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.

At the end of the day you can use basically any weapon to do any job

I feel exactly the opposite is the case in fact. A unit of Death Company with chainswords will wipe any light infantry unit off the board, but they will struggle with T5 2+ save units, or deal only few wounds to a Leman Russ. Aggressors will delete screens but only deal few wounds to a rhino, and a lascannon is obviously horrible against light infantry. Battle Cannons are finally the jack of all trades they ought to be, putting out medium damage against a wide array of targets.

The fact that every weapon can wound anything is a huge trap, you can shoot a whole Brigade of fully buffed firewarriors at a land raider and don't even notch off a bracket. Aiming the right gun at the right target is hugely important, much more than last edition where every marine squad could melee down tanks in a single round of close combat.

 Peregrine wrote:
You know, it's funny, I rarely see anyone posting things like "all {poster} does is talk about how they like 40k, why do they have to do it so much". But when the subject is criticism of GW or 40k there's inevitably a crowd lining up to complain about "why do you have to post that so much". It's a double standard that is simultaneously amusing and irritating, and I think it says a lot about certain GW-apologist elements of the community.

It's not a double standard at all Peregrine. We don't NEED to ask why someone who lvoes 40k, and enjoys it etc is on a forum devoted to talking about it. The answer is self evidant. meanwhile someone who hates 40k.... why do they spend so much time on a 40k forum?

So, in a relic hunt game, i lost all of my forward forces. My opponent was also spent. So I looked at what remained and decided to get half a tactical squad on board a wounded razorback taken from my gunline and went for the objective, trying to zig-zag into the terrain to avoid getting seen and shot by a lonely leman russ.

Is this optimal, disregards positionings and ultimately dumb, or is it actually strategy/tactics? Just asking because sometimes it seems I play a differenti game altogether.
Must be the noob in me.

 Peregrine wrote:
"I cast tactical marine and buff it with chapter master and plasma gun and I deal 40,000 damage to you, I win" mechanics.

That's all I need to do to win games? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME?!

CapRichard wrote:
So, in a relic hunt game, i lost all of my forward forces. My opponent was also spent. So I looked at what remained and decided to get half a tactical squad on board a wounded razorback taken from my gunline and went for the objective, trying to zig-zag into the terrain to avoid getting seen and shot by a lonely leman russ.

Is this optimal, disregards positionings and ultimately dumb, or is it actually strategy/tactics? Just asking because sometimes it seems I play a differenti game altogether.
Must be the noob in me.

It's those non-existing movement and terrain late game tactics.

Peregrine is right, 40K is very simple, and movement doesn't matter, although I'd say it's because of the ranges and amount of models you're using on a 6'x4' table. And that's ok.
Sometimes it's just fun to play a CCG.

I think people confuse target priority and positioning. Target priority, granted, is pretty straight-forward in 8th. Lascannons and melta go against vehicles. Massed AP 0 fire against light infantry. Plasma against heavy infantry. Smites against tough, high invuln units. And of course, you want those parts of your army to be in optimal range against their preferred targets.

But, considering that I don't play on a flat plain, I actually have to take into account - can I see my optimal targets through terrain? Did the opponent counter-deploy in order to deny me optimal strikes? If so, how do I position them and what's my best path through terrain to get to my optimal target? If I DS in my alpha strike squad, do I have options to retreat afterwards if the dice don't roll my way? Is my backfield support completely exposed? If the opponent DS' a CC squad into my DZ, how many turns of movement do I have before he's in? Is my screen positioned to prevent the CC squad from tying up my artillery this turn? How will that change next turn after his movement phase?

Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)

quentra wrote:
Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)

When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.

quentra wrote:
I

Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k

In fairness they probably played one game.

A year ago with Index armies. With the express intention of disliking it

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

quentra wrote:
Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)

When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.

What? Why would you even need other movement other than 'How do I get in optimal range of my target'? That is the whole point of movement, because moving into optimal range will expose you to return fire from your opponent (if they're smart.)

Theoretically, what sort of movement would you want to see that isn't 'How do I get range/LOS to my target?'

