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.

ERJAK wrote:
It's not that it was complex or unintuitive, it just made vehicles gakkier than other units just based on how they were shaped. For example, an Exorcist is dramatically better than an an all-las predator despite their relative damage output being fairly similar and the exorcist being about as reliable as Comcast Cable, because the exorcist A) Only has 1 weapon to shoot, which means it can move freely, B) Has a huge tall turret that can see over cover allowing it to be 100% obscured and still fire and C) Doesn't have to deal with firing sponson weapons.

Yes, and that's a good thing. Units should be different like that, and their relative value can be incorporated into their point costs.

Speak for yourself! My Land Raider's crew practically make the thing break dance It's amazing how fast a tank that weights 72 tonnes can spin about!


actually, the speed of the machine is all that limits it. the faster you go, the less turn you can do. it is really about representing stuff as easily as possible. tanks can actually be made to do some amazing things, even today. the kind of tanks ytou see in 40k are based on the ww2 stuff, they were less hulky, and were capable of lots more than their modern counter parts.

Units should be different but sometimes, if you can't draw a good line to make them different it's best not to draw a line at all.
In theory fire arcs/ facings are a good idea but in practice, rarely so. both from a balance (mc vs vehicle) and ease of gameplay experience.

 Peregrine wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
It's not that it was complex or unintuitive, it just made vehicles gakkier than other units just based on how they were shaped. For example, an Exorcist is dramatically better than an an all-las predator despite their relative damage output being fairly similar and the exorcist being about as reliable as Comcast Cable, because the exorcist A) Only has 1 weapon to shoot, which means it can move freely, B) Has a huge tall turret that can see over cover allowing it to be 100% obscured and still fire and C) Doesn't have to deal with firing sponson weapons.

Yes, and that's a good thing. Units should be different like that, and their relative value can be incorporated into their point costs.

At this point, i don't think its worth it.

On a side note, I never understood why the Exorcist was a direct fire weapon rather than bombarding an area indirectly like a jury-rigged Katyusha.

Earth127 wrote:
Units should be different but sometimes, if you can't draw a good line to make them different it's best not to draw a line at all.
In theory fire arcs/ facings are a good idea but in practice, rarely so. both from a balance (mc vs vehicle) and ease of gameplay experience.

The "theory" behind MC's not having fire arcs and stuff was that they are much less bulky and being a single organism, more agile than vehicles and can turn to face the threat etc, just like an infantry model. Which to some extent makes sense, a Carnifex is supposed to weight like 8 tons, a Predator tank weights over 60 tons. Walkers, then, were a hybrid between the two, usually controlled by single mind which was often directly linked to the vehicular controls they represented a compromise between MC and Vehicle abilities. From gameplay viewpoint, being a Vehicle also brought some advantages, most tanks were totally immune to small arms fire even from a side armour, by contrast a Carnifex could be easily brought down by Boltguns, and even easier by Poison weapons which do nothing to a Vehicle.

But then they began to add really durable MC's to the game which were both very durable against Small arms fire, and hard to kill with Heavy weapons. Also they might have tank-like firepower and mobility. They effectively combined best of the both worlds, so of course they come across unbalanced. If say, a Riptide had been Walker AV12 all around, or MC with T7 4W 3+, there would have been much, much less complaints against the system itself.

The Dreadknight was probably the actual worst thing Ward ever did, because it opened the door to all the other super-MCs of 6th/7th. And then GW massively overreacted to parkinglot-40K of 5th and then took a big dump on vehicles.

Backfire wrote:

The "theory" behind MC's not having fire arcs and stuff was that they are much less bulky and being a single organism, more agile than vehicles and can turn to face the threat etc, just like an infantry model. Which to some extent makes sense, a Carnifex is supposed to weight like 8 tons, a Predator tank weights over 60 tons.

Honestly I think it never made any sense. First a Carnifex, being similary robust to a tank should weigh more than a tank, because high grade steel (and Sci Fi steel even more) provides far more toughness than biomass. The only way that Tyranids could work at all is if you invent some pseudo scientific explanation that their biology is far tougher than what we know on Earth.

Btw a Rhino is an APC and not a MBT, and therefore its mass should be more like 30 tons, if you could draw any similarity between 21st century tech and... well 40k tech.

Also a MBT (with a mass of 60+ metric tons) accelerates faster, turns faster and breaks faster than an elephant or a giraffe. Just skim the internet and look for jumping tanks (jep tanks can jump. And while cars are usually scrap metal when they land, tanks go on without any problems because they are... well... tanks)

One interesting fact is that modern tanks have their crew in flexible riggings to dampen the acceleration, because a human (i.e. biological) brain is the first thing in the tank that breaks down, if the tank is exposed to extreme maneuvers/acceleration (or hit by an IED)

And yes, there are pictures of toppled and stuck tanks. This happens if drivers make serious mistakes. But just make sure to read about how dangerous some maneuvers are for giraffes and how often they break their legs and die...

