Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There are absolutely tactics in 40K 9th Edition. Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out. Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.

There is lots to write about regarding the tactics of the game beyond list building. It’s just easier to write and debate list-building.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There are absolutely tactics in 40K 9th Edition. Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out. Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.

There is lots to write about regarding the tactics of the game beyond list building. It’s just easier to write and debate list-building.

Glad you can join us. See the discusion about the difference between tactics and strategy.

This

Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out.

Is called strategy.

This

Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.

Has answers that are so obvious and shallow that it's just a flow chart and basic math. No tactical depth what so ever.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
There are absolutely tactics in 40K 9th Edition. Tactics are wrapped up in the formulation of the tactical plan for each game. Your plan for each game has to incorporate the “so what’s” of the mission, terrain, your own list and the opponent’s list. Then you have to play it out. The two are linked - you can’t make a viable plan without an estimation of how your tactics will play out. Then there are the turn by turn decisions that you must make. There are also the tactics of movement, charges, pile-in etc.

There is lots to write about regarding the tactics of the game beyond list building. It’s just easier to write and debate list-building.

Anything you game-plan pregame is strategy. This includes things like deployment in response to the mission.

There are some minor tactics that can take place on the table, but these are generally simple and shallow. Things like, deciding which target to shoot or if fishing for a charge is worth more than hiding your unit behind some cover for a turn there are pretty simple formulas that can be used for these. I can't even think of an act you could make on a 40k table that isn't solvable by a flowchart and some math. Can you?

EDIT: To put it simply, 40k is a game about imposing your will on the opponent as strongly as possible. Your list will generally tell you exactly how you want to do this for any opponent you're likely to face. Thus for most of the game, you're not really doing any tactical thinking but just checking down to ensure that you're maximizing your strategy. In any situation where a choice seems unclear, you can likely solve your problem via some simple math and making sure that the maneuver fits with your overall plan.

Here is a good example of strategy.

My strategy with my nids was to bring Jorm with red terror, a couple units of ravenors with death spitters, 3 units of warriors with anti tank biocanons and death spitters (maybe bone swords at the time?) and a Prime to boost them all. And deepstrike them all in with a line of hormagaunts in front.

In my backfield I had a couple neurothropes providing psychic support and rear synapse for some biovores and hive guard with the needs no los guns. A couple ravener swarms spread around the deployment kept everything safe from deep strikers.

ASAP I would deepstrike in my whole mess of crap and have it start shooting all it's guns at all it's optimal targets. Then the hormagaunts would either charge into and devour any melee threats to the warriors or tie up any tanks that couldn't be destroyed by the canons/sporemines/hiveguard.

Then the raveners would charge in with the red terror and get to work as well with their rending claws.

My strategy was overwhelming threats with redundancies. Kill the warriors? Well I got more. Try to remove the melee? Well the warriors can double up on that too. Killing the hormagaunts? Don't even care. I had no high priority targets in my list and it all came at you at once.


That isn't tactics. Thats the strategy. The "tactics" was picking where my guns were pointed and who the hormagaunts charged. That was primarily decided by where they fit on the board when I deployed them and who I could kill the fastest by focus firing based on law of averages. My every game was a series of simple math equations while using the ruler we all need to play.

Is it an objective game? You can't grab objectives if your entire army is boxed into it's deployment zone with no good targets to shoot. All multi wound models except the hormagaunts (and again, I really didn't care what happened to them. They were primarily a mass distraction and fear tactic). I had so many models I could prevent you from deepstriking. I could take complete control of 2/3rds of the board and keep it under lock and key for 2-3 turns. while the enemy scrambled to figure out where to point their guns.

I didn't always win. But I won A LOT and opponents always had to play on my terms.

If the "tactics" of the game are so obvious that you can reduce the entire post-deployment game into a flow chart, then I would argue that the very creation of such a flow chart requires a recognition that there are tactical choices to be made. Maybe they are not "deep" but they nevertheless exist. A flow charts very purpose is, after all, to provide conditional decision paths. If X do A, if Y then do B.

These decisions points are tactical since they are in the service of your overall pre-game plan (post deployment). Furthermore, if tactics don't exist, then tactical choices don't exist either, in which case there is no possibility for players making better or worse moves post-deployment. Clearly that isn't the case.

It may be, in the estimation of your enormous brains, that the tactical depth of the game is trivial. Or perhaps you've simply internalized and memorized the entirety of this hypothetical flow chart masquerading as not-tactics, in which case congratulations, you've solved 40K. But for the rest of us, without the super human capability to calculate scores of statistics on the fly, nor the audacity to subject to our opponents to hours of watching the other do arithmetic, we need rules of thumbs to parse complexity, to avoid making mistakes, and to best execute our plan. Tactics are almost always an exercise in efficiency and optimization. And the means by which we accomplish that, like your flow chart itself, are worth discussing.