 Earth127 wrote:

CapRichard wrote:
So, in a relic hunt game, i lost all of my forward forces. My opponent was also spent. So I looked at what remained and decided to get half a tactical squad on board a wounded razorback taken from my gunline and went for the objective, trying to zig-zag into the terrain to avoid getting seen and shot by a lonely leman russ.

Is this optimal, disregards positionings and ultimately dumb, or is it actually strategy/tactics? Just asking because sometimes it seems I play a differenti game altogether.
Must be the noob in me.

It's those non-existing movement and terrain late game tactics.

Not to be a Richard, but this sounds more like basic game play to me.

My forward stuff is dead, I need to get to an objective. A vehicle is faster than infantry, and stuffing some chaff that isn't doing much otherwise anyway in the vehicle means they'd have to kill 2 units. I need my guys to survive so I'll send them on a path that is out of los of/gets cover from the biggest threat to their continued existence but also leads to the objective.

I mean it was clearly a good decision (and sounds like a fun game moment), but it sounds like a reasonably straightforward scenario. What other options than "move to target while avoiding being shot" were there at this point? I don't think it covers the play/counterplay and outflanking etc. stuff the others seem to be looking for*.


*Unless you planned this in advance by baiting the russ out of position in earlier turns, that would be interesting.

quentra wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

quentra wrote:
Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)

When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.

What? Why would you even need other movement other than 'How do I get in optimal range of my target'? That is the whole point of movement, because moving into optimal range will expose you to return fire from your opponent (if they're smart.)

Theoretically, what sort of movement would you want to see that isn't 'How do I get range/LOS to my target?'

I'm fine with it being at that level, but the kind of movement peregrine is talking about, to position for an outcome three turns away, to predict and counter your opponent's movement, that would add depth. I can't remember who said it a few pages back, but they were right. Movement in 40k is just about target priority, and the optimal way of getting there is almost always clear, and almost always regardless of what your opponent does, that movement is not going to change. There is no interplay with movement, no real proactive action, no reaction to make.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

quentra wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

quentra wrote:
Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k, because that is only a small sample of actual decisions I have to make during the movement phase - all having to do with positioning. Maybe you play on a flat plain, your opponent doesn't ever move or counter-deploy, and your board is so small that you are always in optimal range of everything. But I would venture a guess that the majority of 40k players do not play that way (with good reason, as that seems dumb.)

When I do get to play, it's with tons of LOS blocking terrain. But the choices for movement essentially always boil down to, 'how do I get LOS onto my target priority'. All the 'options' you listed boil down to that. How do I get LOS, how do I remove screens so I can get close enough to shoot. Both just target priority. No one is trying to deny that there is movement in 40k, and no one is saying that it is irrelevant to gameplay. But it is shallow, and it isn't very important.

What? Why would you even need other movement other than 'How do I get in optimal range of my target'? That is the whole point of movement, because moving into optimal range will expose you to return fire from your opponent (if they're smart.)

Theoretically, what sort of movement would you want to see that isn't 'How do I get range/LOS to my target?'

I'm fine with it being at that level, but the kind of movement peregrine is talking about, to position for an outcome three turns away, to predict and counter your opponent's movement, that would add depth. I can't remember who said it a few pages back, but they were right. Movement in 40k is just about target priority, and the optimal way of getting there is almost always clear, and almost always regardless of what your opponent does, that movement is not going to change. There is no interplay with movement, no real proactive action, no reaction to make.

Counter-positioning? Almost every game I've played, moving my dudes into optimal range of their preferred targets brought them into optimal range of the enemy's guns...who just so happen to be optimal against my dudes.

So that would seem to be counter-play. To be honest, I have trouble even imaging movement more complex than that, but I would love to hear more of this ideal movement that is deeper than 'Get your dudes into position while trying to avoid being in position for your enemy's guns.'

quentra wrote:
Counter-positioning? Almost every game I've played, moving my dudes into optimal range of their preferred targets brought them into optimal range of the enemy's guns...who just so happen to be optimal against my dudes. So that would seem to be counter-play.