P.S.: And two legged walkers are a pretty bad design for a combat vehicle and are only cool and work in SF or Anime, because two legs are cool if you want to have two hands with opposable thumbs and look over savannah grass, but are pretty stupid if you want to be agile or resistant to the impact of kinetic energy.

P.P.S: And yes, I am aware that bringing realism into a game of space elves and giant walkers does not make much sense, but I am not the first person to come up with it. But IMO this entire debate is much more about suspension of disbelief and what you want to work and what you don't want to work than about what "makes sense" and what does not.

P.P.P.S: Ok... you could argue that 40k tank drive trains look more like WW1 drive trains without any suspension and are wrapped around the body and are not like the horizontal suspension drive trains of WW2 and today, but... well... ok...

Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.

Why didn't they just give all weapons on a vehicle split fire and keep TLOS? If my sponsons could just shoot at whatever makes sense for them to shoot at I would have no problem with occasionally not having a target for one sponson.

or did I miss that?

nateprati wrote:
Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.

I look at my 40k game like playing out what is in the books so if gaming reflects source material I am typically happy.

Why didn't they just give all weapons on a vehicle split fire and keep TLOS? If my sponsons could just shoot at whatever makes sense for them to shoot at I would have no problem with occasionally not having a target for one sponson.
or did I miss that?

This is far too sensible a statement!
At least the new rules do not penalize the agonizing choice of attaching the sponson guns on the front or rear set of doors on a Landraider.

nateprati wrote:
Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.

Agreed, I struggle with it so much that I can only even enjoy a game if everything is painted. Funny how that never got mocked as some sort of bizarre obsession with "reality in a space elf game durr" lol

Everyone has their own standards. Some doubly so.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Agreed, I struggle with it so much that I can only even enjoy a game if everything is painted. Funny how that never got mocked as some sort of bizarre obsession with "reality in a space elf game durr" lol

Good observation.
It does seem to go without question that your high fantasy or science fiction movie must look as "real" as possible within the esthetic of that genre.

I suppose if you did not want/need/require fully painted models, why not just play a video game or use "icon" type pieces like in chess?
I am used to playing Battletech and they say often that the piece is not scaled to the hex it is in, I always looked at the 40k models as pieces of the real model: the unit.
I always felt dealing with specific models within a unit as unnecessary busywork other than representing specific capabilities of the unit and the space it occupies.

Funny though, my friend I game with absolutely finds it a break from "reality" if you are allowed to remove models from a unit outside of the range of the weapon being fired.
So even though he plays Orks, it bugs him if I shoot say a flamer at his unit, he can take guys from the back of his 30 boyz blob.

I do have to say one thing: removing firing arcs certainly removes orientation and positioning from strategy thinking.
It has "dumbed things down" a bit, I am just hoping as a whole a bit more action/fun/time is gained?

 Crablezworth wrote:

nateprati wrote:
Suspension of disbelief is exactly what matters, it's what makes a good movie or a bad movie.

Agreed, I struggle with it so much that I can only even enjoy a game if everything is painted. Funny how that never got mocked as some sort of bizarre obsession with "reality in a space elf game durr" lol

Never? Really? Lucky you. I somehow have the impression that a lot of people can live with all of those guys on the tabletop somehow looking like grey plastic but they are adamant about their personal interpretation of how reality™ has to work in Warhammer 40.000™


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:


I do have to say one thing: removing firing arcs certainly removes orientation and positioning from strategy thinking.
It has "dumbed things down" a bit, I am just hoping as a whole a bit more action/fun/time is gained?

*cough* orientation and position has nothing to do with strategy but with tactics *cough*
Sorry, my dad was a Lt. Colonel in the air force and always lectured me on my wrong use of strategy and tactics...

I would be all for facing and real firing arcs, but then I would prefer it for MCs, too.

Weapon fire arcs only really matter when the vehicle has armor facings.

Since vehicles no longer have armor facings, it's not relevant which arcs the guns can fire in, with the exception of a few strange cases. Most tanks can bring full firepower to bear forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
On a side note, I never understood why the Exorcist was a direct fire weapon rather than bombarding an area indirectly like a jury-rigged Katyusha.

I generally assumed the rockets were cold launched from the tubes, then fired their engines and behaved otherwise like a radar or wire-guided rocket.

UncleThomson wrote:
*cough* orientation and position has nothing to do with strategy but with tactics *cough*
Sorry, my dad was a Lt. Colonel in the air force and always lectured me on my wrong use of strategy and tactics...
I would be all for facing and real firing arcs, but then I would prefer it for MCs, too.

