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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
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.

But there's clearly a line between "tracking the vision of each infantry model" and "a tank can fire every gun it has through the part of a track link that is sticking out behind a sold wall".

The former isn't necessary, and it's why you wouldn't need vision arcs for infantry in a game of this scale*. The latter is absurd, and should be addressed.



*Necromunda has vision/fire arcs, because you have maybe 15 models per side. 40k doesn't need that.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 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.

It's absolutely not necessary to use the same level of detail for all units. Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can. Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

You do want similar levels of detail, after all infantry games are common. Position should matter to infantry, even if not in the same way it matters to tanks.

And that still leaves monsters which are of the same size as vehicles and should have the exact same level of detail.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But there's clearly a line between "tracking the vision of each infantry model" and "a tank can fire every gun it has through the part of a track link that is sticking out behind a sold wall".

But my point is that those are all approximations. Infantry vision arcs are approximated as "they do what makes sense regardless of model position", the tank and the wall are also approximations. Maybe the tank pivots slightly to bring its guns in line with the target, maybe the wall isn't actually blocking that much LOS even if you have to keep using the same stock building models every game even though in the fluff you're fighting in different places. That's how it works when you're dealing with an army-scale game where the player is taking the general's eye view of the battlefield and the individual units are assumed to figure out the exact details of executing their orders. It's just like how if you're playing a game on the scale of an entire battle you might only be placing units (each representing whole companies of tanks) with 10 mile precision, and you assume that they're doing whatever is appropriate in that region. You wouldn't try to measure exact line of sight for one of your 5,000 tanks by precisely measuring around the corner of a specific building on the map.

And sure, maybe you don't go model by model to use a skirmish-scale level of detail instead. Maybe you put a facing marker down for the entire unit and everyone is assumed to be facing in the same direction.

*Necromunda has vision/fire arcs, because you have maybe 15 models per side. 40k doesn't need that.

Then, if you're making the argument that 40k is a larger-scale game that doesn't need to get into such minor details, why does it need to do it for tanks? And why does it do it only partially for tanks? Why is the tank a static unit following the model precisely when it fires its hull gun but when it fires the turret gun it can instantly pivot back and forth to shoot a unit ahead of the tank and then immediately overwatch against a unit behind the tank?

Or, to consider another scenario: why is an infantry model just a rough approximation of the unit when it comes to area terrain and "the model finds appropriate cover" but a model in a crouching pose can't stand up to fire over a wall? None of it is ever consistent.

An easy reason is because a tank is a single model, while a squad already has some additional detail by virtue of being multiple models, but both are each a contained 'unit'. Squads can expand and contract, and have LoS determined per model in the unit. If each gun on the tank had ir's own LoS, each "gun" of both unit types have their own LoS. The resolution is roughly the same, as both units are roughly the same table area.

 Insectum7 wrote:
An easy reason is because a tank is a single model, while a squad already has some additional detail by virtue of being multiple models, but both are each a contained 'unit'. Squads can expand and contract, and have LoS determined per model in the unit. If each gun on the tank had ir's own LoS, each "gun" of both unit types have their own LoS. The resolution is roughly the same, as both units are roughly the same table area.

LoS, yes, but not arc. Why can my IG HWT, a model that can't move and fire because of the need to set up the gun before firing, shoot in all directions? If I move it half an inch to get around a corner I take a crippling penalty (or can't shoot at all, depending on the edition). But somehow the heavy weapon crew can pick the gun up, pivot it a full 180* to aim at a target behind them, and fire with no penalty? They can even do it on the same turn, shooting ahead during the shooting phase and backwards on overwatch! None of this is consistent.

And TBH 40k should be using movement trays anyway. Units of infantry shouldn't be individual models, that level of detail isn't really appropriate at the scale of most 40k games and it rarely adds anything besides needless complexity.

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.

Breachers, Centurions, Terminators, Bullgryns, Sacresants, Battlesuits. And that's just off the top of my head.

Any unit with a shield or jump pack is more vulnerable from behind. In fact, there's very few units that don't have vulnerable rear spots, the exception probably being (ironically) Guardsmen or Orks.

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.

I'd say that Terminators, Battlesuits and Centurions all have blind spots too, and I wouldn't say that they're exactly very agile when it comes to looking over their shoulders.

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

Same then applies for vehicles, no? Want to flank that tank, get around its cover.

 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.

Why not? This is 40k, where some armour is considered equivalent to a walking tank. Why should they not be similar?
Again, it comes down to the idea of "reasonable", and how that's not exactly a very good descriptor for anything in this context, because we both have very different ideas of "reasonable".

Insectum7 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 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.

It's absolutely not necessary to use the same level of detail for all units.

Absolutely necessary, no, in the same way it's also not absolutely necessary that vehicles be considered distinct from everything else.

Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
An easy reason is because a tank is a single model, while a squad already has some additional detail by virtue of being multiple models, but both are each a contained 'unit'. Squads can expand and contract, and have LoS determined per model in the unit. If each gun on the tank had ir's own LoS, each "gun" of both unit types have their own LoS. The resolution is roughly the same, as both units are roughly the same table area.

