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.

We've pretty much always played by intent. I think it's very useful for a number of reasons.

1. It helps cut off gotcha or feels-bad moments at the source. If I declare I'm going to move a unit out of LoS and ask my opponent for confirmation it mean's we're both on the same page and know what's happening but also allows them to say if they don't think that's actually possible. E.g. "I'm moving this tank out of LoS from your Devastators" might be met with a response of "I don't think that's possible from where I'm looking". You can then resolve that before it suddenly becomes a major problem in their next movement phase.

2. It speeds things up if everyone can quickly agree. Declaring everyone is in cover and that it's possible to do that without moving every model an extra 1mm to physically touch cover is much easier all round.

3. It helps you think through your moves, which actually seems to make me a better player when I vocalise a lot of what I'm doing.

4. Finally, it provides a good indicator that you may be playing against TFG if they endlessly argue over stuff like this or agree with your intent then go back on that agreement later.

Slipspace wrote:
We've pretty much always played by intent. I think it's very useful for a number of reasons.

1. It helps cut off gotcha or feels-bad moments at the source. If I declare I'm going to move a unit out of LoS and ask my opponent for confirmation it mean's we're both on the same page and know what's happening but also allows them to say if they don't think that's actually possible. E.g. "I'm moving this tank out of LoS from your Devastators" might be met with a response of "I don't think that's possible from where I'm looking". You can then resolve that before it suddenly becomes a major problem in their next movement phase.

2. It speeds things up if everyone can quickly agree. Declaring everyone is in cover and that it's possible to do that without moving every model an extra 1mm to physically touch cover is much easier all round.

3. It helps you think through your moves, which actually seems to make me a better player when I vocalise a lot of what I'm doing.

4. Finally, it provides a good indicator that you may be playing against TFG if they endlessly argue over stuff like this or agree with your intent then go back on that agreement later.

It really helps save time when it comes to small details. Lets say i stuff all my guys in a ruin, instead of placing them 0.9" from the wall, i can just approximate and tell my opponent "My models are placed so your bases won't fit if you try to charge through the wall, you'd need to go around".

Same thing when deepstriking large blobs. i'll place 2-3 models at the 9" mark to show where i want my blob to spread and i'll just tell my opponent that theyrein al ine between these guys, at 9.1". If i fail the charge i'll move them to the proper spot during my opponent's turn. That way i don't need to position my 30 tzaangors exactly where they are twice (deepstrik and charge)

Yes, we often play "by declaration" if we declare no LOS or WMS a unit in 1 place that is cannot properly fit we generally use that as fact.

your later example of tank turret traverse is exactly something that I was going to mention. If we declare that a tank is hiding behind terrain with no LOS to a particular unit, and just the muzzlebreak is poking out, then we keep to the whole no LOS to/from that unit. This includes "backing" into an L-shaped ruin to block LOS from rear and side with Clear LOS on front and other side to fire out at other targets.

While the models may be mobile, or have mobile parts, sometimes they are not; and the rules more assume that they cannot be reconfigured mid-game(we just do so because it is dynamic). to punish a player for gluing a turret in place, or dynamically posing a turret for firing(while a fixed mount can be fired "through" the hull) is more assured than anything else.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.

Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.

Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.

I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.

God , poor you for being stuck with players like that.

It's been like this in like 5 different stores/groups. I keep moving, and 40K players stay the same.

Stating intent IMO is a good thing, but only if its done actively at the time of action. I've found lots of people try to take advantage of this sort of thing in casual games retroactively, I.E. they place their Leman Russ behind a building, and then when you go to shoot at it they say "oh, I meant for you to not be able to see that based on the way I positioned it", and you go "well I can clearly see more than half of its side from where I'm at, if you wanted that to be well tucked into that piece of terrain you would have needed to go a bit further" - and then you get into a tense and awkward situation where there is no real resolution where one side or the other won't feel like they've been cheated.

Martel732 wrote:
I think this is insane.

Its how most of us that have been around for 15-20+ years learned how to play the game. The whole play strictly by the rules as written with no deviation whatsoever is a more modern phenomenon that I think started around the time of 4th or 5th edition.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Stating intent IMO is a good thing, but only if its done actively at the time of action. I've found lots of people try to take advantage of this sort of thing in casual games retroactively, I.E. they place their Leman Russ behind a building, and then when you go to shoot at it they say "oh, I meant for you to not be able to see that based on the way I positioned it", and you go "well I can clearly see more than half of its side from where I'm at, if you wanted that to be well tucked into that piece of terrain you would have needed to go a bit further" - and then you get into a tense and awkward situation where there is no real resolution where one side or the other won't feel like they've been cheated.

Martel732 wrote:
I think this is insane.

Its how most of us that have been around for 15-20+ years learned how to play the game. The whole play strictly by the rules as written with no deviation whatsoever is a more modern phenomenon that I think started around the time of 4th or 5th edition.

We were doing it in 2nd. It's not modern. It's gamers being gamers.

Yeah, this is the normal way to play.

Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

My group often does this, most often with movement. Our Terrain has a lot of multiple floor buildings, many of which can be entered. Rather than fiddling to get my squad in a small, mostly enclosed, building I just put them on top especially if I know they are just going to move out again next charge/movement phase anyway. Same with deepstriking large blobs as mentioned above, only on failed charges will we measure if the whole squad has the proper distance.

Pretty much on board the 'play by intent' train here.

Wargames are limited systems with many rough edges. They can only carry so much weight. 'Gaming them' is a thing, but I find it to be self defeating.

Playing by intent is one of the things that goes a long way towards making games pleasant and smoothing out those rough edges.

Karol wrote:
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.

I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.

Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.

I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.

Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.

40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.

I absolutely play this way.

Karol wrote:
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

The problem is, you yourself have brought up examples for how easy it is for a system like this to devolve into absolute absurdity.

What is a "standard terrain piece" per the rules? Do I have to buy it from GW? Do I have to assemble it by the instructions? What if the instructions don't give me a standard building to make?

What is a standard model? Am I allowed to add height, thus adding to my ability to draw LOS? If yes, how much height? If the 40k system is based on true Line of Sight, is it legal for me to set up mirrors all around my play table so that I can, as the rules put it "Stoop down to see from the model's perspective" and see a target in the mirror?

How is this silly activity more fun for people than playing with a baseline level of reasonableness about a game played with plastic toys that has to be designed to accommodate scenery that can be anything from literal trash to hundreds of dollars official terrain?

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?

Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online

.

Sim-Life wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?

Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online.

Well that's just incorrect because those players don't actually play 8th because it's so terrible, they just come on here to tell us how we're all wrong.

Now that's hilarious!

I'm pretty sure intent has a bearing on play, the difference between Murder 1 & 2 (at least in US) is intent.


find it kinda weird that people DON'T do this.

Martel732 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.

I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.

Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.

40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.

Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.

What i mean by gotcha moment is something akin to : HAHA! i see the very tip of that guy's bayonnet through the 4 ruins and tank in front of it. When playing with intent, you fix these problems and the decisions become actually strategic instead of fishing for exploits.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.

I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.

Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.

40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.

Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.

What i mean by gotcha moment is something akin to : HAHA! i see the very tip of that guy's bayonnet through the 4 ruins and tank in front of it. When playing with intent, you fix these problems and the decisions become actually strategic instead of fishing for exploits.

So by that logic, shooting a bayonet tip is only a gotcha moment once. Then you need to learn to hide your bayonets. Right? I've learned that getting shot through the tip of a bayonet is a thing.

Yeah, playing by intent is how I play. What I'll do is, if I think there might be a point of contention, such as LOS, Wobbly Model, who's in cover, who's actually in melee, etc, I just ask as soon as it comes up. Immediately dealt with, intention immediately made clear, no surprises. If I'm playing with someone for the first time, and I'm not sure if they're familiar with certain rules sources, I'll first ask them if we're okay to use XYZ sources (so, Vigilus, successor Chapter rules, Faith and Fury, etc etc), and if they're okay with it, but unfamiliar, I'll point out certain stratagems or abilities that I'll be likely to use in advance, so it's not a surprise if/when it happens. An example of this is the Tempestus Scion Drop Force, and how I'll make a deal of mentioning that I'm using that.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.

Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.

Yeah, I wouldn't call tripointing a gotcha. It's a perfectly valid and universally accessible method of using game mechanics, like using a tank to soak up Overwatch before another unit charges. In fact, tripointing is one of those things I'd point out in a starter game, and explain how it works, how to get around it, and how to do it yourself.

I would call shooting at a bayonet tip a gotcha moment because it's pretty clear that the bayonet tip is an oversight from the Guardsman player, and they had no intention of having that bayonet sticking out. It'd be something I, as the guardsman's opponent, would probably say "hey, just so you know, before you're done moving, I can see that bayonet tip - are we saying they're both in line of sight?", and I'd be expecting them to say "no, that's just sticking out, doesn't count as a target or shooter", which I'd be fine with.

Play by intent is really the way to go, in fact there were two times that I didn't play by intent.

One was against a friend who went 5-0 at a tournament, and we explicitly agreed on playing as tight as we could. This was acceptable because we both had the same expectation.

The second was I auspexed scanned a group of hazard suits that had deep struck before the drones had. I ended up killing two out of three. It was a lower point tournament setting, and that had hard swung the game in my favor. The win felt cheap, there was no tactical intuition that had led me to win, just that my opponent had forgotten a stratagem that I had access to. After the game was over we discussed it a little bit, and it was a feels bad for both side.

Play by intent generally works as follows -
Active player explains intent - Common example is deepstriking 9.1 inches away
Other player explains potential rules interaction - Auspex Scan
Active player then decides whether the 9.1 inch deepstrike is worth the auspex scan

That simple process has now allowed the active player to make a tactical decision, whether or not that positioning is worth the auspex scan, rather than get blindsided because they forgot one of the hundreds of strategems in the game

I do find you can go too far playing by intent. It's helpful to communicate clearly about what's going on at the table, but you can slow the game down immensely if you use the principle to theorycraft out your perfect turn as you're executing it.

