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.
Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
You can't apply current era battlefield features to 40k battlefields unless it's on a world that is similar to ours. The majority of places where conflict takes place are places that would be ornate, crowded, and full of tactically interesting ground to fight over.
Hell, look at Vigilis. It's a bunch of continent sized hives surrounded by desert. Not many fights happened on the wastes, and those that did were vehicle based engagements or on the fringes of the hives.
40k has been shown to be a very Urban centered game, and the inclusion of super heavies has messed that up by making it so that people put less terrain on the board to accommodate for their movement. Even tanks in large numbers shape the battlefield when making it.
I disagree that you can't make movement matter, especially when it's lazy terrain/table build that does that. An armored column of leman russes that can only advance in single file or through tight corridors on a battlefield is perfect pickings for melee troops or to be locked in combat.
Squads moving across an open courtyard are easy pickings for gun beats or tanks peaking out from behind buildings. All of this works in the edition. If people would just do it.
TERRAIN IS THE THIRD ARMY. YOU MUST DO BATTLE WITH IT AND YOUR FOE TO GAIN VICTORY.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 03:09:24
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
Carnikang wrote: Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
No. It's not. 40k takes place across an entire galaxy and between every faction fighting every faction not just imperium vs other on specific types of their worlds. Many planets are lush gardens. Or dense forests, or flat plains. Hell many imperium worlds are Agri worlds that are basically continent sized fields for feeding all those other worlds that have no land mass or are too toxic to produce food. There is no "most" and it's ridiculous to make those kinds of arguments.
Outside of that, mechanically the targeting rules should be taking into account more than whether or not a solid wall is between you and the enemy. Units are themselves obstacles that obstruct shooting. On a large flat field why do intervening units not act like terrain? Wanna make positioning and movement matter more? Then units should get in the way.
Better actual terrain is all well and good. And LoS blocking is part of that. But it's not the end of it. There needs to be a spectrum and everything needs to be playing a part in that spectrum.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Carnikang wrote: Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
No. It's not. 40k takes place across an entire galaxy and between every faction fighting every faction not just imperium vs other on specific types of their worlds. Many planets are lush gardens. Or dense forests, or flat plains. Hell many imperium worlds are Agri worlds that are basically continent sized fields for feeding all those other worlds that have no land mass or are too toxic to produce food. There is no "most" and it's ridiculous to make those kinds of arguments.
Outside of that, mechanically the targeting rules should be taking into account more than whether or not a solid wall is between you and the enemy. Units are themselves obstacles that obstruct shooting. On a large flat field why do intervening units not act like terrain? Wanna make positioning and movement matter more? Then units should get in the way.
Better actual terrain is all well and good. And LoS blocking is part of that. But it's not the end of it. There needs to be a spectrum and everything needs to be playing a part in that spectrum.
Intervening units do affect LoS. Rhinos, Leman Russes, and Baneblades are all LoS blocking. You only ignore models in your own unit for purposes of LoS, not all friendly models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 05:08:27
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
You clearly didnt understand what i wrote. Los blocking isnt enough. And big ass boxes are not enough. EVERYTHING needs to impact by being intervening. Not, my guy can see you guy because your boot is sticking out from between his legs. The whole unit needs to act like one large piece of terrain so that you can't shoot at full capability from between individual models. Intervening infantry should impose a -1 to hit. If you want to shoot at full capacity you need to position yourself to see and shoot properly.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
While I enjoy a more crunchy rule set, the reality is I can't fault GW for the direction they took stuff like cover. Why? When was the last time you heard anyone arguing about line of sight, terrain or the number of models fitting under a blast template? While their rules are technically...rather poor, they opted for the "no grey area" for most of what they put into 8th edition.
There are similar black-and-white options they could (maybe should...) have included, but they did go for removing almost any argument you're likely to have during a game.
