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.

The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.

Karol wrote:
AoC is a good rule for marines in general, and it has no impact on the good melee units they were already running like V.Veterans or Bladeguard. But for stuff like GK interceptors the change was huge.

great for marines, terrible for some codexes. It buffed marines up to hang with the top books while leaving everything else behind. Bad game design if you ask me. It would have bene better to bring the top books down in power level via points increases and rules nerfs. deathguard, chaos marines, orks, gsc, and necrons all took a pretty big hit no longer being able to handle marines (yes i know BG and chaos marines got it but DG damage and csm dmg it pretty abysmal already here is hoping csm codex helps them though)

 Insectum7 wrote:
I thought you meant smaller scale in the other direction.

But then you're still off the deep end, because now you're advocating for a reduction of granularity as the game simulates fewer models.

I don't think we should lose granularity, but I do think there are better methods for this kind of setup.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.

If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.

Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.

If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.

Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.

eldar tanks should only have front/back, orks are boxes, tau are boxes, necrons are half/half, GSC are boxes, nids dont have vehicles

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.

If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.

Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.

eldar tanks should only have front/back, orks are boxes, tau are boxes, necrons are half/half, GSC are boxes, nids dont have vehicles

Curious definition of a box considering that Tau vehicles are shaped more like Ts or Hs.

And even with Eldar tanks or Necron half/half, it wasn't exactly clear where their rear arcs started. Now that think of it, the rear of Imperial knights was also badly defined.

if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.

If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.

Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.

Just quarter it if it's unclear. Or quarter every vehicle universally. Or even declare which type of armor diagram a vehicle uses, quater/ front-back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I thought you meant smaller scale in the other direction.

But then you're still off the deep end, because now you're advocating for a reduction of granularity as the game simulates fewer models.

I don't think we should lose granularity, but I do think there are better methods for this kind of setup.

Like what?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.

Mob rule has already been taken away from orks.

Well, it currently does the same as ATSKNF, so...

 Tyran wrote:

Curious definition of a box considering that Tau vehicles are shaped more like Ts or Hs.

And even with Eldar tanks or Necron half/half, it wasn't exactly clear where their rear arcs started. Now that think of it, the rear of Imperial knights was also badly defined.

Tau tanks have 4 corners, just make a line between them to determine which side youre on

Doomsday arks are pretty obvious, CCB isnt as much

Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is how armor facings are implemented.

The older box shaped system never really worked well for many reasons, but a simplified front/rear system could work.

Front/Side/Rear worked just fine. There was an occasional argument about it but 99 percent of the time things were clear as day.

If you only played with Imperial boxes, sure.

Most xeno factions didn't had boxes for vehicles though.

eldar tanks should only have front/back, orks are boxes, tau are boxes, necrons are half/half, GSC are boxes, nids dont have vehicles

ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.

Mob rule has already been taken away from orks.

Well, it currently does the same as ATSKNF, so...

mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing

 G00fySmiley wrote:


ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.

BTW, I love that the Land Raider was the classic GW issue of "we ran out of design space for this thing's armor because we cannot go over 14, so lets make it all 14, defeating the whole purpose of the armor facing system."

mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing

The rule still exist though, it is useless most of the time but it isn't literally nothing.

Karol wrote:
if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.

Careful, that way lies MADNESS like LoS by volume and *that* causes monocle to pop all over Nottingham.

 G00fySmiley wrote:


ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.

so change the AV


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catulle wrote:

Karol wrote:
if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.

Careful, that way lies MADNESS like LoS by volume and *that* causes monocle to pop all over Nottingham.

Can you imagine letting your players model their dudes with total freedom? Unthinkable!

Karol wrote:
if a tank has a base, then it doesn't matter if it is square or round you can easily divide it in to 4 arcs two front ones and two back ones. The vehicle can be any shape then.

The vehicle doesn't need a base in order to do that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc

Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?

Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."

Wasn't the solution to finding the facing of a vehicle to just imagine an X over it, with each point of the x starting at the 4 most extreme parts of the vehicle?

 Tyran wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:


ork vehicles have such narrow front and rear facings that unlike most imperial vehicles most shots end up on side armor. the issue there was while a landraider had 14/14/14 a battlewagon had 14/12/10 and most shots were taken on AV12 making the "ork landraider" barely better than a rhino with worse firepower for close to the same points.

BTW, I love that the Land Raider was the classic GW issue of "we ran out of design space for this thing's armor because we cannot go over 14, so lets make it all 14, defeating the whole purpose of the armor facing system."

mob rule does not exist anymore at all. atsknf lets you ignore modifiers, so while not as good as it used to be it is still something compared to literally nothing

The rule still exist though, it is useless most of the time but it isn't literally nothing.

fair point its so useless it doesn't come up since out infantry is so bad (because of mob rule being gone and boss poles no longer existing), but I would rather have atsknf than current mob rule

"While this unit is within 6" of a friendly <CLAN> MOB unit that is not under half strength, this unit is never considered to be under half strength"

 Tyran wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc

Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?

Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Eldar : if youre closer to the curve, you're on the front arc, if youre closer to the non curve, youre on the back arc

Aren't Eldar vehicles 90% curve?

Googling back, it is fun to see the old rear arc threads from the days of the Wave Serpent Spam with no clear consensus, definitely not a "99 percent of the time things were clear as day."

Yeah, but where would the flanks be? Do the flanks extend to the rear hatch, or to the engines?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yeah, but where would the flanks be? Do the flanks extend to the rear hatch, or to the engines?

no flanks if it doesnt make sense for the model to have them (or give Front/Flanks the same AV)


or do like SW:legions and have the arcs on the base itself and be 45degrees each

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wasn't the solution to finding the facing of a vehicle to just imagine an X over it, with each point of the x starting at the 4 most extreme parts of the vehicle?

Yes.
Nobody I've ever played with has ever had a problem figuring out the arc they were in.
I must have just gotten lucky & been playing with moderately intelligent folks though.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yeah, but where would the flanks be? Do the flanks extend to the rear hatch, or to the engines?

no flanks if it doesnt make sense for the model to have them (or give Front/Flanks the same AV)


or do like SW:legions and have the arcs on the base itself and be 45degrees each

But it has flanks in the rules though?
Is the flank armour the same as the front armour?

Vladimir is basically arguing that boxes vehicles get front/side/rear while non box vehicles only get front/rear and 180° arcs.

Oh my mistake, we're talking hypotheticals, not how it actually worked.
It would have been nice if each vehicles' facings were defined in the rules, yes. If there's space for a silly little lore blur on the side of the page, there's space for a diagram.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yeah, but where would the flanks be? Do the flanks extend to the rear hatch, or to the engines?

no flanks if it doesnt make sense for the model to have them (or give Front/Flanks the same AV)


or do like SW:legions and have the arcs on the base itself and be 45degrees each

But it has flanks in the rules though?
Is the flank armour the same as the front armour?

If memory serves it was 12/12/10

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh my mistake, we're talking hypotheticals, not how it actually worked.
It would have been nice if each vehicles' facings were defined in the rules, yes. If there's space for a silly little lore blur on the side of the page, there's space for a diagram.

To be fair I was also confused by that until Vladimir posted their diagram.

How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

How do you write this as a rule where you don't need to reference a diagram for each wonky vehicle?

you don't. You add a diagram for every vehicle. Theres plenty of room for it under the unit picture

The other option would be to mark bases with the arcs but then comes the problem with unbased vehicles