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.

I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me

Do you have examples? I fear you've been watching the wrong people.

Most games I see. I don’t feel like digging up links. But they set up like 24” apart and just exchange shots and charge immediately. May as well just roll dice and not even bother with having armies since it is totally up to the dice gods and not anything else

There isn't really much incentive to fire and manoeuvre in 40K.

There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.

The only real decision in movement in 40k for a shooting unit is "can I see the enemy I want to shoot?". For melee it is "does this get me closer to the enemy I want to charge?" with a side of "am I exposed to something which I don't want shooting at me?"

If you're after a game where positioning and movement are important on more than a "my cheap sacrifical unit needs to be x" away from my big gun unit to prevent deep strikers from arriving in range" level, then 40K is not the game you're looking for.

warpedpig wrote:
I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me

Not all battlefields have a lot of terrain.

@OP:

There are people that like to play dumbed down games. Sad but true.

Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"

The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.

It happens. I try and play smaller games that can be a little more tactical - need to stretch your troops, sacrifice control points, go for key targets...
You deploy a character killer and your enemy deploys the character on the other side of the field, or deepstrikes them, etc etc. You sigh.

We usually do 4-6 big pieces of terrain, if we can't decide we roll off a D3. We take turns to place them similar to control points (9 inch away from another one, more then 6 inch from a side/edge - a bit more rough than that but that's the general theme). We put them down not knowing what the deployment will be (unless it's a story missions)
Small scatter terrain just gets muddled around on if it's cool or not.
Follow the rules for deployment order and choosing deployment style... too many people use Dawn of War although that's good for me in a melee army.

People just normally stick with 2,000 points and they have to fill to board in some cases, so they end up looking like lines of troops.

There are too many simplified and possibly exaggerated things called facts here. All kinds of games are played (some with little terrain, as two players with gunlines will want that, some with lots: scenarios, CC armies want it, etc).
Movement does Matter in 40k. Claims otherwise are again too simplified. Terrain, victory conditions, army types all contribute. Agreed, other games bring it in at a much higher level.
To get tactical movement in this game, you must make it a requirement to win the game. Objectives scattered, bonus VP for reaching across the table, etc.
Also: (My experiences, not orders, Dakka often mistakes the two in posts)
The rules could be better. No one argues with that. Move beyond, though, because the game is about playing with people. It is not a single player video game, it is a hobby and social game.
Let players play the game they want to play without slinging mud at them or at the system itself. Play the game you want to play by finding players who enjoy it the way you do. If those players you mention in your first post then complain the game sucks...they made it that way. If you try to play a gunline player and they insist no LOS terrain (or you as close range or CC army insist on way too much) then the player is again the problem. I have run into both sides. (A player who wanted terrain only on the edge of deployment zones, and a player who always brought a large ruin which included a solid wall that stretched across a huge percentage of the table) If a player insisted on this type of terrain deployment, or then used their compromise as an excuse as to why they lost, I give them a chance through conversation to see the issue. If they still can't I don't play them again. In this way you can build a good group of like minded (notice I am not claiming right minded, that is opinion and varies) players who enjoy the game as a group.
Play to have close games, they are generally more fun and engaging. Try to win, do not try to win through unfair advantages that lessen the fun of the game.

The planet Bo'lingbawl is a much sought after territory, some say even moreso than Vigilus. That's why loads of 40k players fight over it.

Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
There isn't really much incentive to fire and manoeuvre in 40K.

There's no benefit gain in trapping an enemy unit in a crossfire or even encircling the enemy completely. In fact in 40k you are often better off bunching up and being encircled because then your units are in aura range while your opponents units are not.

The only real decision in movement in 40k for a shooting unit is "can I see the enemy I want to shoot?". For melee it is "does this get me closer to the enemy I want to charge?" with a side of "am I exposed to something which I don't want shooting at me?"

If you're after a game where positioning and movement are important on more than a "my cheap sacrifical unit needs to be x" away from my big gun unit to prevent deep strikers from arriving in range" level, then 40K is not the game you're looking for.