Oh for the love of Petey....
Yes, you are correct, there is a distinct difference and I needed to be corrected... I hate it when people fold maps wrong in front of me too.
I would then retort what is too short a timeline or how small a scale for your "plans" when it switches from tactics to strategy.
If my "campaign" is only as big as my "objective" which 40k tends to be, the distinction is rather pointless, but again, letter of the law I was incorrect due to laziness and not a lack of knowledge.
All the other excuses above is my silly attempt at appearing right when I was wrong.

So yes, orientation and positioning becomes less of a tactical concern and hopefully I can concentrate more on my strategy of crushing pedantic hobbyists!
Yes, very touchy today, I should have that checked...

UncleThomson wrote:



Never? Really? Lucky you. I somehow have the impression that a lot of people can live with all of those guys on the tabletop somehow looking like grey plastic but they are adamant about their personal interpretation of how reality™ has to work in Warhammer 40.000™

And those people's games while certainly enjoyable don't look as good as mine. :p


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UncleThomson wrote:

I would be all for facing and real firing arcs, but then I would prefer it for MCs, too.

Agreed, and that's really the best common ground I think we'll find. They "fixed" mc's in 8th in so much as added rules that reduced stats as they took damage. But mc's having spherical vision never made a tonne of sense and only go sillier as time went on and average size increased. Walkers only exacerbated the absurd delineation between mc's and vehicles. But the answer to me would be to reign in mc fire arcs, not toss the whole concept out along with the baby and some bath water.

What's really odd now is a baneblade can't tank shock through even tiny models but certain units are being given the ability to step over units. Which more or less gives them some benefits of fly.


I mean putting vehicle arcs in for larger models is not the end of the world if everything retains splitfire anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:


So yes, orientation and positioning becomes less of a tactical concern and hopefully I can concentrate more on my strategy of crushing pedantic hobbyists!
Yes, very touchy today, I should have that checked...

Here's hoping it's considerably faster. But in all honesty, there's a breaking point on the short end too, if the game is a mindless 90-120 minute exorcise in unpacking and packing I dunno. I think I can tolerate longer games if it means more tactical depth and ultimately more absorption in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Weapon fire arcs only really matter when the vehicle has armor facings.

Since vehicles no longer have armor facings, it's not relevant which arcs the guns can fire in, with the exception of a few strange cases. Most tanks can bring full firepower to bear forward.

I disagree, although we lost one very good reason for trying to flank enemy vehicles (armor facings), we also lost all incentive to actually move our vehicles short of minimum range because we no long have to ensure each weapon can draw line of sight/bring the target into arc. A vehicle can show 2mm popping out from solid los blocking cover and still fire all weapons at any targets in range.

Also, planes, armor facings being gone is unfortunate, the situation is rendered worse by the fact that any flyer can pretty much engage any flyer and the sole evasion of the is getting out of range and not even vector.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here's hoping it's considerably faster. But in all honesty, there's a breaking point on the short end too, if the game is a mindless 90-120 minute exorcise in unpacking and packing I dunno. I think I can tolerate longer games if it means more tactical depth and ultimately more absorption in the game.

I am hoping to have my cake and eat it too: the "loss" of true weapon line of sight "details" and get more strategy. I hope the game can give me a promotion from Lieutenant to Colonel in my game play.
There comes a point where the detail of the game could only be appreciated as a computer game where the mechanics are "handled", some speed and ease of play needs to be a consideration.

 Talizvar wrote:

So yes, orientation and positioning becomes less of a tactical concern and hopefully I can concentrate more on my strategy of crushing pedantic hobbyists!

So I tip my hat and stroll away crushed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:


What's really odd now is a baneblade can't tank shock through even tiny models but certain units are being given the ability to step over units. Which more or less gives them some benefits of fly.

What somehow stretches my suspension of disbelief is that a Leman Russ is big and steady enough to ignore the -1 to hit with heavy weapons in its turret, but a Baneblade is not.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Also, planes, armor facings being gone is unfortunate, the situation is rendered worse by the fact that any flyer can pretty much engage any flyer and the sole evasion of the is getting out of range and not even vector.

IMO Flyers behave totally weird. They still have their facing when movement is involved but somehow ignore it when firing. I am usually fine with abstraction and everything, but explaining why a flyer is agile enough to turn 180° and shoot and then turn 180° back in its previous direction during the shooting phase (which IMO should be mainly about - well shooting) but is incapable of turning more than 90° in its movement phase (which IMO should be mainly about - well moving) makes my head hurt a little

I wonder how many here have actually played a game with tanks and see for themselves how it worked.

I have played tank focused IG for a while now, and the 8th game I played last time (a few days ago) had one time when it felt weird with the firing arcs/firing from hull/whatever. I shot at a squad of Genestealers with my Leman Russes, with one of the tanks blocking two of the others Heavy Bolters. At that time it felt a bit strange, that those heavy bolters could still shoot, but we didn't really mind it that much. We play with a lot of terrain and buildings, but it worked fine.

