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.

Racerguy180 wrote:
donkey-caves gonna donkey-cave & dicks gonna be Dicks. Water is wet and so on...

Water is not wet though.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly.

Oh? How do you determine facings on a Tau Barracuda, a triangle-shaped model? Or an Eldar tank? Facings were only very clear if you only played with Imperial boxes and their nice clearly defined corners.

The problem would always be, someone would find a way to argue about which facing you are hitting or which way its scattering, the common tactic always being rolling the scatter die way the hell away from where the hit was so that you could conveniently shift the direction just enough to not be able to tell.

Or because of good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the game state in situations where all the stuff on the table makes it difficult to get a tape measure in there and measure accurately. TFGs added more arguing and trying to exploit the rules but there were absolutely cases where normal players would disagree and there was no clear resolution.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly.

Oh? How do you determine facings on a Tau Barracuda, a triangle-shaped model? Or an Eldar tank? Facings were only very clear if you only played with Imperial boxes and their nice clearly defined corners.

The problem would always be, someone would find a way to argue about which facing you are hitting or which way its scattering, the common tactic always being rolling the scatter die way the hell away from where the hit was so that you could conveniently shift the direction just enough to not be able to tell.

Or because of good-faith disagreements about how to interpret the game state in situations where all the stuff on the table makes it difficult to get a tape measure in there and measure accurately. TFGs added more arguing and trying to exploit the rules but there were absolutely cases where normal players would disagree and there was no clear resolution.

Super easy, put a point in the middle of the model and draw an x, gives you a front, side and back facings, its literally in the rule books on how to do it, it even has pictures.
The only way you can not interpret this, or understand it, is if you are being willfully ignoring of how the rule work.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Super easy, put a point in the middle of the bodle and draw an x, gives you a front, side and back facings, its literally in the rule books on how to do it, it even has pictures.

But what is the angle of the X?

The book literally has pictures for this.
You are being willfully ignorant.

You Draw and X with the angles facing out directly to the front and side of the vehicles.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You Draw and X with the angles facing out directly to the front and side of the vehicles.

Please explain how I draw an X with "the angles facing out directly to the front and sides of the vehicles" when the Barracuda is a triangle and the Falcon has no clearly defined front.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You Draw and X with the angles facing out directly to the front and side of the vehicles.

Please explain how I draw an X with "the angles facing out directly to the front and sides of the vehicles" when the Barracuda is a triangle and the Falcon has no clearly defined front.

Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Read the rule book, it will tell you exactly how to determine armor facing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Please stop trying to substitute rudeness for a valid argument.

The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Im not going to explain to you something that picutres inside the rule book show you how to do. You are just willfully choosing to not understand it. The rules for Vehicle facings are clear as day in the rule books, It did not, and still does not, take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I know you can as well.

Please stop trying to substitute rudeness for a valid argument.

The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

You should probably continue to read your rule book then because there is more in there, that if you read it you would have your answer.
But since you dont wanna do that, ill do it for you.
Every rule book that used armor facings had this nice little blurb somwehre in the book that was not directly related to armor facing but was related to every rule with in the book.
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

What you are trying to do, literally is addressed in the rules.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

The funny part about this is, the more you argue with me, the more you jsut prove my point.
Facings in my some 15 year playing this game never once was a problem because if we were unsure we just reached an agreement, the only time it became and issue was with argumentative players who wanted to specifically take advantage of a system.

By that standard it works, because you would only have to do that if there was an argumentative case, no one can argue that "BS of 4 means you hit on a 3" there is nothing to argue about the rule says that. "25% of the model is obscured gives you cover" now that we can debate over what 25% is, but the vast majority of players its a none issue.

Like the waves serpent issue, litearlly before a game, "Hey what do you wanna consider the side, front and back of this vehicle?" Solve the problem before the game even starts, Hey look! we know exactly what the side front and back arc of this none box vehicle is.
WOW! look at that.

You are just making my point, all of the rules that got removed because "It caused arguments" were only every done by people who just liked to argue, and when they were taken away, they just argued about new things.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to that point, If all these things were horrible and everyone hated them and clearly they had no place, why is it then we are seeing them come back in HH? Clearly a very large amount of people had no issues with them because GW decided to include them in the relaunch of HH.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

You know you have a say in who you play...

Don't like playing against donkey-caves, easy fix. I'd rather not play than play with someone so completely obtuse to be back to a flat line.

The whole facing argument is just ridiculous. A handy template can be produced by taking the rulebook, photocopying(or scan depending on equipment availability) the page and taking a pair of scissors to excise the extraneous paper and viola. Something you can stick over any model in the game and determine where the front (on the vehicle in question it ) is, then all the rest will fall in line.