Depends on who I'm playing with - I usually play by intent since that's what I prefer, but since I play with a variety of player types I'll try to adapt to the other person.
Either I know what they're like, or I'll play by intent until the other person doesn't.

If the other player is going for these "gotcha" moments, I have no qualms about doing the same, though.

Yes and no.

No, your tank isn't hidden just because you say you're trying to hide. That piece of terrain might not be big enough to conceal it, so intent doesn't matter, whether you actually can [and can from the desired position] does.
That said, if you announce that you're trying to hide your tank, I might take a look from my shooter's point of view and tell you if I agree that you're hidden.




As far as "helping your opponent", here's my take on it:
The rules in the codex are open knowledge. I don't expect you to buy a copy of every codex and splatbook to read rules for other people's armies. Thus, if you ask me if I have a given capability, I will answer in good spirit. However, the onus is on you to ask. I won't volunteer that you're making a mistake until after you've committed to it and I've acted on it, at which point I am happy to explain exactly what you did wrong and discuss what could have been done differently.

Great thread. Love your term of art here. Stated Intent deserves an entry in a GW index...

Almost all players in my gaming group play that way.

The alternative is when someone asks "is my tank hidden?" and the opponent answers "we'll see in my shooting phase", they keep fiddling with their tank for ages and then get pissed when the opponent tries to shoot them anyways.

There really is no point in wasting time and getting people in a bad mood over this.

Martel732 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.

If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.

I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.

Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.

40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.

Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.

What i mean by gotcha moment is something akin to : HAHA! i see the very tip of that guy's bayonnet through the 4 ruins and tank in front of it. When playing with intent, you fix these problems and the decisions become actually strategic instead of fishing for exploits.

So by that logic, shooting a bayonet tip is only a gotcha moment once. Then you need to learn to hide your bayonets. Right? I've learned that getting shot through the tip of a bayonet is a thing.

That is when you ask your opponent if he/she can see the model you are trying to get out of LOS. I've had very few negative interactions with players in any edition over the past 30 years playing 40K. It happens on rare occasion, but certainly not to any extent you have described in this thread. If you've gone to five different shops and getting the same bad experiences, maybe you need to reflect inward on how you come across to others as I find it dubious that all other players are all about trying to ruin a shared game experience. Based on the amount of negativity you post on this site, I'd hedge my bets where the core issue lies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

Maybe resist fiddling with your turrets after you moved your tank? You clearly understand the LOS rules.

Yep we play that way alot unless someone is really annoying.

Sometimes Karma works for you as well.

Yeah you can re-roll that or shoot that now even though you forgot - ohh look it all missed anyway.

We used to have a WFB tournament player at ours and he would never do anything like that - if you got the rules worng - thats your fauly, especailly if it was in his favour. That to me is cheating - not correcting rules errors that you notice.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

Maybe resist fiddling with your turrets after you moved your tank? You clearly understand the LOS rules.

This is an interesting question, and exposes why tank measure-to should be hull and turret frame and exclude decorative elements like aerials and commanders and movable elements like gun barrels.

I have actually done this [in response to my opponent being a bit of an ass about LoS], rotating my turret to face one way so that my tank gun barrel points around the corner and can shoot on my turn, and then rotating it back so it's no longer visible and he has to move to clear his LoS on his turn. This is obviously not being a good sport, and a lot of models are both posable and liable to significantly change profile when posed in different ways. Even changing the pose of the model from turn to turn could make a difference.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

Maybe resist fiddling with your turrets after you moved your tank? You clearly understand the LOS rules.

This is an interesting question, and exposes why tank measure-to should be hull and turret frame and exclude decorative elements like aerials and commanders and movable elements like gun barrels.

I have actually done this [in response to my opponent being a bit of an ass about LoS], rotating my turret to face one way so that my tank gun barrel points around the corner and can shoot on my turn, and then rotating it back so it's no longer visible and he has to move to clear his LoS on his turn. This is obviously not being a good sport, and a lot of models are both posable and liable to significantly change profile when posed in different ways. Even changing the pose of the model from turn to turn could make a difference.

Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.

Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.

This is why I've never understood why people insist on playing the game with non-like minded people.

1) If you're a tournament player; fine. You're aware of this risk and you've elected to play in a competitive format....so no douchebaggery should come as a surprise to you.
2) If you're playing pick-up games...play them and put up with the nonsense until you find a handful of people you enjoy playing with, players whom you share the same approach and spirit of the game.
3) If you've got a group of friends you enjoy playing with, almost none of this stuff becomes an issue. Everyone is aware of how and why you're playing and it all goes smoothly.

Playing a poorly written game with strangers is always going to open you up to the risk of an unpleasant experience. 90% of the time it'll be fine, but you can't really blame it on someone else if you knowingly went and played a stranger. Expect little and you'll rarely be disappointed.