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.

Yay or nay?

Do you prefer that each figure can only make a ranged attack (or even melee attack) in a certain arc in front of them? Or do you assume they have 360 degree vision and can swing to attack any angle?

Facing matters in 40k for vehicles, but not troops. I think Infinity does require facing to be managed. Though it seems like most skirmish games do not.

Anyone have an opinion for or against facing in skirmish scale games? Is it only for certain genres (sci-fi over fantasy for example)? Is it always tedious and causing arguments? Does it add tactical elements of outflanking? Let me know!

While it can be tedious sometimes it does add a layer of cinematic and tactical apppeal to a game. That being said it is fantastic for Infinity because of the ARO system.

Depends on the game system I guess
The skirmish games I have played assumes 360 viewpoints as the character is presumed to be able to act and respond all round.

I can see the appeal though as Blue Dagger has alluded

iirc the new game Smog uses facing. That uses 54mm figures on square bases, which possibly makes facing easier to determine.

Facing in skirmish games helps to add some tactics with bonuses/penalties for flank/rear attacks which promotes maneuvering during the game and keeps things more fluid feeling (aka exciting/fun.) Personally I like having a limited field of fire in skirmish games as it makes it feel less like a strategic game. Nothing more boring that sticking out 5-6 models that all hide in cover the whole game because there's no reward for any sort of maneuvering.

sarcastro01 wrote:Nothing more boring that sticking out 5-6 models that all hide in cover the whole game because there's no reward for any sort of maneuvering.

I really agree with this point, and think facing is definitely one of the ways to prevent it. Objectives or mission based games are another good one, but sometimes it's fun to just do a straight up "kill everything" game. I also think some kind of bonus (or conversely a penalty to the enemy) for moving helps, like making it harder to hit a moving target.

It is a good question for a thread.

I guess that it all depends on what kind of battle, even background, do you want to simulate.

If this is a medieval fantasy game where mostly all fights are face to face, people chraging and yellin´ at each other. No facing is needed. But in a sci-fi ultra hi tech enviroment like Infinity... even sending real human people to war instead of robots seem unrealistic, facing is needed and weapons have to be lethal. Sniper have to lethal. I cannot take seriously a miniature like the Hassassin Lasiq if the rules system do not allow that miniature to kill someone. If my rivals miniatures can walk in front of that uber-cool sniper without any fear... this is not working.

The next question that comes to mind is in the sense of a sci-fi shooting skirmish game, what firing/facing arc is reasonable? 45 degrees in front of them? 90 degrees? 180 degrees?

I guess it depends on your time scale. A smaller time scale should have a smaller fire arc representing more focus by the fig on an area or just not enough time to pivot and crank off rounds with any sort of accuracy. A lot of the games I've played lately have a 180 arc but still give bonuses to attacks from either the rear 180 or from 90 to either side (flanking). Seems to work fine for our group and still promotes maneuvering. I also think there are fewer arguments over what is/isn't in arc at 180 degrees then there are when you start to narrow things to 90 or 45 degrees.

Malifaux doesn't have it, and I like it that way. In that game, at least, it would add complexity without adding much benefit. I feel that not having facing is actually more cinematic, as you imagine your guys whirling around and shooting or whatever, being dynamic, you know?

If I move one guy every 30 minutes, and he gets shot in the back, it underscores the static, slow nature of the game.

sarcastro01 wrote:I also think there are fewer arguments over what is/isn't in arc at 180 degrees then there are when you start to narrow things to 90 or 45 degrees.

I think this is the main reason for 180 degree arcs, the target is either in front of the figure or not, without having to get a protractor out.

Overall it sounds like the rest of the skirmish game needs to be built with facing in mind, instead of having it tacked on at the end. Infinity does it well with reactions, whereas a game like Necromunda might not. Thanks for all the opinions so far!

In something like Necromunda it has a very big effect due to things like Overwatch rules, lighting conditions and equipment that can affect it. When a ganger is using infra-goggles in a pitch black environment, it makes the game more fun knowing you can actually flank them to lessen their advantage.

Another Necromunda example is the red-dot laser sight. You have a chance to spot the dot *only* if the shooter is in your 90 degree front arc.

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:
If I move one guy every 30 minutes, and he gets shot in the back, it underscores the static, slow nature of the game.

That the nice thing about Infinity, the above well never happen unless you leave the guys back exposed to fire over 8in away. Otherwise your model gets a reactive order, to avoid the shot in the back. Basiclly a back shot only happen when you let them, and you never wait around while your opponent takes his turn.

Malosar wrote:In something like Necromunda it has a very big effect due to things like Overwatch rules, lighting conditions and equipment that can affect it. When a ganger is using infra-goggles in a pitch black environment, it makes the game more fun knowing you can actually flank them to lessen their advantage.

Another Necromunda example is the red-dot laser sight. You have a chance to spot the dot *only* if the shooter is in your 90 degree front arc.

Oh, haha, shows how long it's been since I played Necromunda, I thought they didn't even bother with facing.