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.

Heey Dakka Dakka, I hope you're all well!

For my self, I've noticed a really big change in the pace of the game. 7th generally had 1-2 turns of jockeying for position, for cover etc and normally turn 2-4 were where all the action happened, sometimes turn 3-5.

I've found in the new edition, it kicks off turn 1. Just a few examples - Ghostwalk mantle crons unit, Swarmlord in Tyranocyte, Deep strike + warp time ,etc etc. I've found that armies are in the tick of it turn one, and by turn 3 normally definitely turn 4 the game is well decided. The first 2 turns I've found for both players are normally the ones that are hugely involved and almost decide the game.

Have you guys found the same, or not? If so how do you feel about the new pace of the game?

Mostly I like it, but I feel like it does emphasise alpha strike type lists a bit too much - once upon a time going second might mean that you lost a unit or two, if you were unlucky or your opponent had a very good alpha strike, but you were probably ok. Nowadays going second can be lethal.

It really feels like a mixed bag IMO.

In games of 7th/30k, games were nearly always decided in the last turn or two. I have had plenty of games of 30k that swung back and forth and only on the bottom of turn six did either of us know how it was going to go.

The few games of 8th I have played, it was all wrapped up by the end of turn two one way or the other. Between cover not mattering much anymore, turn one deep strikes with brutal alpha strike units, and everything being far more lethal it really seems hard for a game of 8th to last more then a few turns. Which I think is what GW wanted but is overall rather meh.

I've really enjoyed it. Yes, the game really does kick off on turn 1, and usually a ton has happened by the end of turn 2, but I also find that the events of turn 1 and turn 2 involve both players at the right times and give both players something important to act upon. I'd say I miss some of the jockeying for positioning from before, but I find that emotional need is fulfilled by the deployment process. Deployment is now when I "jockey" back and forth, trying to figure out the strategy my opponent is committing to before giving away my own. Then, once battle starts, I get to see if I was right or wrong and get to respond.

I haven't seen a game yet where one person's list wholly defeated the other person. There's been some lopsided games, sure, but those games all had opportunities for one player to do something. I fethed up my first two games SO HARD, and even now there are times I catch myself going "what am I doing!?!" because there's such a clearly superior line of play had I just paid attention to it. I really like this edition because INFANTRY have so many benefits that other units don't have, even if they're no where near the strongest units in a codex. I like this edition because, if I apply myself, I am rewarded for making the correct choice. I like this edition because I'm not punished by the rules of the game for moving a model to the wrong spot, but I am punished by my opponent for doing so.

I'm very happy so far.

EDIT: And at the end of turn 2, though one player may have the advantage, there's still an opportunity to come back over the next 3 turns. I have won one of my games so far, and lost one of my games so far, simply because the game kept going on past turn 5.

 Corrode wrote:
Mostly I like it, but I feel like it does emphasise alpha strike type lists a bit too much - once upon a time going second might mean that you lost a unit or two, if you were unlucky or your opponent had a very good alpha strike, but you were probably ok. Nowadays going second can be lethal.

Huh. I feel like this edition has made going second a lot more tolerable.

Last edition, I ran an army that usually won if I had first turn and usually lost if I didn't, and brought along characters to ensure I did more than my enemy. Now, though, I feel like there are tools to mitigate the effects of going second. I've won going second as much as I've won going first.



I don't actually like the faster pace of the game. It makes them shorter, and I've only had two games out of 30 or so go out to the end, instead of ending in annihilation. Because the game more often than not ends with all of one side eliminated, the objectives are basically a non-factor. I think the problem derives from turn-1 arrival of reserves and from turn-1 melee.

A lot seems to happen in earlier turns.

I'm wondering whether I can mitigate that through proper deployment. Doesn't help that I game mostly at the GW where terrain is scarce. Not that I complain as it's free and easy to get too. Just something to plan around (although every time I play I wish I could hide my big tanks behind a building).

I started liking it a whole lot more when I mixed up my game setup.

