, let's simplify shooting: 'To resolve a shooting attack, roll a die. If the result seems reasonable, remove the target model.' The question becomes 'what is reasonable?'. And it's super easy to determine that, simply ask your opponent or tell them 'Hey, I consider a 4+ reasonable, you cool with that?' and then look, it's no longer an issue. That's a very clear and easy to implement rule with minimal possibility for problems, right?

Obviously an extreme reductio ad absurdum. But the point is that it doesn't matter if a rule is clearly written (draw from corner to corner) if it's not clear how to implement it (where's the corner?) and the result is that you need to essentially houserule with your opponent before the game (the corner is here) with all sorts of potential for disagreement (nah man in my old group the corner was always here).

 catbarf wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
That is the default way to do it, but the GW rules say, "Draw from corner, to opposite corner." so the question becomes, "Well what is the corner of a wave serpent?"
To which we have been arguing that its super easy to determine that by just simply asking your opponent or telling them. "Hey this point on my model, i consider this the corner in regards to facings, you cool with that?" and then look, its no longer an issue.

Okay, let's simplify shooting: 'To resolve a shooting attack, roll a die. If the result seems reasonable, remove the target model.' The question becomes 'what is reasonable?'. And it's super easy to determine that, simply ask your opponent or tell them 'Hey, I consider a 4+ reasonable, you cool with that?' and then look, it's no longer an issue. That's a very clear and easy to implement rule with minimal possibility for problems, right?

Obviously an extreme reductio ad absurdum. But the point is that it doesn't matter if a rule is clearly written (draw from corner to corner) if it's not clear how to implement it (where's the corner?) and the result is that you need to essentially houserule with your opponent before the game (the corner is here) with all sorts of potential for disagreement (nah man in my old group the corner was always here).

Right....except there are rules that clearly lay out how shooting works and the entire process. BS 4 means you hit on a 3+, if you can draw line of sight to the model, from your shooting model, you can shoot it. S4 wounds T4 on 4.
You don't and cant debate that because its empirical, you cant debate that a S4 weapon wounds a T4 model on a 4.

Again like you said an extreme example yes but its not really apt because shooting is clearly defined of what it is and what it can be.

Corner to corner, also agian, is pretty clear but like you said, where is the corner is the debate.
What I, and many people in this thread have been pointing out, its not hard to have that conversation about where that corner is, and move on with the game, can that lead to disagreements? Of course, but any sensible player can make comprises to get htat the agreed point for both players.

ALL OF THIS, though, goes directly back to my orignal point on rules with scatter, templtes, blast markers, 25% cover, and armor facings. The only time it ever caused actual issues in the game, was when you ran up against people who literally just wanted to argue to argue the rules. Multiple people already have echoed what i have said armor facings even on awkward vehicles really never came into effect because they are sensible players that can go "Oh yeah this is reasonable."

I make no denial in agreeing there would be better ways, If i had it my way every vehicle that used AV would have its own base that say on a square and clearly marked what was the side and front but thats me..


I think at this point though we are just going in circles, anymore, getting no where with anyone. That i think we can all agree on.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Please stop trying to substitute rudeness for a valid argument.

The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

Draw your x. Put an arrow pointing up, the the x … so the arrow should point up in the meddle between the two top arma of the x. Put that on top of your Falcon pointing directly forward… done.

 jeff white wrote:
Draw your x.

But what is the angle between the legs of the X?

This is why we can't have nice things. Sheesh.

Ok... the fated X.

I guess that house rules involving interpretation are not supposed to be part of the game experience? I always thought that resolving such issues in the best interests of the group, i.e. both players, was one of the most socially redeeming aspects of wargames like 40K, because people can apply this practice at resolving disputes cooperatively to real life contexts...

If we look at the condition of society, it seems that this process goes both ways... people who have not learned to cooperate constructively for a common end in real world experience are unable to apply such skills to in-game experiences...

Unfortunately that all falls apart with donkey-caves

 jeff white wrote:
I guess that house rules involving interpretation are not supposed to be part of the game experience?

Of course not. The rules I had to pay GW to write should function as printed, I shouldn't have to do their job for them and fix the mistakes they left.

And we're once again getting away from the original point. "You should have social skills and be able to negotiate a resolution" doesn't change the fact that the rule was broken in the first place.

Last year I worked with my cousin in Belgium and I have seen no levels of this cooperation you speak of. People are the same kind of donkey-caves to each other. Maybe even more, if you are a forgeigner. It is just that the pay is 4-5xtimes what you get at home, so you take it.

The "cooperation" thing only works in very specific places for very specific people. Not that it means people should be donkey-caves to each other while playing. A hobby is a good partial switch from the real world. But the whole "just get along" thing doesn't work well most of the time.

GW could've done better with facings. My favorite is a top-down line drawing on a vehicle's datasheet with different colors for different values. Pick the closest point on the tank to the firing model (shooter chooses if multiple points are equidistant) and use whatever AV that point is colored for on the line drawing.

GW being bad at something isn't new, but also isn't really an argument that the idea is fundamentally bad.

In this case, I would celebrate the return of facing, and I have played 40k and HH for years and haven't had a problem with the way facings are interpreted. So it is probably not quite as doom and gloom as some people seem to think, but OTOH it isn't perfect.

jeff white wrote:I guess that house rules involving interpretation are not supposed to be part of the game experience? I always thought that resolving such issues in the best interests of the group, i.e. both players, was one of the most socially redeeming aspects of wargames like 40K, because people can apply this practice at resolving disputes cooperatively to real life contexts...

There's nothing wrong with houseruling. The issue in this thread is that users have claimed that identifying the arcs on vehicles is easy, but the need to have to interpret and, if necessary, roll off to determine arcs shows this is not so.

It's totally fine to admit that houseruling is needed, and I'm sure that most people would be happy to come to a mutually agreeable solution, but the point stands that the very need to houserule arcs makes the whole argument of "arcs are easy to determine" void.

And, before there's any well-poisoning with the idea that "if you can't come to an agreement, someone must be being irrational/counterproductive", both parties can come to "rational" conclusions for what an arc should be, and still disagree.

Bravo Unit. I concur.

Smudge, but isn't coming to an agreeable houserule usually pretty easy?

man, i cant believe the facings dicussion went on for so long lol. Just take it from the center of the base (or of the overall hull if no bases) and do a X with 90degrees angles

God I hate these vehicle facings arguments. I am completely against reintroducing them personally.

However, for the sake of argument and rose-tinted glasses it seems people are forgetting that on most vehicles there was only one facing that was different(the rear). In fact, if facings would be reintroduced there are technically only two facings required: Back and Everything else.

This could also just be added as a universal rule. Hull is Toughness X while rear is Toughness X-1. There isn't any more required unless people really want to go into some MinutateHammer 40k where angle, trajectory, and wind speed all affect something because realism. Which will never be realistic as the game is an IGOUGO system and real life warfare is not an IGOUGO system.

But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

Actually, if you would like I can have a discussion of whether IGOUGO, alternating activation, impulse model, or some other unique mechanics are more realistic. This is actually an issue in modern military analytic wargames as well, so much has been written on the topic.

Fun fact: real time simulation has analytic pathologies depending on the nature of what is being studied, and so it isn't actually the best answer.