Unless a fingertip of one model in the unit is visible behind the tank. Or a foot of a single model is visible underneath the tank through a tiny gap between the wheels. Etc. In earlier editions merely being obscured by an intervening unit was sufficient, in 8th if even the slightest speck of one model is visible the intervening tank might as well not exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: When was the last time you heard anyone arguing about line of sight
All the time. In fact 8th edition creates more arguments over LOS because a 0.01mm length of a hair-thin antenna being visible is sufficient to shoot at a tank like it was sitting in the middle of an open field. So now you get to argue if whether this tiny piece of the target, so small that you can barely see it, is sticking out far enough to be seen from the model's point of view or if the player claiming LOS is just looking from the wrong position and seeing more than the model can see. If you aren't having arguments over 8th edition's ridiculous LOS rules then it's only because you've collectively decided not to use those rules to their full extent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/01 05:44:46
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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?"
Unlike many wargames 40k rules don't encourage the sorts of manoeuvring you would see a normally in a company/battalion level game.
Instead you rely on the terrain and scenario to force that.
So i despair when I see tourney games (like the big London last year tourney) with bare bones terrain, as then it becomes a list building and target priority test.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Consider the approximate scale of a 6x4 board. Given that 28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56 in scale IIRC, that's about 1344 square feet of battlefield being fought over. How many major features of note do you think are in 1344 square feet of any given battlefield? Probably 1. Maybe a hedgerow as a major obstacle, or a farmhouse. A typical hedgerow-bounded field was 400 yards x 200 yards. At 1/56 scale, a typical table would be 112 yards by 74 yards wide.
Now, it's obvious more interesting as a game if there's something large to block line of effect. However, it's certainly not Napoleonic to fight on a field that's effectively barren.
If you take the game scale hyper-literally, an assault rifle has a maximum range of about 40yds, anti-tank guns a staggering 75yds, the excessively long-ranged Basilisk platform can't even reach 400yds, troops become helpless and scared when more than 3yds from their compatriots, and since 6" of movement = about 9yds, either everyone is stuck running in slow motion or a turn represents roughly three seconds.
The rules can only begin to make sense if you assume that the models are dramatically oversized for visual effect, which is a reasonable concession that many wargames have used to balance visual appeal against game mechanics*. If you figure that models are oversized by a factor of 10, then the above figures can actually make sense, and a 6x4 table represents 1,120x747yds. At that scale a fair amount of terrain is to be expected.
Excommunicatus wrote: Urban combat was definitely not a thing in WWII, 'cause that one pic shows five people.
Signed, Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov.
Is this @ me? I didn't say that Urban Combat wasn't a thing. The battles for Stalingrad, Berlin, Warsaw, Monte Cassino, Aachen, Arnhem, etc. are all known for their destructiveness, lethality, and intensity [and also being characterized by aggressive close-assault actions and attritive warfare doctrines superseding maneuver warfare]. And beyond just the big names, there's plenty of smaller actions that occurred
There's also the battles in the Ardennes counteroffensive, in the Hurtgen forest, etc. that were also characterized by close range and lethal actions in close conditions that weren't in cities.
That said, actions in wide open spaces where maybe a small copse of trees, a wash, or a small hill were the only defining features of note were probably the majority of combat actions during the war. I'm not denying that some of the most intense actions occurred in urban confines, just disputing the claim that war does not occur on planet bowling ball.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 17:15:45
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
That said, actions in wide open spaces where maybe a small copse of trees, a wash, or a small hill were the only defining features of note were probably the majority of combat actions during the war. I'm not denying that some of the most intense actions occurred in urban confines, just disputing the claim that war does not occur on planet bowling ball.
Nam, the pacific jungle fighting is a good example of planet bush.
more modern engagements in the middle east have both planet bowling lane and super tight CQ combat.
Yes plains warfare exist and existed. but imho its not really that fun. i suppose it could be more interesting if 1) vehicle facing on some vehicles were actually impervious to damage (sloped armor making most weapons ineffective) being used as mobile cover effectively being terrain, 2) Dynamic terrain in that shells and explosions leave craters, killed vehicles become LOS blocking terrain. but baring that in current 40k non of this matters you just sit back and shoot until some one rolls poorly. at which point why bother. just roll dice on a table.
