PDA

View Full Version : The Thrill Is Gone?



Pages : [1] 2

Gonefishing
28-08-2012, 21:41
I may well be in a huge minority here, but is anyone else out there really not enjoying 6th that much?

I liked the tighter more streamlined ruleset of 5th, which did not make any use of the words "Cinematic" and left me to use my own imagination to define those epic battlefield moments......All 6th seems to have achieved is to become both random and at the same time more predictable (which granted is not an easy feat but GW have managed it), overly complicated and less streamlined, and far more cynical in sales opportunities - after 8 or 9 years of 40K goodness I am left with the desire now to shrug, meh, and ebay my Tau.

First off - Vehicles....In 6th I just dont see the point, personally I never used to use many, but frankly I now feel sorry for opponents that put them down on the table against me, between glancing and pentrating hits and the changes to cover vehicles are about as survivable now as suicudal lemming tap dancing on a cliff face. Part of the fun of 40K (for me) has always been playing with and facing tanks, thats something you dont get in Infinity and the plethora of other games out there, now if my opponent takes a mech list it's pretty much a no brainer auto win for my Tau - Broadsides just have to look sternly at a vehicle and its dead and I dont think I havent managed a turn yet where TL missile Pods have failed to glance an AV11 vehicle to death in a single turn. I agree that vehicles needed a slight nerf, but I think that its gone ridiculously to far in the other direction.

On top of the vehicle survivability issues, vehicles can no longer deny objectives (Not scoring I can understand, but why can they not deny?), Troops can no longer score inside vehicles, and if you move over 6" you cant get out, if you havent moved you cant get out and assualt...Ok, they can now move faster (not sure how that helps anything apart from light transports) and alledgedly they are "Effective" for longer and Glances cant stop them firing, but this is an argument that does not wash with me - Its hard to be effective when your dead and personally I would rather have a vehicle not be able to fire for a turn and still be able to do something in the "End game" stages rather than just be DOA.

Fliers are alledgedly the great "Hope" as they can only be hit on 6's they are by far the best vehicles you can put on the table nowdays, but take that away and they are actually less surviable than other vehicles. ey only get to Jink (get a cover save) if they give up the opportunity to fire accurately in their next turn, they have tissue thin armour, and limited hull points. At the moment people are running out and spending money on fliers as they are so good, give it a few months however when GW has drummed up enough cash on flier sales and the new codexes/faqs etc have started to release and we will see the release of proper anti flier weaponry - at which point Fliers will join the rest of there vehicle based friends and become highly expensive target drones with limited life expectancy and game use.

Wound Allocation.....Erm, did they actually play test it? Setting aside the fact that barrage has now become the best sniper weapon in the game, do you think they actually sat down and worked out the fun of deciding the closest model, rolling saves, look out sirs etc? If it was put in place to stop wound allocation shenangans with 2 wound models, then frankly it was a massive failiure - as the new system is far more open to abuse (especially with allies) and makes it even harder to kill multi wound models in a unit with different armour saves and characters and FNP. Alledgedly its "Cinematic", but "Cinematic" does not mean "Playable" - frankly its a mess.

Outflanking. Was outflanking assualt such a massive problem? - I think I have missed the wails of pain and grief populating the web out the terrible overpoweredness of outflanking, I must have done, otherwise there really would have been no point in making this rule? Its one that really makes no sense whatsoever to me and it really detracts from the game.....

Randomness - Dont get me wrong, I like randomness, old Ork Codexes were great fun and the random orky abilities made them grat fun to play against - but 6th edition has introduced randomness but removed the fun element - I roll for my warlord ability, its useless, hurrah. I walk into a bit of woodland, half my unit dies...huzzah, I go to charge someone 3 inches away, roll double 1...huzzah!...thats not fun, its just annoying. Couple that with the facts that the random elements they have added to the game dont counter the enforced predictaibity that the other rules impose on the game, you cant surprise your opponent anymore, lead him into traps, launch outflanking assualts to cause havoc behind your opponents lines (at least not effectively), as a result you have a sort of randomly predictable system that just isnt flexible or fun to play (in my opinion).

Challenges? I mean...why? Ok, I play Tau so maybe I am missing something here, but to my mind if a heroic space marine captain challenged my Commander to a fight my Commander would take two steps back and shot him in the face with a plasma rifle, not tackle him in hand to hand. In a fantasy setting I can see it working, in the 40K setting its just a pointless gameslowing annoyance.

I could go on and on, there are lots of "niggles" I have with 6th edition, but the upshot is - I am really not having much fun playing it (thats despite a 100% win record so far), games take longer and thanks to the enforced "Cinematics" are less fun to play. I had plenty of cinematic moments in 5th, I have not yet had one memorable cinematic moment in 6th despite the "aims"of the ruleset. Frankly put, I think the new ruleset is a mess and seems more based on selling new models then being a decent streamlined gaming ruleset, actual tactical play seems to have taken a second seat to the church of beautifully cinematic random predictability.

Guess I am just wondering If I am alone out there? I am sure plenty of folks like it - but for me, the best that can be said about 6th edition is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPlsqo2bk2M&feature=related (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPlsqo2bk2M&feature=related)

Azazel
28-08-2012, 21:46
Sure 6th isn't perfect, no edition ever was.