(That said, there are certain pathologies and strengths of every type, and IGOUGO is probably not the best for a tactical scale wargame like 40k)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
man, i cant believe the facings dicussion went on for so long lol. Just take it from the center of the base (or of the overall hull if no bases) and do a X with 90degrees angles

"Man, I can't believe the facings discussion went on for so long. Just use my preferred house rule instead of the GW rule and the GW rule is fine!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fun fact: real time simulation has analytic pathologies depending on the nature of what is being studied, and so it isn't actually the best answer.

I would be curious to see that, since IMO the IGOUGO system only ever has any value when using a better system would be too unwieldy for it to be a playable game (no alternating activation with 100 units on the table, etc). What are the scenarios where IGOUGO is actually a better model for the game's events?

Looks like Heresy has a nice middle ground to solve those problems…

I would like to see some Heresy rules make their way to 40k, but as whole no I wouldn't like that the entirety of the HH rule set was ported to 40k.

I'd be excited to play 40K again. I miss playing a 40K that resembles 40K, 9th has not been enjoyable. The idea that 40K will be fun again is the only reason I have not sold away all of my armies. I'd love to see Primaris played under a different 40K rule set than 8th or 9th.
Honestly the only thing I truly liked about 8th was casualty removal which was again like something from 3rd till maybe 5th. can't really remember now. It's a little sad that that, I feel, was the best part of 8th. Removing models from the front really hurt y army of choice in 7th. It punished the Orks way too much.
Haven't got my hands on the new 30K rule book yet but I am looking forward to reading it.

Meanwhile i recieved my Heresy books, picked them up, propped them open at the centurion (leutnant) level charachter, get 2 pages full of options, not counting consul upgrades, including but not limited to a bike, jet-bike or the ever elusive jumppack.

meanwhile the csm codex just decided to yeet my legionaires (double same heavy weapons ) killed of 3 Lords (yay jumppack is no more as are certain loadouts)

NVM actual customizability.

In essence, i know in what system i will be playing for the forseeable future.

NMNR strikes again...

H.B.M.C. wrote:But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

In larger-scale games I am a big fan of simply splitting vehicles into 180-degree front/back arcs. It draws a distinction between vehicles that are armored all-round versus ones that are vulnerable to flanking, the arcs are easy to determine, and it makes flanking a little easier to achieve.

CadianSgtBob wrote:I would be curious to see that, since IMO the IGOUGO system only ever has any value when using a better system would be too unwieldy for it to be a playable game (no alternating activation with 100 units on the table, etc). What are the scenarios where IGOUGO is actually a better model for the game's events?

Grand strategy tends to a better represented with IGOUGO than AA. The impulses of coordinated activity are a better match for operational movement than per-unit AA.

I say 'better' because there are a lot of alternatives to both IGOUGO and AA, and novel activation systems have been a pretty significant area of development in board wargames of the last decade. You do have to decide where you stand on realism versus fun, though- mechanics that limit your ability to exert control over your units can be as frustrating for a player as friction is for a real general.

jeff white wrote:Smudge, but isn't coming to an agreeable houserule usually pretty easy?

Easy isn't the same as "this rule is straightforward and simple", which is what was claimed earlier by some users.

And sometimes, no, coming to an agreeable houserule isn't always easy. As mentioned previously, some users even advocated for randomising which interpretation for arcs was used on a 50/50 chance - that's not consistent, nor is it truly agreed upon.

Yes, I do believe that MOST disagreements can be resolved easily, but that still accepts the fact that arcs aren't always intuitive or simple/straight-forward to resolve.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

The one thing I would want for sure in the next 40K edition is the To Wound chart from HH.
Which is the old one we already had.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

jeff white wrote:Smudge, but isn't coming to an agreeable houserule usually pretty easy?

Easy isn't the same as "this rule is straightforward and simple", which is what was claimed earlier by some users.

And sometimes, no, coming to an agreeable houserule isn't always easy. As mentioned previously, some users even advocated for randomising which interpretation for arcs was used on a 50/50 chance - that's not consistent, nor is it truly agreed upon.

Yes, I do believe that MOST disagreements can be resolved easily, but that still accepts the fact that arcs aren't always intuitive or simple/straight-forward to resolve.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

Right now there is one faction that "kinda" cares about positioning and that is GSC.
Frankly if we could wishlist, suprression flanking etc, should play a more important role.
but even just getting vehicles back would be an improvement.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

The typical wargame assumption is that infantry are much quicker to respond and react to enemy fire, and individual positioning of individual troopers in a mass battle game is way too granular for the scale. 40K already supports that assumption- you don't work out how much of an individual infantryman is covered to see if that model gets a cover save; you apply the reasonable abstraction that if it's in an area of terrain, it takes cover as appropriate.

Crossfire systems for infantry are typically applied to units as a whole, and the relevant characteristic is taking fire from multiple directions. It isn't about facing so much as the unit being unable to seek optimal cover against multiple directions at once.

In Infinity, troop facing matters, and you can react to people moving closely by changing facing to see them.

 catbarf wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

The typical wargame assumption is that infantry are much quicker to respond and react to enemy fire, and individual positioning of individual troopers in a mass battle game is way too granular for the scale. 40K already supports that assumption- you don't work out how much of an individual infantryman is covered to see if that model gets a cover save; you apply the reasonable abstraction that if it's in an area of terrain, it takes cover as appropriate.

Again, that word "reasonable" - personally, if I consider it reasonable that infantry can be shot from any angle and it not matter, I'm fine with the same applying to vehicles too.
It might not even be "individual" positioning that matters, maybe it's calculated from a token that denotes which arc the unit is facing in which shows a forward and backwards arc. Models can face whatever way, but you need to declare where the unit's "front" is, and can only shoot/charge in that direction, and shooting attacks/charges outside of that arc receive bonuses.

Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

I think its time to say take the arguments about vehicle facing and the nuances of discuss with opponents to their own threads

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

Exactly. If you're going to say that facing matters then have it matter for all units. If you're going to decide that the scale of the game is such that you approximate infantry as doing whatever makes sense regardless of the precise details of model position then you should make the same assumption about vehicles. It's kind of silly to say that an infantry model will dive behind cover when shot at from behind even if the model isn't behind that cover, but also that a tank driver won't move to cover vulnerable armor facings when threatened from a different direction.

I would be down for unit facings, sure, reminds me of RT…

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

Not specifically, because infantry don't have "weaker rear armour" or "exposed engines/fuel tanks" or anything like that. Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions. Vehicles have more defined blind spots, which is why flanking them is so effective.

Additionally, flanking infantry generally means that the cover they're hiding behind counts for nothing, so that kind of takes care of itself.

Having said that, as mentioned above, 40k does have rules for crossfire and whatnot, but they bizarrely only apply to one faction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

I wouldn't say that what applies to one should automatically apply to another. The two things are not equal.

If the game had suppression mechanics (and a morale system worth a damn) then you could better represent flanking by making it easier to pin units in place, rending them combat ineffective (READ: unable to hold objectives/benefit from auras/overwatch/set to defend/etc.) which is quite a bit different from getting to a tank's weaker rear armour.

 warmaster21 wrote:
I think its time to say take the arguments about vehicle facing and the nuances of discuss with opponents to their own threads

Why? It's a Heresy rule being discussed in the context of 40k. It's completely on topic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

Not specifically, because infantry don't have "weaker rear armour" or "exposed engines/fuel tanks" or anything like that. Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions. Vehicles have more defined blind spots, which is why flanking them is so effective.