The number of 40k mission types that don't reward mobility are actually pretty low. As much as it's easy to slag on maelstrom, it does reward mobility. Scoring by turn also encourages mobility to grab objectives early, and is the standard in ITC and one of two options in NOVA.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
This is probably true.
Though at the same time comp players also tend to prioritize optimal fire power and or cheese out disgusting survivability tricks like 2++ rerollables. a lot of the times those things are also stapled onto mobile units like bikes and knights.
at least previous editions.
no one is going to run rhinos or drop pods even though they have decent enough mobility because they arent tough and they do not have good enough firepower, unless they were free.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/01 18:03:25
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
This is probably true.
Though at the same time comp players also tend to prioritize optimal fire power and or cheese out disgusting survivability tricks like 2++ rerollables. a lot of the times those things are also stapled onto mobile units like bikes and knights.
at least previous editions.
Sixth and Seventh editions were, IMO, terrible, being way too unbalanced for competitive play and way too fiddly for casual play.
Modern editions still favor durable, mobile, high fire power units (custodes bikers, knights, elder fliers, etc.) but most units have more of a trade off.
One thing to keep in mind is that the -1 to hit with heavy weapons introduced in 8th edition does penalize units from moving.
Excommunicatus wrote: Urban combat was definitely not a thing in WWII, 'cause that one pic shows five people.
Signed, Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov.
Is this @ me? I didn't say that Urban Combat wasn't a thing. The battles for Stalingrad, Berlin, Warsaw, Monte Cassino, Aachen, Arnhem, etc. are all known for their destructiveness, lethality, and intensity [and also being characterized by aggressive close-assault actions and attritive warfare doctrines superseding maneuver warfare]. And beyond just the big names, there's plenty of smaller actions that occurred
I believe that was meant to be a joke about the Soviet's penchant for editing their photos.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 18:07:46
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Competitive players move their stuff a lot. volley fire gunlines are probably more beer and pretzels style players.
This is probably true.
Though at the same time comp players also tend to prioritize optimal fire power and or cheese out disgusting survivability tricks like 2++ rerollables. a lot of the times those things are also stapled onto mobile units like bikes and knights.
at least previous editions.
Sixth and Seventh editions were, IMO, terrible, being way too unbalanced for competitive play and way too fiddly for casual play.
Modern editions still favor durable, mobile, high fire power units (custodes bikers, knights, elder fliers, etc.) but most units have more of a trade off.
One thing to keep in mind is that the -1 to hit with heavy weapons introduced in 8th edition does penalize units from moving.
The -1 does help a bit. but its usually also stapled onto units that often have very good BS anyway and on top can get rerolls. Yes you end up paying for it but it was something you needed to bring anyway. i dont think its enough of a determent often enough.
otherwise heavy weapons on more mooks or conscript level models tend to just not move. IE Mortar Teams.
not saying the current edition is bad or anything like that. (this is all generalizations. there are probably plenty of exceptions but this is just the general way things are imho)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/01 18:22:28
So, 40k does not have the usual array of rules that really reward/encourage/require maneuver. In many games, you take pretty big penalties to shooting past half range, it's a lot easier to hide units, and games can end quickly if you don't contest objectives. By allowing units to shoot, at full effect, across much of the board, you really do encourage static gunline tactics. As many posters have alluded to, the terrain rules, coupled with the sheer size of 40k models, make staying out of LOS very challenging. When you look at, say, bolt action models, it's pretty easy to hide a tank behind a simple one store farmhouse. A 40k predator needs a big honking terrain piece to really block LOS.
GW is lurching in the correct direction through to-hit modifiers, but their obsession with both true line of site and long range weapons is going to push people naturally toward that play style.
That said, actions in wide open spaces where maybe a small copse of trees, a wash, or a small hill were the only defining features of note were probably the majority of combat actions during the war. I'm not denying that some of the most intense actions occurred in urban confines, just disputing the claim that war does not occur on planet bowling ball.