Perhaps your problem is that you haven't lost a game yet. Go out and play some new people. There is little more motivating than losing a game.

hobojebus
28-08-2012, 22:05
I much prefer 6th myself, alot of the little tweaks have really improved the game for me and i can now run infantry like i want instead of being forced towards mech in order to compete.

The fact standing in a shadow no longer gives you a 4+ cover save is also a welcome change.

Is it perfect no, but i think its a step in the right direction.

totgeboren
28-08-2012, 22:10
Personally I think vehicles work ok. Maybe if they upped the amount of hull points just a little bit, it would be better, but I think it's fine. Only needing 25% cover for getting a cover save is nice and makes getting cover easier.

I agree that Wound Allocation from barrage is incredibly badly done, and I think the ones I play with will house rule this away. Barrage is supposed to be the least precise form of firepower, but as it is, they are much better than snipers at sniping valuable targets.

No assault from outflank is kinda silly I agree, and Challenges, though the idea is kinda cool, just doesn't work in more cases than it actually do. Sure, when a SM fights some orks or chaos dudes, a challenge could be fitting. But when a Tau fights a Tyranid? None of them could care less if their opponent wanted to fight them one on one.

Still, it's easy enough to house rule away I guess, but some of these rules should never have been included in the first place, and that is obvious from playing just a few games.

All in all 6ed is a game I find more 'fun' than 5ed. I'm enjoying the battles more, and I like that it's not just one long exercise in trying to get penetrating hits with meltaguns anymore, and I have started to include both some flamers and plasmaguns now, as they are both really useful.

Include some buildings, not just ruins and woods and you have a whole new game. Dislodging infantry from buildings require either big guns, or assault troops with flamers and grenades. Great fun, though the rules really are designed around a human/ork perspective.

Oh, and about the thrill being gone. I know that feeling from when the latest Ork codex came at the end of 4ed. I played 4-5 games, won by wipe at around turn 4 each time, and then my orks went into boxes. When you are used to being the underdog, and really having to think and put some effort into winning, having a much easier time takes away most of the fun from the game.
I'm thinking about trying them out again in 6ed, as they are kinda assaulty, they might be better balanced now (that is, harder to win with).

EpicWarGamer
28-08-2012, 22:16
I love 6th edition through and through... I would be excellent if they never updated the rulebook ever again. Everything makes sense. I am tired of the people who used to cheese their way through everything. I hate munchkins.

Inquisitor Shego
28-08-2012, 22:16
I too agree with you, OP, but let me share a little something.

When 4th Ed came out, I played Alpha Legion with pure 100% infiltrate, and DE Raider Rush from 3rd Ed. When 5th Ed came in I reacted to it with bitterness. I soon discovered unless I had Rhinos, I was screwed. My DE I'd abandoned because the codex now felt so obsolete it was an insult to play with those models and that list. I took a six month break, came back with a fresh head, open mind, and studyed the edition.

Personally I abhor challenges, allies, remove the nearest, fliers. lets not believe the nonsensical "we want this cinematic". We have static plastic figurines. This isn't COD. This edition was about selling toys and making money.

Terrain now purchasable at a 33% increase in price
We need all these fliers to protect us from all these fliers. That's why there's no Skyfire update
Transports suck. Better buy more infantry.
Buy allies! Ooooh, now you have a gateway drug to a new army

NOBODY 100% likes a new edition, because it means change, and change means effort. We're all adjusting, some better than others. Those who adjust the fastest are the strongest advocates. A sloth like me needs a long break. I recommend that. Come back in 3-6 months, especially after games day and the first couple of 6th ed codecies appear. That'll expand your mind some, and be the real make or break time. 5th Ed was horrible. 6th Ed is better. Not perfect, but better.

My irk is more with GW as a practice (yes I know they must make money). I'm taking a step back to cool my heels. Do the same as I. Step back, and think. If you find you're no longer enjoying it, you'd be surprised the money you save. If you love it, that perspective will give you a great edge.

Vaktathi
28-08-2012, 22:29
To be honest, I haven't had much fun with 6th so far. The game just feels gimmicky (and the most gimmicky lists are the ones that seem to be the best in 6th) and more swung by certain rolls (warlord traits, mysterious objectives, etc) than it ever had before. I feel that with 6th I'm not playing a game, I'm putzing around in a sandbox with someone who wants to kill me.

Now, I do like many of the changes made to 6th, don't get me wrong, I don't mind all of the randomness (e.g. random charges don't bother me too much) but I also dislike a great many others, often seemingly sales driven or to appease some pet peeve of one of the writers by going overboard on some aspect (vehicles in particular, non-flyer vehicles are now easier to kill than they've ever been in any edition of 40k after just one edition of being useful for all armies rather than just a few).

I wasn't a huge fan of 5th edition by any means, hated much of it, 6th doesn't seem to be any better though, just different. 5th was an awkwardly hamfisted streamline of 3rd/4th, 6th is a "throw everything you own that we sell on the table and we'll make sure there's a dice rolling mechanic for ALL of it!"

