Facing, Do we really need it?

[spiritual_exorcist]

Ok, I'm sure may of you are going to read this and roll your eyes, but I'll speak my mind anyways because I think it would be an improvement worth having in the game.

 

One of the few mechanics in Warlord that I detest is facing, I find it complicates the game, and in many ways doesn't make logical sense given the dynamic nature of combat to impose such a static principle.

 

Why, might you ask, do you want to get rid of it?

 

1) Because it feels like an old and tired mechanic that has its place in miniature gaming from a decade ago, not in todays miniature gaming world.

 

2) Because it complicates things that could be much simpler.

 

3) Because it feels cheesy or dirty when I attack or am attacked in the Rear. I've always looked on it with a lot of disdain and bitterness.

 

Valid Base-to-Base Contact

I point towards the diagram on page 61 of the rulebook (1st ed), that demostrates valid BtB contact. An attacker can attack the defenders corner but not make attacks from its own corner. Why bother with this? It appears to be a complication for complications sake (especially when you start talking about an attacking model being able to attack, but the defending model not being able to make attacks strikes from its corner). If two models are touching in any manner allow them to attack each other.

 

Rear Facing

Just my opinion, but I find the idea of a rear facing on a given model antiquated in miniature games, it is annoying and not worth having in my opinion (i'll deal with 360 and Backstab later). Combatants are spinning and whirling dynamic beings, I really dislike the notion of a Rear attack on such a model. It is just more book keeping, and in my experience has always left me feeling ripped off for some reason.

 

Facing Adjustments

This are sometimes overlooked when moving many models around the board and it can have grave consequences, if the Base-to-Base contact was broadened and the notion of rear facing dropped it would be unnecessary to have this rule.

 

360

This SA wouldn't be needed anymore, it could simply be dropped, I don't think it would take anything away from the models that have it, it might simply make them a point or two cheaper depending on what they are paying for the ability.

 

Backstab

I consider this ability important to the game, and I wouldn't remove it, merely change what it does. In a world without rear facing it could do any manner of things:

 

1) Perhaps it could reduce the effectiveness of Defensive strikes against the model (+4 DV vs. Defensive strikes?)

 

2) It could prevent defensive strikes from being made against the model entirely (Attacks by the mode might still provoke defensive strikes but such strikes could not be made against an attacker with backstab)

 

3) It could make the model immune to First Strike, Disable, and Warmaster

 

4) It could simply be replaced with critical strike/x

[Brushmaster]

I've always hated the corners b2b ruling , just doesn't seem fair .

I don't know about replacing Backstab with critical strike as you have to give up a non-combat action to do it .

[Fruggs]

I think Facing is fine as it is. It seems that you should have to adjust where you are facing to be able to hit.

 

Although the model being attacked should be able to return defensive strikes to any model as long as the attacking model doesn't have backstab.

I dislike the idea of backstab should not be able to negate first strike, disable, and warmaster. It makes the ability too powerful considering how much you pay in point cost for first strike, disable and warmaster.

[Gaming Glen]

"Do we really need it?"

 

In short, yes. It is a tactic that can be used. Maneuvering tactics seem to be given the short shift in miniature games these days. What happened to flanking? Lines, columns, and squares were useful tactics with ancient armies, and most fantasy army units are still equipped in a similar fashion (i.e., spears, axes, bows, cavalry). Now Warlord is a skirmish game, not a large formation game, but having a weakness based on maneuvering does add a little element to tactics. Otherwise, why bother with figures and just roll lots of dice, the one with the highest rolls win (or play the card game War).

 

In a related area, a friend, when he comes into town, and I get together to play miniature spaceship combat games, first it was Full Thrust and now it's Starmada. But I've gotten tired of facing his WW2 ships mounted with "warp nacelles" and their 240 degree arc-of-fire weapons. I've designed all sorts of ships based on all the scifi miniatures I have (i.e., Star Trek, Star Wars, B5) and finally, out of frustration to the lack of maneuvering that is necessary, am ready to design "flying saucers" with 360 degree weapons and use poker chips to represent them. But I haven't because that does not seem like it would be much fun.