In the rest of the game/games I have not really even felt that issue, since my tanks mostly sit on one side of the table, shooting forward. Cover isn't really that good now, so I can place them in the open pretty confidently. Or just behind an Aegis Defence Line, that works to.

First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.

It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.

When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?

But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?

Vaktathi wrote: Look at the overwhelmingly vast majority of RTS games that play at anything near the scale of a 40k game, and almost none of them care about unit facing aside from maybe a microsecond of animation for the unit to turn a turret to bear or something. Facing can matter in an shooter, but RTS games generally won't care, do they all lack for tactical depth as a result?

I would say this is a very wrong statement. The only rtss that don't care about facings are bastard children of 90s rts, artificialy kept afloat thanks to Starcraft still being around. Most games with tanks actualy have facings, even the casual ones like Company of Heroes (front and rear, actualy).

Look at Wargame series, much larger scale than 40k (https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_super/gamespot/images/2013/178/reviews/2045119-679868_20130628_001.jpg) and still tanks have facings, which btw creates incredible moments in the game where you manage to stop an otherwise really hard to stop force by clever (and approprietly planned/ timed) manouvering and ambushes. I can field and run 50 tanks at once (mostly in groups 2 - 4), all with facing and it's perfectly manageable, in real time. How isn't it manageable in turn based system like 40k.

Also, comparing 40k 8th to classical rts, thanks for proving my point that the game is shallow now, it is sth akin to playing classic rts without base building. Classic rtss are tacticaly dumb, that's playstation 1 level of tactics.

Vaktathi wrote:
Again, there are issues with facings. They fundamentally make for a more complex unit requiring additional rules. This can add tactical depth, but add complexity and time to play. Having complexity for just one unit type, but not for any others, even for otherwise broadly similar units (e.g. MC's) simply invites balance issues, as shown by how wildly and weirdly the utility and functionality of vehicles, moreso than just about anything else in the game, swings with every edition change. Folding them into one unit profile eliminates those issues.

MCs should have facing as well, a varied one imo where for example some Tyranid beasties should have vulnerable front and strong back, maybe with a rule, for example, that you suffer morale test if you're in a front facing in a threat range (oh sorry, morale is now dumb as well) or sth . Flavourful, tactical and easier to balance tanks vs MCs.

We already had benefits from flanking infantry (negating cover), benefts from flanking vehicles (vulnerable sides, rear), what was needed was a system for MCs. But no, now vehicles have wounds, because AV was so hard, so hard that a 6 year old can grasp it np.

Vaktathi wrote:Finally, having facings and a damage table always kinda scaled weirdly, resulting in requiring weird handling of things like superheavies (e.g. requiring the bolt on "Structure Points" in 5E, exceptions to damage table results, etc) and much more variability in functionality relative to something like MC's (which didn't have to worry about being shaken or stunned or immobilized or losing weapons or being one-shot from across the board by a single lucky Lascannon shot), also weirdness with stuff like CC where units hit an armor facing they may not actually be in, etc.

Make a better damage table maybe, instead of removing a whole thing. Not sure about the GW solution really heh.

Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.

Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.

Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.

It limits their filed of vision, and thus arc of fire by half... that's not nothing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.

Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.

It would mean you couldn't shoot something in front of you and something behind you at the same time.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure why they didn't just give mc's a fire arc and call it a day, hell even if they went lazy and gave them 180 degree field if vision, it would still be an improvement.

Because that essentially doesn't do anything, since you can pivot for free now.

It would mean you couldn't shoot something in front of you and something behind you at the same time.

No it wouldn't. Turn so that you have a 90 degree angle to both targets. Done. There would have to be 3 individual targets, all spaced out almost perfectly around you for this to ever matter.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.

It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.

When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?

But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?

because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.

I would say this is a very wrong statement. The only rtss that don't care about facings are bastard children of 90s rts, artificialy kept afloat thanks to Starcraft still being around. Most games with tanks actualy have facings, even the casual ones like Company of Heroes (front and rear, actualy).

Company of Heroes generally doesnt have a ton of tanks on the field, you may get two panthers with three or four fireteams of infantry against maybe 4 shermans and tank destroyers with a couple dozen infantry? I havent played the game in many years, but its certainly not dealing with entire tank companies and everything from Titans to Sentinels and power armored infantry, and has a computer to deal with all the background stuff that players have to roll out.

Look at Wargame series, much larger scale than 40k (https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_super/gamespot/images/2013/178/reviews/2045119-679868_20130628_001.jpg) and still tanks have facings, which btw creates incredible moments in the game where you manage to stop an otherwise really hard to stop force by clever (and approprietly planned/ timed) manouvering and ambushes. I can field and run 50 tanks at once (mostly in groups 2 - 4), all with facing and it's perfectly manageable, in real time. How isn't it manageable in turn based system like 40k.