Lord Inquisitor
28-08-2012, 22:35
Yeah, the 6th edition was a bit of a disappointment for me too.

Flier rules are a great thing to add in - but they're badly written and poorly thought out. The lack of AA for some armies is pretty crippling and the bizarre nature of how they're put together is a bit odd. Shouldn't all ground-based AA units like hydra be interceptors? The game also lacks a real dogfight system.

Wound allocation is a mess. The only real benefit would be a system that's easy to understand and implement - but they messed that up by putting in two different systems for wound allocation and gave the full system as the exception, guaranteeing people will be confused about it for the entire edition.

Overwatch - would be amazing if all units could fire like interceptors, but instead is a stunted stand-and-shoot reaction that doesn't really add any tactical depth to the game at all.

Psychic decks - awesome. So we have a psychic phase and a proper system of psychics then? No.

Challenges - wait, you've just added one of the really problematic and abused mechanics in Warhammer over to 40K and made it even worse?

Allies - nice idea. Shame about the really odd allies table?

Overall there's a lot of things I do like about 6th edition. Many neat little changes. While there are many aspects that are not bad per se they fail so hard because it could be so much better. Many aspects have moved in a direction akin to that of Epic Armageddon - fliers, AA, overwatch, wound allocation. Yet each one falls short. This was a perfect chance to (re)introduce allies and a proper psychic phase rather than a stupid Ld test, but again stopped short of actually being good. For me 6th is such a disappointment because it could have been great.

Still, I wasn't totally happy with 8th ed WFB when it came out but the 8th ed army books were really good and now I think it's the best edition yet. Perhaps the new codexes will redeem the edition?

Battleworthy Arts
28-08-2012, 22:36
This is easily the best edition yet... and Ive been around for ALL of them.

Ive really just kind of gritted my teeth and pressed forward since third... sixth is such a breath of fresh air.

Of course its not perfect... I personally feel like every vehcile could do with 1 more hullpoint, but overall yeah... If it is possible for there to be a "golden age" of 40k, this is it.

A.T.
28-08-2012, 22:43
Feels a little half baked, like they had a great idea of where to go with the rules but only two weeks to write and ship it.

I have hope for 7th.

Furls
28-08-2012, 22:57
I really like 6th. What I really like is that in many ways it is more realistic. It is far more realistic to remove casualties from the front, from the rear is just bizarre. Now when fliers get show down the people inside actually take horrendous damage. Cover makes far more sense, and I love over watch fire. If I was a guardsman and a horde of orks or whatever is coming at me I would definately raise my gun and shoot at them as much as I could before there charge hit home. Is 6th perfect- no. However it is an improvement on 5th.

Bonzai
28-08-2012, 23:07
Over all I like 6th.... from a casual standpoint. From a competative standpoint, I think that they have oppened pandora's box. Un-equal flyer suport, allies, and double FOC can make things frankly insane.

Ozendorph
28-08-2012, 23:13
For my part I like the inclusion of fortifications and allies, I like the change from 4+ to 5+ for most cover, and so far the inclusion of melee weapon AP has been a plus. Unfortunately, I feel just about every other change in 6th Ed range from "way overboard" to "there is no way they ever tested this." I think for my own sanity I'll take a break and see how things look in a few months

edit: Forgot to mention the psyker decks. I like them.

brain_dead_1st
28-08-2012, 23:14
Buy yourself some lord of the rings models, play a different ruleset for a bit and then come back.
I hated 5th. The worst system of 40k so far in my opinion! It made no sense in wound allocation, in survivability of tanks, in the rubbish ways it encouraged people to play.
6th has rectified this a bit for me (I still want to see more Close combat, the books are always so brutal in CC and yet I find CC is often a gamble)

I have played from 2nd to 6th and found good times and bad. Just don't make one system your life and it doesn't matter. I have two groups who I game with, one I play purely Lord of the Rings, the other I mix between 40k 6th ed and mordheim.

So 1 RPG, 1 Skirmish and whatever 40k considers itself these days.
Mix it up.

Fizzy
28-08-2012, 23:32
Guys there are new codexes coming. They should contain units that would even things out.

I am a bit confused at the moment with some rules but I am adapting. But all my armies contain very little vehicles compared to others. Especially since DKok really havent got any transports for normal 40K.

And I started my CSM army in this edition so I focus more on the infantry and some walkers. Got 3 tanks in 4500pts. That is about what I need. Though I have not yet played with CSM. But my Dkok actually kicked some ass last timed I played. Since a lot of people skip transports now I can camp the objectives and shoot my enemies out of cover and into the open field where they meet more firepower.

panic_puppet
28-08-2012, 23:35
It has its ups and downs. Vehicles are no longer king, which is nice. Flyers I don't like as its essentially an arms race, and some armies get really good flier/anti-flier (IG), whereas some get next to none (sisters of battle). Challenges are iffy - they're abusable, but can add some fun if nobody's gaming the system. Warlord traits and mysterious objectives are what I have the strongest issues with, especially the traits. Its common for one army to get a really good one (e.g. Ghaz getting a VP for things he kills in a challenge, or Lysander being scoring, that sort of thing) whereas the other player gets one that's literally useless (bonus to reserves with no reserves, re-deploying D3 units when they deploy second) and that can swing things. The allies matrix is ok - its intended to allow fluffy, themed armies, but isn't always used for that. I've seen more eldar on the tabletop than ever before, with people just using them as allies to get farseers, some going the whole hog and taking Eldrad. My last 3 games have all been against Eldar/X armies, 2 with Eldrad.