[shakhak]

I like the facing rules. I've always found them much simplier than the way other games do it.

 

 

If anything, I would get rid of the Defender adjust. I don't mind how it works now, but it is one of the more confusing rules.

[joshuaslater]

If you've ever participated in martial arts and done 3 man sparring, that is, fighting two opponents, than facing makes a lot of sense. It's difficult enough to represent the chaotic nature of combat with static models and dice, but get rid of facing and every model is now some flying ninja on wires from some Hong Kong produced martial arts film.

 

Strap on some sixty pounds or so of armor, grab a heavy shield, put your visor down on your helmet, and tell me you can spin, johnny on the spot to parry the attack of someone behind you.

[DanyBoy]

I am fine with the facing rules as they are right now; it is an important facet of tactical maneuver and can be exploited by a good player. The only thing I have problem coming to terms with is the rule concerning corner defensive strikes; I do not see why a defender can strike from its corners while an attacker cannot. In my opinion this is the only aspect of the facing rule that needs to be change, it should be the same for both attackers and defenders.

[wal enalut]

I like the facing rules. Although the B2B rules ned to be amended sligthly, if one model can strike, then the other model shoudl be able to as well. I would peronslaly like to see the rule amended so that there must be face to face cotnact to permit striokes from either model.

 

Finally, regardign the Defender's adjustment, it has always struck me that requiring a Dis. Check seemd reasonble. The check should be made when the the model is based by either the first or second models to enter B2B cotnact with it (but retain the rule that B2B with 2 enemy models prevents the defenders pivot). If passed, the model can make up to 1 90 degree pivot. If failed, the model is pinned.

[Knarfy]

I think that facing is pretty much fine as it is.

 

As for attacking on corners...

 

That seems kinda dumb. I just use the golden rule. If I can stab you, you can stab me. (unless Im in your rear XD)

[kristof65]

I like the tactical situations that facing allows you to use. OTH, I realize that facings are something that some players try and exploit.

 

Getting rid of facing gets rid of the exploit, but it also gets rid of the tactical side of it. I would actually rather put up with the exploits, than get rid of the tactics that facing allows. Why?

 

Because any player that repeatedly abuses the tactical advantages that facing gives them, is typically doing other things to exploit the rules as well, and someone I don't particularly want to play with. Since I'm not playing in tournaments, it's not a big deal for me.

 

Anyway, we had a similar situation arise in another game system - we house-ruled that any model that was otherwise not occupied in B2B combat that was being approached from any angle other than their rear facing could turn to face the attacker at no cost/penalty. Any model in b2b combat could turn to face any attacker in b2b with it prior to the combat results being rolled.

 

For the former situation, our reasoning was that an attentive person not otherwise distracted or engaged watching an opponent run towards him is going to turn to face the threat, even if the threat is trying to circle around behind him. In a hand 2 hand combat situation, most reasonable fighters are going to turn to face the bulk of their opponents.

 

Unfortunately, something like our house rule is difficult to word in such a way that doesn't leave it exploitable without running several pages worth of text and diagrams. In fact, I think that's a problem with a lot of game rules - the more you try and tighten up the rules or eliminate certain aspects to prevent exploits, one of two things happens - the game gets so simple as to not "feel real" or the rules get so complex they're unwieldy.

 

Personally, I'm happy with the facing rules as they are, though I do beleive that the verbage on some things relating to it should be looked at to make the intent of them as obvious as possible.

[joshuaslater]

I like the way Knarfy summed it up. Warlord isn't my favorite game, but the idea is simple; if the attacker can hit you, the defender can hit back. I prefer systems where it gets even more interesting when a model with a reach weapon like a spear can hit you from an inch away. As for the whole corners thing; I'll never forgive Reaper for making a skirmish game with squared bases.

