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 only sensible way to implement "Facing" is by making the crossfire rule a general rule.

Being caught in crossfire removes cover.

Against vehicles and monsters it grants +1 to wound, but only weapons with a strenght equal to the vehicle/monster thoughness can apply the crossfire marker to it.

Something like this could potentially work.

And hey, it's a long-standing tradition to take Xenos mechanics and make them universal during a new edition.

Voss wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For all the people who are advocating facing rules returning, what are the rules regarding that? How do you determine facing? If my predator can see the slightest edge of the rear of your pred, does it get rear shooting?

You act like clearly defined facings and firing arcs are hard, rather than 'in the past, GW only did a mediocre job,' and it wasn't a real problem for anyone but the pedants.

Truth be told, if people went by the logic GW can make stuff worse, then they are right now. Then the best thing, for people playing the game and not GW, would be for rules to freeze and never ever added anything new. Even stuff like the new sesons thing create bonkers stuff, like necron soliter. There is a proverbial milion and one things that can end up real bad, if GW decides it could rise their sales short term.

Flanking is already not worth anything, and losing cover barely means anything as well. We need more rules that make movement matter, and my first few changes wouldn't be to vehicles. Vehicle facings are one of many changes I'd like for 40k. I would be fine with a facing mechanic for infantry if people couldn't just turn their models in different directions to ignore it. In WHFB there's front, flank, and rear. But this wouldn't work in 40k, because it's much more of a model by model system. Individual models having facing causes issues. So, if we went by the unit, there's another big issue. How to we determine its facing? At all? We could have the person declare their facing during movement, but that's prone to issues. We could put units on square bases in formations, but that doesn't work for 40k. Maybe a few units, but not to the point where it's worth implementing.

Instead, if we give vehicles square bases, or make outlines, or any solution we can, we can provide bonuses for flanking, without needing to add tons of rules for infantry. I think vehicles should have distinct rules, different from creatures. In addition, they're often one model in a unit, or act independently. This means that individual facings actually work for them.

Certainly, if 40k could handle it, Infinity style bases with a front side on the base would be nice to have. But, we don't have the luxury of it being a skirmish style game. We're stuck with units, and the easiest way to differentiate vehicles would be a front/back armor facing, and would allow for the movement phase to have more impact.

But, this is one of many changes I'd make, and my ideal 40k is a skirmish game, so I might not be the best person to reference when it comes to larger scale gameplay.

So in the end it boils down to, besides certain decision made by GW durning rules writing, a problem with a gaming system being run as a quasi skirmish one, but with a wargame/historical number of units etc. w40k, and AoS too from my expiriance, starts to break apart when there starts to be 150+ models on the table .

I'll be honest, I'm not sure it's a problem. Just a preference. I'd prefer a different style of game, one with more importance on individual models, or more importance on a unit, rather than a weird mix of both. I'm not well versed enough in wargames to give a good answer.

It is a problem, because with how damage scales in w40k 2000pts of proper build army anihilates a large chunk of the opposing army without any chance to stop it.
1 void weaver isn't just 3 times weaker then 3, and only 9 times weaker then 9.
It turns the game in to a race for most people, and for a few rare armies, it turns in to a soliter where they play the game not really carrying what the other side does. For tournaments it maybe isn't even that bad. But for casual games, the fact that we can get new players come on to a forum and start asking how they can legaly stop their friend from using a model is very bad.
I have very little expiriance with other table top or historical systems, but in non I know or have seen played, have the problems GW games have. Which also tells a lot how strong being the monopol in table top makes you.

That's more a problem of lethality and improper balancing. Lethality is a huge problem in 40k, because turns last so long, and there's very little you can do to counteract it besides just hiding entire units. I tended towards Infinity, which is much more lethal, but you have ways to react to and counter their lethality without needing to hide everything, though hiding stuff is still important.

USRs to return but stop calling them different names in each codex.

If a unit has Objective Secured...just call it Objective Secured, for example.

Make a glossary of rules terms that both designers and players have access to. Make the designers *stick to it and understand it*.

Fewer stratagems. At most limit each book to one double page of stratagems.

I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

Plot Twist: GW buys one page rules Grimdark Future and uses it as 10th edition lol

a_typical_hero wrote:
I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

its people that never played other games where facings are properly implemented and thinking that GW did the best possible implementation. So in their heads: if GW did it poorly, its impossible to do properly.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

its people that never played other games where facings are properly implemented and thinking that GW did the best possible implementation. So in their heads: if GW did it poorly, its impossible to do properly.

This applies to A LOT of suggested changes that GW defenders don't like.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

It's a lot less of an issue if your faction is almost exclusively made up of METAHL BAWKSES, which *checks your signature* seems to be true for you. Play any Eldar, Necron, T'au?

Not myself, but my opponents had them.