The_Klobb_Maniac
28-08-2012, 23:47
Over all I like 6th.... from a casual standpoint. From a competative standpoint, I think that they have oppened pandora's box. Un-equal flyer suport, allies, and double FOC can make things frankly insane.

All the better IMO. The competitive player will always be fine because it is up to them to figure out which is the best and then use it the best on top of that. If anything, having a bigger more exploitable surface area is good for the competitive player; more interesting options to choose from on their quest to the top. Besides, as discussed not long ago, the game wasn't built for it and really won't be.

On the level that 40k is built and maintained for.. I think 6th has proven fantastic. Much of it is fun, lots of things have become readily counterable and those that people claim are super-powerful are probably quite manageable with the girth of the ruleset :D, just takes a little time.

Spell_of_Destruction
28-08-2012, 23:53
So far, 6th ed strikes me as being the work of someone with some great ideas who lacks the technical ability and knowledge to implement them correctly in a ruleset.

Vaktathi
28-08-2012, 23:55
Guys there are new codexes coming. They should contain units that would even things out. Unfortunately we've got armies trailing back two editions and GW has never been able to get more than half the armies updated within the span of a single edition and we really don't have much reason to think 6th will be any different. We've got 16 or 17 armies and if we're lucky GW puts out 3 a year, more typically 2, with an edition lifespan of 4 years and no rhyme or reason to the update pattern, with the last codex release coming up on 10 months ago. I suspect 6th will seem the same codex age issues that 4th and 5th saw. I wish this weren't the case, but sadly it's the simple reality of Games Workshop. Hell, even with 2nd edition they barely got the last 2nd ed codex out what, 8 or 9 months before the total reboot of 3rd? :p


So far, 6th ed strikes me as being the work of someone with some great ideas who lacks the technical ability and knowledge to implement them correctly in a ruleset.
I'd say in many ways this is an accurate statement.

TrangleC
29-08-2012, 00:21
I really like 6th. What I really like is that in many ways it is more realistic. It is far more realistic to remove casualties from the front, from the rear is just bizarre. Now when fliers get show down the people inside actually take horrendous damage. Cover makes far more sense, and I love over watch fire. If I was a guardsman and a horde of orks or whatever is coming at me I would definately raise my gun and shoot at them as much as I could before there charge hit home. Is 6th perfect- no. However it is an improvement on 5th.
Sorry, but that makes not much sense. It is a turn based game. The fire a Guardsman shoots at an Ork running at him is symbolized by the shots he fired in his previous shooting phase or by the close combat attacks he hits the Orks with. Pistols give close combat attacks, so the attack a guardsman has could just aswell be a shot he fired at close proximity.
Or it is symbolized by the shots he fires in the coming shooting phase, after the Orks failed to charge him due to not moving far enough.
It isn't really defined what actually happens there and what kind of reality the rules actually try to emulate.

6th edition isn't more realistic than any other edition was and in any case, we just can't bring up "realism" in such discussions. Nothing about this game is really realistic and how could a turn based game ever really be realistic in any shape or form? It is all just game mechanics and half of what happens on the gaming table hardly even has a fluff explanation.
To stay at that example, what does really happen when a charge fails? Does the charging unit just run out of breath?
And when having a Bolt Pistol gives an Space Marine a additional attack, then why doesn't that attack have the AP value of a Bolt Pistol?
Why do Terminators with a Storm Shield have a better chance of surviving being hit and wounded by a Bright Lance or a Melter than a Landraider has? If they have such shields, then why not use that technology to protect tanks with it? And why does it have to be a shield when it works regardless from where the attack comes? Couldn't they just wear it on their back then to have that hand free for other things?
What actually does it mean to be wounded? You've been hit and then wounded and yet you can still avoid the wound by a saving throw. Has the shot penetrated the armor then or not? If it didn't because you made your armor save, then what was the point of throwing to wound first?
Why does a Invulnerable Save sometimes symbolize that the unit is agile and fast and can dodge shots and attacks (Wyches, Banshees), sometimes that the unit is incorporeal (Rubric Marines), sometimes that it has a force shield (Storm Shields) and sometimes that it can foresee the future (Daemons)?
Why can't tanks crush infantry? How come they are always able to avoid the vehicle unless they try to hit it?

Long story short, hardly anything in this game makes sense from a "this symbolizes something that actually happens in reality"-way.

blackcherry
29-08-2012, 00:23
I'm waiting to play a few games first and to give it 6-8 months for it to all shake out first. Just looking at the layout of the book, the game looks pretty fun but at a sort of halfway stage. There are parts of the book that are needlessly complicated and other bits that make perfect sense and you wonder why they weren't added before. There are also a few other bits that show the designers have been reading other rulesets and taking notes ;).

