I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me
Most games I see. I don’t feel like digging up links. But they set up like 24” apart and just exchange shots and charge immediately. May as well just roll dice and not even bother with having armies since it is totally up to the dice gods and not anything else
There isn't really much incentive to fire and manoeuvre in 40K.
There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.
The only real decision in movement in 40k for a shooting unit is "can I see the enemy I want to shoot?". For melee it is "does this get me closer to the enemy I want to charge?" with a side of "am I exposed to something which I don't want shooting at me?"
If you're after a game where positioning and movement are important on more than a "my cheap sacrifical unit needs to be x" away from my big gun unit to prevent deep strikers from arriving in range" level, then 40K is not the game you're looking for.
warpedpig wrote: I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me
Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"
ArcaneHorror wrote: Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"
The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.
It happens. I try and play smaller games that can be a little more tactical - need to stretch your troops, sacrifice control points, go for key targets...
You deploy a character killer and your enemy deploys the character on the other side of the field, or deepstrikes them, etc etc. You sigh.
We usually do 4-6 big pieces of terrain, if we can't decide we roll off a D3. We take turns to place them similar to control points (9 inch away from another one, more then 6 inch from a side/edge - a bit more rough than that but that's the general theme). We put them down not knowing what the deployment will be (unless it's a story missions)
Small scatter terrain just gets muddled around on if it's cool or not.
Follow the rules for deployment order and choosing deployment style... too many people use Dawn of War although that's good for me in a melee army.
People just normally stick with 2,000 points and they have to fill to board in some cases, so they end up looking like lines of troops.
There are too many simplified and possibly exaggerated things called facts here. All kinds of games are played (some with little terrain, as two players with gunlines will want that, some with lots: scenarios, CC armies want it, etc).
Movement does Matter in 40k. Claims otherwise are again too simplified. Terrain, victory conditions, army types all contribute. Agreed, other games bring it in at a much higher level.
To get tactical movement in this game, you must make it a requirement to win the game. Objectives scattered, bonus VP for reaching across the table, etc.
Also: (My experiences, not orders, Dakka often mistakes the two in posts)
The rules could be better. No one argues with that. Move beyond, though, because the game is about playing with people. It is not a single player video game, it is a hobby and social game.
Let players play the game they want to play without slinging mud at them or at the system itself. Play the game you want to play by finding players who enjoy it the way you do. If those players you mention in your first post then complain the game sucks...they made it that way. If you try to play a gunline player and they insist no LOS terrain (or you as close range or CC army insist on way too much) then the player is again the problem. I have run into both sides. (A player who wanted terrain only on the edge of deployment zones, and a player who always brought a large ruin which included a solid wall that stretched across a huge percentage of the table) If a player insisted on this type of terrain deployment, or then used their compromise as an excuse as to why they lost, I give them a chance through conversation to see the issue. If they still can't I don't play them again. In this way you can build a good group of like minded (notice I am not claiming right minded, that is opinion and varies) players who enjoy the game as a group.
Play to have close games, they are generally more fun and engaging. Try to win, do not try to win through unfair advantages that lessen the fun of the game.
Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.
There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.
The only real decision in movement in 40k for a shooting unit is "can I see the enemy I want to shoot?". For melee it is "does this get me closer to the enemy I want to charge?" with a side of "am I exposed to something which I don't want shooting at me?"
If you're after a game where positioning and movement are important on more than a "my cheap sacrifical unit needs to be x" away from my big gun unit to prevent deep strikers from arriving in range" level, then 40K is not the game you're looking for.
You must have many lvo/adepticon/big tourney first place wins under your belt.
The terrain rules for the game are crap which makes using terrain crap. As pointed out above there is little to no tactical decision making besides unstanding target priority.
40k just isnt a very tactical game. Its strategic in the list building. But thats about it.
Grimtuff wrote: The planet Bo'lingbawl is a much sought after territory, some say even moreso than Vigilus. That's why loads of 40k players fight over it.
That´s correct. I always see it whenever I visit the local GW store.
auticus wrote: Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.
Some people don't like spending time messing with it
Since I started playing in 3rd ed. there's always been a contingent of players who have disliked using terrain, other than a deployment zone armour/cover save bonus, as it would often mean that they couldn't shoot all their units all the time. There were even close combat players who disliked using terrain as it'd slow their army down getting across the board. I've never understood it myself, since having a decent bit of LoS blocking terrain, particularly in the middle areas of the board, adds a tactical layer and generally puts a bit more action into the game.
warpedpig wrote: I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me
In our gaming club, one has a lot of terrain on the boards.
In my games, I always try to get all weapons to bear (Necrons, Eldar in round 1, GK in round 2).
This requires some mobility. Standing and shooting is something you see from players without a plan.
there is no tactical reason to flank or do stuff because there is no fog of war, no facings, moral is worthless in most games, and most games are games of shooting (usually half the table)
FOW/team yankee being a tank game makes it so maneuvering for side armor is important. (many armies cannot piece front armor but side is really vulnerable). it would be fine for 40k if it wasnt for the fact that many weapons just reck vehicles anyway. unless the fronts of all vehicles get super strong there will be no reason to attempt to move to side armor when volume of fire takes out vehicles just as easy (40k vehicles became garbage for a while when hull points came out)
old WHFB gave bonus for flank combat but that was also because units moved in big blocks.
40k would be weird in fixed blocks, and loose models with individual facings are going to get weird. i think it could and should work in skirmish level games like munda and kill teams
TarkinLarson wrote: It happens. I try and play smaller games that can be a little more tactical - need to stretch your troops, sacrifice control points, go for key targets...
You deploy a character killer and your enemy deploys the character on the other side of the field, or deepstrikes them, etc etc. You sigh.
We usually do 4-6 big pieces of terrain, if we can't decide we roll off a D3. We take turns to place them similar to control points (9 inch away from another one, more then 6 inch from a side/edge - a bit more rough than that but that's the general theme). We put them down not knowing what the deployment will be (unless it's a story missions)
Small scatter terrain just gets muddled around on if it's cool or not.
Follow the rules for deployment order and choosing deployment style... too many people use Dawn of War although that's good for me in a melee army.
People just normally stick with 2,000 points and they have to fill to board in some cases, so they end up looking like lines of troops.
I'd be curious what you consider a big piece of terrain, on a 4x4 for 1000 points we're using twice that.
auticus wrote: Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.
