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.

I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes

not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun

 kodos wrote:
I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes

not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun

There's some real irony in your statement, the base for warmahordes requires people to paint on the divisor for front/back as the base doesn't (or didn't) have one. This might force the front back to be illogical, it also required you to trust your opponent had marked them out correctly. So simply having a base is hardly a silver bullet, despite improving the situation.

Star Wars: Legion uses large bases for vehicles with arcs etched onto the base itself. It's sometimes kind of annoying when basing (to make sure you have the arc still visible) but seems like a pretty clean solution that allows for a fair amount of modeling/customization.

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes

not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun

There's some real irony in your statement, the base for warmahordes requires people to paint on the divisor for front/back as the base doesn't (or didn't) have one. This might force the front back to be illogical, it also required you to trust your opponent had marked them out correctly. So simply having a base is hardly a silver bullet, despite improving the situation.

as I wrote, sadly not possible for 40k as you cannot trust the players and GW being the small garage company that cannot make a huge investment in creating dedicated based for their games but must buy them of the shelf from another manufacturer

so there is no solution of having anything but 360° arcs

 kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes

not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun

There's some real irony in your statement, the base for warmahordes requires people to paint on the divisor for front/back as the base doesn't (or didn't) have one. This might force the front back to be illogical, it also required you to trust your opponent had marked them out correctly. So simply having a base is hardly a silver bullet, despite improving the situation.

as I wrote, sadly not possible for 40k as you cannot trust the players and GW being the small garage company that cannot make a huge investment in creating dedicated based for their games but must buy them of the shelf from another manufacturer

so there is no solution of having anything but 360° arcs

Not my fault you picked a poor example in hordes monsters.

BrianDavion wrote:
sadly I think the problem is some of the minis are hard to tell what is the side and what isn't. I mean a rhino is pretty easy, but some of the more oddly shaped xenos tanks? maybe less so

I mean, this is a solved problem - provide a top-down diagram of the model's silhouette, with the front/side/rear arcs marked on it.

Depending on the vehicle, you might just have front all the way around (Land Raider, Monolith), for others you might just want front/rear, but this isn't an unsolvable problem.

I'm not a fan of bases for vehicles, so I'm ignoring that one

God knows there's enough room on the new datasheets to include a diagram...

Tracking facing in Warmachine was horrible. If you were lucky everyone at least painted the front arc on their bases. If not it was usually which way the head was facing. It was still a paint in the butt regardless because so many people can not agree which way an invisible line from that point is drawn. So many of the same issues as scatter dice. Talk about non-euclidian geometry…

Dudeface wrote:
Not my fault you picked a poor example in hordes monsters.

but why is that a poor example?
because GW cannot make their own bases and need to pick what is on the market and those don't come with markings?
because 40k players are all cheaters and you cannot trust them to paint the markings right?

because it is too expensive for GW to actually make a game that works and sell bases with markings if arcs would be in the rules?

they only thing my poor example shows that people don't get tired searching for an excuse why it is impossible for a multi million company to actually write a working game

Infinity has some details sculpted on the bases for that effect.
I don't like bases on big vehicles though.

 kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Not my fault you picked a poor example in hordes monsters.

but why is that a poor example?
because GW cannot make their own bases and need to pick what is on the market and those don't come with markings?
because 40k players are all cheaters and you cannot trust them to paint the markings right?

because it is too expensive for GW to actually make a game that works and sell bases with markings if arcs would be in the rules?

they only thing my poor example shows that people don't get tired searching for an excuse why it is impossible for a multi million company to actually write a working game

It was a poor example because you pointed at a company who put no additional facing marks onto the bases as an example of a GW competitor "doing it better".

Calm your hate boner, nobody is saying they can't do it. They're simply stating they maybe don't like bases for all models, don't like the practicalities or don't see facings as necessary.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Infinity has some details sculpted on the bases for that effect.
I don't like bases on big vehicles though.

I don't even like bases on the ork buggies. Maybe the wartrike but that is it. Wheeled and tracked vehicles just don't look right on a base.

We still doing the facings debate? Isn’t it about 6 years and two editions late?

 catbarf wrote:
Flanking bonuses are an approximation of the reality that a unit under fire positions itself to make use of concealment and cover in reaction to the unit engaging it, and is much more vulnerable to attack from a second direction.

Have 40k ever had any mechanics simulating directional engagement for non vehicle units?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Flanking bonuses are an approximation of the reality that a unit under fire positions itself to make use of concealment and cover in reaction to the unit engaging it, and is much more vulnerable to attack from a second direction.

Have 40k ever had any mechanics simulating directional engagement for non vehicle units?

Crossfire recently
And it was a good mechanic. Or would've been if tables weren't as crampedly full and mobility therefore actually mattered.

Alas...

Dudeface wrote:
nobody is saying they can't do it. They're simply stating they maybe don't like bases for all models, don't like the practicalities or don't see facings as necessary.

that was pretty much the argument, that arcs are not possible because outside of Rhinos it is too hard to determine them
not that bases on vehicles are ugly, or that they don't see facings necessary but that it is too hard to do it in game

and if your excuse is that the simplest solution of "why it is not too hard" is a poor example because people are cheating I don't know what your point is

if GW want that to be there it could be done very easily, even with tanks like a Falcon and not "GW has not found a solution so it must be impossible"
which is the same stupid argument why all the datacards are full of mistakes, because if GW releases them that way it must be impossible to avoid

All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?

Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.

If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.

We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"

 NAVARRO wrote:
All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?

I haven't seen a complete count anywhere but there are several floating around in a few indexes. With the Orks for instance the Warboss on the Wartrike is a Leader but lacks the character keyword. In turn he can't be targeted by precision due to this oversight.

 NAVARRO wrote:
All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?

About as many as every codex release in the past, 5-6 for armies that were written with care and 10-15 for those which weren't.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.

If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.

We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"

Just want to say that this is more or less exactly how we play it locally and the mechanic does not feel out of place in a 40k game. There is a surprising amount of weapons that can be made more interesting when adding the "Suppression" rule to it. For example Multilasers on Chimeras.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills

That basically already exists though. There's various flavours of suppression already in use on different datasheets:

Battleshock test after being hit

Movement/charge penalty after being hit

Subtract 1 from hit rolls after being hit

Cannot benefit from cover after being hit

Some factions have several of these options available and can pick combinations that best suit their list, which I'd argue is a better way to implement suppression than a single overly-harsh rule that's effective against almost all opposing units. Variation also encourages a wider range of units to be taken rather than just spamming 3 of every [suppression] datasheet.

 Jidmah wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?

About as many as every codex release in the past, 5-6 for armies that were written with care and 10-15 for those which weren't.

They must Really love Necrons, I’m only aware of one mistake on their cards.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.

If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.

We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"

Mmmm....love some Pinning and Shellshock.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?

I haven't seen a complete count anywhere but there are several floating around in a few indexes. With the Orks for instance the Warboss on the Wartrike is a Leader but lacks the character keyword. In turn he can't be targeted by precision due to this oversight.

There also is Thrakka counting as 1 model in a trukk, Mega-Armoured Nobz missing the Mega Armour keyword and the Mob Rule stratagem only lasting until the end of the command phase when there are no command phase stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.

If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.

We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"

Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"

As some have pointed out there are already rules in place for things such as suppression.

Hell, the "Suppressor Squad" has suppressive fire as their ability.

 xttz wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills

That basically already exists though. There's various flavours of suppression already in use on different datasheets:

Battleshock test after being hit

Movement/charge penalty after being hit

Subtract 1 from hit rolls after being hit

Cannot benefit from cover after being hit

1) Battleshock is not pinning, it does nothing to prevent movement.
2) A modifier to movement or charge range is also not pinning, as it can be largely ignored on fast units. Oh no, my 10" move unit now only moves 8", a loss of 1/5 of my movement. Meanwhile the poor Ork went from 6" to 4", losing 1/3 of their movement. Pinning locks you in place regardless. That's the whole point.
3) A modifier rather than a flat change more heavily penalises units with lower BS while allowing those with better to, again, largely ignore it.
4) This is better applied to weapons such as grenades or flamethrowers to represent a weapon designed to flush people out of cover. When bullets start flying and you hunker down behind a wall, you don't suddenly become more vulnerable to the bullets making you do that.

Some factions have several of these options available and can pick combinations that best suit their list, which I'd argue is a better way to implement suppression than a single overly-harsh rule that's effective against almost all opposing units. Variation also encourages a wider range of units to be taken rather than just spamming 3 of every [suppression] datasheet.

And how many factions have none? The point of a single rule is that everyone can have access to it, and it is meant to be harsh and capable of affecting the majority of the units in the game because if it isn't then it is pointless. Units being immune to morale, including the entirety of the most played codex, Space Marines, was literally what made morale and the effects which were designed around it largely pointless in previous editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.

Spoiler:

Tell me you read the word suppression, and didn't parse what the effects of suppression should be and how it should affect the game. My suggested rule also incorporated leadership, which meant that better trained units require more suppression to reliably pin them, as well as the ability to use your own abilities by your officer equivalents to get a suppressed units back into the fight. That rule does neither. An Eldar Phoenix Lord is just as likely to suffer those effects as a unit of Gretchin.

Gee, it sure is a shame my Incubi are suppressed! So suppressed they moved up the board and charged the enemy! Sure, they swing a bit less effectively but I sure am glad that suppression allowed them to move as normal!

 Jidmah wrote:


Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.

Are you really arguing that singular weapons / units constitute an actually valuable mechanic for a wargame that should be a tool that you have available in any vaguely modern warfare type game in all armies? really?
NVM that the ability is once again completly static and in a way that it will hurt some armies and factions once more decidedly harder ?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Gee, it sure is a shame my Incubi are suppressed! So suppressed they moved up the board and charged me! Sure, they swing a bit less effectively but I sure am glad that my suppression allowed them to move as normal!

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Mmmm....love some Pinning and Shellshock.

When the system based upon a modified version of the most hated edition ever actually does it better... peak GW moment. Or Chaosistency.

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.

HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
God knows there's enough room on the new datasheets to include a diagram...

the irony was not lost on me that in 8th when they moved to vehicles having a toughness etc and took away facings as it was too complicated was the same time they gave each vehicle a data card that had space to include an arc diagram, providing for variable toughness and saves in different arcs and could easily have included weapon arcs for all models as well