State of the HH vs 40k 8th edition

[Lord Blackwood]

First turn advantage is certainly a thing in both systems.  It might actually be more punishing in 30k with the paper thin  vehicle rules ( unless superheavy  KNIGHT TIME BABY WOOOOOOOO! )  You pop  a transport , dump a template on the guys inside, its ap3  or 2 if need be , say goodnight. 

I mean there are ways around this  with crafty deployment , balanced armies and what not though it is an issue in both 8th 40k  and 30k.  If you got the tools to can opener your opponents set up you can effectively cripple them turn 1.  

I think 40k 8th is actually MORE shooting focused than 30k is which only makes some of these losses feel even worse. 

[Gorgoff]

First turn advantage is certainly a thing in both systems. It might actually be more punishing in 30k with the paper thin vehicle rules ( unless superheavy KNIGHT TIME BABY WOOOOOOOO! ) You pop a transport , dump a template on the guys inside, its ap3 or 2 if need be , say goodnight.

 

I mean there are ways around this with crafty deployment , balanced armies and what not though it is an issue in both 8th 40k and 30k. If you got the tools to can opener your opponents set up you can effectively cripple them turn 1.

I think 40k 8th is actually MORE shooting focused than 30k is which only makes some of these losses feel even worse.

As I mentioned before (no, seriously, I just fumbled executing to add the text in my last post) proper terrain is crucial for a nice balanced game. Get as much like of sight blockers as you can get and additional terrain as well.

50 % of the table should be covered with stuff. Not los blockers necessarily but at last rubble, forests, small walls, hills should cover the table.

Looks better and helps a lot to minimise the impact of having the first turn.

Lots and lots of player especially in the US (but also all over the world) tend to minimise their terrain and play basically on empty tables.

In my experience that is why most 8th games and countless 30k games are decided by the very first dice role.

And that is who deploys first and gets the first round.

I strongly recommend to go nuts for a couple of games and place every inch of your table with terrain pieces. And little by little, game by game, you reduce the amount of stuff but the lowest number of percentage which is covered should be at least 50.

[mughi3]

not to mention good looking tables also enhance the game, that was one thing I noticed back when I used to go to any kind of tournament back in 2010/11 the organizers had so many table to cover they spread the terrain super thin.

 

here is an actual tourney table

 

 

here is the way they could look

 

 

And yes 8th has far more shots down range because they removed twin linked re-rolls and increased the damage (but by comparison they also increased how many wounds a unit could take and removed instant death).

 

the big difference that makes turn 1 so devastating in 8th is the removal of hard cover saves coupled with the AP- system. making it very difficult to get decent saves on units not behind LOS blocking terrain.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Honestly that second table looks pretty bare bones to me as well. Good sized los and impassable are so important, as is the placement; firing lanes should be rare and something that needs to be maneuvered to, not common and deployed into.

[mughi3]

The thematic nature of the terrain mats may be part of that

 

 

This table is actually for DUST so it is a bit different since all area terrain (trees/ruins) blocks LOS unless you are in it and shooting out of it. if you replaced many of the ruins with solid buildings for 8th edition the effect would be the same.

 

[Mackenzie]

I like my tables choking on terrain. Keeps it really entertaining. But I have also done more sparse tables for specific themed missions, such as a mostly empty hangar with a Thunderhawk in it.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7M7k0hnMmy/?igshid=1bpydwxfse0ok

I know I keep saying this.. but I really will upload photos to this forum.. someday

[Lord Blackwood]

for Ref this was my last table , could stand to be a bit more dense. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

The dust table only needs a bit more verticality.

 

That grey one is what I'd call a "problem table" .

[Gorgoff]

for Ref this was my last table , could stand to be a bit more dense.

 

I play Iron Warriors and I would shed hot tears of joy seeing such an empty table.

[Gederas]

for Ref this was my last table , could stand to be a bit more dense.

 

I play Iron Warriors and I would shed hot tears of joy seeing such an empty table.