Regardless, it seems the intention behind the rules was to have a bit more fun in your games. I'm all for that :)

chromedog
29-08-2012, 01:01
I lost the thrill for 40k back in 5th edition (last year).
The game stopped having that certain "something" that got me playing it back in 1987.
So, no. You aren't alone.

There ARE other games out there, y'know? I just look at 40k as gaming Mcdonalds. There's usually at least one game in any town, and they're all the same.

Schismotive
29-08-2012, 02:18
Yeah have to agree that 40k has lost it's shine to me lately. 6th edition is pretty good I guess, but I feel like I'm just waiting for an errata update to make it feel less half done. All the new shiny garbage they've added has absolutely NO effect on my army whatsoever, and hardly anyone even uses fliers... All 6th edition really did for me was nerf my army (templars) along with all my friends armies and buff the stupid armies that didn't need a buff. (you know who you are...) Challenges are pointless for me, seeing as my mandatory HQ can't kill a thing, and can't even be a friggan warlord! Infantry got even more stupidly survivable now and rules for vehicles makes absolutely no sense. I also hate allies and think it's completely stupid, along with silly fortifications and then psykers getting even more op.

So yes, I don't like 6th edition entirely. Would I go back to 5th? yes, but since were here now I want to keep playing, for the love of the game and my army if anything. I would be willing to forgive all that if not for the insane price increase were being subjected to as well. Now I can't afford new units in the slightest, let alone a new army to try playing while my army sits outdated and terrible. Soooo sorry black templars you get to sit on my shelf now... lets play some warmachine!

ilikebmxbikes
29-08-2012, 02:25
for the most part, i enjoy 6th edition but challenges slow the game down and are pretty stupid sometimes. It really slows down combats considerably.

Ventus
29-08-2012, 03:07
I have lost interest in 40K and will stop for about 6 months and see how things look after a few dexes are released and whether GW puts out a proper, detailed errata for each army to make each dex mostly balanced internally and externally (I doubt this will happen so I expect I might never play this game again). The greatest disappointment is that the game has such potential and could be great if only GW would spend some honest effort trying to make a tight, balanced ruleset and fixing dexes that will not get a new one within 6 months. I want to buy more stuff and build other armies but GW wont get anymore dough from me.

I do like some aspects of 6th, however, many rules have poor implementation. For example I dislike the challenges rules for 40k but maybe if it had been handled better it might have been okay. The example of the Tau and Tyranid player is a good example of how stupid this rule is when you force characters to fight as though they are 2 medieval knights worried about their honour if they refuse to accept a challenge.

As others have said the slow rate of dex release, even if new dexes are balanced and well written, means that most armies will be playing with messed up books for many years hoping for a better book and after the long wait may get one but may not (poor nids) or may get a book that is good for a short while and then a new basic rule set is released and now its another long wait to hope for a fix (and it is not whether a powerful list can be made out of a book - most of the book should be useable and most weapons/options should function well within a ruleset). This company is all about greed and not making a good product for the customer. There is no reason GW could not make money while making a good game as other companies do it.

blake
29-08-2012, 03:56
So far, 6th ed strikes me as being the work of someone with some great ideas who lacks the technical ability and knowledge to implement them correctly in a ruleset.

I know its already been quoted but there is much truth in this statement. I look at 6th and wonder why they pulled back on it so much. In its current form I cannot find myself getting excited to play 40k. I am probably going to end up offloading about 2-3 thousand dollars worth of space marines in a few to buy a new tv and more Flames of War.

I'll probably follow 40k for awhile, like previous posters have stated and see if the army books can save this edition (I started off hating 8th of Fantasy but new O&G book brought me back around) but most of my wargaming will be with little WW2 dewds for awhile.

p.s. While I enjoy Warhammer 8th edition, I will and always hate the random charge distance, and when I saw its addition to 40k I asked around both the Fantasy and 40k players at my club to see who actually enjoyed this. And out of 21 people NOBODY did. Couple were like "it doesn't bother us" but NOBODY actually liked this new part of Warhammer (both 40k and Fantasy).

Sorry if this was too much of a whine.

Machinehead
29-08-2012, 04:53
Agreeing with OP. I liked 5th edition, and I was REALLY looking forward to 6th to finally be a well ironed, well play tested (based on the years using 4th & 5th) piece gaming that would be internally balanced and sensible. Then they just decided to uproot the whole experience.
I like the allies/fortifications. The allies table definitely needs work (why is an entire army kept out of a full section of the core rulebook?!). I am I would have loved Challenges, if they didn't grind everything to halt. Let my troops fight his troops, while our characters fight. These two things don't overlap but each add to resolution. Is that so difficult?!
I HATE overwatch, and the general nerf Assault got in this edition. Why does the opponent get an entire shooting phase during my turn? Yes there's stand-and-shoot in fantasy. Fantasy also has model facings so you can work around these things.
Hull Point I don't mind much. I want them more fleshed out and more thought through. I love shipping my Zerkers up the table to prepare for a charge turn 2. Now if I want to do this I have to take a turn to move, a turn to get out, then the 3rd turn I can maybe assault if anything is left of the unit, then they get shot at again for good measure.
What really gets to me though, is they want $90 for a catalog. If you don't have Fliers you are screwed, definitely in the short term and I would expect in the long term. Especially if Necron codex is a clue (seriously, I can't even hurt the troops in the carrier if I manage to shoot it down?). I didn't expect a lot from this edition, just a tidying up and general care and attention. It's really disappointing to come away with a garbled mess of a rulebook, ie. Can you move through friendly troops? I've found 3 different passages that tell different rulings lol

