Spitballing vehicle facings into 8th

[Atrus]

Some interesring topics going around at the moment. Thought I'd try starting one on how vehicle racing's could be implemented into 8th and how one might think it could function within 8th eds rule set.

 

Personally, I miss the days of racing's and armour values. I'm not fan of the mental gymnastics required to believe that tanks are either magically bending their bullets or doing perpetual doughnuts to have all their weapons fire on a target. I miss the satisfaction and reward of out maneuvering an opponent to hit a vulnerable rear armour.

While the change in vehicles to Toughness and Wound values as streamlined things, it has cut out a significant tactical aspect of the game.

 

So how could facings be (re)introduced within the 8th ed framework?

 

For weapons, I think this is the easiest and (should) be the most straight forward- just having the firing arcs that we've had previously, maybe even just kept simpler.

A weapon on the left? It shoots left- make it 180 degrees along that hull just to keep it simple. Weapon on the front? Same thing again. Weapon on top (turret)? 360 degrees all around. I would prefer proper race of 90 degrees and that sort of thing like we've had in previous editions; but I'm trying to find a middle ground.

 

Armour facings? Well Armour Values are gone now and currently there's no difference in hitting a vehicle in the front or rear armour.

My thoughts were maybe to utilise the +/- modifier system 8th loves so much.

 

I've had 2 ideas go through my head.

 

1) modifier to damage.

 

Shooting a vehicle in its front hull/arc is done at -1 damage

 

Side armour has no modifier

 

Rear armour benefits from +1 damage.

 

 

2) modifier to wound.

 

Shooting a vehicle in its front hull/arc is done at -1 to wound.

 

Side armour has no modifier

 

Rear armour benefits from +1 to wound.

 

 

I've found both ideas have pros and cons but am curious what others think about these ideas and this topic in general?

[Ficinus]

I like the idea of reintroducing armour facings and I think it would really help the power of the meltagun. Meltaguns (and inferno pistols) need to be so close to the target to be effective, that one can usually swing a model an extra inch or two to the side to get a shot on the side or rear of the armour. Getting plus one to wound from flanking a knight or repulsor would have helped my Dominions or Seraphim out in so many different scenarios (especially in those times I've baited Knights into position and then surrounded them with melta). So, I think it would be good. I'd most like to see +1 to wound on the side and either +1 or +2 for rear shots. I'd also like Knights to have to declare what facing their ion shield will be in, but maybe that's too lofty a dream.

 

And, I never understood why they got rid of weapon facings but kept fliers locked in their paths. If a flier can't turn 360, how is it shooting behind itself!?

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I feel like it should be an AP thing. You get an AP for side shots, two for rear shots.

 

As far as Knight ion shield facing, I think that should only relate to when you use Rotate Ion Shields; shield isn't concentrated anywhere in particular, except when you do that.

[Zeller]

I'd take immunity to small arms before facings, although I do miss having facings as well.

[Ficinus]

The problem with extra AP is that it buffs small arms while offering no (or very little) benefit to anti-tank weapons. If you get a lascannon in butt, it should really be punishing. It also has the problem that facings would offer no/little benefit against vehicles with invulnerable saves (again, especially for anti-vehicle weapons).

 

Maybe a percentage addition to damage that would benefit anti-tank guns more than small arms, but it would likely be too much math. Something like double (or 1.5x rounded up) minus one damage? Bolters and lasguns wouldn't benefit, autocannons would a little (depending on the multiplier), while meltas and lascannons would be deadly.

[toaae]

I've thought, since the reveal of 8th, that they could just use slash values of Toughness for armor facings. Like, a Leman Russ used to be 14/12/10 and is now T8, 3+ armor. To bring back armor saved, make it T8/7/6. I prefer altering the Toughness over the Armor Save because I feel it would be more relevant against Anti-tank weapons, which are generally packing some AP, while still retaining a strength against small arms fire (as to S4-5 weapons don't notice a difference of T7 -> T6, they would benefit from the Armor Save dropping).

 

Some other examples:

 

Dreads: T7/7/6

Trukk: T6/6/6

Chimera: T7/6/6

Land Raider: T8/8/8

Now, that's just how I think the modern 8th edition stat line could implement it. I'm not necessarily arguing that it should return (though, of things lost, I do prefer it to stuff like templates)

[The Unseen]

I'd keep it even simpler.

Cut a vehicle, any vehicle, into quadrants.

Draw a line from the center front to back, and side to side.

Sponsons shoot out their rear arc quadrant and both the front. (To represent that sponsons can usually track *in* a bit past straight, even if the models we see can't)

Hull mounts shoot front, turrets of course 360°.

 

And you shouldn't make things tougher in their front arcs, they already are as tough as they should be from that angle

And a lot of tanks previously had front and side facings that were basically the same, baring a few exceptions like the Russ I think.