I haven't played 30k yet, but my 40k Dark Angels would be SO HAPPY to see a table like that.

[Lord Blackwood]

I think for the nature of properly populated tables we could use more examples. 

Especially if it is dealing with first turn advantage in games. 

[Vykes]

Table examples: alright, I guess I'll have a go with at least my opinion. All behind spoilers for size.

Sparse:

Very light, very sparse at an event. That said, totally made up for it with half a dozen drop pod sized sand worms and the general idea that it should be sparse compared to others.

Few nice verticals but in general, one of my iconic 'way too sparse' 30/40K tables

Decent:

Jungles should be big and dense, even though it was built for non LOS area terrain times.

Generally what I consider an appropriate 'sparse' table thematically.

My very typical city table. About the 'medium' level of terrain that I personally prefer.

Built for centurion where area terrain was more important than verticals. Worked like a charm honestly, great amount for what we needed at the event and thrown together in a few days.

I wish I had more angles of this table but it was one of the perfect 'industrial' tables for me. Most of the terrain was either thick gantries that limited movement, or dense and tall LOS blocking sorts. Fighting with aircraft was amazing as it felt like it was trying to dog-fight in a city.

[Lord Blackwood]

These are very nice , Thank you. 

[Marshal Rohr]

Table examples: alright, I guess I'll have a go with at least my opinion. All behind spoilers for size.

Sparse:

Very light, very sparse at an event. That said, totally made up for it with half a dozen drop pod sized sand worms and the general idea that it should be sparse compared to others.

Few nice verticals but in general, one of my iconic 'way too sparse' 30/40K tables

Decent:

Jungles should be big and dense, even though it was built for non LOS area terrain times.

Generally what I consider an appropriate 'sparse' table thematically.

My very typical city table. About the 'medium' level of terrain that I personally prefer.

Built for centurion where area terrain was more important than verticals. Worked like a charm honestly, great amount for what we needed at the event and thrown together in a few days.

I wish I had more angles of this table but it was one of the perfect 'industrial' tables for me. Most of the terrain was either thick gantries that limited movement, or dense and tall LOS blocking sorts. Fighting with aircraft was amazing as it felt like it was trying to dog-fight in a city.

Do the printed mats not break your immersion?

[Vykes]

Eh, no worries Lord Blackwood, mang.  I'm kinda interested as the nature of tables does tend to come up in these styles of discussions as well.  (Frankly I tend towards enjoying more terrain heavy but there's not a big difference in tables in the area, it's more up to the player).  

 

I'd love to say 'not at all' Marshal Rohr my dude, but it's a little more nuanced than that.  

The mats I buy tend towards being either fairly 'untextured' by macro features or city based with smaller roads (thus the 'adeptus Titanicus' style mats tend to really suit me).  What I don't like it big craters that feel like that they should be actual terrain features on a 3D table.  Big rocks, craters/holes, that sort of thing kinda gets me and I do my best to minimize them with area terrain or replace them with actual pieces if they're on my mat in the first place.  As such, I tend to like wide open flats and such. 

For city maps, it goes both ways: I like narrow streets (or plain asphalt)  because it allows me to determine more of the general features of the area rather than feeling locked in place.  the larger 28mm roads are a bit of a problem because they're so wide that it limits reasonable placement, and nothing breaks my immersion more than a building jutting out of the middle of a pedestrian intersection.  Aligning terrain with mats is important for me to hold the immersion in place, more or less 'affixing' them, so the more blank canvas the better.  

I do have 2 completely ground up textured tables based on Istvaan V's Urgal depression and another for 100% modular cityscapes based on 1'X1' tile sections.  While nice, the advantages of a mat between general clean up, maintenance, the impact surface, and keeping it (and models) from damage are so vast that I simply don't use my texture tables much anymore (though I'm not against folding either of them into my gaming mats to create a big apoc-scale surface).  