Omniassiah
29-08-2012, 05:29
I know its already been quoted but there is much truth in this statement. I look at 6th and wonder why they pulled back on it so much. In its current form I cannot find myself getting excited to play 40k. I am probably going to end up offloading about 2-3 thousand dollars worth of space marines in a few to buy a new tv and more Flames of War.

I'll probably follow 40k for awhile, like previous posters have stated and see if the army books can save this edition (I started off hating 8th of Fantasy but new O&G book brought me back around) but most of my wargaming will be with little WW2 dewds for awhile.

p.s. While I enjoy Warhammer 8th edition, I will and always hate the random charge distance, and when I saw its addition to 40k I asked around both the Fantasy and 40k players at my club to see who actually enjoyed this. And out of 21 people NOBODY did. Couple were like "it doesn't bother us" but NOBODY actually liked this new part of Warhammer (both 40k and Fantasy).

Sorry if this was too much of a whine.

This is me except it was VC in fantasy that brought me back until I looked at costs to update with some of the new stuff and just passed.

Sexiest_hero
29-08-2012, 06:22
The 8th edition of fantasy is a blast. And a lot of people dooming and glooming abut it were wrong. 4ok seemed like they wanted all the good things from fantasy, then half donkeyed them. I quit 5th, because rhinos were too cheap, and SM love was way overboard. I feel a 5th reboot, like the 3rd edition reboot. fixing wound allocation and Vehicles was all that was needed. So after they did that, (messing up wound allocations AGAIN). They still had to fill out another edition, so they took stand and shoot, the magic phase, challenges, and impact hits from Fantsy and jammed them in there like felon class pervert. And much like a bad video game or movie, instead of delaying it for another 6 months to work out the bugs, they just shove it out half baked. It a fun game, just don't push the system too hard or it unwinds.

Weazel
29-08-2012, 06:31
Only a few games into 6th yet but I have to say that I'm really liking it so far. I really like the new wound allocation, brings a new tactical level to movement and placing of models.

Vehicles were toned down by hull points yes, but they are harder to shut down by shaking/stunning. I guess it would be better if glancing hits reduced a HP on 4+ or something, now they seem a tad too fragile really.

Challenges are the only thing that really feels disconnected from the rest of the game. I mean instead of being "cinematic" or "some-other-suitable-adjective" they are usually just a way to tarpit a unit or quickly dispatch/disable the other unit's powerfist or other special weapon.

Dismembered
29-08-2012, 08:44
Haven't yet played a game of 6th, hopefully this Sunday I'll get a game in (my fathers day present). From what I have read of the book and peoples comments I think I'm going to like it a lot more than I have the last 2 editions. My biggest gripe about anything is I wish they'd release all the codexes (codicies?) for each edition before moving on.

mattschuur
29-08-2012, 08:44
First, I'm tired of seeing and hearing the word cinematic. It just reminds me of Michael Bay movies, no plot, just explosions.

Now, I've been nothing but frustrated with 6th edition. Vehicles getting whacked stings but the concept of hull points isn't a problem it just was implemented poorly.
Random charge sucks in Fantasy, it sucks in 40k. Why can I always move 6" in open terrain, but when I charge (which should be just as if not faster than moving) is it even possible to move less than 6"?

Overwatch isn't horrible, but it makes small assault units pointless. Whittle berserkers down to 4 guys, they will be pointless. And even a limited second shooting phase is OTT and weakens assaults. Which was unnecessary.

Fliers are so OTT it's really unfair. 1,000 points of my army was unable to take down 2 Night scythes (200 points) in 4 turns. That seems really fair and balanced don't you think? And as far as waiting for skyfire, what are they going to do? Release whole new White dwarf updates to give all the armies without AA a new unit? Flakk missiles doesn't work for everyone and the armies it does effect, it doesn't effect in a meaningful way.

Challenges, oh dear god challenges. I never really liked this rule in fantasy, where is works. But now it's in 40K. As others have mentioned, why would a Tau character issue or accept. Nids? Eldar farseers? And why are they looked upon in shame? Tau abhor assaults, so why would they spit on a sgt who refused to fight in one? Challenges are pointless, game slowing and should not exist in 40k.

Mysterious terrain. You know, I've never read any fluff about an army arriving in system, doing no recon and saying "we have no idea what kind of enviorment, terrain or deadly creatures exist down there. Oh well, screw it, I guess we'll find out!"

Mysterious objective. Same as Terrain, only why are we fighting for objectives that we know nothing about? Why are they important. And why is the random roll of Nothing usefull still an objective? If it's not useful, why are we risking our lives for it?