It's yet another lost art (despite there being numerous Youtube channels on the subject...). Too many newer players I see thinking they have to use GW kits for terrain, and are thus put off by it. I have inexpensive hills in my collection made from tinfoil and papier mache. The most expensive part of them (and all my terrain) was probably the plasticard they're based on and even that could have been got for free if you know where to scrounge from. I have silos made from hot chocolate tubs and bits of copper pipe. If you work retail till roll centres are a godsend for pipe. Terrain is expensive as you make it, but you can get good-looking stuff for cheap.
auticus wrote: Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.
It's yet another lost art (despite there being numerous Youtube channels on the subject...). Too many newer players I see thinking they have to use GW kits for terrain, and are thus put off by it. I have inexpensive hills in my collection made from tinfoil and papier mache. The most expensive part of them (and all my terrain) was probably the plasticard they're based on and even that could have been got for free if you know where to scrounge from. I have silos made from hot chocolate tubs and bits of copper pipe. If you work retail till roll centres are a godsend for pipe. Terrain is expensive as you make it, but you can get good-looking stuff for cheap.
Also, as long as your table will hold a bit of weight, go somewhere there's a few large rocks. Pick up said rocks. Hey presto, terrain.
When you turn vehicles into giant meat sacks without regard to facing, there is no longer any reason to fight with or against vehicles in a way that resembles real vehicle tactics.
auticus wrote: Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.
It's yet another lost art (despite there being numerous Youtube channels on the subject...). Too many newer players I see thinking they have to use GW kits for terrain, and are thus put off by it. I have inexpensive hills in my collection made from tinfoil and papier mache. The most expensive part of them (and all my terrain) was probably the plasticard they're based on and even that could have been got for free if you know where to scrounge from. I have silos made from hot chocolate tubs and bits of copper pipe. If you work retail till roll centres are a godsend for pipe. Terrain is expensive as you make it, but you can get good-looking stuff for cheap.
Also, as long as your table will hold a bit of weight, go somewhere there's a few large rocks. Pick up said rocks. Hey presto, terrain.
Knew I forgot something from that list. Yes, my terrain collection has a few boulder scatter terrain bits made from real rocks.
Grimtuff wrote: The planet Bo'lingbawl is a much sought after territory, some say even moreso than Vigilus. That's why loads of 40k players fight over it.
Well, the winner gets to find out what's in the finger holes. All three of them. Legends say that there is a mint condition STC or a way to revive the emperor. To be sure, many stories say all that is there are is nurglings and pocket lint, but only the victor of Bo'lingbawl (and Indrick Boreale) know for sure.
This kinda thing always sounds like "hobby shaming" to me. "This isn't the way I think the game should be played, so let's all point and laugh." Do I think anyone here actually wants to shame people away from 40k? No. But it can happen, and that's always pretty depressing to me.
My suggestion is that if you see it, and it bothers you, just offer to teach them "the right way". If they're uninterested, you gotta learn to let it go.
A related anecdote: when me and my brother were kids, he always used to eat his hotdogs "the wrong way". Basically, he would eat the "skin" of the hotdogs first, then eat the insides. Did I think it was weird? Of course. But I let him do it because who am I to judge how someone else enjoys something?
Terrain "can" matter a ton in 8th, but people are generally lazy. I mean, most people are fine chasing tokens on a blank table...and then lamenting the tactical element that's lacking in the game.
That and people who play 40K seem to be heavily in the "don't fix anything!" camp - afraid to adjust anything in a game, despite the rulebook categorically stating "these are just some examples of terrain rules, feel free to make your own!".
When you have a nearly empty table with a handful of ruins and barrels on it, you're never going to have terrain matter. A lot of people won't spend time or money on terrain (heck they don't paint their minis either most of the time), so "token" amounts of terrain is pretty standard, particularly at game stores.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"
The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.
4 parts per million sounds more like space marine lore.
flandarz wrote: This kinda thing always sounds like "hobby shaming" to me. "This isn't the way I think the game should be played, so let's all point and laugh." Do I think anyone here actually wants to shame people away from 40k? No. But it can happen, and that's always pretty depressing to me.
My suggestion is that if you see it, and it bothers you, just offer to teach them "the right way". If they're uninterested, you gotta learn to let it go.
A related anecdote: when me and my brother were kids, he always used to eat his hotdogs "the wrong way". Basically, he would eat the "skin" of the hotdogs first, then eat the insides. Did I think it was weird? Of course. But I let him do it because who am I to judge how someone else enjoys something?
Not everything is relative and subjective. Some things are objectively wrong. If I want to play a game of soccer against someone and they insist on picking the ball up because 'they enjoy it' that way doesn't mean it's the correct way to do it. Wargames, thank goodness, are still social in nature. The way one person plays will affect the other person's experience. And terrain genuinely matters. Lots of LoS blocking stuff does make the game more interesting.
The big issue here is GW's bizarre fetish for fudged rules. Because the sdvanved terrain rules aren't in the main part of the book, people assume they're optional. The fact GW produce terrain that they want to sell and so they try to bolt stupid special rules to, complicates this.
The thing is, if my twin 5 year olds play "soccer" with each other, and use their hands, I'm not gonna get upset with them because "they ain't playing it right". I'll explain the proper rules, but at the end of the day, as long as they're having a good time, then I can't complain. Of course, this is different if they play with others who DO play "by the rules". In that case, it would be understandable for the people playing with them to get upset.
And that's where it kinda breaks for me. If I'm playing with someone, and they don't want to use much terrain, then I can decide not to play against them, I can try to convince them to use more terrain, or I can decide it isn't a big deal and play anyway. But if two people are playing each other, having agreed on their preferred manner of play, and I'm not involved at all, then why should I judge them? It literally does not affect me in the slightest.
Table size in G.W. stores at 4’ x 4’ is relatively small. Game weapon ranges are relatively long. Armies of 2,000pts crowd the table.
All together, this does not make for a movement game. Objectives help, but only if players _ have _ to move to claim them.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"
The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.
Maybe on the board, but in the fluff, I think that the possessed would be eating good that day.
