6th ed... still not good enough

[theHman]

I was cautiously excited for the new edition (been playing 40k since rogue trader and have seen GW pull every shenanigan in the book and then some)...

While I actually like most of the new rules they've added/changed, after having played a couple games, I find it lacking in one major area:

Tactics.

My first impression is that 40k is still lacking the tactical & strategic depth that I crave and love in my tabletop games.

Anyone else find this?

[daboarder]

I was going to go into a lengthy dissertation about how you are wrong but it got lost when my connection dropped.

40k is all about tactics, tactics of manoeuvre, target priority, mission objectives, how to act once specific objectives are achieved.

I put it to you this way, how many of your units realistically survive in isolation? if the answer is all of them then the solution to your problem is simple, 40k is not lacking in tactics your group is.

If the answer is none of them then the answer is simple, you just don't have a very good grasp on what tactics mean.

Take the relic for example.

My strategic goals are to win by achieving the most points.
Usually the simplest way is to seize the objective in the middle. My opponent however is playing a very shooty army that will obliterate mine if I move into the open, therefore I decide that I will go for first blood and linebreaker in order to achieve victory. I drop my terminators on his flank and kill a transport. I now have his attention divided and am forcing him to react. ultimately the game ends up with no one controlling the relic but I still achieve my strategic goal of obtaining the most points.

[Mr Mystery]

Erm....6th Ed has dragged tactics back into it. Infantry can now ebb and flow in the face of oncoming enemies. The days of transports just dumping troops into never ending assault rounds are gone. The surest way to handle the game now is a mixed arms approach, rather than spamming a single unit.

Sorry to say it dude, but you are in fact wrong. The tactics are there, and more so than before. 2nd Ed? Hello. This is my tooled up Level 4 Librarian in Terminator Armour with a Force Rod. I've cast Iron Arm on him and he's just popped his combat drugs. Hurr. I r tactical genius.....

And exactly what sort of tactics do you mean? Surely you have your own definition to compare and contrast with?

[antennafarm]

it sounds like you want a totally realistic wargame that accurately depicts combat.

go join the infantry. maybe you'll get your chance (because paint ball and airsoft probably don't have enough logistical and strategic complexity to impact tactics in a meaningful way, beyond allowance money buying only so many paint balls).

[Lexington]

Kinda? It's as tactical as 40K has ever been, to me, but the problem is that a lot of effective tactics in 6th call for playing in ways that contradict the new edition's intentions. See LoS Wound Allocation shenanigans and Bullet Bending tricks.

[Uncle Nutsy]

I gave 6th a run today and I found it to be much more tactical than 5th ed.

for instance, I was able to run two beastmasters with khymare in a reverse V shape on each side of my duke/trueborn unit. Not only did the trueborn not get touched by anything that could assault, I was able to force the opponent into combat with the demon dogs. Duke and his boys were backup in case things went wrong. The dogs ATE two daemon princes, and the duke killed the powerfist wielder right off the bat. I hate powerfisters and now i can kill them before anything else happens.

I never really had to do a run but re-rolling the run was actually pretty cool. I never did get much of a run out of the duke (3") but the potential for a full run is there. so that gets a thumbs up from me.

Using the ravagers to full effect turn after turn, even though I had a couple hull points stripped off allowed me to kill a landraider by glancing it to death. Even deep-striking them wasn't as risky as it was in 5th.

[DarkLink]

Reserves are more reliable, so in general it's a better option than it was. Only units that relied on assaulting from off the board were hurt, all other reserves/outflankers/deepstrikers were buffed quite a bit.

[GrogDaTyrant]

6e is probably the most strategic/tactical that 40k has ever been.... but IMHO it's still a far cry from the likes of Epic, or numerous other non-GW wargames. And no, I'm not talking about the one that's "Magic: The Gathering in miniatures form".

[Mr Mystery]

Reserves are more reliable, so in general it's a better option than it was. Only units that relied on assaulting from off the board were hurt, all other reserves/outflankers/deepstrikers were buffed quite a bit.

I'm quite liking the no assaulting from reserves at all ever rule. It always irked me that certain units could be used to good effect with no real risk to the player. Made the units too dependable, and too easy to use.

And I think that is a fair statement about 6th Edition as a whole. Whilst it's not done quite the same balancing act as 8th did for Fantasy, it has forced some of the more complained about lists to work harder for the victory. Wound allocation has helped somewhat, and whilst Lexington is right to point out it's simply opened other gamey tricks, to my mind it's by far a better way to run things. Sure you can deploy and arrange your units to suit, but that in itself is a tactic. Put the meatshield spods toward the enemy, keeping the tasty elements behind. Furthermore, this can be countered with the manouevring of enemy units, making it harder and harder to effectively hide the more useful elements of your squad.

The general boost basic infantry got has made a difference, at least to my Necrons. It's allowed me to adopt a much more fluid battle line, where my centre comprised of Warriors and Immortals can ebb and flow in response to the enemy allowing me to keep him at arms reach. Having played a couple of games, I think I'll be keeping my Lychguard as a rearguard unit, hanging out with the centre. That way I can (in theory) get them to where I need them when a concerted push is made.

Overall I'm not longer seeing a single 'power phase' where the game is truly won or lost. For 2nd Ed, it was the Psychic Phase, 3rd to 5th with differing degrees of success, it was the assault phase. In 6th Edition assault remains as potent as it was once you get stuck in it's just take a lot more effort to protect your assaulting units.

It's still not perfect, and due to each gamer having their own preference and peccadillos, it never really can be perfect. But as far as I'm concerned 6th Edition is very much a crowd pleaser!

[the jeske]

ay . lots of options too , if you happen to have a good dex. Is some stuff stupid ? of course First blood shouldnt be there too big of a buff for someone who can go first more offten [in the long run it will mean people will stop using stuff that can be focused fired , unless its deep in reservs] . of course Look out wound jumping and character units shouldnt be there[or they should be given to all armies] . Precise for Character is another stupid thing buffs armies that have access to characters outside of HQ slots. But stupid does not equal bad.
Rhino/loS sniping in the 4th was one of the most stupid tactics ever and there it is back again . Either one lives with the changes and can make a working list under those rules or not . Sucks for those with bad dex[they got worse] and win for those with good dex[their dex got a lot better].