So I'd just say that shots/attacks coming entirely within the back quadrants get +1 to wound. (So entirely behind the vehicle)

Makes small arms fire mildly more dangerous, but makes anti tank weapons near guaranteed wounds.

 

Increasing damage has a disproportionate benefit to 1 and 2 damage weapons, and give very little to proper anti tank weapons, which probably don't need the help since 2 damage weapons are generally better already, and the AP has similar issue

 

Lowering toughness will generally do absolutely nothing for most weapons.

Most tanks are T7, most anti tank weapons are Str8 or Str9, so dropping to T6 for most tanks doesn't change anything.

I can count the # of Str12+ weapons in the game on my hands

[kombatwombat]

I’m a big fan of bringing vehicle facings back. It’d be good to have the tactical challenge of model placement make a comeback.

 

While ideally I’d like to see slash values of tank toughness, The Unseen makes a good point that different toughness values on tanks are broadly irrelevant due to the current wounding table. Adding AP for different facings might be more thematic, but all that does is further buff units with Invul saves. Damage additions just make weapons like Plasma even better tank hunters than they already are without much helping true anti-tank weapons. I think to Wound modifiers are therefore the best solution, which at this stage are probably easier to apply as a blanket rule rather than individual modifiers for different units.

 

I agree with -1 to Wound / no modifier / +1 to Wound for Front / Side / Rear. The current Toughness value for a vehicle is an ‘average’ across all faces, so it’d make sense for that to be used for the side armour and to get a bonus/malus for rear and front facings. Aside from Armour 10/10/10 ‘bare minimum’ vehicles, there was only a small handful of vehicles that had the same armour all round (Land Raiders, Spartans, Typhons, Monoliths, Obelisks... was there much else?). These vehicles could get a special rule that they don’t suffer the to Wound penalty against their rear facing.

 

The really critical thing would be to apply it to monsters as well as vehicles so we don’t end up with the same power disparity as we had in 7th. One idea would be for facings to apply to any model with 10+ Wounds that hence has a Damage Table. Models smaller than that don’t suffer a penalty against their rear armour, but also don’t get a bonus against their front.

 

Weapon facings is an entirely different issue, but something is also like to see return. Bringing them back removes the sour taste of ‘my fixed axis Volcano Cannon fires backwards out of the tank’s antenna’, with no real downside I can see. I know people say they cause arguments but really, how often did you honestly see an argument about that compared to how many times you used them without an issue? If the answer is ‘a lot’ then you were probably playing That Guy a lot. If you weren’t playing That Guy... then I’ve got some bad news for you!

[kombatwombat]

I can count the # of Str12+ weapons in the game on my hands

Volcano Cannon

Volcano Lance

Prism Cannon

Turbolaser Destructor

Heavy Neutron Pulse Array

Fellblade Accelerator Cannon

Various Pulsars

D-Bombard

D-Impaler

Saturnyne Lascutter

Mori Quake Cannon

...

 

You multi-fingered abhuman scum...

[The Unseen]

Ok...

How many of those will ever realistically get in the rear arc of *literally* anything.

Most of those are on :cussing titans.

Not exactly weapons your going to be maneuvering for a close range shot up a targets tailpipe.

 

And I don't even want to think about how hard it will be to kill even basic tanks if shooting them in the front is -1 to wound.

No.

That's just a bad idea.

 

I'd also make standard walkers immune to the rear arc penalty in melee, to represent their much more reactive abilities.

A dreadnought surrounded is in a target rich enviroment, an APC is in deep trouble.

 

Issue with giving monsters the same rules is round bases and models that don't have clearly defined sections, but if you keep the facings simple, would still work.

For stuff like daemon princes, doesn't make a lot of sense, but crap like the bigger T'au suits definetely should have the same rules applied.

[Panzer]

Alright so I can see the merit of templates if done right but there's really nothing about vehicle facing I'd like to see return. In theory it was a great tool for the opponent to gain an advantage by positioning smartly. In reality it just made people never ever move their tanks because it would expose their weak spots. One of the best things in 8th is to see people taking and finally moving their tanks around instead of parking them as far back as possible and never touch them again unless the opponent is about to get into the flank.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Plus, one of the whole points of 8th Ed was to remove unnecessary clutter from the game, and simplify rules. Bringing back "now get out your measuring arc, so we can determine if you're within the arbitrary range of vision of this tanks gun or not" goes entirely against that.

[kombatwombat]

Plus, one of the whole points of 8th Ed was to remove unnecessary clutter from the game, and simplify rules.

That ship hasn’t so much sailed as slammed the Warp Drive button and gotten the hell out of the supercluster.

 

8th Ed was simple for all of five minutes. I say that nowadays it’s the most complicated edition since 2nd, and all that complexity isn’t nuance like tactics around movement, it’s just cascades of special rules and stratagems pulled from a wide array of obscure sources and ‘gotcha’ moments.