Wound allocation. The only problem with 5th edition was when it came to multiple wound units. A sgt or unit leader is a veteran. If he wasn't able to survive, how the hell did he make it to be a veteran? If he doesn't lead from the front, why do his men use his leadership. I'm pretty sure soldiers don't respect an officer who hides and is unwilling to lead by example. Oh, and why does every bullet fired at a unit hit the closest guy? If you think removing from the back is stupid, how do you explain this? Do bullets not pass through the squad? Bullets don't always hit the first guy. If they did, nobody in history would have been assassinated so long as at least one guy was closer to the shooter.

Warlord traits- I've been keeping track, 31 games in a row my random warlord trait had absolutely no effect on the game. Although it is 'funny' when my Khorne Lord gets master of defence, or my Farseer gets master of offense, or my Space wolf lord gets counter attack. If they had made it cost say 30 points and you get to choose, it would be useful. But the randomness just makes it an annoying roll that can give your opponent a boost, and give you nothing.

Psychic powers. A decent idea, though another rip off from fantasy, that just doesn't work. Some of the disciplines are just better than others. Biomancy is king where I play. Pyro is useless and telekinesis is a joke. Far from balanced and just benefits some armies way more than others.

I still have fun playing 6th, but a lot of the changes make the game way more frustrating and boring.

Matt Schuur

Fizzy
29-08-2012, 09:20
Unfortunately we've got armies trailing back two editions and GW has never been able to get more than half the armies updated within the span of a single edition and we really don't have much reason to think 6th will be any different. We've got 16 or 17 armies and if we're lucky GW puts out 3 a year, more typically 2, with an edition lifespan of 4 years and no rhyme or reason to the update pattern, with the last codex release coming up on 10 months ago. I suspect 6th will seem the same codex age issues that 4th and 5th saw. I wish this weren't the case, but sadly it's the simple reality of Games Workshop. Hell, even with 2nd edition they barely got the last 2nd ed codex out what, 8 or 9 months before the total reboot of 3rd? :p


I'd say in many ways this is an accurate statement.

I think they will learn some day. Some rumours say that all armies will have an AA or flier release within 1 year. That would at least (hopefully) solve some flier problems. The rest of the things I do not have a problem with. Except maybe all vehicles should get one more hull point each.

Me and my friends just skip challenges when playing. It feels a bit meeh. And we rarely use fliers. We only use fliers in apocalypse.

Morrslieb
29-08-2012, 11:04
So far I have positive feeling about 6th, never liked rhino rush or tank spam anyway.

Yes, it's turnbased game, but you think Guard will stop shooting at any case Orks are at range? Hell no.
It's been explained since immemorial that both (or atleast one of them) of Stomshield and Landraider are Lost technology, they may understand how it works but cannot recreate it.
On the note, terminator may have notice something and turned shield to shooting at flank, no?
We really dont need any more kind of saves, it'll be a hassle.

Game doesnt need to make sense to be a good one.

AndrewGPaul
29-08-2012, 11:15
Round here, it's the exact opposite. Everything about sixth edition - from the rules to the artwork - have got us all excited about 40k for the first time in years. In the previous editions, I've played 40k despite the game rules, because I loved the setting and the miniatures. The only thing that forced me to use the rules themselves was that I couldn't convince anyone else to play using the Tomorrow's War rules instead. Now, it's different. 40k does what I want it to again. There may well be things I still don't like so much - or new annoyances - but I'm yet to find them.

Challenges, for instance; the last game I played was Imperial Guard vs daemons. My Command HQ got jumped by a daemon prince, and the Commissar strode out to hold it off. Got squashed, obviously, but the possibility was there for a heroic defence. Not somehting that could have happened with 5th, to my knowledge.

Allies - well, it looks like Lord Varlak's rebels will now be reinforced by some Thousand Sons sorcerors - I hope he realises what he's getting into before it's too late ...

A.T.
29-08-2012, 11:26
Got squashed, obviously, but the possibility was there for a heroic defence. Not somehting that could have happened with 5th, to my knowledge.It's too easily gamed - there shouldn't be a penalty for turning down a challenge.

viv714r
29-08-2012, 12:44
I adopt a simple use of honour. if I'm playing Tau I won't challenge his sarge with a maul toting sarge. However if he wants his leader to heroically delays the squashing of his troops for a turn yhen thats fine. I do enjoy a worthy challenge though like an Interrigator-Chaplain against a Chaos Lord.

zippy_tang
29-08-2012, 12:52
Well! quite a bit of 6th ed flogging going on around here, but then again based on the name of the thread Im not too surprised.

My gaming group and I have probably only enjoyed around 10 games of this new edition thus far (we are busy/ lazy people) and so far the general opinion is quite good. The current rules have in many ways fixed problems we were having in 5th ed. transports/ vehicles have been taken down a peg or two and cover has been nudged down slightly so forests aren't formidable bunkers for GEQ armies.

