So I gave up on Amazon and my copy of Normandy is now enroute from an online retailer so I should have this in my hands by next weekend (fingers crossed). I have read through the rules and while happy that some of the turret-less vehicles have been introduced I was a little disappointed that they failed to advance the bar by introducing some facing rules. At the tactical scale of ToI I feel that this is a must.

I have looked through some of the other rule suggestion brought forward. Some great ideas there. So I complied and simplified some of these ideas to help progress the concept. While some playtesting is still needed before I adopt them as Haus Rules, I thought I would offer them here to see if there are any other suggestions or ideas that folks have.

Let me know your thoughts...

Facing

Tanks must be facing one of the six sides of the hex to account for some vehicles without turrets and to help determine some of the factors on the dice rolls.

Reversing

Reversing the vehicle initially costs an extra movement point (ie. 2 MP for the first hex in reverse) but is normal thereafter (ie. 1MP for each hex after the first). Again the facing cost would apply as above.

Side and Rear attacks

If attacking a vehicle from the Side the attacker gets a single die re-roll, Rear attacks get 2 dice re-roll.

Low Profile

If a vehicle has a ‘low profile’ trait, when attacked, the unit gets to re-roll a single defense die.

High Profile

If a vehicle has a ‘High profile’ trait, the attacking unit gets to re-roll a single attack die.

Brummbar said:

Simple solutions to a simple problem. I do not think we need the extra turning-while-moving rules, a simple face-in-whatever-direction-you-like at the end of a move would be sufficient.

And then there a few, not many, vehicles, where front and rear armor are nearly identical in strength (would have to dig out ASL to find them).

KlausFritsch said:

But then we still would need a rule for Op Fire during movement, when fired upon with Op Fire during movement, a vehicle counts as having its rear end facing the hex-side just crossed.

Hm.

What about combined fire? Do all firers get re-rolls depending on angle of fire?

KlausFritsch said:

This is why one would need to move the unit hex by hex (which you should anyway for Op Fires). It also plays into the realism of the move. So if you move 1 hex, you get one free face change only. If you need to turn about, then that is reflected in the cost to turn the remaining hexes. While trying to keep them simple, these are 'advanced' rules.

I meant to create a diagram. Picture is worth a thousand words eh?

KlausFritsch said:

Excellent question! I forgot to mention this. The answer would be 'no'. Basically, the combined fire rules would still apply (ie. the worst favourable conditions apply) So if combined with a different firing unit that would face the front, the unit that would normally get the bonus, wouldn't unless it fired on it's own.

KlausFritsch said:

There would be very few of these indeed...in fact, I think the only vehicle I think this could possibly apply to would be the Archer because it's backwards already LOL. In general, the frontal armour of all tanks tends to be the best thickness. Exceptions could be made though on a case by case basis. I'm just going for the blanket rules here.

Thanks for your input Klaus, certainly some food for thought. Let me know if you come up with any other situations that may apply.

Cheers!

We have introduced some simple facing and arc of fire rules for assault guns (Jagpanzer & StuG). A hull mounted gun has a fire arc starting at the space directly in front of the gun and doubles each hex from there, counting half hexes as in the arc. Turreted AFVs ignore fire arc rules. To turn their facing AFVs simply end their move and :Flash: in the direction they want to face.

Brummbar said:

1 - Would Op Fire be conducted before or after the facing change after a 1-hex move?

2 - Most games apply the worst favourable conditions to the target unit to simulate the increased effectiveness of cross-fire. I would say that no more than one (at least one firing unit is in the side arc) or two (shot from the rear) dice may be re-rolled. But I would also apply this to combined fire from various directions to keep the cross-fire factor of such situations.

KlausFritsch said:

I would think that the Op Fire is still conducted on the 'move' portion as opposed to the facing. So when a unit moves into the hex, it is subject to Op Fire then, assuming it survives and can still move, it made continue with it's facing.

Op Fire could also be triggered on a pure facing move. So there is one facing that is free (ie. the vehicle can change one face and fire and it's still considered Concentrated Fire) however, if the vehicle pivots another facing which would constitute movement it would become subject to Op Fire.

Also note, if a turret-less vehicle is immobilized, it is stuck with it's facing. It may no longer pivot in the hex.

Good point about the Combined Fire. Initially I thought to stay as close to the existing rules (ie. Range and Combined Fire). However, it would still make sense as you point out above to just keep them as the maximum re-roll dice. A tank on the flank is still a tank on the flank, his shot would be just as potent if someone else is shooting at the same target.

I'll amend my document.

Thanks again Klaus.

Let me know folks if there are any other situations that I may have overlooked.

Brummbar said:

Hm, there are actions expending movement points without moving that do not trigger Op Fire, such as placing an entrenchment, and those that do, such as leaving an entrenchment. I guess it is up to you to decide which type of movement point expenditure you want turning in place to be.

What I did not think of earlier are vehicles with zero armor. I would not grant re-rolls to shots at the side or rear of a truck, because trucks or jeeps have exactly the same amount of armour all around (0).

One more thing that has always slightly bothered me is the ability of machine-guns to damage and eventually even destroy tanks (admittedly with a lot of luck and patience, but still possible). Flank and rear shots by MGs increase that possibility, when in reality, the bullets should still bounce of the armor even of light tanks. The only effect imaginable (at least to me) is wounding or killing the tank commander looking out of his hatch and then that's it for MGs.

We have been playing facing for about 2 months. Here is how we have done it.

When the vehicle activates and moves the first hex, it is subject to OP fire. Its facing is what it was before. Flank is still a flank. When the vehicle ends movement it is then faced in the direction desired. Unless the vehicle turns (to clear an obsticle) is facing during movement is the same as it started with.