It's almost like you'd kinda need to be a dick to say that isn't going by the rules, cuz it literally came from the rulebook.

Racerguy180 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It was very easily summerized in that it basically said. "Hey if you are unsure on a rule, discuss it with your oponent to reach an agreement if one could not be reached, roll a dice to determine who was right."

If the only way to resolve facing on certain vehicles is to roll a 4+ to decide who is right then the rule is not clear. Thank you for conceding that the facing rules were ambiguous and had potential for arguments that could only be resolved by "4+ it because the book won't help".

Which once again, went directly back to my whole point, Facings were never an issue unless you were with an argumentative player. Case and point. "Well were are the facings of this vehicle." Not sure? Reach and agreement with your opponent and determine it. Thats literally in the rule book, it tells you to do that.

By that standard literally no rule in the entire history of wargaming has ever been a problem because anyone who isn't an "argumentative player" can always 4+ it.

You know you have a say in who you play...

Don't like playing against donkey-caves, easy fix. I'd rather not play than play with someone so completely obtuse to be back to a flat line.

The whole facing argument is just ridiculous. A handy template can be produced by taking the rulebook, photocopying(or scan depending on equipment availability) the page and taking a pair of scissors to excise the extraneous paper and viola. Something you can stick over any model in the game and determine where the front (on the vehicle in question it ) is, then all the rest will fall in line.

It's almost like you'd kinda need to be a dick to say that isn't going by the rules, cuz it literally came from the rulebook.

This, there are so many way's you can solve this problem, which is not even really a problem because agian, its laid out in the rule book.
Is it perfect? no it could be done better, hell if i had my way every vehcile would be based and said base would have armor facing markings on it, but we dont live in that world.

It takes you all of 3 min to talk to your opponant and say, "Hey man, thats a kinda awkward shaped vehicle, what do you consider the facings on it?"
If the guy is an arse about it, guess what you can do? not play with him, just walk away, its that easy.

How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Like the waves serpent issue, litearlly before a game, "Hey what do you wanna consider the side, front and back of this vehicle?" Solve the problem before the game even starts, Hey look! we know exactly what the side front and back arc of this none box vehicle is.

Thank you for conceding the point. This is what you wrote originally:

"Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly."

A rule which requires a pre-game discussion with your opponent about how to handle a situation the rule doesn't cover is not "very clear, can't be interpreted incorrectly".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

And what if you're in that ambiguous region where you can't tell whether you're to the front or to the side without measuring, and the vehicle is a triangle that can't have the X lines drawn according to the rules?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

Exactly its not, and you know i can understand the issue with vehicles that are not boxes, and i can sympathize with the difficulty of that, like this for example.




What is the correct answer? The answer of course is, well its what ever you two agree on, and generally is done before the game starts. At that point, its no longer an issue because no matter which one of the three you pick, at that point, you now know the facings and they are already determined.

CadianSgtBob wrote:The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this. The mechanic of going through the corners clearly only works for systems where all vehicles have clearly defined corners, but that's hardly the only way to implement such a mechanic.

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this.

Because it wasn't 90 degree angles. You drew lines from center to corner, and you had things like ork battlewagons with their notorious huge side arcs and tiny front arc making it really hard to use their front armor.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Like the waves serpent issue, litearlly before a game, "Hey what do you wanna consider the side, front and back of this vehicle?" Solve the problem before the game even starts, Hey look! we know exactly what the side front and back arc of this none box vehicle is.

Thank you for conceding the point. This is what you wrote originally:

"Because the rules for templates, scatter, armor facings, and the lot were very very clear in the rules, you could NOT interprut them incorrectly."

A rule which requires a pre-game discussion with your opponent about how to handle a situation the rule doesn't cover is not "very clear, can't be interpreted incorrectly".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How is it not clear what the front or the side of a vehicle is?

Are you in front of it? That's the front. Are you to the side of it. That's the side! Are you behind it? Hey, you're at the vehicle's rear!

And what if you're in that ambiguous region where you can't tell whether you're to the front or to the side without measuring, and the vehicle is a triangle that can't have the X lines drawn according to the rules?

Wow its like a did not lie and what i said was true, the rules ARE clear, because the rules litearlly tell you as well "If the rules are not clear, decide with your opponent."

The rules include a way to determine what to do if you are having issues with one of the rules. Read your rule book, it will tell you that lol. It has built in saftey catches LITERALLY for issues like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this.

Because it wasn't 90 degree angles. You drew lines from center to corner, and you had things like ork battlewagons with their notorious huge side arcs and tiny front arc making it really hard to use their front armor.

Orks having crappy ram shackle vehicles that are not reliable? seems pretty ork to me.

And again, the rules cover that, determine what you agree to be the corners of the vehicles before the game starts, if you are having issues termining them.

