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.

Facing vs. an 'awareness dice roll'?

I'll take facing over yet another dice roll, especially in a skirmish game.

But maybe I'm just partially diced out from the bucket-o-dice game that 40K 8th is!

There are two or three armies I'd like to get. Hopefully they'll do KS.

If the concern is wanting to leverage skill rather than chance, awareness should be determined by movement because movement is one of the definitive elements of miniatures gaming. To surprise a model, move from full cover up to it without having been seen by it previously. Does not require ugly, fiddly facing rules.

I'm definitely interested. Might skip a KS and wait for retail,depending on timing. Also, Confrontation called, it says square bases are fine.

 .Mikes. wrote:
Also, Confrontation called

from beyond the grave?

 Manchu wrote:
If the concern is wanting to leverage skill rather than chance, awareness should be determined by movement because movement is one of the definitive elements of miniatures gaming. To surprise a model, move from full cover up to it without having been seen by it previously. Does not require ugly, fiddly facing rules.

You just have to track which models every model has and hasn't seen (and when) which is much less fiddly than facing???

Seriously, models having facing isn't that fiddly.

Nah, it's no problem. If A starts his turn with zero LOS to B then A can get the drop on B. Depending on the design, you'd probably break LOS, when out of LOS use an action to gain hidden status, then be able to do a surprise attack.

 Manchu wrote:
Does not require ugly, fiddly facing rules.

I don't know why you've decided they are so. Ever played Warmachine?

Facing is fiddly because a man-sized figure at 1/48 or less represents a body in dynamic motion, acting and reacting in a continuous way. As judgedoug mentioned above, a figure oriented in a certain direction is no more facing only in that direction than a kneeling figure is always kneeling. Facing only makes sense when the time represented by an activation is extremely limited; that works thematically in high tech environments where combatants have a ton of accurate info about the battlefield and hyper precise ranged weaponry.

Actually one of the reasons I don't like WMH is it strikes me as way, way on the gamey end of the spectrum where the point is for the players to determine who has greater mastery of the rules. So I get why such a fiddly game would incorporate fiddly concepts like facing; more moving pieces, more complexity, more mastery required.

 Manchu wrote:

 .Mikes. wrote:
Also, Confrontation called

from beyond the grave?

That it went in after it changed to round bases.

Actually no, few games have as much of a devoted player base almost ten years after it went out of production. A testament to its rules.

Hanging up on base shapes is bloody absurd, and smells of looking for something - anything - to complain about. But then again I know where I am right now so it's par of the course.

 .Mikes. wrote:
Hanging up on base shapes is bloody absurd,

Do you also think rules calling for a certain base shape is bloody absurd.

Actually upon my request we tested having a 1" melee range as per Warmachine, which would make base shapes largely irrelevant. It was way more... fiddly... than aligning square bases.

 Manchu wrote:

 .Mikes. wrote:
Hanging up on base shapes is bloody absurd,

Do you also think rules calling for a certain base shape is bloody absurd.

I take it you've never played a table top game before then.

Do you have an answer?

Yes, you're being ridiculous. Pick up any rules and they'll almost always have specifics on base shapes.

Yes, I know. My question was, do you think it is bloody absurd that rules specify something like that?

 .Mikes. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 .Mikes. wrote:
Also, Confrontation called

from beyond the grave?

That it went in after it changed to round bases.

Actually no, few games have as much of a devoted player base almost ten years after it went out of production. A testament to its rules.

Hanging up on base shapes is bloody absurd, and smells of looking for something - anything - to complain about. But then again I know where I am right now so it's par of the course.

I personally don't like square bases, but I can see why the choice was made from a couple of perspectives:

1) Model/basing compatibility with KoW.
2) It can still work quite decently in games. I've never played WMH, but I did play quite a lot of one of the games that I would say has a much more dedicated fanbase than Confrontation 10+ years after it went OOP: Necromunda (& 40k2e). Does SW:A still have the Necromunda fire arcs?

