Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Draw a line from one friendly unit to another, enemy units on that line are under cross fire.

I think there also is a mission in the BRB that does this already, isn't there?

 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Epic Armageddon gave crossfire bonuses if your firing detachment could trace a straight line to another friendly detachment behind the target within a certain range and that also has line of sight to the target. Facings aren't required at all, but the detachment used for this had to be unbroken and not Marched this turn.

In 40k, just using tracing through for pincers would do. Maybe also require the other unit to not be commiting an Action at the moment.

easiest way is to use the facing of the unit leader (with markings on the base)

the problem here is not how to do it but what scale 40k is played at
the issue is that 40k uses the same rules for small skirmish games as well as mass battle games
so things that work well in small games make problems in large games and vica versa
also GW does not care how slow that game is leading to the problem that micro management that is very slow with lots of models is acceptable

doing it "right" and you would have different solutions for games at 500 points, games with 1000 points and games with 2000 points

with 500 points, each model has front and rare (180°FoV) and can only shoot what is in its front
so you can have a unit cover 360° but not with the full firepower

at 2000 points use team/unit bases, not only speeds up the movement but also makes clear were front/rare of the team/unit is

Warmachine manages with unit facings very easily.

That said I agree if you wanted to scale it up for a 2K engagement chances are you'd have to do what Old World did and move toward the use of movement bases/trays for infantry units. Otherwise the micro of moving units and facing them and keeping facings accurate becomes far too time consuming

In the past when 40K had facings it was mostly just on big monsters and tanks that they were present. GW could do that again, but they might need to revise some concepts for side guns and the base designs. Ergo giving side guns a proper 90 degree fire arc from the middle front; rather than from the actual weapon on the model itself (because then you could stand infront of it and it can't hit you with the side guns at all because they can't physically face inwards. Thus reflecting more real world distance for combat and minor track movements to allow it to "Wriggle fire" and such.

not necessarily like Warhammer, but more something like this:

They actually do have rather well done regiment bases for apoc though, I regularly use them for my orks and pox walkers. You could just put an arrow on those, or define which side is the front.

 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Define their facings and let them stay an amorphous blob? The shape doesn't really matter, the facing does. And I'd say we really ought to have some system that cares about facings if we're going down to platoon scale.

You can have an arrow-shaped token accompanying each unit.

I like facing in wargames as such a rule is usually very straightforward, intuitive but also provides an opportunity for making positional mistakes (and taking advantage of such mistakes), which makes it interesting.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:In my humble opinion, if a game need a certain kind of terrain to be fun, there is something wrong in the game, because it doesn't allow me to try different type of scenario and in the end it became boring.

About the only wargames I can think of that work without mandatory terrain are naval and air. Requiring terrain to function is the de facto standard for ground-based wargames because it's such a critical part of maneuver warfare. I can give you examples of WW2 wargames that will work with bocage, cities, jungles, beaches, and a variety of other locales; but never, ever totally flat open terrain. Not even North Africa or WW1 trench warfare games are terrain-free.

You might as well argue that if a game requires you to move your units, there's something wrong with it- it's an essential component of warfare, not an optional add-on.

Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.

I recently played an RTS (Deserts of Kharak) which had one of the best LoS implementations I have seen in recent games, despite all battles exclusively taking place in deserts. Having buggies hide behind a dune and race over that dune to ambush enemy artillery and tanks advancing under the cover of smoke were some of the primary strategies of that game.

To bad that creating such a battlefield isn't really doable on a tabletop.

It's not? I've seen companies sell foam or plastic hills that you can place on a flat surface. You could use a bunch of those to get that interesting terrain.

Or, you could take a more abstract approach and build stepped layers out of foam. Your sand dunes would become more like mesas, but it's playable and easy to DIY.

(Also DoK is an excellent game, and goes to show how terrain still exists and is still important even in a battlespace traditionally thought of as flat)

Edit: Regarding facing, I'm not sure that it's all that necessary to concretely identify facing for non-vehicles. If we assume that troops are going to react to fire to take cover and minimize exposure, what matters isn't their absolute facing so much as whether they're being engaged from multiple directions simultaneously, or from a bearing that denies them the benefit of cover. Crossfire rules + more terrain with facings (eg ridgelines, sandbags, walls) would handle it.

 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Same way you do in modern warfare. Flanking is done two for reasons: Putting more fire on to a target and to minimize their cover. Doing the first is already as good as it is going to get in a tabletop game. The second is more about how Cover is treated and working out ways to positionally defeat it. Even then, there are times where no matter what you do, your target will still be in cover, even while surrounded.