Nam, the pacific jungle fighting is a good example of planet bush.
more modern engagements in the middle east have both planet bowling lane and super tight CQ combat.
Yes plains warfare exist and existed. but imho its not really that fun. i suppose it could be more interesting if 1) vehicle facing on some vehicles were actually impervious to damage (sloped armor making most weapons ineffective) being used as mobile cover effectively being terrain, 2) Dynamic terrain in that shells and explosions leave craters, killed vehicles become LOS blocking terrain. but baring that in current 40k non of this matters you just sit back and shoot until some one rolls poorly. at which point why bother. just roll dice on a table.
I just want to point out as well (in general, not as a specific response to either of you), that even 'flat' plains and deserts are more frequently extended rolling low hills and dunes, that while they look flat, can still potentially hide even larger tanks.
Also, Desubot, part of my reason for using 'maneuver' to circumvent cover is that my usual tables rely more on barrier style terrain, and broken buildings. So maneuvering is possible. (your previous reply to me)
I tend to like Hybrid boards With open space one side, and more urban the other. With objectives to encourage use of both to some extent.
And it leads to a lot of fun games i think for us. And try not to get terrain that is cheesy.
The idea that no unit can reasonably see more than one objective point without very careful positioning.
Unless a fingertip of one model in the unit is visible behind the tank. Or a foot of a single model is visible underneath the tank through a tiny gap between the wheels. Etc. In earlier editions merely being obscured by an intervening unit was sufficient, in 8th if even the slightest speck of one model is visible the intervening tank might as well not exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: When was the last time you heard anyone arguing about line of sight
All the time. In fact 8th edition creates more arguments over LOS because a 0.01mm length of a hair-thin antenna being visible is sufficient to shoot at a tank like it was sitting in the middle of an open field. So now you get to argue if whether this tiny piece of the target, so small that you can barely see it, is sticking out far enough to be seen from the model's point of view or if the player claiming LOS is just looking from the wrong position and seeing more than the model can see. If you aren't having arguments over 8th edition's ridiculous LOS rules then it's only because you've collectively decided not to use those rules to their full extent.
Or that you’re just following the rules. There should be no mid-game arguments because you agree parameters before the game, and changing the rules by ignoring bits of a model needs to be agreed ahead of time.
Any time LOS comes up I just cut through the prevaricating with a simple “Can you see any part of the target, yes or no?” It’s a binary situation. There’s no argument about that unless someone invokes butthurt because they don’t *want* their model to get shot. And that’s not an argument with any weight.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Vankraken wrote: This is why people say movement doesn't matter as much now because you don't get as many opportunities to attack fr vulnerable angles or pick off a key model because you deepstruck into the rear of a target.
There also isn't much in the way of 'vulnerable angles', either. No armor facing for vehicles. No crossfire or flanking rules for infantry. Not even target priority tests or specific casualty removal order, like in earlier editions.
When there's no difference in effectiveness between engaging an enemy from the front at maximum range or ambushing them from the rear at point blank, go figure shooting armies aren't going to maneuver much.
I mean, even in Napoleonic wargames where two armies line up and shoot, you find that range, flanking, and proximity massively impact shooting. One of my biggest gripes with 8th Ed is how all the maneuver-emphasizing tactics have been stripped out of the mechanics of fire combat. Putting lots of terrain on the table is one way to try to re-add meaningful maneuver, but with cover mechanics being superficial too it's still underwhelming.
in fairness most basic infantry guns have rpid fire so there is a reason to get into point blank range...
unless you play Marines.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
I tend to put lots of terrain onto the board, I mean a lot! Area terrain, scatter terrain, ruins and I'll also try to have one or two 'roads' which will have the majority of scatter and area terrain nearby.
Over long periods of time and many, many opponents it's been commented that it's an enjoyable experience. there IS firelines to be exploited by the big guns, if they manouver or deploy correctly and more close range armies have enough LoS to hide some of their forces if they play smart.
