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.

As a guard player who loves infantry I have learned to balance the need for this and getting a game done in under 6 hours. This is why I have purchased those lovely movement trays from Apoc. I used to go all in on this but it irritated most of my opponents.

I dont even like assembling models that dont look battle ready. I like them helmet on, point the gun ready to fire, and looking where they're shooting! Bit of a pet hate when you're forced to position the gun where the model cant look.

However, I would never touch my opponent's models without permission. I guess maybe if it was an opponent I was very close friends with.

It matters to a point: I either have face, gun barrel or torso pointed forward as some poses appear more static and some dynamic. (It even use to be that in 15mm you'd have single poses "advancing", "firing", etc.as part of the description.) Multi-part 28mm allows for a huge variety of poses.

I just put together five 28mm scouts. Three are sighting their rifles, one has his head in another direction like he's noticing something, and one has his rifle upright. The first four I would have barrel forward, the last I would have torso forward.

Yes because they are more likely to miss if they face the wrong way.. Don't argue with me! Laces out and all that...

I position models to hug cover and make/break LOS as priority, and after that largely facing the enemy. 8th punishes units not hiding correctly so facing the enemy be damned if it means the unit gets shot when I don’t want it to!

All facing the enemy, just for the cinematics! A couple of times though I happenend to find it more fitting that they should look in several directions.

There really should be a middle ground between answers one and two. I usually have them facing the right way. But I don't get OCD about it.

I wish we had a system where infantry facing could matter without it leading to endless arguments.

It'd be cool if we had rules like Squad facing was towards the nearest enemy unit by default, unless they had just shot at something. And if you came up behind a unit, then you got a bonus or something. Could even have leadership matter for ability to choose or focus on a target. It would add depth and make it possible for maneuvering and speed to matter more.

But we couldn't even handle vehicle facing, so I know this won't ever happen.

Also my opponents are almost always regular opponents. We help move each other's models and stuff all the time to improve game speed.

Proper facing can be good fun, but in 40K games of 2K points it becomes impractical for armies using lots of models. Imagine proper facing on 40 gaunts, which might be one of three or more units of the same size.

I think it works best in a game of 40K's scale when it applies to "big things" which would mostly be tanks and huge beasts. Things that perhaps can't turn on a coin like a flash. Of course sometimes things like line of sight then have to ease off too and weapon arcs can be a complex thing on very varied 3D models - they tend to work best on space and sea ships where you've got distinct "arcs" and the hulls are mostly a uniform shape so the arcs are easy to define.

 Overread wrote:
Proper facing can be good fun, but in 40K games of 2K points it becomes impractical for armies using lots of models. Imagine proper facing on 40 gaunts, which might be one of three or more units of the same size.

I think it works best in a game of 40K's scale when it applies to "big things" which would mostly be tanks and huge beasts. Things that perhaps can't turn on a coin like a flash. Of course sometimes things like line of sight then have to ease off too and weapon arcs can be a complex thing on very varied 3D models - they tend to work best on space and sea ships where you've got distinct "arcs" and the hulls are mostly a uniform shape so the arcs are easy to define.

Yeah, it would have to be abstracted and on a Unit level to work, not individual models.

Not sure how that would work without a system like the old WFB's ranks system.

Agreed. Rank and file works easily because you can put everything on a movement tray. So that 40 unit of gaunts would only be 1 tray to move. However rank and file would honestly feel wrong in 40K as a system. I think it gets accepting in Apoc games because they are totally abnormal games and the movement trays make the game more practical within reason. Yet even so its probably going to take all day/weekend to play.

If we are supposed to believe the infantry aren't locked in static poses the whole battle, which to me would be most immersion breaking, there would be no reason they would need to all face the same direction. In fact the rules fly in the face of such small things as tanks shoot from treads or tail lights, etc. I'd say facing means effectively less than it ever has so why worry of individual model facing ? It isn't like every new character isn't bringing part of a battlefield with it now a days, leaping off walls, crags, hole sides of buildings.

I've never even seen anyone care of facing in all my many many games over all the years.

I might face a unit of Termagants between two other units of Termagants backwards so I can tell where one unit ends and another begins, but that's about it.

I always face my models towards their target, and if my opponent allows it, I will turn them again in the shooting, charge and fight phases to correct.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I might face a unit of Termagants between two other units of Termagants backwards so I can tell where one unit ends and another begins, but that's about it.

I see people do this all the time, and often wonder if a differently shaded rim wouldn't achieve the same thing more gracefully.

AngryAngel80 wrote:If we are supposed to believe the infantry aren't locked in static poses the whole battle, which to me would be most immersion breaking, there would be no reason they would need to all face the same direction. In fact the rules fly in the face of such small things as tanks shoot from treads or tail lights, etc. I'd say facing means effectively less than it ever has so why worry of individual model facing ? It isn't like every new character isn't bringing part of a battlefield with it now a days, leaping off walls, crags, hole sides of buildings.

I've never even seen anyone care of facing in all my many many games over all the years.

There isn't really a solution to the static poses though. I mean the plastic will always impose limitations upon which we have expand with the power of our [rainbow]imagination.[/rainbow] I agree with you about the huge pieces of terrain on the bases though. The four assassins are among the worst culprits, and I don't think I'll ever get them unless someone can tell me they're easily built without those pieces.