These games are extremely complex and are essentially niche games, the same way most historical wargames are now, and dont have to worry about fantasy or RPG elements. They are built from the ground up as realistic operational level wargames with the player responsible for more levels of command than an actual battle commander would be, and are not a miniatures game played at what otherwise would be considered point blank ranges with RPG details and and a fantasy fundamental concept, and have a humongous back end handled by the computer that just isnt translatable to a 40k game where players are doing everything by hand with D6's.

Try translating one of those battles to a tabletop dice game and it'd take months to play through a game.

It's also why tabletop games that attempted to represent such battles generally didnt try and bother with facings either. I can look through gobs of old 70's and 80's tabletop wargames about Ostfront1980 style battles and any of them on the scale that Wargame portrays dont deal with facings of individual vehicles, rather entire units of armor are abstracted and treated as a single element with the emphasis on operational level positioning and movement rather than what arc an individual RPG is fired from against a single tank.

Also, comparing 40k 8th to classical rts, thanks for proving my point that the game is shallow now, it is sth akin to playing classic rts without base building. Classic rtss are tacticaly dumb, that's playstation 1 level of tactics.

which is an entirely different conversation, but again, most that play at the same scale 40k does do not bother with facings. Some do, but most dont, and are successful and fun anyway. Games Workshop has never advertised 40k as a detailed tactical battle simulator, thats not what they want from it, so focusing on making it fun and reducing balance issues makes more sense.

Whether 8E's approach will work or not is up for debate. Russ tanks being only marginally more resilient than Hellhounds or Chimeras makes me wary it will be, GW's execution is questionable (as is tradition) but I can live with the basic idea of what theyre going for.

MCs should have facing as well, a varied one imo where for example some Tyranid beasties should have vulnerable front and strong back, maybe with a rule, for example, that you suffer morale test if you're in a front facing in a threat range (oh sorry, morale is now dumb as well) or sth . Flavourful, tactical and easier to balance tanks vs MCs.

We already had benefits from flanking infantry (negating cover), benefts from flanking vehicles (vulnerable sides, rear), what was needed was a system for MCs.

My counter would be to ask where are, or how would you define, the arcs on this bloodthirster? Given its nature, what purpose would they serve?

But no, now vehicles have wounds, because AV was so hard, so hard that a 6 year old can grasp it np.

AV and facings weren't so much hard to function as hard to balance and just introduced issues that never quite integrated right, again, as showed by the fact that vehicles, far moreso than any other unit type, have seen wild swings in functionality and viability with every edition. There were a lot of werid rules artefacts with vehicles.

Make a better damage table maybe, instead of removing a whole thing. Not sure about the GW solution really heh.

to be perfectly honest I think GW has proven that they simply are either not willing or not capable of such, and that still only addresses some issues, hence the easy route.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.

It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.

When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?

But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?

because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.

The eternal problem of GW being crap rules writers. The way to go, especialy given the fresh start and all, was to remove the useless fat, keep the depth and make it work. They seem to have removed the last bits of depth and some fat, and it's probably still not going to work as written imo.

It's obvious that you accepted their incompetence as a fact of life, and it's probably a mature thing to do, but it also makes the critique kind of valid, doesn't it. They're making shortcuts because they're bad, should have done better.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I would say this is a very wrong statement. The only rtss that don't care about facings are bastard children of 90s rts, artificialy kept afloat thanks to Starcraft still being around. Most games with tanks actualy have facings, even the casual ones like Company of Heroes (front and rear, actualy).

Company of Heroes generally doesnt have a ton of tanks on the field, you may get two panthers with three or four fireteams of infantry against maybe 4 shermans and tank destroyers with a couple dozen infantry? I havent played the game in many years, but its certainly not dealing with entire tank companies and everything from Titans to Sentinels and power armored infantry, and has a computer to deal with all the background stuff that players have to roll out.

But typical game of 40k is not dealing with entire tank companies, I'd say average is a few tanks. Ofc when you play armored IG, you can have 2 in a standard game but it's a borderline case, just like horde orks for example and ofc can get a bit unwieldy with the sponson checkin heh. Still, I think it was manageable and you saved time on other things like moving a crapton of infantry or checking cover for multiple guys etc.

40k standard battle is too small to enter strategic scale. It's closer to the already mentioned Close Combat (you can field 8 tanks + 6 infantry there, for example) and at that scale, you need facing/ flanking.

Doesn't Flames of War use different stats for side, rear and front? Quite a few tanks there, don't know much about the system though.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Look at Wargame series, much larger scale than 40k (https://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_super/gamespot/images/2013/178/reviews/2045119-679868_20130628_001.jpg) and still tanks have facings, which btw creates incredible moments in the game where you manage to stop an otherwise really hard to stop force by clever (and approprietly planned/ timed) manouvering and ambushes. I can field and run 50 tanks at once (mostly in groups 2 - 4), all with facing and it's perfectly manageable, in real time. How isn't it manageable in turn based system like 40k.

