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 have often heard on here disparaging comments that 40K "isn't tactical".

Being rather horrible at times tactics-wise, what changes to the BASE rules would you think make the game more tactical, and most importantly, why? Likewise, what effect would it have on how long it takes to play a game or learn to play?

The biggest problem with 40k is that it's too easy to hit everywhere on the board at once, so all your stuff is getting to leverage all its firepower pretty close to optimally every turn (unless you're playing an assault army). This means you don't really have to manage space and time, so the only resources that come into play during a game are what models you brought and how you select your targets.

By comparison in Warmachine on a 4'x4' board most weapon ranges and unit moves are 12" or less, which forces a lot more manoeuvre as you attempt to bring your forces to bear, and who's better at positioning themselves matters almost as much as who brought fancier toys; similarly Warhammer Fantasy is decided in close combat more often than at range, and models have to spend time maneuvering to get into close combat.

The solution on making Warhammer more 'tactical' would have to rest on making larger boards, adjusting weapon ranges down, or otherwise setting up the game such that crossing the table on turn one and charging on turn two or sitting where you deployed laying down fire aren't quite so optimal. The quick patch is to play on a board with very restrictive sight lines; check out the Zone Mortalis rules if you want an easier approach.

Change the mission structure. Make it so that the missions allow for tactical variety with many objectives that favor different types of armies.

Maelstrom of War is 1 step forward and 1 step back.

What I want to see is objectives that score every turn, instead of having to luckily draw the card with that objective on it.

Add in 6 "Way Points" at the beginning of the turn roll a D6 to determine which one is scoring that turn.

Throw in the relic on top of that as well as the usual secondary objectives: Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, First Blood.

Make all non-vehicle, non-monstrous creatures scoring, and no super scoring denial troops. No scoring Dedicated Transports either.

This should balance out different armies. Death Stars won't be able to hold as many objectives, but can remain more killy. MSU armies can hold more ground, but award more kill points. Mobile Armies can dominate the king of the hill aspect by capturing the Waypoint.

Several other things also need to be balanced such as assault vs. shooting, but those are my initial thoughts.

Make area terrain block LOS.

Suddenly movement matters.

For everything else, take a look at the mod in my sig.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Make area terrain block LOS.

Suddenly movement matters.

For everything else, take a look at the mod in my sig.

^This is another good quick patch.

I think another thing that would force tactical movement is make everything have a firing arc. For instance, all infantry/MCs can only fire where they're facing, and they wouldnt be able to overwatch if outflanked etc.

I think this would force a lot of different choices in the movement phase, making people choose where to go and who to fire with with a little more care.

 Robisagg wrote:
I think another thing that would force tactical movement is make everything have a firing arc. For instance, all infantry/MCs can only fire where they're facing, and they wouldnt be able to overwatch if outflanked etc.

I think this would force a lot of different choices in the movement phase, making people choose where to go and who to fire with with a little more care.

Could get really fiddly with large units, though. I mean, you'd have to do it model by model, otherwise it would be meaningless, but then that's one extra step of delay when shooting, on par with individual cover checking. You could do it based only on the unit champion, but not all units have one (Nids, Crons...) I am a huge fan of restricting LOS for Overwatch somehow, though.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Robisagg wrote:
I think another thing that would force tactical movement is make everything have a firing arc. For instance, all infantry/MCs can only fire where they're facing, and they wouldnt be able to overwatch if outflanked etc.

I think this would force a lot of different choices in the movement phase, making people choose where to go and who to fire with with a little more care.

Could get really fiddly with large units, though. I mean, you'd have to do it model by model, otherwise it would be meaningless, but then that's one extra step of delay when shooting, on par with individual cover checking. You could do it based only on the unit champion, but not all units have one (Nids, Crons...) I am a huge fan of restricting LOS for Overwatch somehow, though.

Maybe treat it like the Imperial knight? You could declare your arc at the beginning of the shooting phase (or even at the end of movement phase)

My idea is perhaps too complex to work well, but I think it would make for some interesting decisions if it could be executed well. Basically the idea came from Ogryns with their shields.