A big part of it is probably that people love buying, assembling and painting 'their dudes', but some inanimate terrain? Not so appealing, which is a shame
Desubot wrote: Its just how most of these games will always be.
there is no tactical reason to flank or do stuff because there is no fog of war, no facings, moral is worthless in most games, and most games are games of shooting (usually half the table)
FOW/team yankee being a tank game makes it so maneuvering for side armor is important. (many armies cannot piece front armor but side is really vulnerable). it would be fine for 40k if it wasnt for the fact that many weapons just reck vehicles anyway. unless the fronts of all vehicles get super strong there will be no reason to attempt to move to side armor when volume of fire takes out vehicles just as easy (40k vehicles became garbage for a while when hull points came out)
old WHFB gave bonus for flank combat but that was also because units moved in big blocks.
40k would be weird in fixed blocks, and loose models with individual facings are going to get weird. i think it could and should work in skirmish level games like munda and kill teams
In 40K flanking would be more like moving so a target doesn't get cover. Other than that it would be, on a larger sense, a mission. One where you're attacking, or defending the end of a larger force.
amanita wrote:When you turn vehicles into giant meat sacks without regard to facing, there is no longer any reason to fight with or against vehicles in a way that resembles real vehicle tactics.
Also as a lot of folks already said its terrain. I spent a lot of time and money building/buying terrain for awesome gametables pre 8th only to find it functionally useless with 8th terrain rules.
All GW terrain is the same. If you can't gain LoS blocking from the terrain available you may as well just play that way or make some house rules.
Having said that most of the batreps I watch online are NOT like this
This reminds me of when WHFB 8th came out and some decried how powerful hordes or "5 wide 10+ deep" units were.
And then I took a look at one particular individual who used to post a lot on Warseer (gak I forget his name sorry) and it turned out he (and lots of others) played on minimal-terrain boards.
I had to do a loud *whisper* pssst GUESS WHAT?! A unit with the majority of it's models in a forest loses it's rank bonus...and it's steadfast bonus with that. Making them work on modified LD...
I think terrain should always be part of the criteria and consideration in these types of wargame when it comes to your tactics. It adds another element to think about and work with. It's why LOS blocking terrain can be very important.
As well as discussion on any house rules regarding terrain.
But of course people are free to play how they desire. I just think ignoring an entire aspect of the game to focus precisely on abstraction in as sterile an environment as possible, is part of the problem with gauging balance and trying to mete out a fair battle (or as close to as is reasonable).
Of course a lot of these issues are to do with the simplification of the rules and their inadequacy at representing certain aspects of the game.
A Town Called Malus wrote: There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.
As a GSC player there is no understating the value of encircling your enemy in CC. They can't run away and dump their entire army into shooting your rocksaws then.
With enough terrain I was able to lead knights on merry chases across the board and desperately hang onto objectives long enough to have a prayer. There isn't a huge mechanical advantage to it, but with enough LOS blockers they have to actually make a choice what they shoot at. It's up to you to make sure they actually have to make a choice rather than giving them direct line on everything.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"
The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.
Maybe on the board, but in the fluff, I think that the possessed would be eating good that day.
Fluff doesn't matter. Quite literally, unfortunately. The fluff doesn't help me win on the board, and almost nothing in BA fluff is real on the board.
warpedpig wrote: I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me
I think its a couple things.
1) People like to have big armies.
2) Tables are too small.
i see people playing 2k games where their deployment zones are just wall to wall models. I find that pretty crazy. And then you're playing on a 6x4 if you're lucky, or often even smaller.
In the ancient days 40k was a game of a couple squads and maybe a tank. Now some forces are bringing entire infantry companies with tank and aircraft support. The game has fundamentally increased in scope, but the tables haven't! And to top it off, the models have all gotten bigger!
I prefer to play 40k at 1k points. It means some units don't really work, but when I get a good game in there's often quite a bit of maneuvering around terrain to get to the objectives. But mostly I just play kill team lately.
I'm really curious to see what apocaylpse does, but I don't think it'll fix anything if we don't increase the table size too. Our toy soldiers are just too large and in too great of quantity.
Honestly, the biggest thing that I hated in this version was the need to create artificial screens. Throwing guys out in nets instead of hugging cover and protecting themselves just came over as dumb. It got a little better with the drop of Turn 1 deepstrikes but it still is the opposite of what I'd expect these miniatures to want to be doing. really just a minor gripe as i still think the game is fairly dynamic.
People always rally to the cry of "More LOS blocking terrain" but I think LoS blocking terrain is too all or nothing. There needs to be more variation to the mix of good terrain rules.
Pure LoS blocking terrain is a situation that makes unit unable to interact in any meaningful way. It doesn't make the game significantly better or more interesting. It's just a toggle switch between can shoot and can't shoot.
8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.
Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"
The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.
4 parts per million sounds more like space marine lore.
Have an Exalt
@MArtel732 - The background (not fluff) for the game is important to a significant chunk of the playerbase. In quite a few cases, I imagine it is one of the reasons they started playing in the first place. Just because BA are in a bad way at present, there's no need to run down an important cog in the mechanism which is 40k.
It honestly sounds to me like you just didn't understand what was going on well enough to know tell what was actually happened and came here with your little 'Principal Skinnard' moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vankraken wrote: 8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.
Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.
None of the directional stuff has mattered in practice since 5th edition (at the absolute earliest). Vehicle facings were a joke and every unit that had to worry about weapon arcs was so terrible no one brought them anyway.
The only meaningful part of the terrain rules were dedicated to making your tank blow up if it hit a bush.
The cover system in 8th is legitimately terrible but previous editions weren't much better, to the point where the the designers were so lost on what to do with it they just kept giving thing ignores cover until the only rule more common than 'ignores cover' was 'immune to morale'.
ERJAK wrote: It honestly sounds to me like you just didn't understand what was going on well enough to know tell what was actually happened and came here with your little 'Principal Skinnard' moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vankraken wrote: 8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.
Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.
None of the directional stuff has mattered in practice since 5th edition (at the absolute earliest). Vehicle facings were a joke and every unit that had to worry about weapon arcs was so terrible no one brought them anyway.
The only meaningful part of the terrain rules were dedicated to making your tank blow up if it hit a bush.
The cover system in 8th is legitimately terrible but previous editions weren't much better, to the point where the the designers were so lost on what to do with it they just kept giving thing ignores cover until the only rule more common than 'ignores cover' was 'immune to morale'.
I'm sorry but that's such an over generalization and completely devoid of reality. The point is that the game had mechanics in past editions that made positioning matter a lot more than we see know. Vehicle facings sure as hell mattered when it came to IKs, Baneblades, Stompas, etc if you want to look at only the most uber elite tourny lists while it also played an important role for things like transports. Outside of competitive lists, vehicle facings where an important factor and it again encouraged movement gameplay. Just because in the later half of 7th GW dumped the bed with their horrible game balance and power creep doesn't mean the mechanics in the core rules didn't matter at all.