[Trevak Dal]

Respectfully, I do not miss that at all. I wish you guys luck in your endeavors.

[Ishagu]

Nah, don't bring any of that back. It slows the game down. Players will take more time positioning units, debating facings, etc

 

People need to understand that one of the biggest hurdles of the hobby is time. Outside of a tournament I don't want to be rushed when I play a game. Even with tournaments restrictions games can take 3 hours, outside of one 4-5 hour games are common place.

 

8th edition is not complicated at all, but it can be slow because it's ever evolving. Every game I play could involve new rules and units, and learning those takes time. Vehicle facings are not necessary at all and destroying vehicles is not hard. It's a mechanic more suited to a detailed, simulation inspired game. 40k is very much abstract in terms of unit interaction on the tabletop, and that's absolutely fine.

 

This is another case of narrative players who perhaps don't play as often, coming up with poor ideas that would damage the experience for many in practice. If you guys want vehicle facings play narrative games and incorporate them into some custom rules. All the best to you if that's how you want to play.

[Panzer]

 

Plus, one of the whole points of 8th Ed was to remove unnecessary clutter from the game, and simplify rules.

That ship hasn’t so much sailed as slammed the Warp Drive button and gotten the hell out of the supercluster.

 

8th Ed was simple for all of five minutes. I say that nowadays it’s the most complicated edition since 2nd, and all that complexity isn’t nuance like tactics around movement, it’s just cascades of special rules and stratagems pulled from a wide array of obscure sources and ‘gotcha’ moments.

 

 

It's important to note that GW wanted the core rules to be simplified and streamlined. That they did. They never said the edition with all the Codexes and what not will be simple and streamlined. Really just the core rules. And that didn't change.

The Datasheet approach and Stratagems and whatnot were always going to be a way to individualise everything which obviously is the opposite of simple and streamlined.

[Ishagu]

The core rules being so simple is exactly what allows such a focus on faction specific special rules. It's how we end up with unique factions and a varied meta.

 

More special rules > More generic rules.

[Marshal Rohr]

Vehicle facings would be another cool thing to add to an Advanced 40k ruleset release.

[Slasher956]

Bolt Action is a simple rule set (total rules less than 50 pages)

 

They split all weapons in to two catergories.. small arms & heavy weapons.

 

Vehicles have a Damage Value the same as infantry..

 

heavy weapons get a plus to rolls against all DVs

 

heavy weapons get an extra +1 to the roll against side of armoured vehicles *& plus 2 against the rear.... sides and read are calcualted by a 45% from the courner of the vehicle

[Ishagu]

Yeah that's not fun when trying to work it out on a Knight, especially one that's posed in a dynamic fashion with the body rotated to one side. It's worse for gameplay, and it's not necessary to improve the game. We don't need a +1 to vehicles, they aren't hard to interact with.

[Slasher956]

Depends really on how abstract you want to go...

 

now I agree that 40k rules as they stand are a fast play beer & pretzels game...

 

however I would like a bit more advanced rules - now whilst this will slow the game down slightly I feel that it would aid balance 

 

edit - now what I mean by that is things like the Sisters of Battle with 2 weapon systems for range 48"+  so things that aid 'lesser' AT weapons kill vehicles aids the sisters.  

 

it helps balance the rules for weapon systems - which is something that people seem to be getting vocal on (see the return of templates & effectiveness of CC threads) and helps the ability to balance factions as a whole

 

example if you had a rear arc you can add extra rules such invuns suffer a -1 in the rear arc (due to the engines) which then opens a tactical solution to the IH dread ball  (get behind it).  

 

It also opens more tactical movement reasons /options

 

 

EDIT 2 - However ... I also agree that adding vehicle facings in as a solo errata wont do much except add general complexity and needs a weapons overhaul to be effective in doing what I would like to see it achieve.... 

[Marshal Rohr]

Wild idea: if you don’t want vehicles facings in 8th, don’t comment in a thread about ideas to do them in 8th. Nobody walks into your house and pisses in your Cheerios. Don’t do it to someone else.

[Panzer]

Facings would be much easier with rectangular bases but that's a thing of the past as facings are. ^^

[Marshal Rohr]

Facings would be much easier with rectangular bases but that's a thing of the past as facings are. ^^

You can do the circular bases, just have to orient the quadrants.

[Panzer]

Wild idea: if you don’t want vehicles facings in 8th, don’t comment in a thread about ideas to do them in 8th. Nobody walks into your house and pisses in your Cheerios. Don’t do it to someone else.

 

Wild idea: if you want an echo chamber where nobody says anything against your idea, open a blog where you can moderate the comments section yourself instead of posting in a forum. As long as posts are civilised and ontopic it should be fine.