That's... that's not what cunter positionisng is. Counter positioning is setting up ahead of time to counter something your opponent does. In 40k, given the range sof most weapons, this basically doesn't take place. Plonk your unit down wherever, it can almost certainly hit what it's meant to with ease.

quentra wrote:
To be honest, I have trouble even imaging movement more complex than that, but I would love to hear more of this ideal movement that is deeper than 'Get your dudes into position while trying to avoid being in position for your enemy's guns.'

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Don't try and get into a discussion about game mechanics if that's the limit of your idea of movement.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

quentra wrote:
Counter-positioning? Almost every game I've played, moving my dudes into optimal range of their preferred targets brought them into optimal range of the enemy's guns...who just so happen to be optimal against my dudes. So that would seem to be counter-play.

That's... that's not what cunter positionisng is. Counter positioning is setting up ahead of time to counter something your opponent does. In 40k, given the range sof most weapons, this basically doesn't take place. Plonk your unit down wherever, it can almost certainly hit what it's meant to with ease.

quentra wrote:
To be honest, I have trouble even imaging movement more complex than that, but I would love to hear more of this ideal movement that is deeper than 'Get your dudes into position while trying to avoid being in position for your enemy's guns.'

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. Don't try and get into a discussion about game mechanics if that's the limit of your idea of movement.

Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?

Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.

quentra wrote:
Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?
Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.

Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or how about outflanking on land? One of the simplest manoeuvres in all warfare is basically non-existent is 8th 40k.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

quentra wrote:
Please offer some concrete examples. Do you mean range modifiers to the to-hit roll for movement? Do you mean to-wound mods for firing on the enemy not straight on?
Everyone keeps talking about this mythical movement that is deeper than 40ks, but no one actually talks about what it is.

Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.

Yeah...that's in real life. You realize that wargames are an abstraction, and 40k is a magic space game with space wizards and elves and gak? How is that at all applicable to the actual game of abstract combat of space wizards?

Also 'Putting my ships in a line' works because in real life, you have seperate ships. In a wargame, that blob would probably be abstracted to a unit or two, depending on the scale of wargame. (Actually, wouldn't that work in BFG? I've only played the video game version.)

quentra wrote:

Yeah...that's in real life. You realize that wargames are an abstraction, and 40k is a magic space game with space wizards and elves and gak? How is that at all applicable to the actual game of abstract combat of space wizards?

You realise wargames, whilst they are an abstraction, are attempting to imitate real life and combat. That's why options like this are available in all wargames. It's applicable because positioning is important in plenty of games with space wizards, but not this one. 40K is not a wargame. It's more like a board game or CCG where you paint minis.

quentra wrote:

Also 'Putting my ships in a line' works because in real life, you have seperate ships. In a wargame, that blob would probably be abstracted to a unit or two, depending on the scale of wargame. (Actually, wouldn't that work in BFG? I've only played the video game version.)

No... if you're replicating naval combat, you use individual ships. And I have no doubt BFG does not operate on the same lines as early 19th century naval combat, but it does have actual positioning, as it's a proper wargame, at least compared to 40k, which has no real options beyond 'do I hide behind LOS blocking cover' or 'do I move into range of the thing I want to shoot'. There's nothing stopping 40K from having actual depth in movement and positioning just because there are space wizards.

That's not to say it's wrong, or you can't enjoy it, I'm just asking that you don't pretend 40k is something it's not.

It seems that some people may not have played against close combat armies?

Some great examples of positioning and counter play are:
1) Positioning your screen so that it can fall back and not be locked in combat through enemies surrounding it.
2) Positioning a unit to slow down the enemy chargers - for example your enemy has a movement of 10" and you know they are likely to make a successful charge against your army if they move the full distance. Position a unit so that they can only move 8". I've used this make the opponent fail a charge to my valuable units.
3) Positioning a unit to counter charge.
4) Using LoS blocking terrain to avoid overwatch.
5) Using a charge move to cover more ground for denying deep strikers rather than moving in for the kill.
The list goes on and I can link people to great articles about close combat and positioning if they want.


However if all you play is shooting vs shooting, then yeah, positioning isn't going to be as impactful.