I started using the Open War objectives over the basic maelstrom/eternal objectives, and all of those end at minimum turn 5, and many are "sudden death" objectives that can be achieved at any time to instantly win the game. (typically, this is stuff like "hold all the objectives in the game simultaneously") Additionally many of the "Twist" cards reduce the problem of early alpha strikes instantly tabling people by blunting both armies' offensive capabilities early on.

I also changed up the kinds and amounts of terrain I used, and how I used them. In one of the games of the Konor campaign, where I knew I was going second, I was able to hide pretty much my entire army in cover or fully out of LOS turn 1, and my only casualties turn 1 from an entire Guard artillery gunline was 2 wraithguard with 2 wounds on one other guard. I've found myself using a lot more Barricades and Craters, and ruling a lot of the spindlier, oddball pieces of terrain that wouldn't function as ruins to be "Imperial Statuary" minus the LD bonus (Imperial Statuary still provides cover if it obscures 25%). As opposed to 7th, where you could only get a decent cover save by ruling everything a Ruin, you have to have more of the other terrain types in 8th to have cover matter.

That said, I have had pretty frustrating games in 8th too. Particularly the Konor missions, some of which have been very...break-able... with gigantic, super-mobile units coming back from the dead to table my army turn 2, superheavies getting to double-tap their 45 shots by spending 3CP while my army sat in a 12" terrainless wasteland, objectives that were impossible to contest because my army was left without units that could climb to the second story of buildings.

it definitely takes some adjustment, that's for sure. But I think that people often forget how much adjustment had to be made to make a game of 7th fun for both parties as well - we'd just gotten used to it.

Super-meh. It's become too much "alphastrike&bubblewrap" (or exploiting character targeting rules) and the aforementioned jockeying for position doesn't really appear to be as relevant anymore.

I've stopped playing 40k altogether, and have been working on writing my own game system.

8th, in my experience, is a very S-L-O-O-O-W game. I haven't been able to finish a game yet. 7th played a lot faster than it.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Super-meh. It's become too much "alphastrike&bubblewrap" (or exploiting character targeting rules) and the aforementioned jockeying for position doesn't really appear to be as relevant anymore.

I've stopped playing 40k altogether, and have been working on writing my own game system.

I'm not sure what "jockeying for position" there was in 7th. If there was, I never saw it.


In fact, I'm fairly certain maneuver hasn't mattered in 40k for a long time. I'm not actually sure it mattered at all in the first place, but I wasn't around in the early days, so I can't say for sure, but I'm inclined to guess "no" considering our origins.

The board is just way too small, and weapon ranges too short, and a few other things.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm not sure what "jockeying for position" there was in 7th. If there was, I never saw it.


In fact, I'm fairly certain maneuver hasn't mattered in 40k for a long time. I'm not actually sure it mattered at all in the first place, but I wasn't around in the early days, so I can't say for sure, but I'm inclined to guess "no" considering our origins.

The board is just way too small, and weapon ranges too short, and a few other things.

I had a few (just a few) matches where there was some jockeying, but that's because my friends and I tend to play your average lists. In those games, there were times when making the first real move was severely disadvantageous. This became less frequent as 7th wore on. For my games now, 24 inches has become "I can pretty much hit anything".

I believe "jockeying for position" means fighting for control of objectives and terrain, both of which aren't as big an issue given that cover isn't as powerful this edition and most competitive armies don't really need to play objectives to win.

That is something I've tended to notice, obj secured tends to be more useful hypothetically than in practice, because early tabling is so much more common. Maybe this was always true to a degree, but it feels way more noticeable in 8th and feels far even less engaging as a result.

SilverAlien wrote:
I believe "jockeying for position" means fighting for control of objectives and terrain, both of which aren't as big an issue given that cover isn't as powerful this edition and most competitive armies don't really need to play objectives to win.

Ah, well, that's different from my idea of jockeying for position. For me, jockeying for position means trying to move my units in a way that I gain an advantage over my opponent while also trying to restrict their movements so they are not able to do the same to me. I've had some games entirely come down not on whom had the stronger army, but rather whom was in the better position to fight the engagement that happened. Being able to accurately predict how terrain, relative strength, and position of relative forces will impact the outcome of a conflict and the set-up for the next engagement is very helpful in all strategy games, but shows up now more in 8th (for me) than it did in 7th.