On the subject though of walkers for example, i agree with you, those should nto have even been armor facings and guess what HH 2.0 addressed that, they made them toughness for dreads because it was to annoying to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:The rulebook shows that you draw the X from the center to each corner. This method only works for vehicles with four clearly defined corners (like the Rhino in the picture), which both of the vehicles I mentioned lack.

In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this. The mechanic of going through the corners clearly only works for systems where all vehicles have clearly defined corners, but that's hardly the only way to implement such a mechanic.

The reason it gets argued is exactly what i said it was before, its only ever argued by people who just generally enjoy arguing over rules.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
the rules ARE clear, because the rules litearlly tell you as well "If the rules are not clear, decide with your opponent."

A rule which can only be resolved by appealing to the "if the rules are not clear, decide with your opponent" is by definition not clear. You can't simultaneously invoke a rule saying "this rule is unclear" and argue that the rule is actually clear after all.

The rules include a way to determine what to do if you are having issues with one of the rules. Read your rule book, it will tell you that lol. It has built in saftey catches LITERALLY for issues like this.

And then we're right back to what I said before: by that standard literally ever single rule ever printed in the entire history of wargaming is clear and the phrase "this rule is clear" has no meaning.

Orks having crappy ram shackle vehicles that are not reliable? seems pretty ork to me.

Yes, and I didn't say that it was bad or un-fluffy or anything. All I said what that it wasn't 90* angles.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
In 3rd-5th it was just 90 degree arcs. Lots of systems use the same mechanic.

I don't know why anybody is arguing about this.

Because it wasn't 90 degree angles. You drew lines from center to corner, and you had things like ork battlewagons with their notorious huge side arcs and tiny front arc making it really hard to use their front armor.

I take it back, I misremembered. Was thinking of Epic/BFG with their facing compass.

Yeah, that's stupid. Fortunately, it's easily fixed.

 catbarf wrote:
I take it back, I misremembered. Was thinking of Epic/BFG with their facing compass.

Yeah, that's stupid. Fortunately, it's easily fixed.

It does nicely illustrate my point though, Backspacehacker can throw around insults about WILLFUL IGNORANCE all he likes but here you are demonstrating a 100% good-faith mistake in interpreting how facings are supposed to work.

And yeah, it's easily fixed but it's still revisionist history to say that it always worked perfectly in the past unless you were TFG.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I take it back, I misremembered. Was thinking of Epic/BFG with their facing compass.

Yeah, that's stupid. Fortunately, it's easily fixed.

It does nicely illustrate my point though, Backspacehacker can throw around insults about WILLFUL IGNORANCE all he likes but here you are demonstrating a 100% good-faith mistake in interpreting how facings are supposed to work.

And yeah, it's easily fixed but it's still revisionist history to say that it always worked perfectly in the past unless you were TFG.

Its not an insult to say you are being willfully ignoring if you are blatantly ignoring the rules.
If you dont know what the armor facing is, the books tell you to discuss it with your opponent, to determine what you agree upon the facings are.
If you are choosing not to accept that the rules tell you to do that, when you are both unsure on a rule, thats being willfully ignorant of it.

Facings are not an issue because the game provide you a way to address issues that might come up with facings and other rules.


I dont know what you mean by Revisionist history, i have been playing for like 15 years now, and every group i played with, we never had problems with vehicles facings because once again, we just talked ot each other before the game and said yep these are the facings.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you dont know what the armor facing is, the books tell you to discuss it with your opponent, to determine what you agree upon the facings are.

Thank you for again conceding that the rules for determining facing were not clear like you originally claimed. As soon as you appeal to the "if the rule isn't clear discuss it and 4+ it" rule then you have just admitted that the original rule is not clear.

I dont know what you mean by Revisionist history

You said that arguments over these things only came up with TFGs who love to argue. I pointed out how the rules create ambiguous situations that people can have good-faith disagreements over. And it is absolutely revisionist history to pretend that reasonable disputes never happened and that the rules were perfectly clear.

Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

So murky as hell for the unreasonable and uncivil....

I don't want every rule back...

But I liked 7th more than 8th. Part of that is nostalgia, but part of it is definitely 7th had a more robust base.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

But it wasn't. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had to make up your own rules for how a Barracuda's facings worked because the rules did not cover it. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had situations where you could not measure scatter accurately.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Clear enough for reasonable and civil individuals.

But it wasn't. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had to make up your own rules for how a Barracuda's facings worked because the rules did not cover it. No matter how reasonable and civil you were you still had situations where you could not measure scatter accurately.

Oh no, the horrors of a house rule :O

Today I learned that anytime anyone fired at a non-rectangular vehicle in earlier editions, the game exploded.

Which is weird because I played then and I play now and I don't remember communities collapsing or stores exploding....