LoS, yes, but not arc. Why can my IG HWT, a model that can't move and fire because of the need to set up the gun before firing, shoot in all directions? If I move it half an inch to get around a corner I take a crippling penalty (or can't shoot at all, depending on the edition). But somehow the heavy weapon crew can pick the gun up, pivot it a full 180* to aim at a target behind them, and fire with no penalty? They can even do it on the same turn, shooting ahead during the shooting phase and backwards on overwatch! None of this is consistent.

And TBH 40k should be using movement trays anyway. Units of infantry shouldn't be individual models, that level of detail isn't really appropriate at the scale of most 40k games and it rarely adds anything besides needless complexity.

The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

No movement trays. Terrible idea.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 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.

It's absolutely not necessary to use the same level of detail for all units.

Absolutely necessary, no, in the same way it's also not absolutely necessary that vehicles be considered distinct from everything else.

Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

2d6 save terminators when?

Insectum7 wrote:The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

For simplicity's sake, if we eschew facings on infantry, it's also okay by me with removing them for vehicles. That's the level of abstraction I'm personally fine with.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

And have they ever been treated like vehicles? Do Carnifexes have facings? Centurions? Riptides? What about the other units I mentioned?

I'm not sure if you missed the point deliberately or by accident, but I offer you another shot at it.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

But Sentinels aren't necessarily just speedy - they look much more articulated and nimble than a Centurion or Broadside Battlesuit. Hell, I'd call them more manoeuvrable in repositioning than things like bikes!

There's the talk of an ideal system, but clearly, we need to work out what system people actually want, and how granular it is - and that agreement on what we all want from things, what we consider "reasonable", is something that just isn't being met.

Backspacehacker wrote:2d6 save terminators when?

Roads, we don't need...roads.

We're going BACK to the future.


But I would love them to just go back to that and no invuln(unless shield).

Racerguy180 wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:2d6 save terminators when?

Roads, we don't need...roads.

We're going BACK to the future.


But I would love them to just go back to that and no invuln(unless shield).

No thank you.

A Terminator is T4. A squad of Intercessors with Bolt Rifles have 20 shots (at ten-strong). That's 20 shots, 14-16 hits (depending on rerolls), 7-8 wounds. Now, you have to roll 2d6 for each wound-and that's from ONE squad.

It's not even a balance thing-you could make Terminators balanced with a 3+ on 2d6 armor save, though it'd be wonky with some other things-it's just that it'd slow the game down immensely.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

I agree with that abstraction. I just think it should be consistent. In a game at 40k's scale it should also be applied to vehicle units. We assume the HWT is positioning itself to get a good shot, we can assume the vehicle is doing the same.

No movement trays. Terrible idea.

Why not? In a game at 40k's scale why does the exact positioning of models within a unit matter?

2d6 saves for terminators would “slow the game down immensely”?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

I agree with that abstraction. I just think it should be consistent. In a game at 40k's scale it should also be applied to vehicle units. We assume the HWT is positioning itself to get a good shot, we can assume the vehicle is doing the same.

Positioning isn't what's in question, though. The HWT doesn't have different armor facings. The HWT doesn't have multiple main weapons with mutually exclusive arcs.

We can assume a unit is positioning to take most advantage of cover or bring its weapon to bear, but you lose me when you then assume that a vehicle can spin in place to fire every weapon on a single target while presenting the optimal armor facing to every incoming projectile.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
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.

But there's clearly a line between "tracking the vision of each infantry model" and "a tank can fire every gun it has through the part of a track link that is sticking out behind a sold wall".

The former isn't necessary, and it's why you wouldn't need vision arcs for infantry in a game of this scale*. The latter is absurd, and should be addressed.

*Necromunda has vision/fire arcs, because you have maybe 15 models per side. 40k doesn't need that.

I dunno… I would like the option. Why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poll results are now solidly in the Heresy column, more than 2 to 1.

 jeff white wrote:
2d6 saves for terminators would “slow the game down immensely”?

Yes-rolling 10 saves as ten dice is easy and quick.
Rolling 10 sets of 2d6 is not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
2d6 saves for terminators would “slow the game down immensely”?

Yes-rolling 10 saves as ten dice is easy and quick.
Rolling 10 sets of 2d6 is not.

I meant it as a meme but yeah it would be horribly slow, because back when the 2d6 save was a thing there was no nearly as much fire going out on the board, and you had to bring heavy weapons to kill terminators.

 catbarf wrote:
Positioning isn't what's in question, though. The HWT doesn't have different armor facings. The HWT doesn't have multiple main weapons with mutually exclusive arcs.

We can assume a unit is positioning to take most advantage of cover or bring its weapon to bear, but you lose me when you then assume that a vehicle can spin in place to fire every weapon on a single target while presenting the optimal armor facing to every incoming projectile.

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs? Everything I can think of can fire all of its weapons directly ahead, so your abstraction in that case is just assuming that the tank pivots to directly face the target. Which IMO is fine. You abstract away pivot speed just like you abstract away turret rotation speed and assume that all of a tank's turret weapons have a free 360* arc with no minimum range.

