6th edition changes: objectives and mobility

This was a great article from 3++ is the new black, that explains why mobility is so important this edition. I thought would be worth discussing seeing how mobility is something DE do well (original article).

Kirby wrote:

Two very minor yet significant changes in 6th edition is the interaction objectives have with the rest of the game system. This is one thing I am a bit worried about with the 3++con missions as I have removed this restriction in some parts and believe I may have to rescind this decision (but don’t really want to!).

What I’m talking about here is objectives can now be placed within 6” of the board edge and table halves are decided for players BEFORE objectives are placed. What this often ends up doing is putting multiple objectives around the edges of midfield rather than more towards midfield as opponent’s try to keep objectives in more difficult to reach places for each other.

With the five and six objective missions, this is less of an issue as there is finite space along board edges and some objectives end up getting pushed more towards the middle but particularly with the Hammer & Anvil deployment, objectives can often be far apart and closer to army starting positions more often than not. This does a couple of things. First, it means you need to understand objective placement even more. (This is something we’ve aimed to bring back with 3++con rather than having set objectives all the time – we’ve often combined the two practices in fact.) With more space to place your objectives and greater scope of being able to place objectives within your deployment zone (WHICH YOU KNOW), being able to place objectives smartly is really important.

Secondly, it changes how game mechanics interact. A lot of really dumb people are trying to claim 6th edition is a static game and then go on to refer to how 5th edition was static, too. They then often point out the “crapness” of vehicles as the main reason 6th edition is static and gunlines therefore rule. Beyond the fallacy inherent in that argument… such a stance means you have one real tactic: shoot the enemy off objectives. Given that shooting is such a strong option this doesn’t seem like such a bad idea but what it’s forgetting is that movement is what sets shooting up.

It’s very easy to keep squads alive now as you can only kill models you can see (except with blasts). Between vehicle wrecks and terrain it should be impossible NOT to be able to hide a single model from a certain degree of angles. If you don’t have mobility or the ability to move and fire, you don’t have the capacity to actually overcome this very basic concept and your static gunline army gets LOL’d at by a single Gretchin.

What does this have to do with objectives being 6” closer to the board edge? It reduces the angles with which you can flank an opponent. If an opponent has a perfect 180 degree LoS blocking terrain piece which you have to flank to be able to see around, you have to go a further 6”. That’s an extra turn for infantry units and that can be the difference between the game continuing or the game ending. This isn’t to say you MUST have vehicles but rather you MUST have mobility built into your army where your army can push towards your opponent, across midfield which may not have any game end significance (i.e. no objectives but is still important in board control) and into their deployment zone where their objectives might be sitting. All the while you’ll have to be engaging your opponent during this time unless they are just letting you waltz across the board.

If you don’t do this, or cannot due to your opponent stopping you, the game basically comes down to who gains the most secondaries or if playing in a mission with a larger number of objectives, who controls the objectives pushed out from deployment zones (where midfield might come more into play in terms of end game significance). This means two things:

1. You need to theoretically be able to get to your opponent’s side of the board and stay there before Turn 5.
Secondaries are huge.
2. To further complicate things, only infantry units (without certain restrictions) can contest opposing objectives so the units which need to get across the board and survive, need to be on foot.

The implications of this are pretty far-ranging. Mobility is part and parcel of the game as it’s the one thing you have the biggest control over. It also is the determining factor of where opponent models are removed from. It ensures your opponent has a harder time of hiding and allows you to potentially contest objectives which are further from the centre of the board. If you want to play a static gunline and just throw dice at your opponent, be my guest but don’t be surprised when opposing players out play you and force you into bad situations due to your lack of mobility. Lots of guns are great but they need to be anchored by the concept of mobility.

yes this is a great article! and i agree completely movement has always been my most important phase after deployment.

Is it possible to get a filtered version that isn't 3++con specific? Not that it's unhelpful, but 99% of 40k players, including those in Australia, play by the core rulebook missions.

I'm an American, but from what I know of Australia, and talking to Aussie and NZ 40k players, it's a huge freaking island/country/continent and traversing any distance for a tournament is a more significant undertaking than going the same distance in America, or leaving the UK for a Continental con. Again, this is a good article, but it feels like the typical "how to do well at my tournament" post I see posted on NOVA's Whiskey and 40k blog.

hehe that is an issue with alot of posts from con specific guys but not so huge.

and yeah 40k in aus at least in western aus is core rulebook and distance traveling is a major pain in the ass and why i dont attend tournaments

Agahnim wrote:

Is it possible to get a filtered version that isn't 3++con specific? Not that it's unhelpful, but 99% of 40k players, including those in Australia, play by the core rulebook missions.

I'm not really seeing anything 3++con specific in that article. It's quite general and seems to be talking about core rules. What in particular are you concerned about with it?

Great article, but I must admit that I haven't really seen much of the behaviour it's talking about (trying to place all objectives 6" from own board edge to sit on with a gun line). Perhaps it's just my local meta - we tend to play fun and not overtly competitive games, so most often objectives are placed on a "it looks cool there" basis, which generally means a good smattering in mid-board.

On a personal note, I tend to place as many objectives as possible in my opponent's half, because in my lists I generally find that all my scoring units are hurtling towards him anyway.

Agahnim wrote:

but it feels like the typical "how to do well at my tournament" post I see posted on NOVA's Whiskey and 40k blog.

I think your confusion arises from this poorly written sentence:

Kirby wrote:

What I’m talking about here is objectives can now be placed within 6” of the board edge and table halves are decided for players BEFORE objectives are placed.

Kirby was actually talking about the core rules, and is saying how being able place your objectives anywhere not within 6" of the board rather than 12" has affected the game. He is not talking about his own 3++ con rules. So this is not a "how to do well at my tournament" article, but a general article.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

It was to other comments about objectives getting pushed around in different deployments and stuff that I'm not sure I got. I'll re-read it a couple times, but what he's said about Rhinos is very true. It's always been the case with Rhinos, 5th edition was just weird that you could hide in them forever.