You must have many lvo/adepticon/big tourney first place wins under your belt.

The terrain rules for the game are crap which makes using terrain crap. As pointed out above there is little to no tactical decision making besides unstanding target priority.

40k just isnt a very tactical game. Its strategic in the list building. But thats about it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
The planet Bo'lingbawl is a much sought after territory, some say even moreso than Vigilus. That's why loads of 40k players fight over it.

That´s correct. I always see it whenever I visit the local GW store.

 auticus wrote:
Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.

Some people don't like spending time messing with it

Since I started playing in 3rd ed. there's always been a contingent of players who have disliked using terrain, other than a deployment zone armour/cover save bonus, as it would often mean that they couldn't shoot all their units all the time. There were even close combat players who disliked using terrain as it'd slow their army down getting across the board. I've never understood it myself, since having a decent bit of LoS blocking terrain, particularly in the middle areas of the board, adds a tactical layer and generally puts a bit more action into the game.

Being slowed down did suck.

warpedpig wrote:
I continually see battle reports and people at hobby shops playing with this set up. They place very little terrain. They both line up their entire army across from the other guy like civil war era style. They exchange volleyed a few turns. And that’s the whole game. There is no fire and maneuver. No strategy. It’s so dumb. Why don’t people use line of sight blocking terrain and transports and speed and maneuver. It is so dumb and simple it ruins the game to me

In our gaming club, one has a lot of terrain on the boards.
In my games, I always try to get all weapons to bear (Necrons, Eldar in round 1, GK in round 2).
This requires some mobility. Standing and shooting is something you see from players without a plan.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
There isn't really much incentive to fire and manoeuvre in 40K.

False. Movement is the most important mechanic in the game.

The game did used to advise - what was it? - 25% of the board being terrain, or some such.

You rarely seem to see that now outside cities of death games.

Its just how most of these games will always be.

there is no tactical reason to flank or do stuff because there is no fog of war, no facings, moral is worthless in most games, and most games are games of shooting (usually half the table)

FOW/team yankee being a tank game makes it so maneuvering for side armor is important. (many armies cannot piece front armor but side is really vulnerable). it would be fine for 40k if it wasnt for the fact that many weapons just reck vehicles anyway. unless the fronts of all vehicles get super strong there will be no reason to attempt to move to side armor when volume of fire takes out vehicles just as easy (40k vehicles became garbage for a while when hull points came out)

old WHFB gave bonus for flank combat but that was also because units moved in big blocks.

40k would be weird in fixed blocks, and loose models with individual facings are going to get weird. i think it could and should work in skirmish level games like munda and kill teams

TarkinLarson wrote:
It happens. I try and play smaller games that can be a little more tactical - need to stretch your troops, sacrifice control points, go for key targets...
You deploy a character killer and your enemy deploys the character on the other side of the field, or deepstrikes them, etc etc. You sigh.

We usually do 4-6 big pieces of terrain, if we can't decide we roll off a D3. We take turns to place them similar to control points (9 inch away from another one, more then 6 inch from a side/edge - a bit more rough than that but that's the general theme). We put them down not knowing what the deployment will be (unless it's a story missions)
Small scatter terrain just gets muddled around on if it's cool or not.
Follow the rules for deployment order and choosing deployment style... too many people use Dawn of War although that's good for me in a melee army.

People just normally stick with 2,000 points and they have to fill to board in some cases, so they end up looking like lines of troops.

I'd be curious what you consider a big piece of terrain, on a 4x4 for 1000 points we're using twice that.

 auticus wrote:
Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.

It's yet another lost art (despite there being numerous Youtube channels on the subject...). Too many newer players I see thinking they have to use GW kits for terrain, and are thus put off by it. I have inexpensive hills in my collection made from tinfoil and papier mache. The most expensive part of them (and all my terrain) was probably the plasticard they're based on and even that could have been got for free if you know where to scrounge from. I have silos made from hot chocolate tubs and bits of copper pipe. If you work retail till roll centres are a godsend for pipe. Terrain is expensive as you make it, but you can get good-looking stuff for cheap.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.