These games are extremely complex and are essentially niche games, the same way most historical wargames are now, and dont have to worry about fantasy or RPG elements. They are built from the ground up as realistic operational level wargames with the player responsible for more levels of command than an actual battle commander would be, and are not a miniatures game played at what otherwise would be considered point blank ranges with RPG details and and a fantasy fundamental concept, and have a humongous back end handled by the computer that just isnt translatable to a 40k game where players are doing everything by hand with D6's.

Try translating one of those battles to a tabletop dice game and it'd take months to play through a game.

I consider Wargame series quite casual heh. Might be saying more about me than about the game though heh.

But your whole point blank range with rpg rules scale mixup argument works just as much for as against detailed rules. When in doubt, go for depth I'd say.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It 's also why tabletop games that attempted to represent such battles generally didnt try and bother with facings either. I can look through gobs of old 70's and 80's tabletop wargames about Ostfront1980 style battles and any of them on the scale that Wargame portrays dont deal with facings of individual vehicles, rather entire units of armor are abstracted and treated as a single element with the emphasis on operational level positioning and movement rather than what arc an individual RPG is fired from against a single tank.

I'd say it's more a design choice between a more strategic/ tactical game than some necessity born of a tabletop games nature, like you portray it. Epic was similar scale but still managed to incorporate flanking rules (yet somehow 8th can't because it's too big). Some larger scale strategy games have rear attacks (ie Panzer Korps), some don't.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Also, comparing 40k 8th to classical rts, thanks for proving my point that the game is shallow now, it is sth akin to playing classic rts without base building. Classic rtss are tacticaly dumb, that's playstation 1 level of tactics.

which is an entirely different conversation, but again, most that play at the same scale 40k does do not bother with facings. Some do, but most dont, and are successful and fun anyway. Games Workshop has never advertised 40k as a detailed tactical battle simulator, thats not what they want from it, so focusing on making it fun and reducing balance issues makes more sense.

Whether 8E's approach will work or not is up for debate. Russ tanks being only marginally more resilient than Hellhounds or Chimeras makes me wary it will be, GW's execution is questionable (as is tradition) but I can live with the basic idea of what theyre going for.

Facing/ flanking are not only for simulation purposes. The game can be heavily abstracted but have flanking for movement phase depth's sake, and I'd play 8th like that. In fact I might, if I ever play 8th it will be with houserules for facing probably, actualy it sounds as a good basis for sth like that, assumig it's really more balanced than what was before.

 Vaktathi wrote:

MCs should have facing as well, a varied one imo where for example some Tyranid beasties should have vulnerable front and strong back, maybe with a rule, for example, that you suffer morale test if you're in a front facing in a threat range (oh sorry, morale is now dumb as well) or sth . Flavourful, tactical and easier to balance tanks vs MCs.

We already had benefits from flanking infantry (negating cover), benefts from flanking vehicles (vulnerable sides, rear), what was needed was a system for MCs.

My counter would be to ask where are, or how would you define, the arcs on this bloodthirster? Given its nature, what purpose would they serve?

180 degrees front probably for CC purposes, and because my system would include rules for rear attacks in CC, he'd still has his back vulnerable (not to shooting ofc, though you could make up some gak about those wings of him). Maybe some special round attack, he's a bloodthirster after all heh.

 Vaktathi wrote:

But no, now vehicles have wounds, because AV was so hard, so hard that a 6 year old can grasp it np.

AV and facings weren't so much hard to function as hard to balance and just introduced issues that never quite integrated right, again, as showed by the fact that vehicles, far moreso than any other unit type, have seen wild swings in functionality and viability with every edition. There were a lot of werid rules artefacts with vehicles.

Here, you answered yourself heh:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Make a better damage table maybe, instead of removing a whole thing. Not sure about the GW solution really heh.

to be perfectly honest I think GW has proven that they simply are either not willing or not capable of such, and that still only addresses some issues, hence the easy route.

You have to admit it's not the best justification for the new system.

Anyway, to sum it up. I tend to agree with and enjoy your posts but here I think you are wrong. I see where you're coming from, and are probably just happy that vehicles might be viable again. Still, it was possible to make a much simplier but deeper system that doesn't make vehicles into another infantry variant. The lack of facing and its consequences are bad for cinematics, bad for flavour and bad for game depth, an incredibly crude fix for balance issues. The other benefits, like the small time savings and slight increase in ease of play are totaly not worth it.

Ok, had a few more goes at 8th, and I want to make sure I'm getting this right. So please, consider the following, and let me know what I've got wrong.

//-----FIGURE 1-----\\

A simple but effective setup to portray the changes to vehicle shooting in WH40k. We have a Land Raider facing off against a Lascannon/Missile Dread, as well as a 5-man tac squad wielding a poorly placed Plasma Cannon. Do those rocks really matter? We shall find out!