They would, however, have arcs of vision. If they had arcs of vision you can implement proper overwatch and fields of fire mechanics. You know, like in proper tactics games.

Marines have their reactors in those giant backpacks, which probably have different armor than the one protecting their chest.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions.

Sure, after the opening shots of the ambush they can turn and respond. But until they do they're getting shot in the back and those shots are going to be devastating.

Additionally, flanking infantry generally means that the cover they're hiding behind counts for nothing, so that kind of takes care of itself.

Unless they're in area terrain, in which case we say "the scale of the game does not require tracking every tiny piece of rubble so we'll just say there's cover nearby".

And that's the issue. It's about what scale 40k is trying to be. Is it a small-scale skirmish game where you micromanage every detail of positioning? Is it an army-scale game where the models are an approximation from the general's eye view and you assume that down on the battlefield the unit commanders are fine-tuning their positions as suits the situation? Is it a mass battle game where a single vehicle model actually represents an entire tank squadron? 40k keeps trying to be all of them at once and therefore does a great job of none of them.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
And that's the issue. It's about what scale 40k is trying to be. Is it a small-scale skirmish game where you micromanage every detail of positioning? Is it an army-scale game where the models are an approximation from the general's eye view and you assume that down on the battlefield the unit commanders are fine-tuning their positions as suits the situation? Is it a mass battle game where a single vehicle model actually represents an entire tank squadron? 40k keeps trying to be all of them at once and therefore does a great job of none of them.

But there's clearly a line between "tracking the vision of each infantry model" and "a tank can fire every gun it has through the part of a track link that is sticking out behind a sold wall".

The former isn't necessary, and it's why you wouldn't need vision arcs for infantry in a game of this scale*. The latter is absurd, and should be addressed.



*Necromunda has vision/fire arcs, because you have maybe 15 models per side. 40k doesn't need that.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

Exactly. If you're going to say that facing matters then have it matter for all units. If you're going to decide that the scale of the game is such that you approximate infantry as doing whatever makes sense regardless of the precise details of model position then you should make the same assumption about vehicles. It's kind of silly to say that an infantry model will dive behind cover when shot at from behind even if the model isn't behind that cover, but also that a tank driver won't move to cover vulnerable armor facings when threatened from a different direction.

It's absolutely not necessary to use the same level of detail for all units. Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can. Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

You do want similar levels of detail, after all infantry games are common. Position should matter to infantry, even if not in the same way it matters to tanks.

And that still leaves monsters which are of the same size as vehicles and should have the exact same level of detail.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But there's clearly a line between "tracking the vision of each infantry model" and "a tank can fire every gun it has through the part of a track link that is sticking out behind a sold wall".

But my point is that those are all approximations. Infantry vision arcs are approximated as "they do what makes sense regardless of model position", the tank and the wall are also approximations. Maybe the tank pivots slightly to bring its guns in line with the target, maybe the wall isn't actually blocking that much LOS even if you have to keep using the same stock building models every game even though in the fluff you're fighting in different places. That's how it works when you're dealing with an army-scale game where the player is taking the general's eye view of the battlefield and the individual units are assumed to figure out the exact details of executing their orders. It's just like how if you're playing a game on the scale of an entire battle you might only be placing units (each representing whole companies of tanks) with 10 mile precision, and you assume that they're doing whatever is appropriate in that region. You wouldn't try to measure exact line of sight for one of your 5,000 tanks by precisely measuring around the corner of a specific building on the map.

And sure, maybe you don't go model by model to use a skirmish-scale level of detail instead. Maybe you put a facing marker down for the entire unit and everyone is assumed to be facing in the same direction.

*Necromunda has vision/fire arcs, because you have maybe 15 models per side. 40k doesn't need that.

Then, if you're making the argument that 40k is a larger-scale game that doesn't need to get into such minor details, why does it need to do it for tanks? And why does it do it only partially for tanks? Why is the tank a static unit following the model precisely when it fires its hull gun but when it fires the turret gun it can instantly pivot back and forth to shoot a unit ahead of the tank and then immediately overwatch against a unit behind the tank?

Or, to consider another scenario: why is an infantry model just a rough approximation of the unit when it comes to area terrain and "the model finds appropriate cover" but a model in a crouching pose can't stand up to fire over a wall? None of it is ever consistent.

An easy reason is because a tank is a single model, while a squad already has some additional detail by virtue of being multiple models, but both are each a contained 'unit'. Squads can expand and contract, and have LoS determined per model in the unit. If each gun on the tank had ir's own LoS, each "gun" of both unit types have their own LoS. The resolution is roughly the same, as both units are roughly the same table area.

 Insectum7 wrote:
An easy reason is because a tank is a single model, while a squad already has some additional detail by virtue of being multiple models, but both are each a contained 'unit'. Squads can expand and contract, and have LoS determined per model in the unit. If each gun on the tank had ir's own LoS, each "gun" of both unit types have their own LoS. The resolution is roughly the same, as both units are roughly the same table area.

LoS, yes, but not arc. Why can my IG HWT, a model that can't move and fire because of the need to set up the gun before firing, shoot in all directions? If I move it half an inch to get around a corner I take a crippling penalty (or can't shoot at all, depending on the edition). But somehow the heavy weapon crew can pick the gun up, pivot it a full 180* to aim at a target behind them, and fire with no penalty? They can even do it on the same turn, shooting ahead during the shooting phase and backwards on overwatch! None of this is consistent.

And TBH 40k should be using movement trays anyway. Units of infantry shouldn't be individual models, that level of detail isn't really appropriate at the scale of most 40k games and it rarely adds anything besides needless complexity.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

Not specifically, because infantry don't have "weaker rear armour" or "exposed engines/fuel tanks" or anything like that.

Breachers, Centurions, Terminators, Bullgryns, Sacresants, Battlesuits. And that's just off the top of my head.

Any unit with a shield or jump pack is more vulnerable from behind. In fact, there's very few units that don't have vulnerable rear spots, the exception probably being (ironically) Guardsmen or Orks.

Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions. Vehicles have more defined blind spots, which is why flanking them is so effective.

I'd say that Terminators, Battlesuits and Centurions all have blind spots too, and I wouldn't say that they're exactly very agile when it comes to looking over their shoulders.

Additionally, flanking infantry generally means that the cover they're hiding behind counts for nothing, so that kind of takes care of itself.

Same then applies for vehicles, no? Want to flank that tank, get around its cover.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

I wouldn't say that what applies to one should automatically apply to another. The two things are not equal.

Why not? This is 40k, where some armour is considered equivalent to a walking tank. Why should they not be similar?
Again, it comes down to the idea of "reasonable", and how that's not exactly a very good descriptor for anything in this context, because we both have very different ideas of "reasonable".

Insectum7 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

Exactly. If you're going to say that facing matters then have it matter for all units. If you're going to decide that the scale of the game is such that you approximate infantry as doing whatever makes sense regardless of the precise details of model position then you should make the same assumption about vehicles. It's kind of silly to say that an infantry model will dive behind cover when shot at from behind even if the model isn't behind that cover, but also that a tank driver won't move to cover vulnerable armor facings when threatened from a different direction.

