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.

 Galas wrote:

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering

Oh man, I wish. I still have fond memories of a 4th edition White Scars vs Eldar game where shooting, apart from a Whirlwind, started turn 4. Of course, back then area terrain was the focal point of the game.

I'd say yes, movement is going to be largely irrelevant, and by design. This game is designed to blow crap up turn 1, and get stuck in with Close combat no later than turn 2, usually turn 1 as well. Movement is usually just going to be a rather gamey challenge of how to annoyingly space your units to either maximize or minimize your chances of getting pulled into combat. Again though, by design IMO. Terrain in general is intentionally designed not to completely block LoS, and not to create huge no go zones.

It's essentially the opposite of Bolt Action, where you have 2-3 turns of movement and ineffectual shooting before it really heats up. That game has lots of terrain designed to block LoS, range penalties, the ability to go into cover/go down (and it's very effective against almost any kind of shooting), and few ways to insure a close combat oriented squad can just pop up and start killing guys without having to spend a few turns getting there, and even then the equivalent of overwatch in that system can be really punishing.

The real action in AoS and 40k now happens in the assault phases, which are much more interesting than before. Movement is just treated as an impedement to getting to what really matters.

I don't really see it as either better or worse, just different. I haven't played a ton of games with 8th (5 at this point), but I've experienced AoS enough to know that's how it is. There's more shooting in 40k though, and I'm not 100% sure how it will change the way both games play compared to each other.

I think that people are overestimating the importance of the movement phase in 7th edition.

I also wish to point out that 8th edition actually has greater tactical depth than 7th in terms of unit placement.

Alternating deployment is a thing now.

The fact that you can't "Deep Strike" within 9" of an enemy model is huge. It means you can have units that are 18" apart, which is gigantic, and the enemy cannot land in between them. That's incredible area denial.

It seems like a piece of cake to prevent most units from getting anywhere near anything important if you're intent on preventing a strong assault oriented alpha strike.

Add to that the fact hat you can voluntarily fall back out of combat. . . I think the few units that can make those first turn assaults are going to be facing some serious counter-threats in the enemy phase.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The alternative is marching across the board in a straight line, because terrain does nothing anyway. So it's not like deep strike changes much in the way of tactical depth.

This is ultimately the heart of the problem. Ever since they eliminated abstracted area terrain and replaced it by TLOS when switching from 4e to 5e, deploying most assault specialist on the board normally has been an act of suicide. When the rules let you blast an entire squad to oblivion because you can see exactly one member of that squad through the window of some ruins half way across the board, of course their going to die before reaching assault.

People have been calling for assault out of deepstrike for three editions now. It wasn't granted until 7e, presumably because it would have been broken as all hell. And depending on how easy is to obtain exceptions to the 2d6 charge range or >9" deepstrike restrictions (just deploy homing beacons with a small bike squad right next to the enemy DZ turn 1?) it could very easily be game breaking in 8th. It is a terrible idea in any case, substituting outmaneuvering your opponent with rolling a 9 on 2d6 does not engender deep tactics. And the whole bubble wrap idea feels very metagamey, always requiring you to keep cheap units on the edge of your forces so people with swords can't suddenly materialize out of the ether and jump an important unit. It feels sort of like blocking drop pod alpha strikes in previous editions by filling your DZ with fodder to deny the pods enough room to legally deploy. It works for sure but it never felt right that that was the only method you had for countering these alpha strike shenanigans.

I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

I feel that. I had my last "best" WHFB in 6th, small not optimized 1000 points battles with a HE neighbour vs my chaos. Nothing beats those 4-5 units each side accumulating tension and baiting the enemy until the first charge.

I am very happy of the statlines, army selection, tone and other choices of 8th edition but the concerns expressed in the thread are more than reasonable, IMHO.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

Positioning still helps screen things, and is what smart deployment is all about. Maneuvering is still key to counter-attacking efficiently after a first turn assault.

Buuuuuttt. . . . these examples are entirely in a vacuum too. If you have a well-terrained board, with some good LOS blockers and move/assault-modifying terrain (like real war), positioning and maneuvering becomes even more important.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

 auticus wrote:
Well turn one assaulting in AOS and turn one assaulting in previous editions of the game was certainly brainless. Thats what I'm going off of with my opinion here.

