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.

Unfortunately that all falls apart with donkey-caves

 jeff white wrote:
I guess that house rules involving interpretation are not supposed to be part of the game experience?

Of course not. The rules I had to pay GW to write should function as printed, I shouldn't have to do their job for them and fix the mistakes they left.

And we're once again getting away from the original point. "You should have social skills and be able to negotiate a resolution" doesn't change the fact that the rule was broken in the first place.

Last year I worked with my cousin in Belgium and I have seen no levels of this cooperation you speak of. People are the same kind of donkey-caves to each other. Maybe even more, if you are a forgeigner. It is just that the pay is 4-5xtimes what you get at home, so you take it.

The "cooperation" thing only works in very specific places for very specific people. Not that it means people should be donkey-caves to each other while playing. A hobby is a good partial switch from the real world. But the whole "just get along" thing doesn't work well most of the time.

GW could've done better with facings. My favorite is a top-down line drawing on a vehicle's datasheet with different colors for different values. Pick the closest point on the tank to the firing model (shooter chooses if multiple points are equidistant) and use whatever AV that point is colored for on the line drawing.

GW being bad at something isn't new, but also isn't really an argument that the idea is fundamentally bad.

In this case, I would celebrate the return of facing, and I have played 40k and HH for years and haven't had a problem with the way facings are interpreted. So it is probably not quite as doom and gloom as some people seem to think, but OTOH it isn't perfect.

jeff white wrote:I guess that house rules involving interpretation are not supposed to be part of the game experience? I always thought that resolving such issues in the best interests of the group, i.e. both players, was one of the most socially redeeming aspects of wargames like 40K, because people can apply this practice at resolving disputes cooperatively to real life contexts...

There's nothing wrong with houseruling. The issue in this thread is that users have claimed that identifying the arcs on vehicles is easy, but the need to have to interpret and, if necessary, roll off to determine arcs shows this is not so.

It's totally fine to admit that houseruling is needed, and I'm sure that most people would be happy to come to a mutually agreeable solution, but the point stands that the very need to houserule arcs makes the whole argument of "arcs are easy to determine" void.

And, before there's any well-poisoning with the idea that "if you can't come to an agreement, someone must be being irrational/counterproductive", both parties can come to "rational" conclusions for what an arc should be, and still disagree.

Bravo Unit. I concur.

Smudge, but isn't coming to an agreeable houserule usually pretty easy?

man, i cant believe the facings dicussion went on for so long lol. Just take it from the center of the base (or of the overall hull if no bases) and do a X with 90degrees angles

God I hate these vehicle facings arguments. I am completely against reintroducing them personally.

However, for the sake of argument and rose-tinted glasses it seems people are forgetting that on most vehicles there was only one facing that was different(the rear). In fact, if facings would be reintroduced there are technically only two facings required: Back and Everything else.

This could also just be added as a universal rule. Hull is Toughness X while rear is Toughness X-1. There isn't any more required unless people really want to go into some MinutateHammer 40k where angle, trajectory, and wind speed all affect something because realism. Which will never be realistic as the game is an IGOUGO system and real life warfare is not an IGOUGO system.

But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

Actually, if you would like I can have a discussion of whether IGOUGO, alternating activation, impulse model, or some other unique mechanics are more realistic. This is actually an issue in modern military analytic wargames as well, so much has been written on the topic.

Fun fact: real time simulation has analytic pathologies depending on the nature of what is being studied, and so it isn't actually the best answer.

(That said, there are certain pathologies and strengths of every type, and IGOUGO is probably not the best for a tactical scale wargame like 40k)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
man, i cant believe the facings dicussion went on for so long lol. Just take it from the center of the base (or of the overall hull if no bases) and do a X with 90degrees angles

"Man, I can't believe the facings discussion went on for so long. Just use my preferred house rule instead of the GW rule and the GW rule is fine!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Fun fact: real time simulation has analytic pathologies depending on the nature of what is being studied, and so it isn't actually the best answer.

I would be curious to see that, since IMO the IGOUGO system only ever has any value when using a better system would be too unwieldy for it to be a playable game (no alternating activation with 100 units on the table, etc). What are the scenarios where IGOUGO is actually a better model for the game's events?