Closest casualties mattered to everything ranging from a mob of Boyz with a PK nob and painboy down to that super invisible deathstar with that 2+ rerollable invuln save model tanking every shot. Blast weapons mattered a ton and greatly impacted how model spacing was done (tedious maybe but it's an important factor). Firing arcs where less of a factor but when it did come into play it could make for some interesting gameplay.
Past editions had it's flaws but I feel like your looking at the past with the opposite of rose tinted glasses. My view point is based on playing 7th after playing 8th a few times and being bored out of my mind with the bland gameplay of 8th. Jumping back to 7th was a huge jolt of excitement as all these factors came into play unlike 8th's bland gameplay loop.
The closest casualty thing was literally the worst rule they had ever put into 40k. Ever.
Yes, this rule works fine and dandy in a skirmish game or something like WMH with only 30-40 models on average per side. But 40k? Oh boy, no. How to slow the game down to a crawl 101 right there. There was a reason I sat out the dumbfethery of 6th and 7th.
In fact, any given 1344 square foot section of historical battlefield [28mm wargaming is approximately 1/56 scale IIRC] probably doesn't have a whole lot of terrain. Maybe one large object [like a farmhouse or hedgrow or small fence or wash], assuming it's an important section of battlefield. Actually, most historical battlefields generally didn't have very many features in general across the area in which a tactical-scale engagement occurred.
Anyway, as for the set of a 40k board, the typical board I play on has about 4-6 large LoS-blocking features [ruins and buildings] and maybe 4 area terrain pieces [craters and forests].
Also as a lot of folks already said its terrain. I spent a lot of time and money building/buying terrain for awesome gametables pre 8th only to find it functionally useless with 8th terrain rules.
All GW terrain is the same. If you can't gain LoS blocking from the terrain available you may as well just play that way or make some house rules.
Having said that most of the batreps I watch online are NOT like this
<rant>
You don't need house rules - the rules to fix the terrain were in CA18 and they do a pretty fine job of it. Not GW's fault if everyone playing "competitive" 40K ignores those rules and then ignoring them trickles all the way down to regular store games because people watch youtube videos rather than reading and thinking for themselves.
</rant>
Sorry about that. Wanted to get it off my chest. The terrain rules in CA18 really do fix most of the problems people have with terrain not being important enough.
Desubot wrote: Its just how most of these games will always be.
there is no tactical reason to flank or do stuff because there is no fog of war, no facings, moral is worthless in most games, and most games are games of shooting (usually half the table)
FOW/team yankee being a tank game makes it so maneuvering for side armor is important. (many armies cannot piece front armor but side is really vulnerable). it would be fine for 40k if it wasnt for the fact that many weapons just reck vehicles anyway. unless the fronts of all vehicles get super strong there will be no reason to attempt to move to side armor when volume of fire takes out vehicles just as easy (40k vehicles became garbage for a while when hull points came out)
old WHFB gave bonus for flank combat but that was also because units moved in big blocks.
40k would be weird in fixed blocks, and loose models with individual facings are going to get weird. i think it could and should work in skirmish level games like munda and kill teams
In 40K flanking would be more like moving so a target doesn't get cover. Other than that it would be, on a larger sense, a mission. One where you're attacking, or defending the end of a larger force.
While fair enough, cover in this game is mostly irrelevant due to ether people having very good BS or those with low BS having a lot of shots to mitigate it. or worse out right ignoring it (my yellow bois)
its not really that much of a detriment unless it is straight LOS blocking which may people dont have enough of, and most GW terrain is full on swiss cheese giving you the opportunity to just shoot through with no real issues.
the frame work is there but the terrain rules them selves are lacking.
Especially at hobby shops, you may be seeing the effects of a limited table size, limited time, and limited terrain selection on games.
Some hobby shops have few tables, so a quicker game may help more players get in a game that day. If X day is league day, there may be multiple players who all need to get in games from 'after work' until "store closes".
Some hobby shops have smaller tables, so the room for deployment is quite limited. Clever or interesting layouts can be hard with good sized armies on 4x4 or 3x5 tables, both of which I have seen at hobby shops.
A LOT of hobby shops either have limited terrain, or limited terrain in comparison to the tables available. Even a hobby shop with a good selection for 2-3 tables may have sparse looking tables when 3-6 tables are in use.
I do lament the loss of some positioning, maneuvering, and facing elements from 40K, but I've always liked skirmish and squad level combats more, so almost any detail elements that have dropped from the game rules are something I miss.
In fact, any given 1344 square foot section of historical battlefield [28mm wargaming is approximately 1/56 scale IIRC] probably doesn't have a whole lot of terrain. Maybe one large object [like a farmhouse or hedgrow or small fence or wash], assuming it's an important section of battlefield. Actually, most historical battlefields generally didn't have very many features in general across the area in which a tactical-scale engagement occurred.
Anyway, as for the set of a 40k board, the typical board I play on has about 4-6 large LoS-blocking features [ruins and buildings] and maybe 4 area terrain pieces [craters and forests].
depends on the era etc you're talking about, Napoleonic? sure, but then again combats of that era consisted of men lining up in neat lines and shooting each other. the terrain of note in those situations where hills etc, which could give some advantages. however elevation isn't something 40k is very good at representing.
however in a more modern battlefield you tend to see a lot of urban combat because that's where infantry can hole up in and avoid having to take direct fire from tanks.
I suppose at the end of the day you have to ask if 40K is more intreasting like this
or like
Now given the vast majorty of 40k terrain is ruined buildings, I think GW thinks the ideal 40k table should look more like the second image
To be fair, "urban combat" in modern military terms generally has less than 50 "infantry" on either side, with little to no mechanized assets (generally you'll have some light air support and that's it). So, 40k isn't going to give you that "modern warfare" appeal as much, because it's simply designed on a grander scale. Once two massive armies get into fighting distance, urban combat techniques simply become unviable. I mean, look at the picture you posted. There are literally like 5 people there. Large armies simply need lots of space to perform warfare. That sort of space isn't conducive to the small unit tactics of urban warfare. And the confines of a city isn't conducive to large armies either.