It's absolutely not necessary to use the same level of detail for all units.

Absolutely necessary, no, in the same way it's also not absolutely necessary that vehicles be considered distinct from everything else.

Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
An easy reason is because a tank is a single model, while a squad already has some additional detail by virtue of being multiple models, but both are each a contained 'unit'. Squads can expand and contract, and have LoS determined per model in the unit. If each gun on the tank had ir's own LoS, each "gun" of both unit types have their own LoS. The resolution is roughly the same, as both units are roughly the same table area.

LoS, yes, but not arc. Why can my IG HWT, a model that can't move and fire because of the need to set up the gun before firing, shoot in all directions? If I move it half an inch to get around a corner I take a crippling penalty (or can't shoot at all, depending on the edition). But somehow the heavy weapon crew can pick the gun up, pivot it a full 180* to aim at a target behind them, and fire with no penalty? They can even do it on the same turn, shooting ahead during the shooting phase and backwards on overwatch! None of this is consistent.

And TBH 40k should be using movement trays anyway. Units of infantry shouldn't be individual models, that level of detail isn't really appropriate at the scale of most 40k games and it rarely adds anything besides needless complexity.

The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

No movement trays. Terrible idea.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

Exactly. If you're going to say that facing matters then have it matter for all units. If you're going to decide that the scale of the game is such that you approximate infantry as doing whatever makes sense regardless of the precise details of model position then you should make the same assumption about vehicles. It's kind of silly to say that an infantry model will dive behind cover when shot at from behind even if the model isn't behind that cover, but also that a tank driver won't move to cover vulnerable armor facings when threatened from a different direction.

It's absolutely not necessary to use the same level of detail for all units.

Absolutely necessary, no, in the same way it's also not absolutely necessary that vehicles be considered distinct from everything else.

Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

2d6 save terminators when?

Insectum7 wrote:The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

For simplicity's sake, if we eschew facings on infantry, it's also okay by me with removing them for vehicles. That's the level of abstraction I'm personally fine with.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

And have they ever been treated like vehicles? Do Carnifexes have facings? Centurions? Riptides? What about the other units I mentioned?

I'm not sure if you missed the point deliberately or by accident, but I offer you another shot at it.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

But Sentinels aren't necessarily just speedy - they look much more articulated and nimble than a Centurion or Broadside Battlesuit. Hell, I'd call them more manoeuvrable in repositioning than things like bikes!

There's the talk of an ideal system, but clearly, we need to work out what system people actually want, and how granular it is - and that agreement on what we all want from things, what we consider "reasonable", is something that just isn't being met.

Backspacehacker wrote:2d6 save terminators when?

Roads, we don't need...roads.

We're going BACK to the future.


But I would love them to just go back to that and no invuln(unless shield).

Racerguy180 wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:2d6 save terminators when?

Roads, we don't need...roads.

We're going BACK to the future.


But I would love them to just go back to that and no invuln(unless shield).

No thank you.

A Terminator is T4. A squad of Intercessors with Bolt Rifles have 20 shots (at ten-strong). That's 20 shots, 14-16 hits (depending on rerolls), 7-8 wounds. Now, you have to roll 2d6 for each wound-and that's from ONE squad.

It's not even a balance thing-you could make Terminators balanced with a 3+ on 2d6 armor save, though it'd be wonky with some other things-it's just that it'd slow the game down immensely.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

I agree with that abstraction. I just think it should be consistent. In a game at 40k's scale it should also be applied to vehicle units. We assume the HWT is positioning itself to get a good shot, we can assume the vehicle is doing the same.

No movement trays. Terrible idea.

Why not? In a game at 40k's scale why does the exact positioning of models within a unit matter?

2d6 saves for terminators would “slow the game down immensely”?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

I agree with that abstraction. I just think it should be consistent. In a game at 40k's scale it should also be applied to vehicle units. We assume the HWT is positioning itself to get a good shot, we can assume the vehicle is doing the same.

Positioning isn't what's in question, though. The HWT doesn't have different armor facings. The HWT doesn't have multiple main weapons with mutually exclusive arcs.

We can assume a unit is positioning to take most advantage of cover or bring its weapon to bear, but you lose me when you then assume that a vehicle can spin in place to fire every weapon on a single target while presenting the optimal armor facing to every incoming projectile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
And that's the issue. It's about what scale 40k is trying to be. Is it a small-scale skirmish game where you micromanage every detail of positioning? Is it an army-scale game where the models are an approximation from the general's eye view and you assume that down on the battlefield the unit commanders are fine-tuning their positions as suits the situation? Is it a mass battle game where a single vehicle model actually represents an entire tank squadron? 40k keeps trying to be all of them at once and therefore does a great job of none of them.

But there's clearly a line between "tracking the vision of each infantry model" and "a tank can fire every gun it has through the part of a track link that is sticking out behind a sold wall".

The former isn't necessary, and it's why you wouldn't need vision arcs for infantry in a game of this scale*. The latter is absurd, and should be addressed.

*Necromunda has vision/fire arcs, because you have maybe 15 models per side. 40k doesn't need that.

I dunno… I would like the option. Why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poll results are now solidly in the Heresy column, more than 2 to 1.

 jeff white wrote:
2d6 saves for terminators would “slow the game down immensely”?

Yes-rolling 10 saves as ten dice is easy and quick.
Rolling 10 sets of 2d6 is not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
2d6 saves for terminators would “slow the game down immensely”?

Yes-rolling 10 saves as ten dice is easy and quick.
Rolling 10 sets of 2d6 is not.

I meant it as a meme but yeah it would be horribly slow, because back when the 2d6 save was a thing there was no nearly as much fire going out on the board, and you had to bring heavy weapons to kill terminators.

 catbarf wrote:
Positioning isn't what's in question, though. The HWT doesn't have different armor facings. The HWT doesn't have multiple main weapons with mutually exclusive arcs.

We can assume a unit is positioning to take most advantage of cover or bring its weapon to bear, but you lose me when you then assume that a vehicle can spin in place to fire every weapon on a single target while presenting the optimal armor facing to every incoming projectile.

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs? Everything I can think of can fire all of its weapons directly ahead, so your abstraction in that case is just assuming that the tank pivots to directly face the target. Which IMO is fine. You abstract away pivot speed just like you abstract away turret rotation speed and assume that all of a tank's turret weapons have a free 360* arc with no minimum range.

As for defense, sure, we assume that it's taking each shot on its best armor. Or we assume that it's taking each shot on average armor. Or even its weakest armor. Maybe, in 9th edition terms, a LRBT's armor is T16/T14/T8 for F/S/R, and shooting at T8 means assuming that each shot is always finding the weak point. Or maybe it's T9/T7/T5, and the assumption is that T8 represents an average between front and side.

And there's also a lot that AV per facing doesn't consider. What about shot angle? If I have two shooters, one directly at a 90* angle to the side and one right on the front/side corner line both have "side" shots but against a real tank the one with the direct perpendicular shot will have an easier time getting through armor than the one shooting at an angle to that armor plate. Or what about aircraft? Why does a space A-10 coming in from the front fire at front AV instead of top armor?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

Should those tanks be penalised for their shoddy design though?