The shooting in 8th ed. is an order of magnitude more powerful than it is in AoS. So where an alphassault in AoS would likely need to be replied to by a counter-assault (potentially starting an endless chain of assault/counter-assault until everything is dead) a legitimate reply in 8th edition would be to fall back and then unload ranged hell on the chargers.

The old versions of alphassault you keep referencing were only brainless because there was no safe way to fall back from combat. The charger picked their target of choice (depending on if they wanted to kill it, stall it, tar pit it, etc.) and then the resolution was mostly up to time and dice (and normally favoured the attacker, since they made the decision on who to charge and why). This system is totally different.

You keep referencing the importance of the movement phase in past editions while also seeming to indicate a distaste for melee vs. shooting... but ironically the movement phases of yore were SO much more important for melee units than they were for shooty ones. A melee unit needed to deploy on a projected path to a viable target, then make its way there while benefiting from cover, but trying to avoid the penalties for charging through cover, while range-dodging/LoS-dodging as many threats as it possibly could. The maneuvering performed by shooty units was significantly more basic/shallow (ie. move to get LoS and deny cover)

 Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

Do me a favor and dial down your aggression. If you can't respond without beating your chest, move to a different thread. There's no point to trying to have a conversation or a thread otherwise.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

have you tried WMH?

 carldooley wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

have you tried WMH?

Yep I still have a cryx army. My community that plays WMH is super competitive esports types, which doesn't mesh well with what I want though. The narrative gaming is why I have stuck with GW so long despite its ruleset being of questionable quality.

 auticus wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

Do me a favor and dial down your aggression. If you can't respond without beating your chest, move to a different thread. There's no point to trying to have a conversation or a thread otherwise.

I note you didn't answer his question tho. X-wing for all it's faults is absolutely all about manouvering and positioning. Hell beyond fleet building and some basic statistical analysis of dice outcomes that's all it is.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

Movement phase is definitely not dead but it has changed a lot. It will be faster now than before with less things to delay. I think that he alternating deployment units idea and the shift in deepstrike rules will make deployment far more important and movement phase as more of a continuation of your deployment strategy.

Also we have to accept that very little in 40k is reflective of real war and certainly not historical warfare where out maneuvering was important but I'm sure that rapid engagement in modern warfare is definitely a thing.

I'm really looking forward to bubble wrapping with flamers and letting the turn one charges begin. I'm sure that the alpha strike of old will be very different in 8th.

I've played XWing. Yes there's movement and maneuver in XWing. It is a far shadow to the movement and maneuver of the games I am referencing in which I say that the games that involve heavily maneuver and positioning matter. If someone is going to claim that xwing is a deep game about maneuver and positioning, I will just have to say I disagree and we'll leave it at that.

While XWing has movement and maneuver, no I do not consider it to be as important as deckbuilding and combo chaining in that game.

I already understand 40k is not reflective of real war. That goes back to my response of "i have to accept that the type of games that I like ... (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago". That is acknowledging that 40k is not like real war. 40k is primarily up to this point about listbuilding. Manuever and the like were never a heavy trait of 40k, but I think with the new edition my guess is that movement and maneuver are going to be even less an issue now that so much can just show up where it wants to.

Deploying bubble wrap is not maneuver to me. It is deploying, which is a different "skill". Maneuver and movement is the act of moving pieces into an optimal position. When you can point and click at the table, thats as difficult as drawing breath or sustaining a heartbeat.

Will alpha strike 8th be different than the old way? I'm sure in some ways. Like I said in a different response a few pages ago... I'm not saying "i can't counter alpha strike" I'm asking "is the movement phase pretty much a non issue now with some minor importance"?

maelstrom?

Do you have a link?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The fact that you can't "Deep Strike" within 9" of an enemy model is huge. It means you can have units that are 18" apart, which is gigantic, and the enemy cannot land in between them. That's incredible area denial.

It seems like a piece of cake to prevent most units from getting anywhere near anything important if you're intent on preventing a strong assault oriented alpha strike.

Add to that the fact hat you can voluntarily fall back out of combat. . . I think the few units that can make those first turn assaults are going to be facing some serious counter-threats in the enemy phase.

Its why its players choice when they can bring em on board.

at least till T3 hopefully stuff has advanced up field.

MaxT wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

Do me a favor and dial down your aggression. If you can't respond without beating your chest, move to a different thread. There's no point to trying to have a conversation or a thread otherwise.