The things you are describing act in no way like dunes. Essentially they are just regular cliffs with sand color on them, which affect the game in a very different way, especially when moving across them. It's almost impossible to cross them with a based vehicle, for example.

 catbarf wrote:


About the only wargames I can think of that work without mandatory terrain are naval and air. Requiring terrain to function is the de facto standard for ground-based wargames because it's such a critical part of maneuver warfare. I can give you examples of WW2 wargames that will work with bocage, cities, jungles, beaches, and a variety of other locales; but never, ever totally flat open terrain. Not even North Africa or WW1 trench warfare games are terrain-free.

You might as well argue that if a game requires you to move your units, there's something wrong with it- it's an essential component of warfare, not an optional add-on.

I don't think mr Grim ment playing without any terrain to be viable. 8th was very specific with how some terrain worked and some didn't. No LoS blocker higher then a knight or buildings with windows, practicaly like playing on an empty board. Want to play a game of explored the temple with tons of jungle woods etc and a big ruin in the middle, may as well not deploy the trees and shrubs because they aren't blocking LoS. US had their LoS bunkers, everyone else had their tables made out of L shaped cardboard terrain. 9th is a lot better, but you still can't just play the terrain the way it just is, you have to got through minutes of arguments what is dense and what isn't. are windows actual windows and how much not okey you are with your opponents LoWless army being able to shot your LoW, but you not being able to shot back.

 catbarf wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:In my humble opinion, if a game need a certain kind of terrain to be fun, there is something wrong in the game, because it doesn't allow me to try different type of scenario and in the end it became boring.

About the only wargames I can think of that work without mandatory terrain are naval and air. Requiring terrain to function is the de facto standard for ground-based wargames because it's such a critical part of maneuver warfare. I can give you examples of WW2 wargames that will work with bocage, cities, jungles, beaches, and a variety of other locales; but never, ever totally flat open terrain. Not even North Africa or WW1 trench warfare games are terrain-free.

You might as well argue that if a game requires you to move your units, there's something wrong with it- it's an essential component of warfare, not an optional add-on.

Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Even a salt desert , without many physical permanent structures can be made interesting via storms and ability to create clouds etc.

I recently played an RTS (Deserts of Kharak) which had one of the best LoS implementations I have seen in recent games, despite all battles exclusively taking place in deserts. Having buggies hide behind a dune and race over that dune to ambush enemy artillery and tanks advancing under the cover of smoke were some of the primary strategies of that game.

To bad that creating such a battlefield isn't really doable on a tabletop.

It's not? I've seen companies sell foam or plastic hills that you can place on a flat surface. You could use a bunch of those to get that interesting terrain.

Or, you could take a more abstract approach and build stepped layers out of foam. Your sand dunes would become more like mesas, but it's playable and easy to DIY.

(Also DoK is an excellent game, and goes to show how terrain still exists and is still important even in a battlespace traditionally thought of as flat)

Edit: Regarding facing, I'm not sure that it's all that necessary to concretely identify facing for non-vehicles. If we assume that troops are going to react to fire to take cover and minimize exposure, what matters isn't their absolute facing so much as whether they're being engaged from multiple directions simultaneously, or from a bearing that denies them the benefit of cover. Crossfire rules + more terrain with facings (eg ridgelines, sandbags, walls) would handle it.

Utilizing the terrain around you is an essential part of warfare - yes. It is not a required aspect for a battle though. Dense cover is more likely to prevent a battle than facilitate one. 9th edd has a squad based type game requirement - in a game where we have titans and battle tanks. Also with an absurdly low turn limit.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Same way you do in modern warfare. Flanking is done two for reasons: Putting more fire on to a target and to minimize their cover. Doing the first is already as good as it is going to get in a tabletop game. The second is more about how Cover is treated and working out ways to positionally defeat it. Even then, there are times where no matter what you do, your target will still be in cover, even while surrounded.

I think it's worth pointing out that cover IRL is a lot more 'directional' than often represented in wargames. You don't take cover by just standing in the woods or in a ruined building- you have to take cover behind something, oriented in a particular direction, in a formation that allows your unit to maximize fire, and with an awareness of the threat vector. Getting flanked makes it extremely difficult to stay protected. Getting ambushed makes it all but impossible.

From a game implementation standpoint, in hex-and-counter wargames hex facing is typically used to determine posture, with attacks coming from the rear 180 degrees negating cover. In minis games, an easy implementation is that if a unit can trace LOS through the target to a friendly unit that has already fired, then the attack negates cover.