Here is your flow chart.

Phase 1, moving your models.

Does your opponent have any melee threats?
Yes: Don't put your guys in a position that makes them good targets to charge unless its a bad unit for them to charge. I.E. park a devilfish in front of your firewarriors. Otherwise see No.

No. Then position yourself to optimize your guns for shooting at their intended targets to remove as many models as possible.

2 the psychic phase
Use the powers you picked to do the things you picked them to do.

3. The shooting phase.
Shoot your guns at the units they are in range of to cause the most damage and remove the most guns from the opponents army.

4 the charge phase
If within 8 or less inches of an enemy and your unit is capable of causing good/equal or better damage in melee than their target, then charge.

The most common result on 2d6 is 7 and you only need to be within 1" to pile in and fight. So do that and remove even more models while, if any of his survive into his next turn, he has to fall back in order to shoot your guys, which will get shot at anyway. At least this way you have removed some more guns from the equation.

???

Profit.

 Mezmorki wrote:
If the "tactics" of the game are so obvious that you can reduce the entire post-deployment game into a flow chart, then I would argue that the very creation of such a flow chart requires a recognition that there are tactical choices to be made. Maybe they are not "deep" but they nevertheless exist. A flow charts very purpose is, after all, to provide conditional decision paths. If X do A, if Y then do B.

Is it really a choice if option A is provably optimal and all other actions are provably less efficient? I'd argue that it isn't and thus because 40k is a solvable game that it cannot have tactics only correct and incorrect choices.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I have an Armiger. I can backpedal and shoot with it to kill some things protecting both it and the rest of my army. I can move it past their front lines and still shoot while picking up a table quarter ( or if in Maelstrom deny them a quarter ) while also exposing it to potential melee, or I can run it past and aim for Linebreaker.

These are all distinct choices that have been available to me in games.

This also means you've invested points into an army that will likely end up winning games in the loser bracket as you simply have too many bad match-ups to win a tournament. Your tactics can at best somewhat mitigate your poor list but are statistically unlikely to allow you to beat a player who just brought a better army.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the tactics I outlined.

Moving a unit into a firing lane that is safer from MM units, but offers fewer late game opportunities for other scoring is another choice one can make and one that is entirely dependent on the table's terrain and the opponent's list.

An aside to that flow chart up there.

Understanding a dices value.

not all dice are equal obviously. a 6+ dice is way less valuable than a 2+ dice.

But 10 6+ dice are more valuable than 1 2+ dice.

Understanding the general value of dice when they go through the to hit/to wound/ to save gauntlet to cause any actual damage is important.

But more important is understanding that having a whole gak load of dice is the most important thing in the game.

Which is why you are optimizing everything every turn to remove models from your opponent. Every dice he rolls has a chance, big or small, to remove at least 1 dice from you next turn.

I pick deathspitters because Str 5 AP1 assault 3 guns on a BS 3+ (because of the prime) are a lot of pretty good dice. And those pretty good dice can pretty quickly remove a lot of dice from my opponents pool. The fact that warriors have 3 wounds means they need a lot of dice to remove my dice. And putting the biocanons in those units gives me a choice of which model to remove. Does he have a bunch of tanks? Protect the biocanons. Remove deathspitters first. Does he have almost no tanks left? Kill the canons. Protect the deathspitters.

Simple flow chart. Eliminate the enemies dice pool and your efforts will snow ball and they won't be able to recover.

2+2.

There was a thing in 8th when the nid codex first came out called a termagant bomb. You found a way to deepstrike in 30 termagants with devourers. They shoot 90 times and with a strat could shoot a second time that turn. 180 dice from a single unit. The whole game boils down to understanding the value of your dice versus their dice and making sure that your sum of dice is higher each turn.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Moving a unit into a firing lane that is safer from MM units, but offers fewer late game opportunities for other scoring is another choice one can make and one that is entirely dependent on the table's terrain and the opponent's list.

Your Armiger isn't ever going to be safe from MM units so your movement does very little. The only thing you could do is heavily screen it and at that point, you have next to no board control so... Even in this case you're essentially deciding if you can afford to risk a unit to maintain board control and that should be a very simple choice based on the game state.