First step would to significantly boost CC so that if CC units engage with you it is basically over unless you have counter CC units or...

Second step is set up a system where a unit with shields like the Ogryns above, Terminators, Wraithblades with their shields, etc. can step up, take the charge and be good at holding their ground. Then one unit they are somehow linked to could basically shoot into the combat.

The intended result is that if you try to just gunline, you get swept through more or less so you have to incorporate your shielding units. Then the game turns on whether the CC army can outmanouver the blocking units or punch through them.

Its seems great in my head, but getting it to actually work on the table is a different matter.

I love the thought of terminators holding a line against CC units while the tac squad behind pours fire into the gap.

In many ways, 40k is already VERY tactical. Many players just do not realize it. the simple placement of models within a unit can make a huge tactical difference. Of course, many players will say "thats just common sense", but it IS a tactical decision that you would be surprised how many players do incorrectly and then wonder why they lose games.

I do agree that in many games it is too easy to see a lot of the board. This is mainly due to having to leave so much open for model movement and placement. Personally, I liked the older rule of only being able to shoot a set distance into a wooded area for example. This allowed you to set a line about the wood to mark the edge and to measure from, provided movement access and added the realism and tactical/strategic possibility ofusing it to "block" LOS and provide cover.
Another thing that may be possible is to put covers over windows of buildings. In order for a lot of buildings to look cool, ya gotta mark the windows and doors with reccessed spots or openings.A way to do this and provide LOS blocking would be to apply that same rule for woods to buildings. Another would be to put coverings over the inside of the recesses You could just glue a piece of painted black cardstock or you could paint on an interier picture to show an inside while still having the cool looking reccess.

CC is just fine (glad they finally brought it into line where it is supposed to be. after all, in earlier editions, using guns was an actual disadvantage in a sci-fi game, didnt make sense). A way to make it more powerfull without going OTT and keeping it realistic would be to maybe add in some kind of "surprise rule. Would make it more complicated of course.
Say for example a unit fired at a target in one direction and a unit assaulted the firing unit from a different direction, the unit being assaulted would not really know they were coming as their attention was directed elsewhere. This means, they would likely not be able to fire overwatch because they were taken by surprise. Maybe give a 180 degree arc behind the unit (looking from the direction of the unit it fired at) where they could not fire overwatch. Possibly give some units the sneaky rule (like genestealers for example) where they could treat the other 180 degrees as though it were from the rear on a 4+ or 5+.
Another CC idea is the "parry (been a long time but did 40k have this or was it just necromunda?) where if a model is armed with a sword, they could force a re-roll of a successfull hit against them the same could be done with a shield. Too keep it from going too far maybe say it doesnt work against monstrous creatures of big walkers like dreads.

I think the biggest thing though would be to make the turns interactive. Insted of one player moving everything, shooting everything ect, alternate or do unit activations where the players take turns (think something along the lines of DUST.

Run it on D10s it gives a wider scale of weapons. Someone did it back in 4th and it was pretty awesome, terminators were actually scary (but 90pts each) and it felt more like playing to the fluff.

I actually developed a set of rules based on the GW ones using a d10. Works very well. Also extended it to include such things as the verticle when firing and water,currents,boats/ships. But overall, found the D10 to be MUCH more flexible and less all or nothing.

No more phases per side. One player goes first.

Movement phase- player 1 moves a unit, puts a movement counter on it. Player 2 moves a unit, puts a counter. Rinse and repeat until everyone's moved. Rise and repeat for other phases. It's now more tactical. Ta-daa!

Reading a lot of these suggestions would work really well if this game was more of a skirmish game with a smaller model count, kill team comes to mind. I don't play the game but I love watching the matches of warmachine/hordes. Those matches just feel perfect, the amount of models and rules fit well together. To me to make it more 'tactical' would take a more of a rules overhaul than some think.