As for defense, sure, we assume that it's taking each shot on its best armor. Or we assume that it's taking each shot on average armor. Or even its weakest armor. Maybe, in 9th edition terms, a LRBT's armor is T16/T14/T8 for F/S/R, and shooting at T8 means assuming that each shot is always finding the weak point. Or maybe it's T9/T7/T5, and the assumption is that T8 represents an average between front and side.

And there's also a lot that AV per facing doesn't consider. What about shot angle? If I have two shooters, one directly at a 90* angle to the side and one right on the front/side corner line both have "side" shots but against a real tank the one with the direct perpendicular shot will have an easier time getting through armor than the one shooting at an angle to that armor plate. Or what about aircraft? Why does a space A-10 coming in from the front fire at front AV instead of top armor?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

Should those tanks be penalised for their shoddy design though?

Not to mention that it makes proxying and custom-building vehicles much more difficult.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

Can also be an issue with the Land Raider, especially if the sponsons are in the rear mount - I'd assume the same for the Spartan, Predator & Repulsive, thinking about it.

Thinking about it further, anything with sponsons is going to have a dead zone they can't target because the hull gets in the way

Leman Russ optimal fire arc and optimal armor orientation is the same, forward. Even the dead zone is too small so only relevant if trying to target a single infantry model that is too close.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But how many tanks really have mutually exclusive arcs?

To use the Leman russ as an example, the Sponsons cannot fire inside the space directly in front of and to the back of the tank, the area in-between the treads. The only thing that can fire there is the Hull gun (which cannot shoot more than 45 degrees or so) and the turret (360)+whatever pintle weapons it has.

Technically yes, but the blind spot is extremely narrow and can be covered by a very slight rotation of the tank between shots. And TBH most units are wide enough that each sponson can attack one side of the target even if the tank is facing directly at it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

For simplicity's sake, if we eschew facings on infantry, it's also okay by me with removing them for vehicles. That's the level of abstraction I'm personally fine with.

It's something that works fine for larger scale games. But many folks like the smaller skirmish scale engagements and imo vehicle arcs and facings offer much higher fidelity play at smaller scales, which is good. They're also really not so complicated that they become overbearing at larger either, it's a net win for me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

And have they ever been treated like vehicles? Do Carnifexes have facings? Centurions? Riptides? What about the other units I mentioned?

I'm not sure if you missed the point deliberately or by accident, but I offer you another shot at it.

I didn't miss anything. I said infantry, you said MCs. To which I say infantry again, because I specifically not talking about MCs.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

But Sentinels aren't necessarily just speedy - they look much more articulated and nimble than a Centurion or Broadside Battlesuit. Hell, I'd call them more manoeuvrable in repositioning than things like bikes!

There's the talk of an ideal system, but clearly, we need to work out what system people actually want, and how granular it is - and that agreement on what we all want from things, what we consider "reasonable", is something that just isn't being met.

Well I'd certainly consider some sort of agility stat or modifier. Some models should be much harder to track than others. I wouldn't think consider sentinels very agile though.

I don't think any consensus will be met, so I state my ideals.

If we are wishlisting mechanics, I also would like a stat that represents difficulty to target. Obviously tanks and monsters should be easier to hit than man sized targets.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

I agree with that abstraction. I just think it should be consistent. In a game at 40k's scale it should also be applied to vehicle units. We assume the HWT is positioning itself to get a good shot, we can assume the vehicle is doing the same.

I disagree with the measure of consistency here. I think the consistency is the weapons of each unit. Both squads and vehicles draw LOS from the positions of the "weapons", the weapons of a squad being the individual placement of the troopers holding them. In this regard I view the vehicle as a collection of weapons, but with fixed locations, unlike a squad where the shape of the unit is malleable. So it's "consistent" to me that each weapon in each unit draw its own LoS.

No movement trays. Terrible idea.

Why not? In a game at 40k's scale why does the exact positioning of models within a unit matter?

Because it looks awful, for one. It's also non interactive with lots of terrain. I understand where the sentiment comes from, but it's just a no-go for 40k. If were talking apocalypse or something else, fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
If we are wishlisting mechanics, I also would like a stat that represents difficulty to target. Obviously tanks and monsters should be easier to hit than man sized targets.

I think one of the quickest interesting sets of changes that could occur for 40k are:

1: All infantry get a -1 to hit, and remove the maximum to-hit modifier for this.

2: Go back to the old to-wound chart.

The games lethality immediately drops. Infantry are harder to hit, and vehicles/MCs are harder to wound.

Although would probably need to buff anything with a 5+ BS, Orks in particular.

Also have fun firing at -3 vs Jormungandr Venomthropes.

 Tyran wrote:
Although would probably need to buff anything with a 5+ BS, Orks in particular.

Also have fun firing at -3 vs Jormungandr Venomthropes.

Was actually thinking making the "small size" modifier the only exception to the rule. Conversely start thinking about where positive modifiers could start coming back in.

I feel like doing that is just adding more complication to the matter, and worrying about everyones BS being -1 to hit an infentry inherently, but then needing to buff everything so they can hit. Seems kinda counter productive.