Lance,

I taught at my Army’s Command and Staff College - I don’t feel the need to argue the semantics of strategy and tactics with you. I have followed the thread and your attempts to derail it. If you feel there are no tactics of note for 40K then by all means play some other game. I play in enough local tourneys to know that there are indeed tactics beyond list building.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lance,

I taught at my Army’s Command and Staff College - I don’t feel the need to argue the semantics of strategy and tactics with you. I have followed the thread and your attempts to derail it. If you feel there are no tactics of note for 40K then by all means play some other game. I play in enough local tourneys to know that there are indeed tactics beyond list building.

Tango, unlike real life where you have to factor in things like a lack of information, the skill and morale of your unit, your ammo count, your specific mission and ToE; 40k is just math. It isn't that deep.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lance,

I taught at my Army’s Command and Staff College - I don’t feel the need to argue the semantics of strategy and tactics with you. I have followed the thread and your attempts to derail it. If you feel there are no tactics of note for 40K then by all means play some other game. I play in enough local tourneys to know that there are indeed tactics beyond list building.

If you actually taught in an "Army’s Command and Staff College" then you should have been using the correct words. And you can claim to play as many games in as many situations as you would like. Until somebody can provide some evidence for this supposed deep tactical game that 40k "can be" I aint buying it.

I "have a degree in game design" and I know from my way-too-expensive piece of paper that you won't believe in (and thats fine too) that what 40k has is not tactics at all or depth. It's the infinite flat plain of tactics. Canadian 5th (who I often disagree with) is entirely correct. If you have 4 choices but only 1 of them is good then what you have is in fact the illusion of choice. Picking the non optimal choice isn't tactical. It's just reading a choose your own adventure book, turning the page, and finding out you died.

 Lance845 wrote:
I "have a degree in game design" and I know from my way-too-expensive piece of paper that you won't believe in (and thats fine too) that what 40k has is not tactics at all or depth. It's the infinite flat plain of tactics. Canadian 5th (who I often disagree with) is entirely correct. If you have 4 choices but only 1 of them is good then what you have is in fact the illusion of choice. Picking the non optimal choice isn't tactical. It's just reading a choose your own adventure book, turning the page, and finding out you died.

I actually find myself coming to the side of wanting to cut some options from 40k after all. As much as I enjoy mechanically distinct choices in wargear, I'm also seeing how few of them are actually taken and something that isn't taken probably shouldn't have space dedicated to rules about it. Plus I'm realizing that the best system to run many kinds of adventures in ends up being something like Fudge which offers unlimited choice rather than the bounded choice of even a sprawling system like 3.x. I'll always love 3.x for the character-building puzzle it presents but I won't miss the prep time as a DM or the deep power imbalance that could easily derail a game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Moving a unit into a firing lane that is safer from MM units, but offers fewer late game opportunities for other scoring is another choice one can make and one that is entirely dependent on the table's terrain and the opponent's list.

Your Armiger isn't ever going to be safe from MM units so your movement does very little. The only thing you could do is heavily screen it and at that point, you have next to no board control so... Even in this case you're essentially deciding if you can afford to risk a unit to maintain board control and that should be a very simple choice based on the game state.

I feel like your lack of time spent playing the game shows here. It is way, way, way easier to hide an armiger these days. That's partly the reason people opt for attack bikes over eradicators - movement is very important.

Lance,

I think you are using strategy when you really mean planning. There is indeed a planning phase to the game. It’s important, but being able to plan effectively means that you have to know how it can play out. Tactics and planning are intertwined - they are the same thing at this level.

The planning phase as we assess the situation before the first turn is important and would be worthy of tactics discussions outside of list building. Tactics discussions of what happens during the game would also be valuable. Perhaps you have solved the game and have so many LVO trophies that you are bored? That’s OK. The rest of us can have good tactics discussions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I feel like your lack of time spent playing the game shows here. It is way, way, way easier to hide an armiger these days. That's partly the reason people opt for attack bikes over eradicators - movement is very important.

How do you hide it from a deep strike or from units coming in on a flank? What do you do when there isn't 5" tall terrain near objectives? How are you screening out against MM attack bikes? There are reasons why Knights are a gatekeeper faction who aren't often going better than 3 - 2 at events.

EDIT: If you were facing a Harlequins list how are you keeping your Knights safe?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lance,

I think you are using strategy when you really mean planning. There is indeed a planning phase to the game. It’s important, but being able to plan effectively means that you have to know how it can play out. Tactics and planning are intertwined - they are the same thing at this level.

Your strategy is your plan. Thats what a strategy is.

The planning phase as we assess the situation before the first turn is important and would be worthy of tactics discussions outside of list building. Tactics discussions of what happens during the game would also be valuable. Perhaps you have solved the game and have so many LVO trophies that you are bored? That’s OK. The rest of us can have good tactics discussions.