JakeSiren wrote:
It seems that some people may not have played against close combat armies?

Some great examples of positioning and counter play are:
1) Positioning your screen so that it can fall back and not be locked in combat through enemies surrounding it.
2) Positioning a unit to slow down the enemy chargers - for example your enemy has a movement of 10" and you know they are likely to make a successful charge against your army if they move the full distance. Position a unit so that they can only move 8". I've used this make the opponent fail a charge to my valuable units.
3) Positioning a unit to counter charge.
4) Using LoS blocking terrain to avoid overwatch.
5) Using a charge move to cover more ground for denying deep strikers rather than moving in for the kill.
The list goes on and I can link people to great articles about close combat and positioning if they want.


However if all you play is shooting vs shooting, then yeah, positioning isn't going to be as impactful.

As you say, shooting vs shooting (most fo 40k) it doesn't matter.
As for your list, it boils down to, 'use screens when defending' and 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible'.
I think, though, the basic issue, even for CC as well as shooting, is scale. 28mm company and larger on 6x4 means you can basically reach everyhwere quickly, which makes positioning largely irrelevant.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
It seems that some people may not have played against close combat armies?

Some great examples of positioning and counter play are:
1) Positioning your screen so that it can fall back and not be locked in combat through enemies surrounding it.
2) Positioning a unit to slow down the enemy chargers - for example your enemy has a movement of 10" and you know they are likely to make a successful charge against your army if they move the full distance. Position a unit so that they can only move 8". I've used this make the opponent fail a charge to my valuable units.
3) Positioning a unit to counter charge.
4) Using LoS blocking terrain to avoid overwatch.
5) Using a charge move to cover more ground for denying deep strikers rather than moving in for the kill.
The list goes on and I can link people to great articles about close combat and positioning if they want.


However if all you play is shooting vs shooting, then yeah, positioning isn't going to be as impactful.

As you say, shooting vs shooting (most fo 40k) it doesn't matter.
As for your list, it boils down to, 'use screens when defending' and 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible'.
I think, though, the basic issue, even for CC as well as shooting, is scale. 28mm company and larger on 6x4 means you can basically reach everyhwere quickly, which makes positioning largely irrelevant.

Sure, but if you want to ignore nuance then your example of Nelson boils down to 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible' with the French and Spanish 'use screens when defending'. There are other manoeuvres that you can engage in 40k. For example this is a great example.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

*Unless you planned this in advance by baiting the russ out of position in earlier turns, that would be interesting.

That was basically it actually. We both eneded up using 2 gunline armies with some mobile elements (I had some Ravenwing elements, he a Valkirie), that were shot down pretty early while doing some damage (I made a suicide beeline for his artillery managing to silence it) and then a giant freaking LOS blocking terrain in the middle forced us to move around it to make our gunline shooot each other. We could have gone right or left, I had first turn I decided to move right to force him to move right (Some stuff was in view, I shifted my weight, I baited and he went for it basically), having a left flank open to do later a smash and grab if possibile, that actually happened, even if not like I would have wanted, since you know, casualties happened.

I know it's not super high advanced tactics, it's just common sense, really, but actually having it makes the difference between players. The problems I think stems from listbuilding actually. The more OP and efficient a list is, the less brain you have to put into it. I faced a poxwalker spam list for example and saw an Eldar Shining Spears in action. Both lists were brain dead in their use: advance, point, shoot and charge. And there was little counter play possible, because the first would just occupy the whole board and shrug off everything I threw at it, the second was super fast, super durable, hard hitting, all in one package. By having listst that are on the more moderate spectrum, like actually using terminators, tacticals, admech infantry, you know, the model everyone forgets because they are not competitive, forces more effort to be put into the actual battle plan because your units "sucks" and need support, overlapping ranges and the likes. And this problem has been present since... the beginning of 40k I would say?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Here we see the glorious Nelson defeating the French and Spanish at Trafalgar.
See what he's doing? He's cutting the Coalition's line of ships with his own ships. In 40k, you'd just line up next to them and fire away. But Nelson is cutting the line, through his use of positioning, he's made it so he has a significant advantage, being able to fire up the French line whilst they are unable really to fire back. Sure he could have gone line for line, but the option was there, and he took it, being a brilliant naval commander. In 40k, the option isn't there, due to the core mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or how about outflanking on land? One of the simplest manoeuvres in all warfare is basically non-existent is 8th 40k.