In closing: I don't like square bases, but that's a personal aesthetic preference. Fire arcs/facings can work quite reasonably and decently in a miniatures game. It won't be for everyone, but then, nothing is for everyone. I'm quote happy to play SBG and/or AoS but there's a lot of people that aren't (more than a lot for AoS!!)

My KoW stuff (WIP) is all single based but this is hardly standard, as it was with WHFB. Multi basing is often touted as a feature of KoW. Cross compatibility wity KoW will be limited accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Does SW:A still have the Necromunda fire arcs?

IIRC only in overwatch.

 Azazelx wrote:

In closing: I don't like square bases, but that's a personal aesthetic preference. Fire arcs/facings can work quite reasonably and decently in a miniatures game. It won't be for everyone, but then, nothing is for everyone. I'm quote happy to play SBG and/or AoS but there's a lot of people that aren't (more than a lot for AoS!!)

This, basically. Some people are mixing up personal preferences with what can work in a game.

Not really. What can work in a game really depends on a lot of factors. And whether a game is hypothetically likable has little to do with whether it is well designed.

 Manchu wrote:
My KoW stuff (WIP) is all single based but this is hardly standard, as it was with WHFB. Multi basing is often touted as a feature of KoW. Cross compatibility wity KoW will be limited accordingly.

My Fantasy stuff is almost all on round bases, With some exceptions being 40mm+ figures like Ogres, large monsters, etc stuff on square bases. My infantry-sized models are all round-based, and when used as KoW units are blu-taced down to unit trays for KoW duty and come off them for SBG, AoS, SAGA or whatever else I use them for.



But then what I choose to do isn't the point. It's Mantic going the "closed ecosystem" model that GW uses, and fair enough if they choose to do that for their own consistency.
If I choose to play their skirmish game, I'll continue with round bases myself and just mark the bases as subtly as possible for arcs or facing, etc - just as I did for 40k2e, Necromunda, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Does SW:A still have the Necromunda fire arcs?

IIRC only in overwatch.

 judgedoug wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The functionality of the ruleset shouldn't be dependent on base shape then the ruleset is flawed. I'd be very surprised if the rules are written in such a way as to make using minis on round bases game breaking.

Nah, I mean, WMH requires round bases - but that's the nature of the game. It doesn't require miniatures, just 2d discs, because the game is designed as a highly complex synergy-reliant chess game. So WMH works perfectly for what it's attempting to do.

If Vanguard requires square bases because of some super granular awful front/flank/rear system, then, that's it's design aim. Not one that I agree with nor would play. Gimme SBG control zones.

Arguable, especially if you continue with those ideas, WMH clearly doesn't work perfectly at all. One of the biggest obstructions to that is actually the models and the way they overhang bases and interfere with positioning. That ruleset would actually be BETTER as a 2d disc game.
But actually round bases aren't required. And given the way WMH LOS works, squares work better than players being forced to approximate 180 degrees on a circle (though they could have, and should have, produced notched bases from day one if facing was so important).

Color me interested in Vanguard. More for the rules than anything. I've really enjoyed playing KoW so if Mantic keeps on with the same concise, fun and fast philosophy of rules they certainly have my attention with these new rules.

Not fussed about the miniatues. Honestly, I've never been won over by any of the factions in Mantica and I essentialy viewed KoW as the chance to build the old school chaos army I always wanted for a game I actually wanted to play.

The Square bases thing isn't ideal, but at the same time it isn't the end of the world either for round bases. It's easy enough to make a facing template that -as long as you mark the center front of the round base- will clarify an arc. As it happens, my Chaos KoW army is all on squares and rectangles so that's not a hurdle.

So i'll likely buy the rules, and play some games but even if they're a flop or like Warpath prove hard to find opponents for, it's no big worry. I've already got SBH, Frostgrave and -for slightly larger skirmishes- Dragon Rampant so there's no shortage of ways to get my hordes on the table with rules I like.

I dont mind square bases, there are many games out there that use round bases on a grid, what is the difference?

its basically implementing a grid system based on the reference point of the individual bases.