One difference we do is to allow the vehicle to face the spline line or the hex side. Slight difference. If facing the spline line the two hexes in front are the frontal facing for incoming and outgoing fire. If it faces the hex side , only the hex faced is considered frontal, frontal then expands outward as in a triangle.

Turn and facing changes movement cost are a pain in the -------. and do not add anything to playability. Keep it simple , face the vehicle at the end of movement.

KlausFritsch said:

More good points Klaus...I agree (and have amended) that vehicle change of facing would not trigger Op Fire. It does appear that in accordance with the existing rules that actions that occur in the same hex do not trigger Op Fire. It would be best to keep in line with this.

As for the other vehicles...I was thinking these rules would only apply to Heavy Vehicles. I'll be sure to make that clear. Thanks.

MG's area peculiar case aren't they? I agree that in general, an MG won't cause much grief at all to tanks regardless of the facing. I generally don't like make exceptions to rules, they tend to add complications, but in this case, I also agree that the re-rolls simply don't apply to MG fire. Nor should they apply to Mortar or Artillery fire.

To address the methods raised by Ghengisgarber and oneway76...thanks for the posts. I had thought of the simple route of changing the facing at the end of the move but found that to be too un-realistic for me. When we play, I make sure to move hex by hex affording my opponent their Op Fire. We just found that method didn't work properly and left too much to be debated. I also like to keep the facing clean on hex flats only. It affords plenty of opportunities to cover the angles while keeping the determination of the 'side' and 'rear' concept consistent and clear.

Again, thanks for the ideas though.

Brummbar said:

I agree.

Hi,

It seems everbody is playing with the same ideas.

For low profiles , we use this:

If the vehicle is in any hex that has a different terrain as opposed to 'clear', it rceives +1 cover versus normal and +2 cover versus long range attacks.

The eaon is that low profiles can make great use of terrain to hide in, although they do not have better armour. Als, whith range, this effect gets worse while, if you're right next to it, it doesn't realy matter.

A Hetzer would be a typical example.

We've also made rules for Marders and Sdkfz234's (Puma).

Have fun

Silverwings said:

Good idea Silverwings. Range would make sense, the further away, the harder it is to fire on. I'm not as sure about cover though, even out in the open targeting a low profile vehicle is difficult. Something to think about....

Thanks.

Silverwings said:

Isn't this why Long Range attacks score on 6s? Seems to add to that low probability hit...

Love to see your Puma stats.

7times7is49 said:

Good point...it keeps thing simple if range isn't taken into effect. I'm not sold on an additional die either, I think a re-roll would more accurately reflect the low profile situation.

I see re-rolls as armor deflections though...

7times7is49 said:

As in Sloped armour...hmmm...true.

Perhaps it should be a subtracted die on the attack (in the case of low profile) and an addition of a die (in the case of high profile). The only problem with adding or subtracting dice (as with the case of providing a bonus for cover as in the previous example) is that it does provide a greater potential for damage ( or less in the case of the low profile). I'm not so sure that is accurate either. For example a high profile vehicle is simply easier to hit, if an additional die is granted to the attacker, it's not just a matter of increasing the chances to hit (which it does) but with the ToI system, it also may increase the damage done. I'm not sure that it should.

So while I agree that re-rolls tend to simulate an armour deflection, they are also the best candidate to reflect the low and high profile vehicles as they don't potentially increase or decrease the total amount of damage that can be done. Consider a round that hits near the top of the hull. It would normally strike a spot that on a turreted vehicle would certainly be a hit. Without the turret, it may potentially deflect off, thus the re-roll.

To keep it relativly simple why not add a bit of armor to the vehicle, to simulate the greater chance that a hit might bounce off?

Hefsgaard said:

I had thought of this, but dismissed it as it increases the potential to block more damage than it should. for example, 4 dice with a re-roll can only block up to 4 hits. Whereas 5 dice with no re-roll could potentially block up to 5 hits. The vehicle is harder to hit not necessarily tougher.

When the reading we want is how badly the tank is affected, it does not make any diffrence. Its all about shifting odds on d6's anyway. An exeptional armor roll blocking more dice than expected, just means that all the nice hits glanced of the manlet or something. The dice are a funktion of Aim, Power, Penetration, Armor thickness, Slope and Cover, not to mention pure luck. Who is to say why the dice show what they show. So yes, a few exeptionaly times the armor will stop a whooping 5 hits, totaly negating the already exeptional 5 hits. Its still just a bounce off armor. bad luck gunner. mostly it will just roll one in three more armor saves.

Hefsgaard said:

Play it whichever way you like. However, this method only increases the total potential hits blocked which is, in my opinion, something that heavier armour would do. A re-roll on the other hand gives an opportunity for a potential hit to miss after all while not increasing in any way the total amount of damage the vehicle can sustain. My method can account for both situations without the need to compromise.

Thanks for your input though.

How about dividing in small and large targets instead of low profile? a panzer I might not be considered low profile, but compared to a panzer V it is indeed small.

Simple solution is of course to figure that part of the Armor value they have, already figures size into the equation. Proberly why an american halftrack HAS armor at all.

I quite like the notion that vehicles may turn one hexside even if doing concentrated attacks. I suppose it would be reasonable to extend this to setting OP-fire as well?

My suggestion to the whole facing and armor problem is to increase front armor of all tanks by one, since usualy it did have more armor there. Side and rear were usualy about the same. The top of tanks have always been much weaker(as well as bottom of course) So I would lower the armor there(Balistic, Artillery and Air), to a minimum of one. And additional +1 to attacks if open topped.

Combined fire and re-rolls: If the attacker wants the re-rolls, all he has to do is make the one in the rear facing Primary. Games are alle about choices, more dice or more re-rolls.