Nope. I play Space Wolves and it hasn’t mattered to them for almost as long as they’ve existed.
I don’t care if my opponent doesn’t face his models either, frankly I think models look great looking in all different directions, like they’re ready for the gak to hit the fan and always model my own units to have models looking left, others looking right and the leader looking forward or doing something inspiring.

In games like warmachine or infinity where facing matters alot i do, but for 40K sometimes the terrain or the number of models(or their bits) make it hard to all face the same way.

the one thing i still do if i can is face my vehicles the right way, it is one of the things that bugs me about no LOS from the weapon mount/facing in 8th. my dreadnoughts always face their foes.

My models always have to face the direction I expect that model to be facing. Helps with the immersion into the game and universe.

Models face towards the enemy when possible.

I'd argue that this is part of the social contract for immersion and WYSIWYG purposes- particularly at the start of the game, as it helps your opponent to plan if he can see what your models are holding.

In many cases, placing them backwards would conceal special weapons or characters that should factor into how your opponent wants to move or deploy. Allowing your opponent to quickly 'read' your army ensures a fair game based on tactics.

Placing models so that they cannot be read is unavoidable in some cases (behind walls etc) so you would point out the exceptions- but making your models harder to read through modelling, painting or placement either gives you an unfair advantage or forces your opponent to clarify each unit with you- neither of which is good for the game.

Exceptions obviously apply- in a 30 strong mob of orks or cultists no-one really cares where scrub number 29 is facing as long as they can pick out the champ and any special weapons.

Depends on the army, for my Nids,..... No b.c i HAVE to turn 1/2 of the around just to fit lol.

Just to chime in here and contribute to many things that have already been said, but that's a big yes for me - I didn't even realize I was consciously doing it until this thread came up. It just made intuitive sense and I've been doing it for 15 years, and no one has yet set up miniatures in such an obvious way that has made me notice when they face away.

I think it comes from playing old Warhammer Fantasy and when facing on vehicles actually mattered in 40k. I suppose the rest of my army just kind of went along with that.

 =Angel= wrote:
Models face towards the enemy when possible.

I'd argue that this is part of the social contract for immersion and WYSIWYG purposes- particularly at the start of the game, as it helps your opponent to plan if he can see what your models are holding.

In many cases, placing them backwards would conceal special weapons or characters that should factor into how your opponent wants to move or deploy. Allowing your opponent to quickly 'read' your army ensures a fair game based on tactics.

Placing models so that they cannot be read is unavoidable in some cases (behind walls etc) so you would point out the exceptions- but making your models harder to read through modelling, painting or placement either gives you an unfair advantage or forces your opponent to clarify each unit with you- neither of which is good for the game.

Exceptions obviously apply- in a 30 strong mob of orks or cultists no-one really cares where scrub number 29 is facing as long as they can pick out the champ and any special weapons.

This is also a really good point. I didn't realize this thread had two pages before I'd posted.

To me, it makes total sense that some of my opponent's models are facing the opposite direction on where my army is. Means that his or her soldiers are afraid of my tactician mastermind and therefore they want to run away as they are fetching an unavoidable defeat

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Proper facing can be good fun, but in 40K games of 2K points it becomes impractical for armies using lots of models. Imagine proper facing on 40 gaunts, which might be one of three or more units of the same size.

I think it works best in a game of 40K's scale when it applies to "big things" which would mostly be tanks and huge beasts. Things that perhaps can't turn on a coin like a flash. Of course sometimes things like line of sight then have to ease off too and weapon arcs can be a complex thing on very varied 3D models - they tend to work best on space and sea ships where you've got distinct "arcs" and the hulls are mostly a uniform shape so the arcs are easy to define.

Yeah, it would have to be abstracted and on a Unit level to work, not individual models.

Do what Kings of War do. Take facing from the unit champion.

I voted keep my models turned towards the enemy, but some are facing backwards because deep striking exists.

So my backwards facing ones ARE facing the enemy.

I set up my infantry models generally facing towards the enemy but they also tend to face the direction they are moving (unless it's something like a crisis suit doing jump shoot jump which I imagine is flying back while shooting). In 7th having models that are falling back looking in the direction they are going makes it a bit easier to see which models are retreating and which are still in the fight.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I always face my models towards their target, and if my opponent allows it, I will turn them again in the shooting, charge and fight phases to correct.

There isn't really a solution to the static poses though. I mean the plastic will always impose limitations upon which we have expand with the power of our [rainbow]imagination.[/rainbow] I agree with you about the huge pieces of terrain on the bases though. The four assassins are among the worst culprits, and I don't think I'll ever get them unless someone can tell me they're easily built without those pieces.

I only change posing of models between phases like that when my friend is being an ass just to be an ass. One of my friends will often be like "I can see your Shadowsword's aerial antenna, so I'm going to shoot at it." If he's going to do that, I respond by playing with my tank turrets so that their long guns can see around the corner for my shooting phase, and they rotate them the other direction for his shooting phase.

In a serious game, I don't touch my models once they're in their final position, unless they're knocked over or fall off the building or something. There's too much potential for cheating if models can be picked up and manipulated when it's not their turn to move.

Getting more models in combat, hiding out of LOS and quickly moving large units is more important to me than facing the enemy.