So, to me, 40k is meant for those Napoleonic style armies facing off across mostly empty areas. Kill Team, on the other hand, works better for the urban combat you desire.
Vankraken wrote: This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
There also isn't much in the way of 'vulnerable angles', either. No armor facing for vehicles. No crossfire or flanking rules for infantry. Not even target priority tests or specific casualty removal order, like in earlier editions.
When there's no difference in effectiveness between engaging an enemy from the front at maximum range or ambushing them from the rear at point blank, go figure shooting armies aren't going to maneuver much.
I mean, even in Napoleonic wargames where two armies line up and shoot, you find that range, flanking, and proximity massively impact shooting. One of my biggest gripes with 8th Ed is how all the maneuver-emphasizing tactics have been stripped out of the mechanics of fire combat. Putting lots of terrain on the table is one way to try to re-add meaningful maneuver, but with cover mechanics being superficial too it's still underwhelming.
In fact, any given 1344 square foot section of historical battlefield [28mm wargaming is approximately 1/56 scale IIRC] probably doesn't have a whole lot of terrain. Maybe one large object [like a farmhouse or hedgrow or small fence or wash], assuming it's an important section of battlefield. Actually, most historical battlefields generally didn't have very many features in general across the area in which a tactical-scale engagement occurred.
Anyway, as for the set of a 40k board, the typical board I play on has about 4-6 large LoS-blocking features [ruins and buildings] and maybe 4 area terrain pieces [craters and forests].
depends on the era etc you're talking about, Napoleonic? sure, but then again combats of that era consisted of men lining up in neat lines and shooting each other. the terrain of note in those situations where hills etc, which could give some advantages. however elevation isn't something 40k is very good at representing.
however in a more modern battlefield you tend to see a lot of urban combat because that's where infantry can hole up in and avoid having to take direct fire from tanks.
I suppose at the end of the day you have to ask if 40K is more intreasting like this
or like
Now given the vast majorty of 40k terrain is ruined buildings, I think GW thinks the ideal 40k table should look more like the second image
Well, from the same conflict, Operation Citadel and the Battle for Prokhorovka
Engagements in urban centers were outnumbered by battles that occurred in an effectively open area, with some marginal hills and a copse of trees. Of course, the Battle for Prohorovka would be well beyond the size of an Apocalypse battle.
Consider the approximate scale of a 6x4 board. Given that 28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56 in scale IIRC, that's about 1344 square feet of battlefield being fought over. How many major features of note do you think are in 1344 square feet of any given battlefield? Probably 1. Maybe a hedgerow as a major obstacle, or a farmhouse. A typical hedgerow-bounded field was 400 yards x 200 yards. At 1/56 scale, a typical table would be 112 yards by 74 yards wide.
Now, it's obvious more interesting as a game if there's something large to block line of effect. However, it's certainly not Napoleonic to fight on a field that's effectively barren.
ERJAK wrote: It honestly sounds to me like you just didn't understand what was going on well enough to know tell what was actually happened and came here with your little 'Principal Skinnard' moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vankraken wrote: 8th removed a lot of the directional, spacing, and terrain mechanics from past editions which results in very binary terrain rules that have little to no impact on shooting outcomes. This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
As for terrain most of the filler terrain (chest high walls, rubble piles, wrecked vehicles, etc) don't play much of an impact because of the way cover works where that 30 boy blob doesn't get a cover save from that enemy shooting through some cover because the 30 boy unit wasn't fully within the piece of terrain and/or maybe a few ladz in the back where not all behind that cover. 8th terrain is basically LOS blocking where you shove the entire unit behind the terrain, giant area terrain where you shove the entire unit inside the terrain footprint, or one of the few pieces of terrain (like a bloody statue) where it has an aura around it giving cover but again you need the whole unit in the radius.
Terrain and positioning in 8th can matter but its a far cry from how impactful it was in past editions.
None of the directional stuff has mattered in practice since 5th edition (at the absolute earliest). Vehicle facings were a joke and every unit that had to worry about weapon arcs was so terrible no one brought them anyway.
The only meaningful part of the terrain rules were dedicated to making your tank blow up if it hit a bush.
The cover system in 8th is legitimately terrible but previous editions weren't much better, to the point where the the designers were so lost on what to do with it they just kept giving thing ignores cover until the only rule more common than 'ignores cover' was 'immune to morale'.
Completely disagree with this. Cover in 5th was a huge factor for both infantry (a 4+ by default over having a rock in front of half the unit and vehicles having arcs, along with a model having to have eyeball sight sight is a huge difference than what 8th is).
7th didn't have all that but in regards to LOS and terrain it was better than what we have today.
Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
You can't apply current era battlefield features to 40k battlefields unless it's on a world that is similar to ours. The majority of places where conflict takes place are places that would be ornate, crowded, and full of tactically interesting ground to fight over.
Hell, look at Vigilis. It's a bunch of continent sized hives surrounded by desert. Not many fights happened on the wastes, and those that did were vehicle based engagements or on the fringes of the hives.
40k has been shown to be a very Urban centered game, and the inclusion of super heavies has messed that up by making it so that people put less terrain on the board to accommodate for their movement. Even tanks in large numbers shape the battlefield when making it.
I disagree that you can't make movement matter, especially when it's lazy terrain/table build that does that. An armored column of leman russes that can only advance in single file or through tight corridors on a battlefield is perfect pickings for melee troops or to be locked in combat.
Squads moving across an open courtyard are easy pickings for gun beats or tanks peaking out from behind buildings. All of this works in the edition. If people would just do it.
TERRAIN IS THE THIRD ARMY. YOU MUST DO BATTLE WITH IT AND YOUR FOE TO GAIN VICTORY.
Carnikang wrote: Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
No. It's not. 40k takes place across an entire galaxy and between every faction fighting every faction not just imperium vs other on specific types of their worlds. Many planets are lush gardens. Or dense forests, or flat plains. Hell many imperium worlds are Agri worlds that are basically continent sized fields for feeding all those other worlds that have no land mass or are too toxic to produce food. There is no "most" and it's ridiculous to make those kinds of arguments.
Outside of that, mechanically the targeting rules should be taking into account more than whether or not a solid wall is between you and the enemy. Units are themselves obstacles that obstruct shooting. On a large flat field why do intervening units not act like terrain? Wanna make positioning and movement matter more? Then units should get in the way.
Better actual terrain is all well and good. And LoS blocking is part of that. But it's not the end of it. There needs to be a spectrum and everything needs to be playing a part in that spectrum.