Not to mention that it makes proxying and custom-building vehicles much more difficult.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

Can also be an issue with the Land Raider, especially if the sponsons are in the rear mount - I'd assume the same for the Spartan, Predator & Repulsive, thinking about it.

Thinking about it further, anything with sponsons is going to have a dead zone they can't target because the hull gets in the way

Leman Russ optimal fire arc and optimal armor orientation is the same, forward. Even the dead zone is too small so only relevant if trying to target a single infantry model that is too close.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

Technically yes, but the blind spot is extremely narrow and can be covered by a very slight rotation of the tank between shots. And TBH most units are wide enough that each sponson can attack one side of the target even if the tank is facing directly at it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

For simplicity's sake, if we eschew facings on infantry, it's also okay by me with removing them for vehicles. That's the level of abstraction I'm personally fine with.

It's something that works fine for larger scale games. But many folks like the smaller skirmish scale engagements and imo vehicle arcs and facings offer much higher fidelity play at smaller scales, which is good. They're also really not so complicated that they become overbearing at larger either, it's a net win for me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

And have they ever been treated like vehicles? Do Carnifexes have facings? Centurions? Riptides? What about the other units I mentioned?

I'm not sure if you missed the point deliberately or by accident, but I offer you another shot at it.

I didn't miss anything. I said infantry, you said MCs. To which I say infantry again, because I specifically not talking about MCs.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

But Sentinels aren't necessarily just speedy - they look much more articulated and nimble than a Centurion or Broadside Battlesuit. Hell, I'd call them more manoeuvrable in repositioning than things like bikes!

There's the talk of an ideal system, but clearly, we need to work out what system people actually want, and how granular it is - and that agreement on what we all want from things, what we consider "reasonable", is something that just isn't being met.

Well I'd certainly consider some sort of agility stat or modifier. Some models should be much harder to track than others. I wouldn't think consider sentinels very agile though.

I don't think any consensus will be met, so I state my ideals.

If we are wishlisting mechanics, I also would like a stat that represents difficulty to target. Obviously tanks and monsters should be easier to hit than man sized targets.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

I agree with that abstraction. I just think it should be consistent. In a game at 40k's scale it should also be applied to vehicle units. We assume the HWT is positioning itself to get a good shot, we can assume the vehicle is doing the same.

I disagree with the measure of consistency here. I think the consistency is the weapons of each unit. Both squads and vehicles draw LOS from the positions of the "weapons", the weapons of a squad being the individual placement of the troopers holding them. In this regard I view the vehicle as a collection of weapons, but with fixed locations, unlike a squad where the shape of the unit is malleable. So it's "consistent" to me that each weapon in each unit draw its own LoS.

No movement trays. Terrible idea.

Why not? In a game at 40k's scale why does the exact positioning of models within a unit matter?

Because it looks awful, for one. It's also non interactive with lots of terrain. I understand where the sentiment comes from, but it's just a no-go for 40k. If were talking apocalypse or something else, fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
If we are wishlisting mechanics, I also would like a stat that represents difficulty to target. Obviously tanks and monsters should be easier to hit than man sized targets.

I think one of the quickest interesting sets of changes that could occur for 40k are:

1: All infantry get a -1 to hit, and remove the maximum to-hit modifier for this.

2: Go back to the old to-wound chart.

The games lethality immediately drops. Infantry are harder to hit, and vehicles/MCs are harder to wound.

Although would probably need to buff anything with a 5+ BS, Orks in particular.

Also have fun firing at -3 vs Jormungandr Venomthropes.

 Tyran wrote:
Although would probably need to buff anything with a 5+ BS, Orks in particular.

Also have fun firing at -3 vs Jormungandr Venomthropes.

Was actually thinking making the "small size" modifier the only exception to the rule. Conversely start thinking about where positive modifiers could start coming back in.

I feel like doing that is just adding more complication to the matter, and worrying about everyones BS being -1 to hit an infentry inherently, but then needing to buff everything so they can hit. Seems kinda counter productive.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I feel like doing that is just adding more complication to the matter, and worrying about everyones BS being -1 to hit an infentry inherently, but then needing to buff everything so they can hit. Seems kinda counter productive.

The most common complaint I see is "The game is too lethal". A big ol' mass reduction in the ability to hit/wound addresses that.

Then yes, certain combos could be a problem. So address those somehow. Points or counter-abilities are options there. But saying "everything" needs rebuffing should be obviously untrue. Just address problematic cases.

A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

GW handed out save modifiers like they were going out of style, but rather than overhaul the weapons they just slapped Armour of Contempt onto the game (and in an inconsistent manner - your contempt goes away if you have a shield, but not if you're a tank!) and hoped for the best.

To fix problems you need to fix problems, not apply band-aids/more rules over the top of the already broken rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I feel like doing that is just adding more complication to the matter, and worrying about everyones BS being -1 to hit an infentry inherently, but then needing to buff everything so they can hit. Seems kinda counter productive.

The most common complaint I see is "The game is too lethal". A big ol' mass reduction in the ability to hit/wound addresses that.

Then yes, certain combos could be a problem. So address those somehow. Points or counter-abilities are options there. But saying "everything" needs rebuffing should be obviously untrue. Just address problematic cases.

Personally IMO the lethality is due to the rending system invalidating hte importance of a 3+ and A 2+
I think the rending system is a failed experiment that has ultimatly resulted in the lethality issues of the game. it was not an issue in 8th because the sheer value of spamable ap -2+ mutlie damage weapon was not as prevalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

GW handed out save modifiers like they were going out of style, but rather than overhaul the weapons they just slapped Armour of Contempt onto the game (and in an inconsistent manner - your contempt goes away if you have a shield, but not if you're a tank!) and hoped for the best.

To fix problems you need to fix problems, not apply band-aids/more rules over the top of the already broken rules.

This man gets it, GW handed out AP to everyone, now they made it so that every weapon in the game that hasa any amount of AP now effects every armor save, For example before the rending AP system you would take and pay for a weapon that would do AP 3, it only effected AP 3 and below saves, thats all it was designed for. In the new system, that weapon is now -1, which not only is effecting sv 3 and Sv 2 now, where before it never did, now those models pointed at having a 2+ mean nothing because ap -1 and 2 is all over the board.

You got to watch this unfold in real time with every update.
First it was, Oh these things arnt dying fast enough, give them more AP
Oh no now things are dying to quick give them multi wounds
on no now they dont die fast enogh give them multi damage
oh no now they die to fast, give them more invulns and only wounds on 4+
oh no, now they dont die fast enough and big guns dont feel good anymore, lets introduce weapons that bypass the invuln save
You are here
Oh no things die to fast, lets have them ingnore a given amount of rend on weapons
Oh no they dont die fast enough, lets make it so if the strenght of the weapons is stronger then their toughness they get an AP bonus.


ect ect

Its of my opinion the AP sysem is the primary lethality issue in the game. But thats my take on it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

GW handed out save modifiers like they were going out of style, but rather than overhaul the weapons they just slapped Armour of Contempt onto the game (and in an inconsistent manner - your contempt goes away if you have a shield, but not if you're a tank!) and hoped for the best.