If you take the game scale hyper-literally, an assault rifle has a maximum range of about 40yds, anti-tank guns a staggering 75yds, the excessively long-ranged Basilisk platform can't even reach 400yds, troops become helpless and scared when more than 3yds from their compatriots, and since 6" of movement = about 9yds, either everyone is stuck running in slow motion or a turn represents roughly three seconds.
Nowhere in any published material is there a definition of the ground scale for 40k. Having the ground scale match the figure scale is something that's vanishingly rare in wargaming as a whole, so pointing it out in 40k specifically is a little unfair.
Playing on blank tables has nothing to do with the edition...it's been that way at local gaming stores as long as I can remember. It's the lazy/cheap nature of a lot of 40K gamers or stores that run it when it comes to buying/building terrain.
Carnikang wrote: Aren't most 40k games, in the narrative, set in sprawling hives and ruined manufactorum, where there would be many obstacles and ruined walls to block advance and lines of sight?
You can't apply current era battlefield features to 40k battlefields unless it's on a world that is similar to ours. The majority of places where conflict takes place are places that would be ornate, crowded, and full of tactically interesting ground to fight over.
Hell, look at Vigilis. It's a bunch of continent sized hives surrounded by desert. Not many fights happened on the wastes, and those that did were vehicle based engagements or on the fringes of the hives.
40k has been shown to be a very Urban centered game, and the inclusion of super heavies has messed that up by making it so that people put less terrain on the board to accommodate for their movement. Even tanks in large numbers shape the battlefield when making it.
I disagree that you can't make movement matter, especially when it's lazy terrain/table build that does that. An armored column of leman russes that can only advance in single file or through tight corridors on a battlefield is perfect pickings for melee troops or to be locked in combat.
Squads moving across an open courtyard are easy pickings for gun beats or tanks peaking out from behind buildings. All of this works in the edition. If people would just do it.
TERRAIN IS THE THIRD ARMY. YOU MUST DO BATTLE WITH IT AND YOUR FOE TO GAIN VICTORY.
40k an urban centred game? Nope, it is what kind of terrain you have on hand.
Playing on blank tables has nothing to do with the edition...it's been that way at local gaming stores as long as I can remember. It's the lazy/cheap nature of a lot of 40K gamers or stores that run it when it comes to buying/building terrain.
Correct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/03 16:59:49
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.
The Newman wrote: I'd be curious what you consider a big piece of terrain, on a 4x4 for 1000 points we're using twice that.
Usually play on a 6x4. Big terrain is something like the the Galvanic Magnavent sized thing, or other "larger" buildings like that. We also have a lot of the kill team scenary at the club to shove around. You need room for tanks and larger things to manoeuvre, but enough space for melee troops to hide too! It is a subjective balance I guess.
As a kid (during 2nd and beginning of 3rd edition) and played it was fairly standard for us to just play on fairly blank boards. Now we've more time and money (more importantly money) and a proper club to play at there is loooooots of terrain to choose from. Although of note I've discovered that 2000 points then was far fewer units than 2000 points now!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/04 15:10:58
auticus wrote:Planet Bowling Ball has been a favored tabletop type since 2nd edition, and while I haven't played first edition I'd wager since 1st edition.
Its because people do not want to be assed to create terrain or buy terrain. Most people cannot be assed to fully assemble and paint their armies.
Yeah, it's always a wonderful experience playing against an unpainted army, while my opponent is complimenting how nice the paint is on my army.
back in '91 my buddy & I played everyday after school at his house on the dining room table. That battlefield had terrain to match most scenarios, but our terrain budget was $0. Need mountains, boom stacks of books, need city terrain, boom Tupperware & kitchen gadgets, people just dont have the imagination. Also it was a little different since at most there would be 20 models aside on a 4x6 & tanglefoot/vortex grenades were a thing.
Hive Fleet Hercual - 6760pts