Using a ship example is not the best example to describe a movement tactics in a land based warfare game. Ships are slow moving, can't really react fact and have two very distinctive profiles (they are narrow and long). To employ such tactics in 40k hoenstly, one would have to first implement ships or vechicles with such characteristics and size. Most giant units in 40k are walkers that can turn on a dime and have a "squared shape". I believe that Battlefleet Gothic actually has rules to recreate something similar for istance, since it's based on naval warfare and not land battles.

Outflanking on land is atcually used in 8thk all the times. It's called deep striking. The ability to put forces right in the earth or the enemy by creating a second attack vector different from your main force it's there. When I use deepstriking I don't suicide bomb a unit for a first turn alpha strike and that's it, I put an entire army over there that my enemy has to respond to. And we happen to play on a table where if you are on one end of it, you can't always shoot the units on the other side, (Deployment permitting, if we get short table edge is a massacre usually) so if he diverts attention to the second front, the guns will be out of range on the other one. I have no idea how many times after I silenced the big guns I could simply stay out of range and retaliate with impunity.

I agree that that the removal of vehicle facing, the simplification of cover and the absolute precision of deep striking neuter the amount of options one has, as deepstriking behind a tank now it's the same as simply deploying in front of it. There is no denying that most of the focus has been moved from executing to list building compared to last edition (7th tau salutes everyone with they thiny hands as always) but I honestly also played Infinity and I don't want another game like that. XD

JakeSiren wrote:
Sure, but if you want to ignore nuance then your example of Nelson boils down to 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible' with the French and Spanish 'use screens when defending'. There are other manoeuvres that you can engage in 40k. For example this is a great example.

Not at all. What Nelson is doing actually has thought behind it beyond those super simplistic points. Points 1,2 and 4 literally are those simple points, 3 is irrelevant due to my point about board size, and point 5 I just don't understand because I'm fairly sure it's a misunderstanding of game mechanics. I think you mean advance, but I'm not sure.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Sure, but if you want to ignore nuance then your example of Nelson boils down to 'don't get shot as you advance and advance as quickly as possible' with the French and Spanish 'use screens when defending'. There are other manoeuvres that you can engage in 40k. For example this is a great example.

Not at all. What Nelson is doing actually has thought behind it beyond those super simplistic points. Points 1,2 and 4 literally are those simple points, 3 is irrelevant due to my point about board size, and point 5 I just don't understand because I'm fairly sure it's a misunderstanding of game mechanics. I think you mean advance, but I'm not sure.

No, for point 5 I mean declaring a charge against an enemy unit, then having your unit spread out as a part of the charge move - even in the opposite direction to the enemy you charged!

Point 1 is knowing how your screening can be used against you and playing smartly against that.
Point 2 is knowing how to position your screen to be most effective in denying your enemy their "rightful" movement.
Point 3 is relevant. Not everything can move super fast - terminators for example have limited speed but can be kitted for a strong counter offensive.

These "simple" examples of positioning, as you put it, are the foundation blocks to more complex tactics. The article I linked to provides a more complex example of tactics arising from clever positioning.

I think in 8th one of the reason maneuver is less important than it might be is that tabling your opponent is pretty common, and a method of victory. Progressive missions help maneuver a bit because they force you to move and claim objective, unless tabling your opponent wins the game.

I do agree though that ranges are too long/the table too small. Ranges that cover most of the table are not uncommon, and the most common ranges of all reach between 1/4th and 1/2 the entire distance of the table. Adding in the movement stat helps things in some ways but 6"+ movement is far too common, almost nothing moves fewer than 4", and with advancing many things can move up to 12" in a turn. Throw in charges threat ranges for assault are extremely long, this forces gun ranges to be longer. If most weapons were say 12" range then assault becomes way more powerful because shooting an assault unit means if you don't kill it in a single turn you get assaulted. Which makes counter play through moving less common. If range differences and movement differences between factions were greater you would see more counter play. Further if shooting longer than say 30" was uncommon to non-existent (given the table size) you would see more movement/counter play.