Agree completely that AP was handed out like candy, and that AoC is a garbage rule.

To fix problems you need to fix problems, not apply band-aids/more rules over the top of the already broken rules.

I don't really see why you write this. Imo if we're looking to fix problems than a whole host of options can be on the table. Implementing a -1 to Infantry is a core rules thing, just as changing the to-wound method. I'm all for pulling a whole host of rules out at the same time.

Because its a baidaid solution with out fixng the issues core problem.
You are jsut adding another layer onto it by making infantry -1 to hit.

Imagine it this way, lets say you are in a house, and the pipe bursts, and water is flooding in, the house the the state of the game, the water is the lethality. as more floods in you eventually get closer and closer to the ceailing as the water rises, you have two choice, stop the leak and get the water level lower, or build your ceiling higher.

Adding a -1 to hit on infentry is just that, you are raising the ceiling for more water to just come in, because evenatually you will get "Ignores the -1 to hit infentry" eventually. So why not just stop the water coming in, and stop the flooding.

There is no fixing the core problem as long as GW relies on a rotating release schedule (which is never going to change because economic reasons).

Any and all fixes we could come with are inherently going to be band-aids

They need to remove the limit on negative modifiers to hit. I said what I said.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

Reducing lethality with modifiers results in wasting time because when you're fishing for 6s you're rolling a bunch of dice for minimal effect. If you instead, say, reduce lethality by cutting the number of shots in half you get to the same end result but with a lot less time wasted on dice. And it greatly reduces the frustration factor of having most of your attempts be failures.

Yeah the game is too far gone in general.

I advocate a -1 to hit infantry is something that would be effective at reducing lethality and differentiating units in the current paradigm. I'm not saying it's going to fix 40k, 40k is beyond that.

I'd consider effectively keeping it in a rewrite though. Although from the opposite ind as a +1 to hit large targets, assuming everything else was rebalanced.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Both squads and vehicles draw LOS from the positions of the "weapons", the weapons of a squad being the individual placement of the troopers holding them. In this regard I view the vehicle as a collection of weapons, but with fixed locations, unlike a squad where the shape of the unit is malleable. So it's "consistent" to me that each weapon in each unit draw its own LoS.

But you're again talking about LOS not arcs. Why do infantry weapons, even on relatively slow infantry like HWTs or Broadsides, have a 360* arc but weapons on a vehicle don't? Why can infantry weapons always draw line of sight through other models in their own unit, making the approximation that the members of the unit will always position themselves appropriately to get a shot, but a tank can't do the same?

Because it looks awful, for one. It's also non interactive with lots of terrain. I understand where the sentiment comes from, but it's just a no-go for 40k. If were talking apocalypse or something else, fine.

Aesthetics is subjective so I can't really argue that one, but where are you getting a lack of interacting with terrain? I can't think of a single terrain type that can't work with movement trays.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

Reducing lethality with modifiers results in wasting time because when you're fishing for 6s you're rolling a bunch of dice for minimal effect. If you instead, say, reduce lethality by cutting the number of shots in half you get to the same end result but with a lot less time wasted on dice. And it greatly reduces the frustration factor of having most of your attempts be failures.

Well as above, you'd have to do A LOT more than a simple rule to achieve what you're saying. Like rewriting all the codexes, etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But many folks like the smaller skirmish scale engagements and imo vehicle arcs and facings offer much higher fidelity play at smaller scales, which is good.

A game where you can have 2-300 infantry or a dozen tanks in a normal game is not a skirmish scale game. And that's the problem here, 40k keeps trying to be both a skirmish game and an army-scale game with mechanics chosen from each concept apparently at random. GW needs to accept that Kill Team is the skirmish game and optimize 40k's mechanics for play at the larger scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well as above, you'd have to do A LOT more than a simple rule to achieve what you're saying. Like rewriting all the codexes, etc.

Sure, but a re-write of everything is a necessary assumption here. You aren't going to fix the game by piling on more AoC-style rules bloat to cover up all the problems of the previous rules bloat.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Both squads and vehicles draw LOS from the positions of the "weapons", the weapons of a squad being the individual placement of the troopers holding them. In this regard I view the vehicle as a collection of weapons, but with fixed locations, unlike a squad where the shape of the unit is malleable. So it's "consistent" to me that each weapon in each unit draw its own LoS.

But you're again talking about LOS not arcs.

They're about the same thing if a vehicle blocks LoS to it's own weapons.

Because it looks awful, for one. It's also non interactive with lots of terrain. I understand where the sentiment comes from, but it's just a no-go for 40k. If were talking apocalypse or something else, fine.

Aesthetics is subjective so I can't really argue that one, but where are you getting a lack of interacting with terrain? I can't think of a single terrain type that can't work with movement trays.

You gonna place whole movement trays on top of scatter terrain? It's not what people want to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well as above, you'd have to do A LOT more than a simple rule to achieve what you're saying. Like rewriting all the codexes, etc.

Sure, but a re-write of everything is a necessary assumption here. You aren't going to fix the game by piling on more AoC-style rules bloat to cover up all the problems of the previous rules bloat.

Well a total rewrite wasn't in my original post of the idea, in which I said it was a quick change. So neener neener!

 Insectum7 wrote:
They're about the same thing if a vehicle blocks LoS to it's own weapons.

But why doesn't an infantry squad block line of sight to its own weapons? Why is the infantry model's position on the table assumed to be only an approximation if it stands in front of the HWT?

You gonna place whole movement trays on top of scatter terrain? It's not what people want to see.

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

 Tyran wrote:
There is no fixing the core problem as long as GW relies on a rotating release schedule (which is never going to change because economic reasons).

Any and all fixes we could come with are inherently going to be band-aids

QFT, and ultimately you are not wrong

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They're about the same thing if a vehicle blocks LoS to it's own weapons.

But why doesn't an infantry squad block line of sight to its own weapons? Why is the infantry model's position on the table assumed to be only an approximation if it stands in front of the HWT?

Because expediency makes it convenient to assume the squad can coordinate it's weapon fire. Infantry can call out to each other to signal weapon fire, or can go prone, etc. These things make sense in-universe, and paint a reasonable picture of action.

What does not make sense is a tank spinning circles in place, to alternate fire between sponsons and alternately show its back-then-side-then-front over and over again.

You gonna place whole movement trays on top of scatter terrain? It's not what people want to see.

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

A wall.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

And failing to hit all the time because of stacked modifiers will make people stop playing, because it's not fun. That's my point.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Implementing a -1 to Infantry is a core rules thing, just as changing the to-wound method. I'm all for pulling a whole host of rules out at the same time.

No that's just another rule on top of a rule. You're still just adding an exception to a core rule, only doing it within the core rules themselves.

If the shooting rules are "Look at unit, roll equal to or higher than the listed number", but the next step is always "Do they have the Infantry Keyword" then you're adding unnecessary steps especially when the goal is to reduce lethality.

Like I just said, if you want to reduce lethality you reduce lethality. Reducing the amount of hits isn't really reducing lethality, as the hits still cause the same damage, you're just causing less of them to happen and wasting more time with people making ineffectual rolls. That's a real Fees Bad Man™ situation there, if 40k becomes a game where most things miss and when they do hit BLAM, insta-death.