I have presented some pretty solid evidence so far. Both in listing my flow chart and detailing how the game boils down to measuring dice pool value. I even took my nid list without posting the point for point list and presented how my strategy works in the game and what "tactical" decisions I make in the game itself.

Don't just tell me the game has tactics. Prove it. Where is your evidence that you are doing anything but pointing your guns at the optimal targets and that it is anything but a binary choice of optimal decision or sub optimal decision?

In order to have tactics you need to be able to play against the opponent. Not the games math. In 40k you can't.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I feel like your lack of time spent playing the game shows here. It is way, way, way easier to hide an armiger these days. That's partly the reason people opt for attack bikes over eradicators - movement is very important.

How do you hide it from a deep strike or from units coming in on a flank? What do you do when there isn't 5" tall terrain near objectives? How are you screening out against MM attack bikes? There are reasons why Knights are a gatekeeper faction who aren't often going better than 3 - 2 at events.

Deepstrike is easy, because most MM units don't do that. You can pod devs, but then you're spending more than twice the points to kill it and they're dead next turn. Strategic reserves is a known quantity and you can control the possible places they can show up - which is another tactic of spreading along one table edge to push out units from showing up there.. A single attack bike is two shots and isn't going to have a good chance at bracketing unless its w/i 12".

Knights struggle, because four big knights is a bad idea mostly because it is hard to capture objectives not because they're dying too fast.

Some lists are less dynamic. DA that drop terminators in the middle and say "come at me, bro"? Pretty bland. When I run past their them to go to their really light backfield? Good fun.

strategies are for games, tactics are for subgames?

I see people discuss tactics for likely scenarios... but a strategy would include 1 guardsmen fighting 3 C'Tans.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Deepstrike is easy, because most MM units don't do that. You can pod devs, but then you're spending more than twice the points to kill it and they're dead next turn.

If the Armiger is the biggest thing you have then the pod still makes sense. If it isn't, then they'd just pod in against a larger juicier target and make back their points and then some.

Strategic reserves is a known quantity and you can control the possible places they can show up - which is another tactic of spreading along one table edge to push out units from showing up there.

If you're doing that it means you have a unit holding nothing. Unless you're spending the CP to bring in guard your army has no options natively to fill this role and if you are paying CP then that screen cost CP and 55 points and is doing very little.

A single attack bike is two shots and isn't going to have a good chance at bracketing unless its w/i 12".

Most good lists are running them in packs of 3. That's a good chance at dropping an Armiger into its lowest bracket and has 26" threat range which can be boosted further if you're willing to use a stratagem.

Some lists are less dynamic. DA that drop terminators in the middle and say "come at me, bro"? Pretty bland. When I run past their them to go to their really light backfield? Good fun.

If a list isn't dynamic with at least some mobile elements it's a terrible list. Even DG uses mobile units to gain board presence.

Rarely are there more than 3 bikes or so. Even 6 shots is only 10 damage when under half range. Whether or not I get shots on them first depends on who goes first, how they use the terrain, and their target priorities.

And this is why discussing tactics is so hard, because it all comes down to what is on the table along with the choices made up to that point. I can spread out - the bikes can't be everywhere even if they can be there faster. If I straddle the board and they commit into short range on one end then they'll really be ineffective on the other board edge. If they don't go in short to be able to cover more table then they won't kill me as quickly.

Maybe they took more bikes. Maybe we're playing hammerhead and I have less room to maneuver, but more cover. Maybe the rest of their army is really fast and coming into my territory more than I'd like.

There's an endless list of ifs, ands, and buts to consider. Games aren't going to be genius level chess play, but then I hate memorizing chess openings so I call that a plus.

Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.

What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.

In 9th the better player wins. Period.

There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".

Games of 9th are won by the player, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.

What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.

In 9th the better player wins. Period.

There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".

Games of 9th are won by the player, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.

If this is the case why is the tournament scene, as diverse as it is, rather saturated with certain specific factions owning an outsized share of the top positions while others languish? It can't be solely everybody being meta chasers who only bring a list that has won before as we're seeing a variety of lists show up to events and not advance with any real shot at winning.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.

What list you bring in 9th is actually fairly secondary as long as you don't bring an absolute mess.

In 9th the better player wins. Period.

There are players with close to 100% win rate with bad factions (against meta lists). Luck can't carry you for all your games, and if lists are also not doing that, what is left? I'll give you an hint, it starts with "t".

