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.

I'm aware current trends and desires are toward simplifying and streamlining the rules for 40k. I'm in general agreement, but I also believe that if a new rule or concept adds a new level of enjoyment to the game, then I'm ok with it.

We, as players (with current tabletop tech) cannot easily add in the element of the fog of war (FoW). I believe adding the FoW into 40k would add a level of realism that could be enjoyable for some players. One way I figure to add this element would be introducing the concept of Unit Directional Awareness (UDA).

The UDA would be represented on the board via a marker that would represent the direction the unit is directing its attention. The field of vision would be 90 degrees. So for example, if a unit if facing directly north (as represented via the marker) it could see units located within 45 degrees in either direction off north. There is a lot that could be fleshed out from this concept (assault bonuses if charging from the flank or rear, available targets during the shooting/psychic phases, degradation of a cover save from shooting on the flank due to being focused on maintaining cover in a particular direction, additional rules that allow units to communicate with each other via integrated communications which would alleviate some of the penalties, etc.).

This would undoubtedly add an additional layer of complexity to an already complex game, but I think its added realism could substantially improve players' ability to showcase their tactical abilities.

Thoughts?

Why is everyone in the same unit facing exactly the same direction? And why does their peripheral vision suck?

As JNA points out, smart troops would post at least a couple people to watch a squad's back.

However, with rules for Side and Rear armor on vehicles, it's not to difficult to add something similar for the infantryman. It does require some forethought thought.

40K mostly removed "facing" due to arguments about where the troop was looking - was it where the head was turned, or was it where the gun was pointed? What about those weird model poses, like someone looking to the sky?

If you want to use "facing", the models should in some way, be clearly marked (Warmachine does this). I'd suggest a 90 degree arc (45 to each side of the front) for most troops, perhaps a 180 degree arc for Assault weapons (90 to each side of the front).

Models can only shoot/overwatch enemies in their firing arc. If you shoot a model from behind (using majority facing), the target suffers -1 Toughness.

Facing isn't used in Close Combat.

This allows you to set up flanking attacks and gives melee troops a possible edge in avoiding overwatch if they can maneuver to the side or rear of an enemy. A squad can attempt to offset potential flanks by splitting the facing of their squad and such.

I feel like this could be an interesting addition to a Kill Team style of game. I'm imagining something like a "stealth mission" where a lictor has to eliminate a squad of guardsmen or a pack of mandrakes have to take down some marines or something. It lets you do some interesting stuff with directional awareness. It's easy to track on a model-by-model basis, and it makes sense that a single dude wouldn't be able to watch his own back very well.

It works less well in a full 40k game because having a couple guys assigned to watch flanks etc is pretty common procedure.

On a related note, thoughts on letting psykers in small-scale games "project" their awareness? Basically having a token fly around and serve as their directional awareness instead of using their actual bodies to do so?

I always ask 2 questions when looking at proposed rule changes.

1)What level of complexity does it add to the game ,compared to the complication it adds to the rules/game play.

2)Can the effects be arrived at in a more intuitive and synergistic way.

Fire arcs and unit facings work well in skirmish games with single model focus, or battle games with infantry on bases or 'ranked up'.As the infantry is used in a rectangular base/block with clearly defined front sides and rear.

As previously pointed out 40k infantry is in a group of models representing each trooper in loose formation , in a large scale battle game with single model focus.

So unit facing is far more 'fiddly' in 40k than any other game as previously pointed out.

However, the fog of war can easily be introduced by giving models an Evasion rating to opposed BS.
So rather than just subtracting BS from 7 to find the to hit roll,You can compare attacker BS to targets Evasion in a chart similar to SvT to find out the chance to hit.
Cover saves can be replaced with just adding 1 or 2 to the Evasion rating of the target.

Example a Ratling sniper in light cover Evasion 8, is much harder to hit than a Ork Mob in the open Evasion 5.But a battle wagon Evasion 3 is even easier to hit.This gives proportional results to hit in both close combat and ranged attacks. (One of the many reasons for the imbalance between these combat types in the game.)

In the scale of game 40k is played in and the types of unit used.I think a suppression mechanic is easier to implement and use over 'directional attacks' in the side and rear.(Armour facings should remain on larger single model targets though.)

EG use supression to keep the enemy units head down before assaulting them.

What are you trying to accomplish by attempting to model "facings" on units? 2nd Edition used to have similar rules; each *model* had a 90 degree LOS, and when the unit fired, models could only fire at units they could see, but you could pseudo-Splitfire. For example, a 10-man squad deploys in a wedge, 5 Marines only able to see Enemy A, the other 5 only being able to see Enemy B. 5 Marines fire at A, 5 at B. However, such rules were fiddly (as was a lot of 2e) as it required you to measure angles/LOS with each individual model, and editions onwards let you "circumvent" a lot of the issues with that rule, by adding Combat Squads, Split Fire, and lots of variants thereof.

If "hidden" rules are another thing you're interested in, you could do away some with "TLOS" and just make it so that some terrain/abilities give "Hidden" to a unit (again, similar to 2nd edition) and you detect a Hidden Unit if it comes within twice a model's Initiative value.

If "ambushing from the shadows" for assault is something you're interested in doing, you could alternately take a page from Zone Mortalis, and make it so the unit being charged has to make an Initiative check to be able to attempt Overwatch, and optionally give an Initiative penalty if the assaulting unit started the turn Hidden or so.