Does the model have a shield in the left arm? then maybe the shield only protects from front and left side attacks.

Who knows what sort of detail they are going to implement?

So much drama over a square base with no knowledge of what it actually means to gameplay

I use to be pretty hung up on the "stone statue" argument too. However, I have come to realize that even the arguments for VLOS have less to do with that and more to do with consistency, after all there is no consistency in LOS with TLOS because it's entirely dependent on a factor that actually exist outside of the rule set, that is how the model is modelled.

So when we talk about whether or not facing is a good or bad design decision I think the stone statue argument is a bit thin. To me it really comes down to what is the rules trying to facilitate. Is it trying to make the player behave in a certain way, that's something you actually need to heavily consider when designing a game. In Warmachine/Hordes I would argue that facing is part of the overall desire to make positioning supreme in Warmachine/Hordes. The game is designed to make you think very carefully about where you place your models, this has nothing to do with realism and how fast a person can turn in real life. I would say that Warmachine/Hordes is a great example of facing implemented into an overall design very well. I can not think of something that WMH could implement that would be smoother and still produce the same results they are after. There might be one I just can't personally thank of one. I am of course only a student, not a professional designer.

If instead you want to instead capture the feeling of one on one martial combat with fist, swords or whatever than I would argue it's not so good. Now while facing in one on one combat is supremely important I think there is a smoother way to implement that. Think of two highly skilled boxers, facing is incredibly important to present a proper defense, throw a proper punch, etc. So how could I facilitate this without implementing facing rules? Well let's think back to boxing, a skilled boxer is able to create angles to improve his own offense by circumventing his opponents defense and make himself harder to hit. In a game I could easily implement this through asymmetrical chance. If Fighter A is a better fighter than Fighter B, than Fighter A should have a higher chance of landing a telling blow. Here we are abstracting real world skill into a system, that way you the player don't have to be a expert fighter because your little character on the table is.

Well you might ask what about 2 v 1 or 3 v 1, etc. Well that is easy to implement, you can do this through a modifier system no problem. If Fighter A suddenly has to worry about more opponents then his chances of landing a telling blow decrease until they decrease to a point where he is simply overwhelmed. Here we have in my opinion much a smoother system for abstracting the importance of facing in martial combat.

You will notice the two above examples are trying to produce two very different results, they start from two very different problem statements. The first one, how can I make a game about positioning? The second one, how can I make a game that captures the feeling of single combat? One is trying to have a player behave in a certain way, the other is trying to make the player feel a certain way.

I hope this articulates the difference, I apologize if I am not clear as I am only a student at school trying to disseminate my course work.

In terms of Vanguard I think it is too early to tell if it is a bad decision or a good one.

Thoughts? Disagreements? I welcome them.

As someone who was very hyped about this, Square bases aren't an issue, but I'm sceptical of facings in a skirmish game.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
As someone who was very hyped about this, Square bases aren't an issue, but I'm sceptical of facings in a skirmish game.

I feel the opposite, actually

In my mind, facings don't determine awareness so much as attention/focus. It's unlikely that a warrior in a skirmish will be unaware of somebody behind him, but he will be focusing more on what is in front of him. Giving a model some sort of backstab bonus rewards tactical movement, and serves a proxy for suppression.

But IMO there's no reason that can't be done on round bases, ala warmachine.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
As someone who was very hyped about this, Square bases aren't an issue, but I'm sceptical of facings in a skirmish game.

Um... Infinity?

I like facing rule in Infinity. I think it works great there. Nothing to worry about it.

Facing isn't an issue in a skirmish game. It's just a bit old school, but it brings some tactical choices for sure.

Still, I don't like this project. I smell named characters, here...if it's really about making your own warband and customize it/allow it to gain experience as battles go on, and not forcing you to have named characters who keep fighting against their evil clones because it's "easier to balance", then maybe it's worth it. Otherwise, why going into another skirmish game ? The market is already crowded with those.