Dark Eldar had their Reavers or Ravagers...their transports and a bomber.

Necrons had their War of the worlds striders. Tau I haven't played yet in that system.
One IG player had Sentinels and Vendettas, if that makes any difference.

All worked alright without causing a big fuss during gaming.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].

Yeahno point rewardingmovement. Game should be just like up and he who got most op army wins. Manouveing is for pansies'

 vict0988 wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
There’s a reason why almost all the desired changes people have listed are things that didn’t exist in earlier editions.

I also haven't mentioned how the current morale rules are my favourite of any edition I have played because they allow my Necrons to play how I want them to. Units run away when you lock them in combat, I don't need the game to handle that, my opponent will do it because of the incentives in the game. I do think it could be appropriate for there to be covering fire and a bigger morale impact, but I don't want Necrons to seek shelter or run away. Taking extra casualties I can pretty easily ignore, running away I cannot. Some people are just built for 9th, they either don't care about gotchas or they are really good at not getting got.

It's probably possible to allow Necrons to retain this kind of rule whilst other armies have something different. An army rule that better shows how they fight

tneva82 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].

Yeahno point rewardingmovement. Game should be just like up and he who got most op army wins. Manouveing is for pansies'

Fascinating take, when my edit seemed pretty clear that my issue isn't with rewarding movement, but rewarding movement ONLY AGAINST A SUBSET OF A SUBSET OF A UNIT TYPE.

Edit: Seriously, I want to know how you got that take when my preference is explicitly "integrating a Universal, appropriate abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies is Good.

I'd like to see the rule that said a weapon had to be able to "see" the target before it could shoot. If you can't line up the barrel of the weapon with the target you shouldn't be able to use that weapon against that target. If the vehicle is supposed to have a turret, or whatever arc of fire, but the owner glued it in place then the weapon could still fire in its intended field of fire. No more tanks firing through their own hulls or using antennae to fire from. Then, at least, the facing of the vehicle matters for the person moving the vehicle.

Unusual Suspect wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I've been playing a version of the game alot for the past few months that includes facing.

It's really not rocket science to get them right. I wonder how much of this is based on people just repeating what they read somewhere or exaggerating their memories.

It's a lot less of an issue if your faction is almost exclusively made up of METAHL BAWKSES, which *checks your signature* seems to be true for you. Play any Eldar, Necron, T'au?

Yeah, Xenos vehicles have a tendency to be shaped a bit different from Chaos/Loyalist vehicles, but that's usually been taken into account in their rules, though sometimes not ideally. Here's how gw has handled them in previous editions:

Eldar: Definitely not "METAHL BAWKESES", but that was taken into account by either:

Making them the same AV "all around": Crimson Hunters-10/10/10, War Walkers-10/10/10, Raiders-10/10/10.

Making the front + side AV the same, with only the rear AV being different: Wave Serpent/Fire Prism/Falcon-12/12/10, Cobra/Scorpion-12/12/11, Ravagers-11/11/10. So the only thing that matters is determining the rear facing. Not difficult, IMO. But if it's something that people are going to quibble over, it can easily be solved by gw providing a clear picture showing just where to measure from to determine the rear facing for those vehicles

Necrons: Also not "METAHL BAWKESES", but I can't remember any Necron vehicle that wasn't the same AV all around. Everything was 11/11/11, or 14/14/14, or similar. The only issue was Quantam Shielding, which only covered the front + side facings. So, just make Quantam Shielding cover all facings. Easy fix.

Tau: Yeah, Hammerheads/Devilfish/Skyrays aren't "METAHL BAWKESES", but their designs mean that their facings can be found in the same way. Their engines + forward "airfoils" form a rectangular shape. One line goes from the "outside back" of the right engine to the "outside front" of the left airfoil, another goes from the "outside back" of the left engine to the "outside front" of the right airfoil. There's your facings.

Unusual Suspect wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
I don't think we need that level of distinction for vehicles, any more than we need it for other models with depicted facings that don't matter in any way, shape, or form mechanically.

I can't stress enough how effectively abstract the sort of discrete movement/firing/combat phase actions are, when you get right down to it, and how little it makes sense to ME to make ANY particular model's circumstantial facing actually matter. In the battle that's being simulated with our neat 6" movements and dice-rolled set number of attacks, everyone is moving, firing, bleeding, and dying all at once. Any particular facing and position models happen to have at any specific moment of the game are, IMO, abstract representations of rough positioning and action at best.

Which is why, perhaps, I'm less inclined towards marking vehicles in particular (which represent more than just the sort of lumbering brutal behemoths, and practically all of which will be moving and maneuvering and trying to show their strongest side to their greatest threat, because that's what you do when threatened) as getting a bespoke layer of Flanking rules, rather than just integrating a Universal, appropriately abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded Is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies Is Good.