Edited January 15, 2020 by Vykes

[Hungry Nostraman Lizard]

This was the last match I played. It was a bit crowded, but it felt satisfactory for us all. Even if it left my tanks feeling a bit crowded. Heh. Maybe would have preferred more vertical LOS blocking towards the center, but oh well. It suited the 1v1v1 well enough!

[Kenzaburo]

Funny thing here, really. The sparsity (is that a word?) of several of the above tables is sorta troubling. What irks me even more though are tables, where people place terrain willy-nilly on the surface. Buildings in the middle of a road, a reactor projecting out over the pavement and onto the street - tables where the actual surface and logic of placement is ignored. 

 

I prefer fighting on city tables and yeah, sure, roads are a problem at a glance - a long fire corridor for long rage weaponry. But for goodness' sake, place some appropriate terrain on it and you're golden. Go for scatter terrain, craters, or, if verticality is important, parts of tumbled down buildings, destroyed vehicles and the likes. A crane sitting in the middle of a crossroads is just...not my thing. At all.

 

Sorry for the short rant. 

 

A little bit more on topic: I think terrain density in both games, 8th and AoD needs to follow some of Vykes' examples. And terrain rules are probably one of the few things I've liked more in previous rules sets compared to 8th. With the recent terrain releases, it's quite easy to have a table look suitable for the narrative experience AoD offers. Still, I see far too few players investing in that. I think the Independent Characters had it right when they promoted the terrain as the 3rd army on your table. Do it justice, especially for the generally a bit more immersive, narrative experience of the Heresy setting. :)

[Captain_Krash]

@Vykes 

 

I love that Deathguard Shield wall...looks so freaking epic. 

 

Thanks for sharing your terrain pics.

 

Krash

[m0nolith]

Well if were talking about terrain, here is a picture from a while back. I don't even have that Leviathan any more

A good mixture of terrain works the best IMO as long as you have access to the same thematic elements, in this case ruin on a Manufactorum of some kind.

But I think on the spectrum of too much or too little terrain, having a table that is almost devoid of terrain is worse than having one that has too much.

Edited January 17, 2020 by m0nolith

[Fallen11]

 

 

 

Actually if you are trying to come up with a system that encourages other kinds of behaviour I have some early design stuff you could run with. HH is basically dead in my communities so I won't get much use out of it.

 

 

It was dead in mine too since 8th came...then we discovered 8th HH fan made rules and game quite often. But problem is, mostly who gets firs turn can literally obliterate at least 1/3 of opposing army, after that is kinda more or less concluded who will win the game. Still trying to come with solution how to fix that alfa strike 1st turn problem. But this was always problem.

 

Go back to normal 30k?

 

No one is interested in going back, especially since players with whom I play it, mostly play 40k. I don't play 40k, but you can't force people to play ruleset they are not interested on ie. moved away from when new edition hit.

[StrangerOrders]

So I find it interesting that we are seeing Massacre rereleased as a softback, I think it might be a good way to lower the entry threshold for entry. It almost the price of a standard 40k codex now iirc.

 

Although why Massacre was rereleased before Tempest is a bit confusing to me.

 

I am not sure where I fall on their removal of non-standard shoulderpads for each legion. (The Mark that isn't standard). 

 

Maybe it shows 30k is being brought into line with 40k with the trimming down of options for stock efficiency?

 

Either way, I think it bodes well for those that want to continue using the old rules that FW bothered to rerelease one of the oldest campaign books.

[Captain_Krash]

@m0nolith 

 

What board is that?

 

Krash 

[m0nolith]

@m0nolith 

 

What board is that?

 

Krash 

Sector Mechanicus

[mughi3]

oh vykes I have that city mat (second pic) here is how some of my layouts look

 

 

 

 

 

of course this doesn't really work for warhammer but there is the infinity level terrain-

 

[battle captain corpus]

I feeling we need to start a “Look at my board!” Thread with all these great pics! ;)

 

Back on topic, I’m really looking forward to what AoD brings us this year as 40K is a little stagnant in my area I think.

 

BCC