The problem is save modifiers. Fix save modifiers. Not with additional rules, but with a re-write of all weapons. Collectively. At once. Make even getting AP-1 a big deal, and it will suddenly have an impact.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I advocate a -1 to hit infantry is something that would be effective at reducing lethality and differentiating units in the current paradigm. I'm not saying it's going to fix 40k, 40k is beyond that.

Most the game is infantry. You're arguing in favour of a rule that would mean the printed Ballistic Skill on every sheet in the game would almost never use that stat. That's the problem with Armour Saves right now - what's there almost never matters, as most things have at least a -1.

This is why I liked the all-or-nothing AP system from 3rd-7th. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but a 3+ save meant a 3+ save. Marines were Marines, damn it!

 Insectum7 wrote:
What does not make sense is a tank spinning circles in place, to alternate fire between sponsons and alternately show its back-then-side-then-front over and over again.

But it's not spinning in circles. As I pointed out before, most/all 40k tanks can fire all of their guns directly ahead with only a slight pivot. And in many cases if you're shooting at the same target you don't even need that much movement, the left sponson shoots at the left side of the target and the right sponson shoots at the right side of the target. It's no less realistic than having the turret gun shoot at a unit directly ahead of the tank and then immediately pivot to fire overwatch at a unit behind the tank. Or having a Broadside spinning in circles to shoot at multiple targets and then ducking out of the way so the other Broadside in the unit can take a shot.

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

A wall.

A wall works just fine with movement trays. The unit on its tray sits behind the wall and gains cover from it. Why does the unit need to sit on top of a wall?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

And failing to hit all the time because of stacked modifiers will make people stop playing, because it's not fun. That's my point.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Implementing a -1 to Infantry is a core rules thing, just as changing the to-wound method. I'm all for pulling a whole host of rules out at the same time.

No that's just another rule on top of a rule. You're still just adding an exception to a core rule, only doing it within the core rules themselves.

If the shooting rules are "Look at unit, roll equal to or higher than the listed number", but the next step is always "Do they have the Infantry Keyword" then you're adding unnecessary steps especially when the goal is to reduce lethality.

Like I just said, if you want to reduce lethality you reduce lethality. Reducing the amount of hits isn't really reducing lethality, as the hits still cause the same damage, you're just causing less of them to happen and wasting more time with people making ineffectual rolls. That's a real Fees Bad Man™ situation there, if 40k becomes a game where most things miss and when they do hit BLAM, insta-death.

The problem is save modifiers. Fix save modifiers. Not with additional rules, but with a re-write of all weapons. Collectively. At once. Make even getting AP-1 a big deal, and it will suddenly have an impact.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I advocate a -1 to hit infantry is something that would be effective at reducing lethality and differentiating units in the current paradigm. I'm not saying it's going to fix 40k, 40k is beyond that.

Most the game is infantry. You're arguing in favour of a rule that would mean the printed Ballistic Skill on every sheet in the game would almost never use that stat. That's the problem with Armour Saves right now - what's there almost never matters, as most things have at least a -1.

I suppose a very simple example I could use is 2nd edition, which had tons of modifiers to hit, but also more lethal weapons, and the system is remembered fondly by many. So I kinda reject the 'not fun' premise you're coming from here. The end result is fewer casualties from fire, and is even achieved in fewer die rolls.

This is why I liked the all-or-nothing AP system from 3rd-7th. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but a 3+ save meant a 3+ save. Marines were Marines, damn it!

It was also a good system. Both systems work until the designers break them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

A wall.

A wall works just fine with movement trays. The unit on its tray sits behind the wall and gains cover from it. Why does the unit need to sit on top of a wall?

Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

For simplicity's sake, if we eschew facings on infantry, it's also okay by me with removing them for vehicles. That's the level of abstraction I'm personally fine with.

It's something that works fine for larger scale games. But many folks like the smaller skirmish scale engagements and imo vehicle arcs and facings offer much higher fidelity play at smaller scales, which is good. They're also really not so complicated that they become overbearing at larger either, it's a net win for me.

I don't think 40k really counts as a skirmish game any more - at least at the sizes that people tend to play.

A 1000 point game? Yeah, I'd call that a skirmish. A 2000 point game? Not a chance. Unless we can pin down what kind of game 40k is supposed to be, I don't think this will be resolved. As far as I see it, 40k is much closer to mass battle, and as a result, I don't feel that facings are needed, due to the abstraction required.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

And have they ever been treated like vehicles? Do Carnifexes have facings? Centurions? Riptides? What about the other units I mentioned?

I'm not sure if you missed the point deliberately or by accident, but I offer you another shot at it.

I didn't miss anything. I said infantry, you said MCs. To which I say infantry again, because I specifically not talking about MCs.

Terminators, Centurions and Broadsides are MCs? That's news to me.

Like I said - you addressed *one* of the units I mentioned. What about the others you just so happened to miss?

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

But Sentinels aren't necessarily just speedy - they look much more articulated and nimble than a Centurion or Broadside Battlesuit. Hell, I'd call them more manoeuvrable in repositioning than things like bikes!

There's the talk of an ideal system, but clearly, we need to work out what system people actually want, and how granular it is - and that agreement on what we all want from things, what we consider "reasonable", is something that just isn't being met.

Well I'd certainly consider some sort of agility stat or modifier. Some models should be much harder to track than others. I wouldn't think consider sentinels very agile though.

Again, I'm not so much talking about being "harder to track", I'm talking that I believe Sentinels can reposition their facing and angles easier than a Terminator, Broadside Battlesuit, Bike or Centurion.

I don't think any consensus will be met, so I state my ideals.

As will I.

H.B.M.C. wrote:A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

Agreed. If hitting starts becoming too difficult, it's going to feel like there's no point in trying to shoot.

Things getting hit are fine - it's the strength of what hits them that needs fixing.

Insectum7 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Why does the unit need to sit on top of a wall?

Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Same thing that happens when a model with a large base or vehicle moves maximum distance and ends up halfway through a wall.

Doesn't apocalypse already use movement trays? That would already be a precedent, wouldn't it?

Not saying that there should be movement trays mind you; movement trays would undermine the feel of fielding small, flexible squads of infantry, after all. Just that there's already a precedent.

Then again, Fantasy had regimented units in movement trays and it also had skirmisher units in loose formation, so you could probably do that in 40k as well.
Hoards could use the movement trays and smaller, more "elite" units like Immortals and marines could move in loose formations.

40k certainly has lost its sense of scale.

2k points is a skirmish game for Knight and Baneblade-company players. It is a mass battle game for SM players, and a massive mess for IG conscript spam players.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Doesn't apocalypse already use movement trays? That would already be a precedent, wouldn't it?

Not saying that there should be movement trays mind you; movement trays would undermine the feel of fielding small, flexible squads of infantry, after all. Just that there's already a precedent.

Then again, Fantasy had regimented units in movement trays and it also had skirmisher units in loose formation, so you could probably do that in 40k as well.
Hoards could use the movement trays and smaller, more "elite" units like Immortals and marines could move in loose formations.

Yes they do, but apoc rules were completely designed around movement trays. where the importance of individual models did not matter as much vs 40k proper.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

And failing to hit all the time because of stacked modifiers will make people stop playing, because it's not fun. That's my point.