Looks like Heresy has a nice middle ground to solve those problems…

I would like to see some Heresy rules make their way to 40k, but as whole no I wouldn't like that the entirety of the HH rule set was ported to 40k.

I'd be excited to play 40K again. I miss playing a 40K that resembles 40K, 9th has not been enjoyable. The idea that 40K will be fun again is the only reason I have not sold away all of my armies. I'd love to see Primaris played under a different 40K rule set than 8th or 9th.
Honestly the only thing I truly liked about 8th was casualty removal which was again like something from 3rd till maybe 5th. can't really remember now. It's a little sad that that, I feel, was the best part of 8th. Removing models from the front really hurt y army of choice in 7th. It punished the Orks way too much.
Haven't got my hands on the new 30K rule book yet but I am looking forward to reading it.

Meanwhile i recieved my Heresy books, picked them up, propped them open at the centurion (leutnant) level charachter, get 2 pages full of options, not counting consul upgrades, including but not limited to a bike, jet-bike or the ever elusive jumppack.

meanwhile the csm codex just decided to yeet my legionaires (double same heavy weapons ) killed of 3 Lords (yay jumppack is no more as are certain loadouts)

NVM actual customizability.

In essence, i know in what system i will be playing for the forseeable future.

NMNR strikes again...

H.B.M.C. wrote:But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

In larger-scale games I am a big fan of simply splitting vehicles into 180-degree front/back arcs. It draws a distinction between vehicles that are armored all-round versus ones that are vulnerable to flanking, the arcs are easy to determine, and it makes flanking a little easier to achieve.

CadianSgtBob wrote:I would be curious to see that, since IMO the IGOUGO system only ever has any value when using a better system would be too unwieldy for it to be a playable game (no alternating activation with 100 units on the table, etc). What are the scenarios where IGOUGO is actually a better model for the game's events?

Grand strategy tends to a better represented with IGOUGO than AA. The impulses of coordinated activity are a better match for operational movement than per-unit AA.

I say 'better' because there are a lot of alternatives to both IGOUGO and AA, and novel activation systems have been a pretty significant area of development in board wargames of the last decade. You do have to decide where you stand on realism versus fun, though- mechanics that limit your ability to exert control over your units can be as frustrating for a player as friction is for a real general.

jeff white wrote:Smudge, but isn't coming to an agreeable houserule usually pretty easy?

Easy isn't the same as "this rule is straightforward and simple", which is what was claimed earlier by some users.

And sometimes, no, coming to an agreeable houserule isn't always easy. As mentioned previously, some users even advocated for randomising which interpretation for arcs was used on a 50/50 chance - that's not consistent, nor is it truly agreed upon.

Yes, I do believe that MOST disagreements can be resolved easily, but that still accepts the fact that arcs aren't always intuitive or simple/straight-forward to resolve.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

The one thing I would want for sure in the next 40K edition is the To Wound chart from HH.
Which is the old one we already had.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

jeff white wrote:Smudge, but isn't coming to an agreeable houserule usually pretty easy?

Easy isn't the same as "this rule is straightforward and simple", which is what was claimed earlier by some users.

And sometimes, no, coming to an agreeable houserule isn't always easy. As mentioned previously, some users even advocated for randomising which interpretation for arcs was used on a 50/50 chance - that's not consistent, nor is it truly agreed upon.

Yes, I do believe that MOST disagreements can be resolved easily, but that still accepts the fact that arcs aren't always intuitive or simple/straight-forward to resolve.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But at the same time, position and manoeuvre should matter, and right now they really do not. I get zero advantage from getting behind an enemy vehicle, and you can't have a vehicle out of position because I can fire every gun it has through the tip of a spike sticking out from behind cover.

But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

Right now there is one faction that "kinda" cares about positioning and that is GSC.
Frankly if we could wishlist, suprression flanking etc, should play a more important role.
but even just getting vehicles back would be an improvement.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

The typical wargame assumption is that infantry are much quicker to respond and react to enemy fire, and individual positioning of individual troopers in a mass battle game is way too granular for the scale. 40K already supports that assumption- you don't work out how much of an individual infantryman is covered to see if that model gets a cover save; you apply the reasonable abstraction that if it's in an area of terrain, it takes cover as appropriate.

Crossfire systems for infantry are typically applied to units as a whole, and the relevant characteristic is taking fire from multiple directions. It isn't about facing so much as the unit being unable to seek optimal cover against multiple directions at once.

