Facing

[alcyone]

Most virtual tabletops offer some kind of facing, and when you play with minis of course, you can change their facing. I notice this doesn't come up much in games I play in. To determine back or flank attacks, some kind of facing is necessary (though many CKs use the d20 flanking rules).

The C&C rules don't say how to determine facing, though it would be reasonable to say something like you can choose facing when you move, and maybe in response to one attack per round, maybe with further changes based on a dex siege check.

It might serve to spice up combat, though of course complicates it somewhat.

[Rigon]

The way I handle facing in my games is basically what makes sense. If a combatant attacked another combatant, I assume he is facing that combatant. If a different combatant moves into postion next to the first one, I determine that the new combatant is either flanking or behind (based on placement) of the original combatant. I don't get overly technical with it. I find that for the most part, combats work themselves out fairly well without adding the extra complications of worrying too much about facing.

R-

[alcyone]

That is how I usually do it as well.

[pawndream]

I also do what makes sense when it comes to facing and not worrying that much about tactical aspects of combat. I think C&C works best when you just do what makes sense, without having codified rules for every little situation. The lack of codified rules also gives everyone much more freedom to be more creative during combat, without having to fret about mechanical advantage/disadvantage.

There are better games (e.g., 3.5/4e D&D), for tactical combat, if that's what you want out of the game. Trying to tack that stuff onto C&C seems counter-intuitive to me, but every table is different.

[Lurker]

I also do what makes sense when it comes to facing and not worrying that much about tactical aspects of combat. I think C&C works best when you just do what makes sense, without having codified rules for every little situation. The lack of codified rules also gives everyone much more freedom to be more creative during combat, without having to fret about mechanical advantage/disadvantage.

There are better games (e.g., 3.5/4e D&D), for tactical combat, if that's what you want out of the game. Trying to tack that stuff onto C&C seems counter-intuitive to me, but every table is different.

I completely agree with you on the simplicity of C&C and using common sense

My problem is that I used to enjoy miniature table top war gaming ... right now I have something like 300 minies in my shop that need to be painted that I probably never will get to doing it ... Therefore, I too easily revert to trying to use proper tactics and table top battle mindset when I do combat. It is something I have to force my self out of !

[Omote]

I use facing as it is very important to the flanking and rear attack rules. Common sense is king, but if a non-sneaky combatant (i.e. a moisy monster or an armored warrior) comes into melee with a character, as long as that character has yet to take an action in the round, I let them rotate their facing to meet the enemy head on. However, of the target of the attack has already used his action in the round, I don't let them rotate or adjust their facing. In this case, if an opponent attacks their flank or from behind, it was because the target is, or has, put all of his attention into the attack or action he made. They could be caught off guard in this way. If the target uses their action, it behooves them to position themselves that so when the attack/use an action, they do so in such a way to prevent the enemy from getting behind them.

~O

[AndyMac]

From AD&D, there was a facing diagram. I'll try to find it and upload it. On a square grid, like a tic-tac-toe board and with the character is in the middle square, the top three squares were facing, the two side squares were flank and the bottom three squares were rear.

I'll try to find the picture.

[Omote]

For C&C, that diagram is slightly different. With a figure in the center square, the enemies in the front 3 squares, plus each square to the side of the center square would be considered the front. The square immediately "behind" the center square is a rear attack, and the two squares on either end of the rear attack are considered "flank."

~O

[Captain_K]

Did we not chat about this as facing was a "move" a minor one, but if you could half move then you can change face even easier.. plus thieves and assassins need it and barbarians ignore it so you need to address it in some manner. I assume PC are facing the way of direction, aka marching, then the way of something obvious, then what they tell me they're doing, then the way their mini is facing... so I like to use the mini and default to the mini when all else fails.,, but usually logic carries the day.

[AndyMac]

I, as CK, change their facing on their initiative. It does not count against movement, and they turn to put the most advantageous situation in place. In a case where more than one "facing" is optimal, they can pick which way to face. I use the flank and rear attack bonuses as the criteria for deciding which "facing" is optimal.