Personally I would much rather just roll, miss 2/3 of my shots, and have the ones that hit be more likely to do something than the current system of rolling a bucket of 30+ dice, re-rolling 1s, counting out the hits, rolling again, passing them off for saves, blah blah oh look I did one wound yeah that was definitely worth all the time and effort.

I find rolling a ton of dice over and over again to whittle my results down to nothing to be far more frustrating, tedious, and un-fun than just rolling once and fishing for high values. In OnePageRules my Termagants might only hit on 6s against targets in cover, but when every hit immediately goes to my opponent to make a save or die, that to-hit roll means something and has more tension than essentially working through a spreadsheet in realtime.

@Smudge:
1: There's a thread in General right now about 500 point games. Many people like 40k at smaller sizes.

2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

3: Perhaps you can reason out why rolling more dice for the same result is better/more fun than rolling fewer dice.

There coulda been a conversation here, but really you're just reminding me why I have you on ignore. Good day!

Insectum7 wrote:@Smudge:
1: There's a thread in General right now about 500 point games. Many people like 40k at smaller sizes.

I know they do, I also prefer lower size games of 40k - but the point stands that *most* games of 40k are much larger than that, and that either the system needs to split and have different sets of rules for different engagement sizes, or continue using one for all.

If 40k were to more fully split into "skirmish mode" and "battle mode", I'd absolutely agree that in skirmish mode, vehicles (and infantry) should have facings. Unfortunately, that is a version of the game we do not have yet.

2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

And? It's not infantry in name only, and it certainly ain't a vehicle. Personally, I think you're being pedantic about that. Oh, and still waiting on Terminators and Centurions, or do I need to eke those out of you as well?

Come on, you're not doing yourself any favours here.

3: Perhaps you can reason out why rolling more dice for the same result is better/more fun than rolling fewer dice.

Just because I want hitting to be more reliably doesn't mean I also want the weight of attacks to be the same. Now, that's on me for not fully clarifying, but in summary, I would prefer fewer attacks, hitting on the BS+ marked on the sheet except in very specific and situational circumstances, and then being saved against by reliably applicable armour, with a major reduction to AP and Wounds, both in how many wounds units have, and how much weapons tend to do.

Basically, less dice, less modifiers, and decreased damage. I'm not saying I don't want less attacks, but I also don't want more modifiers.

There coulda been a conversation here

Why not? You're the one avoiding the questions I've raised, a la Terminators and Centurions. I've not been rude to you or hostile. It honestly just sounds like you aren't really prepared to discuss this yourself.

but really you're just reminding me why I have you on ignore. Good day!

Good day! I hope you can find the strength of your conviction to stop responding if you're going to keep me on ignore, otherwise, its really rather performative you mentioning it!

 Insectum7 wrote:
Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Or stops behind it to take cover. Or uses WMS to sit next to the wall while counting as being on top of it.

It's not like this is a problem specific to movement trays, in 40k infantry models still have to make the choice of doing their full movement or balancing on a wall. And vehicles have the same footprint as movement trays and certainly have to deal with this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

KEYWORDS: INFANTRY, BATTLESUIT, BROADSIDE BATTLESUITS

Personally I hope they bring the changes to the charge rules over to 40k.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Or stops behind it to take cover. Or uses WMS to sit next to the wall while counting as being on top of it.

It's not like this is a problem specific to movement trays, in 40k infantry models still have to make the choice of doing their full movement or balancing on a wall. And vehicles have the same footprint as movement trays and certainly have to deal with this issue.

The difference is that those larger models have no alternative, whereas the infantry models do. If you're really keen on pushing it, run a poll about movement trays and see the results.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

KEYWORDS: INFANTRY, BATTLESUIT, BROADSIDE BATTLESUITS

Well maybe they have the Infantry keyword in 9th, but my reference for 8th doesn't (and neither do the other battlesuits other than the stealth ones, which are much smaller. So guess what, 9th Ed is wrong!

Besides, way back in the conversation I said:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

So I'm already saying those larger models are distinct from the infantry I originally discussed.


Bringing it all the way back around to the beginning again, treating units differently is good for the game because different units can have strengths and weaknesses that further define how they function beyond a collection of stats, and (can) give the game both a more intuitive feel to it, and provide for more tactical opportunities and design depth.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The difference is that those larger models have no alternative, whereas the infantry models do. If you're really keen on pushing it, run a poll about movement trays and see the results.

Infantry models do in the current rules. There is nothing inherent about the concept of infantry that requires it to be the case.

Well maybe they have the Infantry keyword in 9th, but my reference for 8th doesn't (and neither do the other battlesuits other than the stealth ones, which are much smaller. So guess what, 9th Ed is wrong!

Lolwut. The current edition of the codex is wrong because a previous edition did something different? Clearly by that standard any edition that had facings and blast templates is wrong because my 9th edition rulebook doesn't include them. And do you still let your crisis suits take the +1 BS upgrade from the 5th edition codex?

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

So now we have infantry, big infantry, small vehicle, vehicle as unit types? Plus cavalry, aircraft, etc? How many other unit types do we need in an army-scale game like 40k, where the nuances of exactly how fast an infantry model can pivot really aren't an appropriate thing to be worrying about?

Light Infantry and Heavy Infantry, actually.
Kind of like what other strategy games do.

Cavalry used to be a beast type unit too, iirc.
WHFB had the Monstrous Infantry unit type, to cover things like Ogres.
Bikes and Jetbikes used to be their own thing in earlier editions.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The difference is that those larger models have no alternative, whereas the infantry models do. If you're really keen on pushing it, run a poll about movement trays and see the results.

Infantry models do in the current rules. There is nothing inherent about the concept of infantry that requires it to be the case.

Well maybe they have the Infantry keyword in 9th, but my reference for 8th doesn't (and neither do the other battlesuits other than the stealth ones, which are much smaller. So guess what, 9th Ed is wrong!

Lolwut. The current edition of the codex is wrong because a previous edition did something different? Clearly by that standard any edition that had facings and blast templates is wrong because my 9th edition rulebook doesn't include them. And do you still let your crisis suits take the +1 BS upgrade from the 5th edition codex?

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

So now we have infantry, big infantry, small vehicle, vehicle as unit types? Plus cavalry, aircraft, etc? How many other unit types do we need in an army-scale game like 40k, where the nuances of exactly how fast an infantry model can pivot really aren't an appropriate thing to be worrying about?

I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

A titan can kill anything in one shot. Might as well ask why bother having anything other than titans.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a "heavyinfantry" vs "Infantry" distinction.

What exactly is it adding to a game where a titan can kill both of them in one shot?

... your distinction between units is "can the largest weapon on the battle field reliably one shot them?

Yeah I'm gonna withdraw from this argument.....

BrianDavion wrote:
... your distinction between units is "can the largest weapon on the battle field reliably one shot them?

Yeah I'm gonna withdraw from this argument.....

No, but it's an indication of what level of detail is appropriate. When two infantry units are both titan fodder you don't need to represent the fact that one of them can pivot 15% faster than the other. When there are 2-300 infantry and/or a dozen tanks on the table you don't worry about precise firing arcs. Things that are appropriate in a 10-model skirmish game cease to be appropriate when scaled up to a game with titans and massive armies.