In Infinity, troop facing matters, and you can react to people moving closely by changing facing to see them.

 catbarf wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

The typical wargame assumption is that infantry are much quicker to respond and react to enemy fire, and individual positioning of individual troopers in a mass battle game is way too granular for the scale. 40K already supports that assumption- you don't work out how much of an individual infantryman is covered to see if that model gets a cover save; you apply the reasonable abstraction that if it's in an area of terrain, it takes cover as appropriate.

Again, that word "reasonable" - personally, if I consider it reasonable that infantry can be shot from any angle and it not matter, I'm fine with the same applying to vehicles too.
It might not even be "individual" positioning that matters, maybe it's calculated from a token that denotes which arc the unit is facing in which shows a forward and backwards arc. Models can face whatever way, but you need to declare where the unit's "front" is, and can only shoot/charge in that direction, and shooting attacks/charges outside of that arc receive bonuses.

Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

I think its time to say take the arguments about vehicle facing and the nuances of discuss with opponents to their own threads

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, this isn't as things currently are, but just to illustrate that I personally find it more "reasonable" that all units have 'facings' than just vehicles.

Exactly. If you're going to say that facing matters then have it matter for all units. If you're going to decide that the scale of the game is such that you approximate infantry as doing whatever makes sense regardless of the precise details of model position then you should make the same assumption about vehicles. It's kind of silly to say that an infantry model will dive behind cover when shot at from behind even if the model isn't behind that cover, but also that a tank driver won't move to cover vulnerable armor facings when threatened from a different direction.

I would be down for unit facings, sure, reminds me of RT…

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

Not specifically, because infantry don't have "weaker rear armour" or "exposed engines/fuel tanks" or anything like that. Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions. Vehicles have more defined blind spots, which is why flanking them is so effective.

Additionally, flanking infantry generally means that the cover they're hiding behind counts for nothing, so that kind of takes care of itself.

Having said that, as mentioned above, 40k does have rules for crossfire and whatnot, but they bizarrely only apply to one faction.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This isn't to say that there *shouldn't* be mechanics for that, but that mechanics should apply for both if they're going to apply at all, and if facing mechanics should exist for vehicles, I'd like to infantry units retooled with facing mechanics too (even if that's just as simple as weapons get +1 strength and AP for attacking an outflanked unit).

I wouldn't say that what applies to one should automatically apply to another. The two things are not equal.

If the game had suppression mechanics (and a morale system worth a damn) then you could better represent flanking by making it easier to pin units in place, rending them combat ineffective (READ: unable to hold objectives/benefit from auras/overwatch/set to defend/etc.) which is quite a bit different from getting to a tank's weaker rear armour.

 warmaster21 wrote:
I think its time to say take the arguments about vehicle facing and the nuances of discuss with opponents to their own threads

Why? It's a Heresy rule being discussed in the context of 40k. It's completely on topic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But surely the same should apply for infantry facings too? Outflanking a unit and shooting them from the back should also be more effective, no?

Not specifically, because infantry don't have "weaker rear armour" or "exposed engines/fuel tanks" or anything like that. Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions. Vehicles have more defined blind spots, which is why flanking them is so effective.

They would, however, have arcs of vision. If they had arcs of vision you can implement proper overwatch and fields of fire mechanics. You know, like in proper tactics games.

Marines have their reactors in those giant backpacks, which probably have different armor than the one protecting their chest.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plus it's far easier for a person to look around and turn to respond to threats from different directions.

Sure, after the opening shots of the ambush they can turn and respond. But until they do they're getting shot in the back and those shots are going to be devastating.

Additionally, flanking infantry generally means that the cover they're hiding behind counts for nothing, so that kind of takes care of itself.

Unless they're in area terrain, in which case we say "the scale of the game does not require tracking every tiny piece of rubble so we'll just say there's cover nearby".

And that's the issue. It's about what scale 40k is trying to be. Is it a small-scale skirmish game where you micromanage every detail of positioning? Is it an army-scale game where the models are an approximation from the general's eye view and you assume that down on the battlefield the unit commanders are fine-tuning their positions as suits the situation? Is it a mass battle game where a single vehicle model actually represents an entire tank squadron? 40k keeps trying to be all of them at once and therefore does a great job of none of them.