//-----FIGURE 2-----\\

The time before 8th edition. Notice the terrain features limiting which weapons can fire (and at what) by providing cover and obscuring the LOS of the weapon. Madness, I tell you...MADNESS!

Take note that the Lascannon on the right arm, Twin-Lascannon on the left sponson, and derpy Plasma Cannon have no target at all. Meanwhile, the Heavy Bolter may only shoot the Dread, and the right sponson Twin-Lascannon may only shoot the tac squad (and can't hit the derpy Plasma Cannon).

While not ideal, just looking at the picture, everything is in play and it does make sense. The Dread could have been positioned better to bring more firepower to bear against the Land Raider, the Plasma Cannon is (for some reason) taking advantage of maximum safety at the cost of not having a shot, and the Land Raider could have been better positioned as well. It could have maximized firepower against the Dread, making sure at least 1 Twin-Lascannon had LOS, maximized firepower against the tac squad by making sure the Heavy Bolter had LOS, or possibly a mix of the two so special rules can come into play and both the Dread and the tac squad are equally well threatened.

Critical decisions, the hallmark of a great strategy game.

//-----FIGURE 3-----\\

The future is now, and the future is LALZ WUT ROCKS!? I C U!!!. Ah, the genius that is 8th edition vehicle shooting. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE RED DOTS! Must be lasguns in disguise...pew-pew...

Anyway, take note that without firing arcs, the amount of possible targets and weapons to use in the exact same scenario is much higher; only the derpy Plasma Cannon still can't get a shot off.

The Dread and Land Raider see each other, the tac squad (minus derpy Plasma Cannon) and Land Raider see each other. Yep, looks good to me, FIRE EVERYTHING!!!

All of the Land Raider weapons can be used, and it may split up which weapons fire at which targets (though it may not split the individual shots of a single weapon). Likewise, all of the weapons on the Dread may be used against the Land Raider. The derpy Plasma Cannon still can't shoot, as LOS cannot be drawn to any part of the Land Raider.

So what we have gained is tactical flexibility with the ability to split your firepower, a fact which is a great boon as it has never made sense that a vehicle with multiple weapons with very different ideal targets must focus all their firepower on a single target. Likewise, tac squads and their ilk will be better suited at carrying the lone Rocket Launcher or Lascannon among the bolters and other rank and file red shirts.

What we have lost is a great amount of strategic depth. The positioning of the units as modeled no longer matters. In fact, you could just as easily replace the Land Raider with a shoe box, the Dread with a soda can, and the tac squad with wine corks. The above scenario in Figure 3 would play out exactly the same way, and I think that's a bit sad and off the mark.

The obvious solution is the re-addition of fire arcs, AND the keeping of split fire among weapons. Maybe one day...

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
First I'd like to say, I don't understand complaints about facing being complex/ problematic/ time wasteing. My 6 year old kid has no problem with it, looks out to not touch the tanks, can clearly say what sees what.

It was never an issue, and if you want to remove things people argue about then remove half of 40k. Please start with things irrelevant to game depth though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
that works in an RPG where you have 3-5 people fighting 1-12 enemies and a dedicated game master to just focus on running the game.

When you have just two players running a game with a dozen tanks on the field, half a dozen MC's, 80 infantry of 4 different types, and buildings to boot, that level of detail, particularly for a single unit type, becomes too granular to be of value and creates additional balance issues as a result as well. I have the same issue with power weapon types as well, who cares if the IG sergeant is wielding a power axe or sword...why are we bothering with that level of detail?

But, if we are bothering with that level of detail, why can't we bother with details of facing? As 40k is that mixup of skirmish and company level game, why not make maximum out of it when it comes to depth, for little cost that would be adding facing to MCs and leaving it for tanks?

because it wasnt a little cost. Tanks were always something that never quite worked right, hence the big changes and huge swings in power of vehicles in literally every edition of 40k. 40k's problem is that it tries to blend scales and has always done so really poorly.

The eternal problem of GW being crap rules writers. The way to go, especialy given the fresh start and all, was to remove the useless fat, keep the depth and make it work. They seem to have removed the last bits of depth and some fat, and it's probably still not going to work as written imo.

That's entirely possible, likely even

The issue is that 40k is and largely always has been a relatively simple game tactically speaking. There's lots of complexity and complication, but relatively little actual depth when it comes to using your forces. GW wants lots of little gubbins to play with, but has never really built 40k as a deep tactical simulator. If such is going to be the case, I'm ok with vehicles being simplified if it makes it easier to balance stuff in general, rather than dealing with the eternal see-saw that we've seen with tanks for the last two decades.

It's obvious that you accepted their incompetence as a fact of life, and it's probably a mature thing to do, but it also makes the critique kind of valid, doesn't it. They're making shortcuts because they're bad, should have done better.