Games of 9th are won by the player, not by the list. There are a few unfortunate factions like Tau which simply have no tools to play the current edition, but apart from that you can win with everything against everything as long as you are the better player.

If this is the case why is the tournament scene, as diverse as it is, rather saturated with certain specific factions owning an outsized share of the top positions while others languish? It can't be solely everybody being meta chasers who only bring a list that has won before as we're seeing a variety of lists show up to events and not advance with any real shot at winning.

Because as I said in a previous post, a meta list compared to a good one will give you a little edge.

When you reach the high echelons of a big event, the players skills start to become similar. If everything is the same except for the list, then statiscally you will see more meta lists than non-meta ones. Said in another way, if there isn't a "better" player at the table, then the lists start speaking.

If you look at the results from smaller events, you don't have so many meta lists in the top spots, since there usually are one or two local players which are just better than the other ones and win with their pet factions.

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.

Nobody is arguing there are no tactics in 40k. The argument is they're so shallow as to not really be enough of a differentiator in the outcome of the game compared to the army list or getting the first turn.

List building in 9th is absolutely not secondary to play on the table. The list is overwhelmingly what determines the most likely victor in a game of 40k. Obviously a list can still be played badly, or the game played badly overall, but those are outliers and eradicating those sort of mistakes from your game is trivially easy. IME, most players simply don't think very deeply about the game, which leads some people to think it's deeper than it is because so many players make such rudimentary errors as not keeping track of the VP situation. I'm not knocking those players - people play this game for a whole variety of reasons. Competitive, tournament-style games is only one reason (and, I would argue, the worst).

I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not. That changed quite a while ago, but what 8th introduced was near-certainty in the dice rolls too, especially to-hit and to-wound rolls. With re-rolls being so easily available, alongside +1 to hit and wound, even the results of your dice rolls rarely feels random so there isn't even much contingency planning needed int he case of bad rolls. That problem is solved at the list building stage.

From what I have perceived in 9th edition, the ability to think and plan a few turns ahead, and adapt/stick to that plan in future turns - which is a big part of decision making, and problem solve as you go, and the most important aspect is diligence, ensuring you are out of LOS, or you do deploy in a fashion that can maximise your damage etc is probably more important than list building in the current meta, and the ability to process the information to do all simultaneously, with accuracy and precision is a huge boon to a player.

Certain lists will trounce other lists, I think that will always be part of the game, but an underpowered list in the hands of a more skilled player is usually beating an uber powered list in the hands of a less skilled player, the only time that is not being the case is when the dice gods get involved.

I really rate Lawrences approach at TTT, and it's been interesting to hear him not only speak allowed recently in games of his intentions and justifications for certain actions, but also in his coaching of his opponent on the mistakes they are making and questioning their decisions... There is more to the game than a list, even more so in 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.

I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not.

The specific issue with not having pre-measuring is that it rewards players for having certain attributes/abilities another player may lack, such as very good spacial awareness and estimation of distance, this is not something that is a skill as such, and such cannot be really improved to a point you have parity with the player with such ability, you have it or you don't and can only marginally improve it... Without pre-measuring you are handing a huge advantage to the above player that other skills their opponent may have will not be able to match in some respect as it is such a huge boon for a game where estimation of measurement is so important.

I think people are overstating the simplicity of tactics in 40k, although I do agree that they are shallower than most other games.
9th at least improved this markedly over 8th as terrain means positioning of units is actually relevant now and among other improvements.

I think the more academic players make the better lists and play better.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Saying that there are no tactics in 9th means that you have never played it or that you are bad at it.

I feel part of the problem with 8th and 9th compared to previous editions is that the main random elements have almost completely been removed. In previous editions you couldn't pre-measure so had to judge whether you were in range to shoot/charge or not.

The specific issue with not having pre-measuring is that it rewards players for having certain attributes/abilities another player may lack, such as very good spacial awareness and estimation of distance, this is not something that is a skill as such, and such cannot be really improved to a point you have parity with the player with such ability, you have it or you don't and can only marginally improve it... Without pre-measuring you are handing a huge advantage to the above player that other skills their opponent may have will not be able to match in some respect as it is such a huge boon for a game where estimation of measurement is so important.

You've edited out the second part of that point, which is the most important one. I understand some people don't like things like estimating ranges as part of game design and also understand there are perfectly valid design reasons to remove it. I don't necessarily think 40k removing estimation of ranges is overall a bad thing. What is bad is doing so while also removing randomness almost everywhere else, especially with dice rolls. The general increase in lethality is also a factor here (of which re-rolls and +1 bonuses are a major culprit) because it removes variance through the brute force of weight of dice.