Carnikang wrote: Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
No. It's not. 40k takes place across an entire galaxy and between every faction fighting every faction not just imperium vs other on specific types of their worlds. Many planets are lush gardens. Or dense forests, or flat plains. Hell many imperium worlds are Agri worlds that are basically continent sized fields for feeding all those other worlds that have no land mass or are too toxic to produce food. There is no "most" and it's ridiculous to make those kinds of arguments.
Outside of that, mechanically the targeting rules should be taking into account more than whether or not a solid wall is between you and the enemy. Units are themselves obstacles that obstruct shooting. On a large flat field why do intervening units not act like terrain? Wanna make positioning and movement matter more? Then units should get in the way.
Better actual terrain is all well and good. And LoS blocking is part of that. But it's not the end of it. There needs to be a spectrum and everything needs to be playing a part in that spectrum.
Intervening units do affect LoS. Rhinos, Leman Russes, and Baneblades are all LoS blocking. You only ignore models in your own unit for purposes of LoS, not all friendly models.
You clearly didnt understand what i wrote. Los blocking isnt enough. And big ass boxes are not enough. EVERYTHING needs to impact by being intervening. Not, my guy can see you guy because your boot is sticking out from between his legs. The whole unit needs to act like one large piece of terrain so that you can't shoot at full capability from between individual models. Intervening infantry should impose a -1 to hit. If you want to shoot at full capacity you need to position yourself to see and shoot properly.
While I enjoy a more crunchy rule set, the reality is I can't fault GW for the direction they took stuff like cover. Why? When was the last time you heard anyone arguing about line of sight, terrain or the number of models fitting under a blast template? While their rules are technically...rather poor, they opted for the "no grey area" for most of what they put into 8th edition.
There are similar black-and-white options they could (maybe should...) have included, but they did go for removing almost any argument you're likely to have during a game.
Unless a fingertip of one model in the unit is visible behind the tank. Or a foot of a single model is visible underneath the tank through a tiny gap between the wheels. Etc. In earlier editions merely being obscured by an intervening unit was sufficient, in 8th if even the slightest speck of one model is visible the intervening tank might as well not exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: When was the last time you heard anyone arguing about line of sight
All the time. In fact 8th edition creates more arguments over LOS because a 0.01mm length of a hair-thin antenna being visible is sufficient to shoot at a tank like it was sitting in the middle of an open field. So now you get to argue if whether this tiny piece of the target, so small that you can barely see it, is sticking out far enough to be seen from the model's point of view or if the player claiming LOS is just looking from the wrong position and seeing more than the model can see. If you aren't having arguments over 8th edition's ridiculous LOS rules then it's only because you've collectively decided not to use those rules to their full extent.
There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.
The only real decision in movement in 40k for a shooting unit is "can I see the enemy I want to shoot?". For melee it is "does this get me closer to the enemy I want to charge?" with a side of "am I exposed to something which I don't want shooting at me?"
Unlike many wargames 40k rules don't encourage the sorts of manoeuvring you would see a normally in a company/battalion level game.
Instead you rely on the terrain and scenario to force that.
So i despair when I see tourney games (like the big London last year tourney) with bare bones terrain, as then it becomes a list building and target priority test.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Consider the approximate scale of a 6x4 board. Given that 28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56 in scale IIRC, that's about 1344 square feet of battlefield being fought over. How many major features of note do you think are in 1344 square feet of any given battlefield? Probably 1. Maybe a hedgerow as a major obstacle, or a farmhouse. A typical hedgerow-bounded field was 400 yards x 200 yards. At 1/56 scale, a typical table would be 112 yards by 74 yards wide.
Now, it's obvious more interesting as a game if there's something large to block line of effect. However, it's certainly not Napoleonic to fight on a field that's effectively barren.
If you take the game scale hyper-literally, an assault rifle has a maximum range of about 40yds, anti-tank guns a staggering 75yds, the excessively long-ranged Basilisk platform can't even reach 400yds, troops become helpless and scared when more than 3yds from their compatriots, and since 6" of movement = about 9yds, either everyone is stuck running in slow motion or a turn represents roughly three seconds.
The rules can only begin to make sense if you assume that the models are dramatically oversized for visual effect, which is a reasonable concession that many wargames have used to balance visual appeal against game mechanics*. If you figure that models are oversized by a factor of 10, then the above figures can actually make sense, and a 6x4 table represents 1,120x747yds. At that scale a fair amount of terrain is to be expected.
Excommunicatus wrote: Urban combat was definitely not a thing in WWII, 'cause that one pic shows five people.
Signed, Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov.
Is this @ me? I didn't say that Urban Combat wasn't a thing. The battles for Stalingrad, Berlin, Warsaw, Monte Cassino, Aachen, Arnhem, etc. are all known for their destructiveness, lethality, and intensity [and also being characterized by aggressive close-assault actions and attritive warfare doctrines superseding maneuver warfare]. And beyond just the big names, there's plenty of smaller actions that occurred
There's also the battles in the Ardennes counteroffensive, in the Hurtgen forest, etc. that were also characterized by close range and lethal actions in close conditions that weren't in cities.
That said, actions in wide open spaces where maybe a small copse of trees, a wash, or a small hill were the only defining features of note were probably the majority of combat actions during the war. I'm not denying that some of the most intense actions occurred in urban confines, just disputing the claim that war does not occur on planet bowling ball.
That said, actions in wide open spaces where maybe a small copse of trees, a wash, or a small hill were the only defining features of note were probably the majority of combat actions during the war. I'm not denying that some of the most intense actions occurred in urban confines, just disputing the claim that war does not occur on planet bowling ball.
Nam, the pacific jungle fighting is a good example of planet bush.
more modern engagements in the middle east have both planet bowling lane and super tight CQ combat.
Yes plains warfare exist and existed. but imho its not really that fun. i suppose it could be more interesting if 1) vehicle facing on some vehicles were actually impervious to damage (sloped armor making most weapons ineffective) being used as mobile cover effectively being terrain, 2) Dynamic terrain in that shells and explosions leave craters, killed vehicles become LOS blocking terrain. but baring that in current 40k non of this matters you just sit back and shoot until some one rolls poorly. at which point why bother. just roll dice on a table.