I note you didn't answer his question tho. X-wing for all it's faults is absolutely all about manouvering and positioning. Hell beyond fleet building and some basic statistical analysis of dice outcomes that's all it is.

Of course he didn't answer, he has nothing to say.

To his point, though - not much point in trying to have a thread when you've already decided your position, is there?

You can take it as aggression, but I'm just pointing out that you're blatantly ignoring information contrary to your opinion, even going so far as to make false assumptions and use them as statements to support your case. And then you backpedal and move the goalposts when you get called on your cognitive dissonance.

You even admit yourself that you don't actually know if what you're saying about 8th is true, it's just your guess. So what's that you said about trying to maintain a "conversation"? You're just here to soapbox about something you don't like.

I posted my opinion above. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

In other news, our club has a club night saturday where there will be a ton of 40k games going on and a good number of null deploy styled alpha strike lists, so we'll get a better feel after the weekend.

I think your club needs to start using the Matched Play rules in the rulebook which state you need 50% of your army on the table at the start of the game, otherwise you're going to have a bad time this weekend. Null deploy lists are just silly, even more so that you can bring in EVERYTHING turn one without any rolling of any kind.

Thats correct you're right. Thats an exaggeration on my part though unintentional.

I wish it was 50% of your points had to be on the table. Instead of 50% units where you can just put min sized trash on there and the bulk of the points in your army come streaking down wherever they want.

I remember playing 5th. I played Orks, and so "bubblewrap" for me meant screening with throwaway units of Gretchin to prevent losing my Battlewagons to a turn 1 demovet rush, or running Buggies in a Cruising circle to provide a screen against BA Vanguard Vets. Granted, Orks were a fairly straightforward army (no DS, minimal outflank, super-weak infiltrators unless they used Snikrot to smuggle a beatstick unit, etc) but a lot of their movements were "preplanned" in a way. ("Wagons advance towards hard targets, and minimize side exposure to AT", "Buggies sacrifice themselves as move blockers", etc).

I liked the 7e shooting system over other ones, because "closest model removed first" was superior to the 5e "50% cover" mechanic, it promoted some elementary flanking 101, and mostly protected against "musical wounds" (at least, before you got Thunderwolf Deathstars, etc). I feel the 8e system is worse than both, because cover is more meaningless, flanking is more meaningless, spacing out is less meaningful, etc. Now, for the same trouble and effort you would gave gone to to attempt to flank your opponent, it's far easier to just create a musket line and concentrate all firepower in a narrow frontage, while keeping bubblewrap chaff to eat "ninja assaults".

auticus wrote:I posted my opinion above. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I posted my opinion above. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

There's a difference between taking a hard stand and being a jerk to someone. You're both taking things personally; argue the point, not the person.

Like every edition of 40k, the importance of movement will be dictated by terrain. If you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain, it will matter if not then it won't.

As for remove the closest model, it is a terrible mechanic because it amounts to screwing over assault armies. 8th isn't perfect but I think the wound mechanics are the cleanest they have been since I started playing. No more musical wounds, but also no more remove the closest model costing you inches of movement. Spacing out will have different meaning, you won't need to do it to avoid blasts, but you will for chaining buffs, or pulling units into combat.

You also still have flanking against characters. It is different, and I think if you play with little terrain it will get stale. But that was always the case.

You're both taking things personally; argue the point, not the person.

At the point you ask things to be dialed down and the person responds by turning the dial up to 11, there's not much more thats going to be gained by that conversation I don't think.

 Desubot wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The fact that you can't "Deep Strike" within 9" of an enemy model is huge. It means you can have units that are 18" apart, which is gigantic, and the enemy cannot land in between them. That's incredible area denial.

It seems like a piece of cake to prevent most units from getting anywhere near anything important if you're intent on preventing a strong assault oriented alpha strike.

Add to that the fact hat you can voluntarily fall back out of combat. . . I think the few units that can make those first turn assaults are going to be facing some serious counter-threats in the enemy phase.

Its why its players choice when they can bring em on board.

at least till T3 hopefully stuff has advanced up field.

Which is a nice balance, IMO. On the one hand you can delay your reserves at will, waiting for the enemy to give you an opening. But the flip side is that you're conducting the battle with less of an army on the table and active.