Edit: I really do get it that taking a Lascannon up the tail pipe is worse news for a tank crew than taking a lascannon on the heaviest layer or armor. So is taking a Power Fist up the Thorax. So is taking a Pulse shot on the fusion reactor backpack. Despite SOME subsection of vehicles being lumbering behemoths... that's just NOT a universal quality of vehicles such that they deserve better or worse treatment from being [RipTear]'d up the [Exhaust Port].

Yeahno point rewardingmovement. Game should be just like up and he who got most op army wins. Manouveing is for pansies'

Fascinating take, when my edit seemed pretty clear that my issue isn't with rewarding movement, but rewarding movement ONLY AGAINST A SUBSET OF A SUBSET OF A UNIT TYPE.

Edit: Seriously, I want to know how you got that take when my preference is explicitly "integrating a Universal, appropriate abstract, preferably fluffy way of showing that Being Surrounded is Bad and/or Surrounding Enemies is Good.

You already get a "bonus" for sorrounding a unit. It's called "All of my units now get to shoot/charge your unit and delete it". Pretty sure that's enough. The games already deadly enough as it is.

A game that I can actually play and not one that plays me. With 40k nowadays I feel most things I do at the table is what the rules tell me I have to do, boring upkeep ( "now roll a bunch of dice, now reroll them, now roll some of them, now watch the opponent roll theirs, now watch them remove models, now do this again and again" "game, and when will I get to be more active, you know, make some decisions etc?" "Sorry, market research has shown that it's not what customers want in a Warhammer game")

Cyel wrote:
A game that I can actually play and not one that plays me. With 40k nowadays I feel most things I do at the table is what the rules tell me I have to do, boring upkeep ( "now roll a bunch of dice, now reroll them, now roll some of them, now watch the opponent roll theirs, now watch them remove models, now do this again and again" "game, and when will I get to be more active, you know, make some decisions etc?" "Sorry, market research has shown that it's not what customers want in a Warhammer game")

Nonsense. Casualties taken from anywhere. Re-rolls curbed since 8th, 'member Lootas? No melee artificial stupidity. No random game length. No random relics, traits or powers. The only thing driven by market research in 9th is the quarterly balance updates I think.

Does anyone see the 9th Guard Codex as being a really good look at how 10th will be, or just me?

I.E. No price for gear, all included in base cost for unit. PL for all basically.

Also, and expansion of the Toughness tables. Now with T9 platforms, T8 weapons don't have the usefulness they did before, so a LC might be more valuable than a Melta to throw into a basic infantry squad.
And Plasma no longer needs to be overcharged. against vehicles.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I.E. No price for gear, all included in base cost for unit. PL for all basically.

I really hope this isn't the case. It's an awful way to write rules.

Burn it down. Replace with Xenos books for new 30k.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Burn it down. Replace with Xenos books for new 30k.

Or just import the new 30k rules into 40k wholesale. Either/or.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Does anyone see the 9th Guard Codex as being a really good look at how 10th will be, or just me?

I.E. No price for gear, all included in base cost for unit. PL for all basically.

I can't see into the future, so no, I don't think the guard codex is a good look at 10th.
The we-can't-be-bothered to fix Guard dataslate rules are likely just going to be tossed in a bin.

Also, and expansion of the Toughness tables. Now with T9 platforms, T8 weapons don't have the usefulness they did before, so a LC might be more valuable than a Melta to throw into a basic infantry squad.
And Plasma no longer needs to be overcharged. against vehicles.

'Expansion' isn't an issue with the wounding chart. Just un-breaking it.

Biggest thing is shifting the game mechanics back to the core rules. This whole thing main rulebook idea was a failure when they have to layer so many "unique" rules onto the unit profiles instead of having USRs and core game mechanics that are more complex. It's absolutely terrible for consistency and it's ended up with a game with just as much (if not more) rules bloat than the end times of 7th. The game lost a lot of it's soul and the lack of interaction with unit rules across codexes is a big problem with that. A game should be able to allow hypothetical units with generic statlines and still have some degree of decision making and gameplay options instead beyond just the bare bones move, shoot, chop, die.

Return back to a game system complexity more akin to the 4th to 7th BRB except better organize the rules, cut some of the book keeping stuff that rarely had much of an impact, make a solid but smaller set of USRs (stuff like relentless, FNP, scout, deep strike, melta, fearless, plus unit type rules). Even a game like 7th could be played mostly with just using the user made 4 page reference sheet so format a reference sheet to handle the bulk of the core rules lookups and leave the codexes to showing what stats/USRs a unit has and any codex unique rules that it might have. Shouldn't need 10 versions of move and shoot without penalty.

Take 2nd edition. Clean it up a bit. Done.

A foolish hope - if you get a 'black book' of all the armies, subsequent codex should expand their tactical options, not simply 'be better'.

A forlorn hope more like.