I like it. In 7th edition either nothing died (2++ rerollable invis 2+++ etc.) or I tabled people turn 2 with my Eldar.

While everything can die in 1-2 turns in 8th, using proper los-block terrain and model placement is vital. My games usually end up with all the killy stuff dying within the first three turns, with the remaining ones being smaller units scrambling for objectives,

Yeah, that kind of thing is why deep strike is so strong. It can intimidate an opponent into spreading out to gain board control, and then punish them by allowing you to concentrate your forces on a single part of the army while the rest is out of range.

Lanchester's square law means the concentrated forces will come out of the fight in much better condition than if they had been engaging equal forces separately, allowing them to roll up the board and mop up the units they were ignoring.

However, an abundance of 48"+ weapons combined with a scarcity of LoS blocking terrain on a 4' board can largely render that a moot point.

 Verviedi wrote:
8th, in my experience, is a very S-L-O-O-O-W game. I haven't been able to finish a game yet. 7th played a lot faster than it.

Really? That is the first time I have heard anyone with that experience. I have found that Turn 1 and 2 typically have very high kill rates.

Out of interest, what sort of armies are you playing? At my local gaming club, I am confident that we can fit a 2000 point game into an evening now that we have all gotten our heads round the new ruleset. Previously, anything above 1750 was chancy.

 Yarium wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
I believe "jockeying for position" means fighting for control of objectives and terrain, both of which aren't as big an issue given that cover isn't as powerful this edition and most competitive armies don't really need to play objectives to win.

Ah, well, that's different from my idea of jockeying for position. For me, jockeying for position means trying to move my units in a way that I gain an advantage over my opponent while also trying to restrict their movements so they are not able to do the same to me. I've had some games entirely come down not on whom had the stronger army, but rather whom was in the better position to fight the engagement that happened. Being able to accurately predict how terrain, relative strength, and position of relative forces will impact the outcome of a conflict and the set-up for the next engagement is very helpful in all strategy games, but shows up now more in 8th (for me) than it did in 7th.

+1, exactly.

A good tactics game should be more than what your army list is and what your deployment strategy is. Unfortunately this seems, based on reading lots of comments here and elsewhere, what the game has fallen even more towards (having already leaned heavily this way).

In wargames this jockeying is talked about as position & maneuver - which relates heavily to use of terrain to leverage a tactical advantage. More lenient line of sight rules, less/no LoS blocking terrain, weaker cover saves (easily negated by many AP weapons) has greatly reduced the need for position & maneuver.

When people say the game feels decided after the first two turns - when in prior editions it felt like it came right down the wire - I think there is a problem. And if objectives are largely irrelevant because one army is likely to be functionally destroyed well before the end of the game, then there is a problem. Building an army list should be about how t be flexible enough to respond to different victory conditions - not to optimize its ability to annihilate the enemy and make objectives irrelevant.

GW tried to make the faster paced (an admirable goal) but did so, it seems, by making things a lot deadlier, so that as each turn goes by there are less and less models/units for players to move. There is also, as a direct consequence of that, fewer and fewer options and decisions that players can make, which means the game is going to play out more and more on auto-pilot after the first couple of turns have set the trajectory. The game should get MORE interesting as it proceeds as the options for position and manuever increase. But it seems as if it simply gets LESS interesting.

I'm slowly working on a set of advanced rules, based mostly on 8th edition (since I do appreciate the major simplification of the game mechanics overall), but pulling in bits and pieces from prior editions where it re-injects more tactical decision making.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Super-meh. It's become too much "alphastrike&bubblewrap" (or exploiting character targeting rules) and the aforementioned jockeying for position doesn't really appear to be as relevant anymore.

I've stopped playing 40k altogether, and have been working on writing my own game system.

I'm not sure what "jockeying for position" there was in 7th. If there was, I never saw it.


In fact, I'm fairly certain maneuver hasn't mattered in 40k for a long time. I'm not actually sure it mattered at all in the first place, but I wasn't around in the early days, so I can't say for sure, but I'm inclined to guess "no" considering our origins.