 Sim-Life wrote:

quentra wrote:
I

Basically, I'm not sure Peregrine and other commentators actually play 8ed 40k

In fairness they probably played one game.

A year ago with Index armies. With the express intention of disliking it

Been playing every week or so, and placing in the top two in pretty much every local tournament since 8th came out (I'd play in larger ponds, but unfortunately that's not as practical as I would like). I like a lot of core elements of 8th edition, but it has some serious problems.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

I'm fine with it being at that level, but the kind of movement peregrine is talking about, to position for an outcome three turns away, to predict and counter your opponent's movement, that would add depth. I can't remember who said it a few pages back, but they were right. Movement in 40k is just about target priority, and the optimal way of getting there is almost always clear, and almost always regardless of what your opponent does, that movement is not going to change. There is no interplay with movement, no real proactive action, no reaction to make.

Honest question, have you ever watched a top table game of 8th?

Making some very obvious tactical reactions is not counterplay, not deep or proactive gameplay. There are very few occasions where you'll be making moves in 8th (and honestly, most earlier editions, but we're in 8th now) that require a good level of skill or intuition. It's all very spelled out. Since everything is so direct, while you might end up reacting to certain situations, you don't end up spending much time actually trying to outplay your opponent, as that level of interaction is mostly unimportant.

40k has a very low skill ceiling, essentially. And that's not a good thing.

 Fafnir wrote:
Making some very obvious tactical reactions is not counterplay, not deep or proactive gameplay. There are very few occasions where you'll be making moves in 8th (and honestly, most earlier editions, but we're in 8th now) that require a good level of skill or intuition. It's all very spelled out. Since everything is so direct, while you might end up reacting to certain situations, you don't end up spending much time actually trying to outplay your opponent, as that level of interaction is mostly unimportant.

40k has a very low skill ceiling, essentially. And that's not a good thing.

If that's the case then why do the same players consistently place well in events? If the skill ceiling is that low you'd think there'd be a lot more variance in the top tables based at some point on dice, luck, etc.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
I find it tremendously entertaining that you don't think movement or positioning matters.

I find it tremendously entertaining that you think movement and positioning matter in a game where so many units can either deploy directly into close range shooting or a decent chance of a turn 1 charge or simply have enough raw speed to go wherever they want (including a turn-1 charge), and where terrain has been made almost irrelevant by ridiculous movement and LOS rules, and where flanking/hitting rear armor on vehicles/etc have all been removed from the game. GW has relentlessly diminished the importance of movement and positioning in favor of a CCG style "I cast 'charge with space marines' on your unit" system. Rarely do you have to plan a game of move vs. counter-move, you just declare which target you are attacking and roll dice to see if it works.

And no, the existence of screens don't make movement and positioning matter, just like the existence of blocking in MTG doesn't make it a game of movement and positioning.

Fair points all, none supported by actual game play but there's not an argument to be had. I don't 'argue' with people who have no interest in taking a look at things from outside their already established viewpoint.

To the OP's point, ultimately I disagree. I think 40k has strong synergies, and generally I think 8th is a solid edition. Are there things I'd like to improve? Certainly. And as they release more codexes I think things are improving and they're certainly learning their lessons from earlier books.

If you think 40k has strong synergies you need to try literally any other game.

People not experienced in other games seem to be confusing having a model that gives everything rerolls with a variety of synergies and interactions. If each army has a buff unit that all do the same thing that is shallow not synergy, that's not options and variety. It's like if MtG had one single combo for each color deck and you said, "see it has synergies."

Having more ways units interact and counter, and different ways multiple interactions combo, leads to more tactics needed to counter and more than a handful of builds. "You need anti infantry and anti tank guns" I said not synergy, at least as I was using the term.