The number of 40k mission types that don't reward mobility are actually pretty low. As much as it's easy to slag on maelstrom, it does reward mobility. Scoring by turn also encourages mobility to grab objectives early, and is the standard in ITC and one of two options in NOVA.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
This is probably true.
Though at the same time comp players also tend to prioritize optimal fire power and or cheese out disgusting survivability tricks like 2++ rerollables. a lot of the times those things are also stapled onto mobile units like bikes and knights.
at least previous editions.
no one is going to run rhinos or drop pods even though they have decent enough mobility because they arent tough and they do not have good enough firepower, unless they were free.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
This is probably true.
Though at the same time comp players also tend to prioritize optimal fire power and or cheese out disgusting survivability tricks like 2++ rerollables. a lot of the times those things are also stapled onto mobile units like bikes and knights.
at least previous editions.
Sixth and Seventh editions were, IMO, terrible, being way too unbalanced for competitive play and way too fiddly for casual play.
Modern editions still favor durable, mobile, high fire power units (custodes bikers, knights, elder fliers, etc.) but most units have more of a trade off.
One thing to keep in mind is that the -1 to hit with heavy weapons introduced in 8th edition does penalize units from moving.
Excommunicatus wrote: Urban combat was definitely not a thing in WWII, 'cause that one pic shows five people.
Signed, Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov.
Is this @ me? I didn't say that Urban Combat wasn't a thing. The battles for Stalingrad, Berlin, Warsaw, Monte Cassino, Aachen, Arnhem, etc. are all known for their destructiveness, lethality, and intensity [and also being characterized by aggressive close-assault actions and attritive warfare doctrines superseding maneuver warfare]. And beyond just the big names, there's plenty of smaller actions that occurred
I believe that was meant to be a joke about the Soviet's penchant for editing their photos.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
This is probably true.
Though at the same time comp players also tend to prioritize optimal fire power and or cheese out disgusting survivability tricks like 2++ rerollables. a lot of the times those things are also stapled onto mobile units like bikes and knights.
at least previous editions.
Sixth and Seventh editions were, IMO, terrible, being way too unbalanced for competitive play and way too fiddly for casual play.
Modern editions still favor durable, mobile, high fire power units (custodes bikers, knights, elder fliers, etc.) but most units have more of a trade off.
One thing to keep in mind is that the -1 to hit with heavy weapons introduced in 8th edition does penalize units from moving.
The -1 does help a bit. but its usually also stapled onto units that often have very good BS anyway and on top can get rerolls. Yes you end up paying for it but it was something you needed to bring anyway. i dont think its enough of a determent often enough.
otherwise heavy weapons on more mooks or conscript level models tend to just not move. IE Mortar Teams.
not saying the current edition is bad or anything like that. (this is all generalizations. there are probably plenty of exceptions but this is just the general way things are imho)
So, 40k does not have the usual array of rules that really reward/encourage/require maneuver. In many games, you take pretty big penalties to shooting past half range, it's a lot easier to hide units, and games can end quickly if you don't contest objectives. By allowing units to shoot, at full effect, across much of the board, you really do encourage static gunline tactics. As many posters have alluded to, the terrain rules, coupled with the sheer size of 40k models, make staying out of LOS very challenging. When you look at, say, bolt action models, it's pretty easy to hide a tank behind a simple one store farmhouse. A 40k predator needs a big honking terrain piece to really block LOS.
GW is lurching in the correct direction through to-hit modifiers, but their obsession with both true line of site and long range weapons is going to push people naturally toward that play style.
That said, actions in wide open spaces where maybe a small copse of trees, a wash, or a small hill were the only defining features of note were probably the majority of combat actions during the war. I'm not denying that some of the most intense actions occurred in urban confines, just disputing the claim that war does not occur on planet bowling ball.
Nam, the pacific jungle fighting is a good example of planet bush.
more modern engagements in the middle east have both planet bowling lane and super tight CQ combat.
Yes plains warfare exist and existed. but imho its not really that fun. i suppose it could be more interesting if 1) vehicle facing on some vehicles were actually impervious to damage (sloped armor making most weapons ineffective) being used as mobile cover effectively being terrain, 2) Dynamic terrain in that shells and explosions leave craters, killed vehicles become LOS blocking terrain. but baring that in current 40k non of this matters you just sit back and shoot until some one rolls poorly. at which point why bother. just roll dice on a table.
I just want to point out as well (in general, not as a specific response to either of you), that even 'flat' plains and deserts are more frequently extended rolling low hills and dunes, that while they look flat, can still potentially hide even larger tanks.
Also, Desubot, part of my reason for using 'maneuver' to circumvent cover is that my usual tables rely more on barrier style terrain, and broken buildings. So maneuvering is possible. (your previous reply to me)
I tend to like Hybrid boards With open space one side, and more urban the other. With objectives to encourage use of both to some extent.
And it leads to a lot of fun games i think for us. And try not to get terrain that is cheesy.
The idea that no unit can reasonably see more than one objective point without very careful positioning.
Unless a fingertip of one model in the unit is visible behind the tank. Or a foot of a single model is visible underneath the tank through a tiny gap between the wheels. Etc. In earlier editions merely being obscured by an intervening unit was sufficient, in 8th if even the slightest speck of one model is visible the intervening tank might as well not exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: When was the last time you heard anyone arguing about line of sight
All the time. In fact 8th edition creates more arguments over LOS because a 0.01mm length of a hair-thin antenna being visible is sufficient to shoot at a tank like it was sitting in the middle of an open field. So now you get to argue if whether this tiny piece of the target, so small that you can barely see it, is sticking out far enough to be seen from the model's point of view or if the player claiming LOS is just looking from the wrong position and seeing more than the model can see. If you aren't having arguments over 8th edition's ridiculous LOS rules then it's only because you've collectively decided not to use those rules to their full extent.
Or that you’re just following the rules. There should be no mid-game arguments because you agree parameters before the game, and changing the rules by ignoring bits of a model needs to be agreed ahead of time.
Any time LOS comes up I just cut through the prevaricating with a simple “Can you see any part of the target, yes or no?” It’s a binary situation. There’s no argument about that unless someone invokes butthurt because they don’t *want* their model to get shot. And that’s not an argument with any weight.
Vankraken wrote: This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
There also isn't much in the way of 'vulnerable angles', either. No armor facing for vehicles. No crossfire or flanking rules for infantry. Not even target priority tests or specific casualty removal order, like in earlier editions.