The board is just way too small, and weapon ranges too short, and a few other things.

MSU Multiassaults, force kiting, flanking/better firing angles, tank shock & AOEs, and 7e shooting casualty resolution, and Reserves being a core part of the game rather than a "unit-specific" (or a "single stratagem." They all ultimately did promote more long-term thought beyond "Can my blobs outlast your vectors while I out-dice you to death?". Granted, units like Wraithknights and the Riptides existed outside of that system, but the "maneuver" aspect was independent of that. And it's granted that certain combos didn't scale well (Khan giving all Tacsquads Scout + a Gladius led to the infamous "Blue Scars" army), but equally messy is "I can only ninja-sneak one unit forward for a turn 1 melee. Do I sneak Tacmarines or Assault Terminators?"

I know I've had my share of wins while running armies which have been outgunned and outclassed, simply by focusing on the objective and choosing my fights.

I still find the most notable issue with 40k is the massive downtime between players, where one player gets to do everything while the other player waits for their turn.

SilverAlien wrote:I believe "jockeying for position" means fighting for control of objectives and terrain, both of which aren't as big an issue given that cover isn't as powerful this edition and most competitive armies don't really need to play objectives to win.

Well, yes, sort of. There is much less playing to objectives, but it's long been my opinion that Maelstrom of War is the primary culprit for this. They make strategic maneuver fairly pointless. Well, more accurately they disincentivise proactive strategy in exchange for reactive strategy, and they make the player react to the game instead of to the enemy, which is what's bad. Predicting, pre-empting, and reacting to enemy maneuvers is good strategic depth, reacting to a random card draw that doesn't actually involve the other player in any way [especially considering objectives are generally accomplished on the turn they're drawn if you want to win the game] is not.

Yarium wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'm not sure what "jockeying for position" there was in 7th. If there was, I never saw it.


In fact, I'm fairly certain maneuver hasn't mattered in 40k for a long time. I'm not actually sure it mattered at all in the first place, but I wasn't around in the early days, so I can't say for sure, but I'm inclined to guess "no" considering our origins.

The board is just way too small, and weapon ranges too short, and a few other things.

I had a few (just a few) matches where there was some jockeying, but that's because my friends and I tend to play your average lists. In those games, there were times when making the first real move was severely disadvantageous. This became less frequent as 7th wore on. For my games now, 24 inches has become "I can pretty much hit anything".

What's "your average list"? In 7th, GW wrote the lists we played with, but otherwise, what I tended to see as an "average" list was mech infantry. The average list I see still is.

With most of what I see, there aren't really any circumstances where the information gained from going second is more valuable than just killing a pile of enemy units.


I also noticed that you've conflated range with decreased relevance of maneuvering, and I've generally held the opposition position. Short ranged units and CQC units I think are "bad" for encouraging interaction with objectives, terrain, and overall strategic and tactical maneuver.


Generally, it doesn't matter what and where the terrain is if neither of you can shoot each other anyway.

So far its ok.

Kinda heavy on the first 3 turns with any proceeding turns being clean up and desperation moves.

about 8/10 of my games have been fairly close and could of swung ether way with a lucky this or that.

iv had a few stomps though.

otherwise besides a few abuse cases on the internet lists the game seems fine.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What's "your average list"?

Yeah, I, perhaps, should have clarified that. Our "average" lists tend to be largely infantry-based, with squads of basic guns mixed with special weapons and sergeants. Not a lot of min-maxing, and absolutely no spam (the most spam I think we ever achieved was my 9 Scat-bikes when playing Harlequin/Eldar in 7th). Having transports is good, but often we have more infantry squads than what can be transported. I especially like to be close combat and swarmy (every single army I play has a strong close combat element to it, even the Eldar by having lots of clowns), so I don't leave my gaming group with a lot of options for "sit back and shoot". With all of us having lots of troops, there's not a lot of sit back and shoot anyways, so positioning is very important, even in 8th. Finally, we play with a LOT of terrain! I personally enjoy a good City Fight terrain ensemble, and have ruins poking out EVERYWHERE, which gives a lot more Cover bonuses than you might get elsewhere, and restricts movement of ground-based vehicles significantly as well.