I'd agree with this. Facings and arcs aren't all *that* complicated, but GW can never seem to manage it, and there's really no upsides to facings for vehicles (as the only units in the game that ever had to deal with it), only downsides, that never seem to integrate right anyway, especially when it's not uncommon to see 20+ on the field, and thus, accepting that, I'm ok with them just dropping it.

But typical game of 40k is not dealing with entire tank companies,I'd say average is a few tanks. Ofc when you play armored IG, you can have 2 in a standard game but it's a borderline case, just like horde orks for example and ofc can get a bit unwieldy with the sponson checkin heh. Still, I think it was manageable and you saved time on other things like moving a crapton of infantry or checking cover for multiple guys etc.

In some ways, but, it's not at all uncommon to see 20+ vehicles on a board, especially in the latter days of 7E with Gladius detachments and the like. It may not be routine, but hardly irregular.

Doesn't Flames of War use different stats for side, rear and front? Quite a few tanks there, don't know much about the system though.

Flames of War has Front and Side/Rear as one value, but it's a lot simpler than 40k's. Basically when you shoot at a tank, if you're in the front 180* you hit front, if not you hit side/rear. No HP's, and only 3 possible damage results (no effect, bailed (stunned), destroyed). Very simple vehicle rules compared with 40k. There's no "oh I blew off a gun" or "it's immobilized but can still shoot" or HP's to count or anything like that, and with tanks being easy boxes (as opposed to something like a Wave Serpent) it's not hard to define facing. They also don't have to worry about dealing with hover tanks and stompas and the like. Infantry are pretty much all the same thing too, don't have to worry about an MG42 vs a Maxim vs a Bren (whereas 40k would want to define each of those as distinct weapons in many cases), don't have to worry about power armored infantry or naked Orks, they're all treated pretty much the same. Much simpler units in general. Nobody is worrying about a Power Sword vs Power Axe, or fighting out individual challenges, or casting psychic powers, or rolling to resolve for each individual gun in an artillery battery, etc.

I consider Wargame series quite casual heh. Might be saying more about me than about the game though heh.

But your whole point blank range with rpg rules scale mixup argument works just as much for as against detailed rules. When in doubt, go for depth I'd say.

In some instances, sure, but in others it can get painful (such as my example of Shadowrun grenades earlier in the thread), and more detail doesn't necessarily translate to additional depth, as has been 40k's bane for most of its existence. We've got special rules for over a dozen different varieties of Astartes, but 2/3rds of them basically still play the same or amount to the same thing. We've got rules for Hellstrike missiles, but did they really need to be called out as a unique weapon, or could we just have used the standard Hunter Killer missile profile instead? Stuff like that is what 40k drowns in, but what it really looks to push. That doesn't work well with greater operational level gameplay however. Going back to Flames of War as an example, weapons profiles, units, unit types, etc are all wayyyyyyyyyyyyy simpler than 40k. This allows for greater tactical depth. 40k likes its unit detail, but has always rather eschewed tactical depth.

Facing/ flanking are not only for simulation purposes. The game can be heavily abstracted but have flanking for movement phase depth's sake, and I'd play 8th like that. In fact I might, if I ever play 8th it will be with houserules for facing probably, actualy it sounds as a good basis for sth like that, assumig it's really more balanced than what was before.

We'll see. I've been vaccilating between hope and despair for the last month

180 degrees front probably for CC purposes, and because my system would include rules for rear attacks in CC, he'd still has his back vulnerable (not to shooting ofc, though you could make up some gak about those wings of him). Maybe some special round attack, he's a bloodthirster after all heh.

Deciding where the front and rear are is the hard part, where exactly is the front 180* on a model like that, which can be posed and situated a number of ways along with the base? That's one of those issues where facing can get weird without solid mechanisms to determine such things, especially when originally built without such concern.

You have to admit it's not the best justification for the new system.

It's not, but it's enough. If they can't manage to make facings work, either because they don't care or can't be bothered, then I'm all for making it simpler and easier to balance.

Anyway, to sum it up. I tend to agree with and enjoy your posts but here I think you are wrong. I see where you're coming from, and are probably just happy that vehicles might be viable again. Still, it was possible to make a much simplier but deeper system that doesn't make vehicles into another infantry variant. The lack of facing and its consequences are bad for cinematics, bad for flavour and bad for game depth, an incredibly crude fix for balance issues. The other benefits, like the small time savings and slight increase in ease of play are totaly not worth it.

I think the biggest benefits will be balance and record keeping related over time savings, we'll see how GW manages the execution, I'm not holding my breath, but it should at least be easier to balance in theory. As for the cinematics, that's mostly I think a holdover of older editions, Tyrannofex's, artillery, IG heavy weapons teams, etc never seemed to generate significant issues of cinematics and flavor for lacking facings with people. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and hell, my opinion may change in time as well, we'll see