When there's no difference in effectiveness between engaging an enemy from the front at maximum range or ambushing them from the rear at point blank, go figure shooting armies aren't going to maneuver much.
I mean, even in Napoleonic wargames where two armies line up and shoot, you find that range, flanking, and proximity massively impact shooting. One of my biggest gripes with 8th Ed is how all the maneuver-emphasizing tactics have been stripped out of the mechanics of fire combat. Putting lots of terrain on the table is one way to try to re-add meaningful maneuver, but with cover mechanics being superficial too it's still underwhelming.
in fairness most basic infantry guns have rpid fire so there is a reason to get into point blank range...
I tend to put lots of terrain onto the board, I mean a lot! Area terrain, scatter terrain, ruins and I'll also try to have one or two 'roads' which will have the majority of scatter and area terrain nearby.
Over long periods of time and many, many opponents it's been commented that it's an enjoyable experience. there IS firelines to be exploited by the big guns, if they manouver or deploy correctly and more close range armies have enough LoS to hide some of their forces if they play smart.
If you take the game scale hyper-literally, an assault rifle has a maximum range of about 40yds, anti-tank guns a staggering 75yds, the excessively long-ranged Basilisk platform can't even reach 400yds, troops become helpless and scared when more than 3yds from their compatriots, and since 6" of movement = about 9yds, either everyone is stuck running in slow motion or a turn represents roughly three seconds.
Nowhere in any published material is there a definition of the ground scale for 40k. Having the ground scale match the figure scale is something that's vanishingly rare in wargaming as a whole, so pointing it out in 40k specifically is a little unfair.
Playing on blank tables has nothing to do with the edition...it's been that way at local gaming stores as long as I can remember. It's the lazy/cheap nature of a lot of 40K gamers or stores that run it when it comes to buying/building terrain.
Carnikang wrote: Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
You can't apply current era battlefield features to 40k battlefields unless it's on a world that is similar to ours. The majority of places where conflict takes place are places that would be ornate, crowded, and full of tactically interesting ground to fight over.
Hell, look at Vigilis. It's a bunch of continent sized hives surrounded by desert. Not many fights happened on the wastes, and those that did were vehicle based engagements or on the fringes of the hives.
40k has been shown to be a very Urban centered game, and the inclusion of super heavies has messed that up by making it so that people put less terrain on the board to accommodate for their movement. Even tanks in large numbers shape the battlefield when making it.
I disagree that you can't make movement matter, especially when it's lazy terrain/table build that does that. An armored column of leman russes that can only advance in single file or through tight corridors on a battlefield is perfect pickings for melee troops or to be locked in combat.
Squads moving across an open courtyard are easy pickings for gun beats or tanks peaking out from behind buildings. All of this works in the edition. If people would just do it.
TERRAIN IS THE THIRD ARMY. YOU MUST DO BATTLE WITH IT AND YOUR FOE TO GAIN VICTORY.
40k an urban centred game? Nope, it is what kind of terrain you have on hand.
Playing on blank tables has nothing to do with the edition...it's been that way at local gaming stores as long as I can remember. It's the lazy/cheap nature of a lot of 40K gamers or stores that run it when it comes to buying/building terrain.
TarkinLarson wrote: It happens. I try and play smaller games that can be a little more tactical - need to stretch your troops, sacrifice control points, go for key targets... You deploy a character killer and your enemy deploys the character on the other side of the field, or deepstrikes them, etc etc. You sigh.
We usually do 4-6 big pieces of terrain, if we can't decide we roll off a D3. We take turns to place them similar to control points (9 inch away from another one, more then 6 inch from a side/edge - a bit more rough than that but that's the general theme). We put them down not knowing what the deployment will be (unless it's a story missions) Small scatter terrain just gets muddled around on if it's cool or not. Follow the rules for deployment order and choosing deployment style... too many people use Dawn of War although that's good for me in a melee army.
People just normally stick with 2,000 points and they have to fill to board in some cases, so they end up looking like lines of troops.
The Newman wrote: I'd be curious what you consider a big piece of terrain, on a 4x4 for 1000 points we're using twice that.
Usually play on a 6x4. Big terrain is something like the the Galvanic Magnavent sized thing, or other "larger" buildings like that. We also have a lot of the kill team scenary at the club to shove around. You need room for tanks and larger things to manoeuvre, but enough space for melee troops to hide too! It is a subjective balance I guess.
As a kid (during 2nd and beginning of 3rd edition) and played it was fairly standard for us to just play on fairly blank boards. Now we've more time and money (more importantly money) and a proper club to play at there is loooooots of terrain to choose from. Although of note I've discovered that 2000 points then was far fewer units than 2000 points now!
auticus wrote:Planet Bowling Ball has been a favored tabletop type since 2nd edition, and while I haven't played first edition I'd wager since 1st edition.
Its because people do not want to be assed to create terrain or buy terrain. Most people cannot be assed to fully assemble and paint their armies.
Yeah, it's always a wonderful experience playing against an unpainted army, while my opponent is complimenting how nice the paint is on my army.
back in '91 my buddy & I played everyday after school at his house on the dining room table. That battlefield had terrain to match most scenarios, but our terrain budget was $0. Need mountains, boom stacks of books, need city terrain, boom Tupperware & kitchen gadgets, people just dont have the imagination. Also it was a little different since at most there would be 20 models aside on a 4x6 & tanglefoot/vortex grenades were a thing.
Yeah, it's always a wonderful experience playing against an unpainted army, while my opponent is complimenting how nice the paint is on my army.
back in '91 my buddy & I played everyday after school at his house on the dining room table. That battlefield had terrain to match most scenarios, but our terrain budget was $0. Need mountains, boom stacks of books, need city terrain, boom Tupperware & kitchen gadgets, people just dont have the imagination. Also it was a little different since at most there would be 20 models aside on a 4x6 & tanglefoot/vortex grenades were a thing.
When my friend and I first started, our Imperial and Chaos forces clashed over possession of Peppa Pig's house...
auticus wrote: Planet Bowling Ball has been a favored tabletop type since 2nd edition, and while I haven't played first edition I'd wager since 1st edition.
Its because people do not want to be assed to create terrain or buy terrain. Most people cannot be assed to fully assemble and paint their armies.
And I can't understand this sort of logic. I played two different games at my armory where we forgot the terrain box. One battlefield was made with cardboard pieces and flyers, the other was made from dishes and utensils from the chow hall.