 Yarium wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What's "your average list"?

Yeah, I, perhaps, should have clarified that. Our "average" lists tend to be largely infantry-based, with squads of basic guns mixed with special weapons and sergeants. Not a lot of min-maxing, and absolutely no spam (the most spam I think we ever achieved was my 9 Scat-bikes when playing Harlequin/Eldar in 7th). Having transports is good, but often we have more infantry squads than what can be transported. I especially like to be close combat and swarmy (every single army I play has a strong close combat element to it, even the Eldar by having lots of clowns), so I don't leave my gaming group with a lot of options for "sit back and shoot". With all of us having lots of troops, there's not a lot of sit back and shoot anyways, so positioning is very important, even in 8th. Finally, we play with a LOT of terrain! I personally enjoy a good City Fight terrain ensemble, and have ruins poking out EVERYWHERE, which gives a lot more Cover bonuses than you might get elsewhere, and restricts movement of ground-based vehicles significantly as well.

No offense, that sounds super boring.

I always find games against CQC armies very point-and-clicky and un-engaging. I like terrain too, but you can't have too much, otherwise tanks have no room to maneuver. If tanks can't drive down the streets, your streets are way too narrow.


Most of the "strategic maneuvering" that I see with CQC and short ranged armies is playing cat and mouse with gun/charge range. I don't consider that a desirable state of play.

Not that it's bad, but I'd rather focus on where on the battlefield my forces are committed and what objectives and buildings I'm fighting for than precisely how many eighth's of an inch I am from that enemy Genestealer squad. Fussing with minuate, while it isn't not tactical maneuvering, is pretty boring compared to larger scale decsisions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
No offense, that sounds super boring.

I always find games against CQC armies very point-and-clicky and un-engaging. I like terrain too, but you can't have too much, otherwise tanks have no room to maneuver. If tanks can't drive down the streets, your streets are way too narrow.


Most of the "strategic maneuvering" that I see with CQC and short ranged armies is playing cat and mouse with gun/charge range. I don't consider that a desirable state of play.

Not that it's bad, but I'd rather focus on where on the battlefield my forces are committed and what objectives and buildings I'm fighting for than precisely how many eighth's of an inch I am from that enemy Genestealer squad. Fussing with minuate, while it isn't not tactical maneuvering, is pretty boring compared to larger scale decsisions.

To that, I can only say you'd have to see us play! I think you're making a LOT of assumptions that simply aren't the case.

The other important adjustment I think is that Terrain should now really be "bigger is better." We've had a major shift from our terrain strategy in 7th - where we mostly created smaller, modular terrain pieces which could be rearranged in a number of different ways to form differently shaped ruins - to our new setup, where every terrain piece we put on the table needs to be able to easily hold a minimum of 10 models OR fully block a basic vehicle from LOS.

To that end we've added about 10 large painted and based styrofoam rocks for LOS blockers, and a bunch of MDF cut bunkers and more "Platform" style buildings, with the idea being that each of them should be both fully enterable by a good sized squad, and that the building itself should reasonably block fire lanes from at least ground combat units.

The quality and speed of the game is night and day when compared to using only the porous, GW and GW-style "open ruins" - cover is much easier to gain, and maneuvering to get good fire lanes is much more important.

 Mezmorki wrote:
In wargames this jockeying is talked about as position & maneuver - which relates heavily to use of terrain to leverage a tactical advantage. More lenient line of sight rules, less/no LoS blocking terrain, weaker cover saves (easily negated by many AP weapons) has greatly reduced the need for position & maneuver.

I don't think this is entirely the fault of the game.

I see so many pictures of people's games where there's 2-4 pieces of LoS blocking terrain and they're all placed in the corners so that the two armies can be deployed 24" apart in the middle of their deployment zones with immediate LoS on each other.

True. But - I have a fairly dense terrain setup and with true line of sight, intervening terrain providing no cover bonuses or hit modifiers, and with all modes in a unit needing to be in area terrain to get benefit of cover -even if you have a bunch of terrain it isn't nearly as impactful as it was. Maybe since it's so useless people figure you might as well just not bother with it.