Part of the issue is also that cover isn't nearly as useful in 40K as it is IRL. Intercessors shooting Cultists don't care if they're in cover or not; most of the time they ignore the cover either way, and even if they don't, a 6+ save is inconsequential. It was a lot different back in the day when being in cover cut your incoming damage by 1/3 to 1/2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:The things you are describing act in no way like dunes. Essentially they are just regular cliffs with sand color on them, which affect the game in a very different way, especially when moving across them. It's almost impossible to cross them with a based vehicle, for example.

The second concept, sure, but why the first? I'm thinking terrain like this.

I mean, this is also presuming a scale where the geography of sand dunes is relevant. Deserts of Kharak wouldn't work so well if your entire battlespace was a couple hundred yards across. 40K would look goofy with sand dunes tall enough to block a Leman Russ; but Epic would work better.

Xenomancers wrote:Utilizing the terrain around you is an essential part of warfare - yes. It is not a required aspect for a battle though. Dense cover is more likely to prevent a battle than facilitate one. 9th edd has a squad based type game requirement - in a game where we have titans and battle tanks. Also with an absurdly low turn limit.

Find me a ground battle with no apparent terrain and I'll show you the scale you ought to be looking at. North African desert or the fields at Prokhorovka look pretty flat at a small scale, but that's why the battles were fought from distances of 1+km, at a scale where what terrain did exist becomes relevant. There have been very, very few ground battles in the 20th century where engagement range was dictated by weapon capabilities rather than terrain and target acquisition.

The point being that 40K just isn't meant for that kind of battlespace. If there's no tactically-relevant terrain and sight lines are 1+km, you wouldn't deploy infantry, let alone line up two hundred yards from one another and slug it out. 40K's scenario and gameplay design is implicitly based on the presence of terrain; if you want to fight the sort of battle that arises from minimal terrain you ought to be looking at something like Epic as mentioned above.

As for dense terrain preventing a battle, well, maybe if we're talking medieval or ancient warfare (even then, there are notable exceptions- Romans luring Macedonian phalanxes into rough terrain to break up their pike formations comes to mind), but since WW1 combat around or in cities has been the norm. It's not so much a case of terrain facilitating a battle as that there is nowhere you can go that doesn't have relevant terrain, and the places that matter strategically tend to be either population centers or operational chokepoints.

Jidmah wrote:The things you are describing act in no way like dunes. Essentially they are just regular cliffs with sand color on them, which affect the game in a very different way, especially when moving across them. It's almost impossible to cross them with a based vehicle, for example.

Yeah, I live about 3-4 hours from where they filmed the barge scene from Return of the Jedi. I'm familiar with them, and how I said is how the dunes are shaped. The dunes sit on top of regular terrain like rolling hills, and that is not so easy to replicate on the table.

catbarf wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
How would you even implement rules for flanking fire/cross fire in 40K where units are amorphous blobs that can be any shape and have no defined facings?

Same way you do in modern warfare. Flanking is done two for reasons: Putting more fire on to a target and to minimize their cover. Doing the first is already as good as it is going to get in a tabletop game. The second is more about how Cover is treated and working out ways to positionally defeat it. Even then, there are times where no matter what you do, your target will still be in cover, even while surrounded.

I think it's worth pointing out that cover IRL is a lot more 'directional' than often represented in wargames. You don't take cover by just standing in the woods or in a ruined building- you have to take cover behind something, oriented in a particular direction, in a formation that allows your unit to maximize fire, and with an awareness of the threat vector. Getting flanked makes it extremely difficult to stay protected. Getting ambushed makes it all but impossible.

From a game implementation standpoint, in hex-and-counter wargames hex facing is typically used to determine posture, with attacks coming from the rear 180 degrees negating cover. In minis games, an easy implementation is that if a unit can trace LOS through the target to a friendly unit that has already fired, then the attack negates cover.

Part of the issue is also that cover isn't nearly as useful in 40K as it is IRL. Intercessors shooting Cultists don't care if they're in cover or not; most of the time they ignore the cover either way, and even if they don't, a 6+ save is inconsequential. It was a lot different back in the day when being in cover cut your incoming damage by 1/3 to 1/2.

There are a lot of problems with GW and Cover, and you pointed out most of it. WMH considers the direction the attack comes from, and considers back shots. That is why a lot of people paint a "forward arc" on the model's base.