It's yet another lost art (despite there being numerous Youtube channels on the subject...). Too many newer players I see thinking they have to use GW kits for terrain, and are thus put off by it. I have inexpensive hills in my collection made from tinfoil and papier mache. The most expensive part of them (and all my terrain) was probably the plasticard they're based on and even that could have been got for free if you know where to scrounge from. I have silos made from hot chocolate tubs and bits of copper pipe. If you work retail till roll centres are a godsend for pipe. Terrain is expensive as you make it, but you can get good-looking stuff for cheap.

Also, as long as your table will hold a bit of weight, go somewhere there's a few large rocks. Pick up said rocks. Hey presto, terrain.

When you turn vehicles into giant meat sacks without regard to facing, there is no longer any reason to fight with or against vehicles in a way that resembles real vehicle tactics.

Banville wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Terrain costs money and time to make. Terrain is a pain to use. People dont like spending time messing with it, particularly in a game that massively deemphasized its impact.

It's yet another lost art (despite there being numerous Youtube channels on the subject...). Too many newer players I see thinking they have to use GW kits for terrain, and are thus put off by it. I have inexpensive hills in my collection made from tinfoil and papier mache. The most expensive part of them (and all my terrain) was probably the plasticard they're based on and even that could have been got for free if you know where to scrounge from. I have silos made from hot chocolate tubs and bits of copper pipe. If you work retail till roll centres are a godsend for pipe. Terrain is expensive as you make it, but you can get good-looking stuff for cheap.

Also, as long as your table will hold a bit of weight, go somewhere there's a few large rocks. Pick up said rocks. Hey presto, terrain.

Knew I forgot something from that list. Yes, my terrain collection has a few boulder scatter terrain bits made from real rocks.

 Grimtuff wrote:
The planet Bo'lingbawl is a much sought after territory, some say even moreso than Vigilus. That's why loads of 40k players fight over it.

Well, the winner gets to find out what's in the finger holes. All three of them. Legends say that there is a mint condition STC or a way to revive the emperor. To be sure, many stories say all that is there are is nurglings and pocket lint, but only the victor of Bo'lingbawl (and Indrick Boreale) know for sure.

This kinda thing always sounds like "hobby shaming" to me. "This isn't the way I think the game should be played, so let's all point and laugh." Do I think anyone here actually wants to shame people away from 40k? No. But it can happen, and that's always pretty depressing to me.

My suggestion is that if you see it, and it bothers you, just offer to teach them "the right way". If they're uninterested, you gotta learn to let it go.

A related anecdote: when me and my brother were kids, he always used to eat his hotdogs "the wrong way". Basically, he would eat the "skin" of the hotdogs first, then eat the insides. Did I think it was weird? Of course. But I let him do it because who am I to judge how someone else enjoys something?

Terrain "can" matter a ton in 8th, but people are generally lazy. I mean, most people are fine chasing tokens on a blank table...and then lamenting the tactical element that's lacking in the game.

That and people who play 40K seem to be heavily in the "don't fix anything!" camp - afraid to adjust anything in a game, despite the rulebook categorically stating "these are just some examples of terrain rules, feel free to make your own!".

When you have a nearly empty table with a handful of ruins and barrels on it, you're never going to have terrain matter. A lot of people won't spend time or money on terrain (heck they don't paint their minis either most of the time), so "token" amounts of terrain is pretty standard, particularly at game stores.

Martel732 wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Well it certainly fits alot of Guardsmen lore. "Cover? You want cover!? The only cover you need is the blessing of the Emperor. Now you charge directly into that line of thousands of possessed Word Bearers right this very minute, soldier!"

The guardsmen will win, too. Because they are 4 ppm.

4 parts per million sounds more like space marine lore.