Terrain needs to be less binary in how it effects the mechanics - because that creates nuance for different tactical choices to emerge and be possible.

Terrain definitely makes or breaks this game. While the rules simplification and the reigning in of the Codex power creep (please GW do not bring this back) is refreshing in my opinion the game can feel like a shooting gallery if a table is not set up properly.

Generally I include one large LOS blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the board with some smaller LOS blocking terrain pieces somewhere outside of the deployment zones. I rarely have LOS blocking terrain inside a deployment zone because I feel it encourages games to devolve into two gunlines shooting back and forth.

 Mezmorki wrote:
True. But - I have a fairly dense terrain setup and with true line of sight, intervening terrain providing no cover bonuses or hit modifiers, and with all modes in a unit needing to be in area terrain to get benefit of cover -even if you have a bunch of terrain it isn't nearly as impactful as it was. Maybe since it's so useless people figure you might as well just not bother with it.

Terrain needs to be less binary in how it effects the mechanics - because that creates nuance for different tactical choices to emerge and be possible.

If those terrain pieces are what would have been area terrain in previous editions then you're right, that is pretty close to not having them now. Multiple chunky pieces of LoS blocking terrain is essential. It was in previous editions but it's even more important now.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
What's "your average list"?

Yeah, I, perhaps, should have clarified that. Our "average" lists tend to be largely infantry-based, with squads of basic guns mixed with special weapons and sergeants. Not a lot of min-maxing, and absolutely no spam (the most spam I think we ever achieved was my 9 Scat-bikes when playing Harlequin/Eldar in 7th). Having transports is good, but often we have more infantry squads than what can be transported. I especially like to be close combat and swarmy (every single army I play has a strong close combat element to it, even the Eldar by having lots of clowns), so I don't leave my gaming group with a lot of options for "sit back and shoot". With all of us having lots of troops, there's not a lot of sit back and shoot anyways, so positioning is very important, even in 8th. Finally, we play with a LOT of terrain! I personally enjoy a good City Fight terrain ensemble, and have ruins poking out EVERYWHERE, which gives a lot more Cover bonuses than you might get elsewhere, and restricts movement of ground-based vehicles significantly as well.

No offense, that sounds super boring.

I always find games against CQC armies very point-and-clicky and un-engaging. I like terrain too, but you can't have too much, otherwise tanks have no room to maneuver. If tanks can't drive down the streets, your streets are way too narrow.


Most of the "strategic maneuvering" that I see with CQC and short ranged armies is playing cat and mouse with gun/charge range. I don't consider that a desirable state of play.

Not that it's bad, but I'd rather focus on where on the battlefield my forces are committed and what objectives and buildings I'm fighting for than precisely how many eighth's of an inch I am from that enemy Genestealer squad. Fussing with minuate, while it isn't not tactical maneuvering, is pretty boring compared to larger scale decsisions.

I do agree that melee lists are very one-dimensional, though I think there is a sweet spot for range where it's large enough to threaten a good chunk of the board, but short enough that some degree of defeat-in-detail can be achieved. Usually roughly between 18" and 48", though the high end of that range pushes things when the short edge of the table is also 48".

Of course it's relative to table size, larger play areas can make use of longer ranges. And a handful of table-covering artillery units can spice things up by making sure defeat-in-detail isn't quite the instant-win button that it would be without them.

 greenterror88 wrote:
Terrain definitely makes or breaks this game. While the rules simplification and the reigning in of the Codex power creep (please GW do not bring this back) is refreshing in my opinion the game can feel like a shooting gallery if a table is not set up properly.

Generally I include one large LOS blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the board with some smaller LOS blocking terrain pieces somewhere outside of the deployment zones. I rarely have LOS blocking terrain inside a deployment zone because I feel it encourages games to devolve into two gunlines shooting back and forth.

As if "devolve into two gunlines shooting back and forth" is better than devolution into a ball of melee.

I make sure there's some at the edges for gun teams and tanks, and then some in the middle to break up the board into discrete areas.