[spiritual_exorcist]

In the end, I can live with actual facing, although as I said it feels dated (there are often problems figuring out which direction is the rear if it isn't clearly marked, and when a dozen models are jumping into combat adjustments can be overlooked etc)

 

I understand the loss in some tactical flexibility, and it was the #1 reason I didn't expect this to be well received.

 

One thing I do think needs to change is the rules regarding corner contact. I would agree corner on corner contact should be void and neither party should be able to attack, but any other sort of contact should allow both parties involved to attack without rotation. I can list several examples of situations where one model is unable to attack and the other is now (I believe a model always gets its defensive strikes).

 

In short, yes. It is a tactic that can be used. Maneuvering tactics seem to be given the short shift in miniature games these days. What happened to flanking? Lines, columns, and squares were useful tactics with ancient armies, and most fantasy army units are still equipped in a similar fashion (i.e., spears, axes, bows, cavalry). Now Warlord is a skirmish game, not a large formation game, but having a weakness based on maneuvering does add a little element to tactics. Otherwise, why bother with figures and just roll lots of dice, the one with the highest rolls win (or play the card game War).

 

Would the removal simplify the game, yes, would it take something away from the game, yes, would in doing so would it make the game better, in my mind yes. But I've said right form the beginning I doubt many people would be on board with it. Removing this as a complication makes the game an easier sell in my mind.

 

If you've ever participated in martial arts and done 3 man sparring, that is, fighting two opponents, than facing makes a lot of sense. It's difficult enough to represent the chaotic nature of combat with static models and dice, but get rid of facing and every model is now some flying ninja on wires from some Hong Kong produced martial arts film.

 

I disagree, 3 vs. 1 still gain a huge +2 support bonus on every attack they make, that is a big penalty.

 

Finally, regarding the Defender's adjustment, it has always struck me that requiring a Dis. Check seemd reasonble. The check should be made when the the model is based by either the first or second models to enter B2B cotnact with it (but retain the rule that B2B with 2 enemy models prevents the defenders pivot). If passed, the model can make up to 1 90 degree pivot. If failed, the model is pinned

 

Complicates matters even further, i'd fight tooth and nail against something like this.

 

As for Backstab, I was merely tossing out ideas, and depending upon what a new version did its point cost would change appropriately. Keep in mind Backstab/x generally appears on some pretty wimpy models.

 

Like I said, I was just musing, if the only thing that comes out of this is a change to the corner contact rules I can for sure live with the existence of a Rear facing. I'll just shake my head when someone plunks 3 grunts in my front and sends their Warlord to the rear for the +1 bonus and my inability to defensive strike them. Gee Duke Gerard and General Matisse are just brave warriors running behind me all the time . Actually, rear facing doesn't come into play all that often in our game play anyway.

[kristof65]

I'll just shake my head when someone plunks 3 grunts in my front and sends their Warlord to the rear for the +1 bonus and my inability to defensive strike them. Gee Duke Gerard and General Matisse are just brave warriors running behind me all the time .

That's the kind of thing that annoys the crap out of me. Yes, it's within the rules, but IMO, it ruins the flavor of the game. If someone in one of my game group's was doing that repeatedly, they would be getting such a ration of crap for doing so.

[Saint Vierzehn]

[Find a more positive way of expressing yourself]. The facing rules work, and work well. Getting rid of them would lower the value of tactical play.

 

-StV.

[spiritual_exorcist]

Get over it, SE. The facing rules work, and work well. Getting rid of them would lower the value of tactical play.

 

-StV.

 

Yes Lord Ashkrypt, sorry for forgetting my place and my lack of entitlement to an opinion as a Bondslave.

 

 

As I said, I can live with facing as-is, but the basic BtB contact has aspects that are unneeded and broken enough that can be exploited. The are situations where one model can attack, and during the defending models activation, assuming it is locked in, can't attack back because of corner contact, this needs to be changed.