Wound allocation: for the most part I am happy with this despite the negatives it comes with. If I lose something of importance in a squad its my fault for placing it so close to the line of fire, not a freak accident from someone rolling exceedingly well on bolter/ lasgun wounds. the look out sir also gives you that 'chance' of saving them if you made the mistake of leaving a model in the danger zone. To me its as simple as being able accept that the reason something bad happened was nothing but my fault or my opponent outplaying me.

challenges: abusable....yes, fun....yes. perhaps local tourney's should think about removing this rule for the sanity of the weekend tourney goers.

psychic powers: For me this is a tough one. I love the idea, the schools and the powers, however for me the excitement ends pretty much right on finishing rolling up the powers and realising that they are not where you need them. Being a thousand sons player this was obviously a big deal for me and after a few games had got me thinking about just keeping the powers offered in the codex simply because they are what you pay for. All in all this one for me is bittersweet.

Hull points: This was by far my favorite change in 6th ed. Others may not have experienced the same meta but our groups 40k games were pretty much reduced to tank/ walker offs. Any infantry were mounted in transports and tanks/ walkers were brought to the party simply because infantry had a very hard time dealing with them. It was in many ways a childish arms race in seeing who could get the bigger badder army of tanks and this essentially ruined the game. hull points have really busted this meta right open for us and the breath of fresh air is astonishing.

Heres hoping the next few codex releases help define and sculpt the direction that 6th ed intends to travel. I have no doubt in my mind games workshop has a pretty good idea of what they are doing and where to go to next. People just need to be patient.

Is the game in an awkward stage of new horizons with old codex supplements to carry it there?...yes. Is the thrill gone?....hell no!

malisteen
29-08-2012, 12:52
I share many of the common complaints about 6th: non-flying vehicles seem too vulnerable, especially mid to low armor vehicles and vehicles meant to operate in assault where common grenades wreck them almost automatically. Flying vehicles seem too powerful, able to shrug off ridiculous amounts of firepower and practically forcing the use of other fliers to stop them - resulting in the fantasy wizard problem of "the only way to counter an opponent spamming X is to spam X yourself". I love the idea of allies, but the chart's super unfluffy, and it doesn't seem fair that nids are shut completely out of it (especially with the genestealer fluff). Double FOCs in 2k+ games have mostly just restricted game sizes to 1999 pts or less in my area. Wound allocation was about the weakest part of 5ed rules, but the 6th ed version is, if anything, even worse. Challenges in practice are uncinematic and unfun. Melee nerfs are over the top. Many of the random elements are more likely to result in disappointing, immersion breaking, or just plain unfun moments during play than anything that feels awesome.


A lot of the ideas behind 6th seem interesting, but in almost all cases the implementation was poor, encouraging immersion-breaking, gamist play rather than the cinematic feel they were going for.

All that said, I also basically hated the 8th edition fantasy core rules - and really still do - but codex design since it's release has been generally pretty good (The undead armies are somewhat lacking, but that's again more the fault of the core rules, and in any event they're a far sight better than the fail books of the previous edition), to the point that I find the game relatively enjoyable. And I personally am feeling more stoked about 40k right now than I have been since the release of 4th edition - the 5th ed rules were tight and functional, but also, imo, kind of boring. Then again, my positive feeling probably has more to do with the fact that my chaos marines are getting a new book - my hatred for their current book basically drove me away from 40k altogether years ago.

Omniassiah
29-08-2012, 12:59
Challenges, for instance; the last game I played was Imperial Guard vs daemons. My Command HQ got jumped by a daemon prince, and the Commissar strode out to hold it off. Got squashed, obviously, but the possibility was there for a heroic defence. Not somehting that could have happened with 5th, to my knowledge.

Could of happened in 5th and had a better shot of it in 5th since the commissar would not have been the only one getting hit. Challanges sort of work in Fantasy where pretty much every unit has a champion that is nothing but challenge bait. The champion is usually no different then the rest of the rank-and-file with the addition of an extra attack. Now in 40k the squad leader is often the one with the special weapon or in the case of Eldar the provider of the squads special abilities. Forcing the guy with the powerfist to fight in a challange against a terminator squad where he will almost certainly gt killed by the terminator sarge is a no brainer. Same with challanging that Dire Avenger exarch so that if he accepts and dies (not that uncommon for a T3 W1 4+/5++ model) the squad loses Defend, Bladestorm, and the 5+ invuln in close combat.

duffybear1988
29-08-2012, 13:36
I have always been a competitive gamer who enjoyed winning with weaker/non cheesy lists and armies. I was the kind of guy that played space wolves before the 5th edition codex and won nearly all my games. I made sisters hard and turned pre 5th edition codex dark eldar into an army to be truly feared at my local clubs.

In 6th I just can't find the enthusiasm to start anything new. Most of the rules are 'cinematic' and lets not forget that cinematic in horror movies means opening the door to the psycho killer, or going into the dark room alone etc.

In fact playing 40k is now like watching a bad horror movie! You know how it is going to end after the first 15 minutes.

It's not enjoyable and is purely there to sell miniatures which are getting more and more ridiculous (anybody seen the £15 that they are now charging for karandras in finecast? I mean the figures was out in the early 90s and it now costs that much...).

I liked Rogue Trader, I liked 2nd, I liked 3rd, I liked 4th, I liked 5th, but I detest 6th.

IcedCrow
29-08-2012, 13:39
6th edition caters more towards narrative style players and less towards optimizers. If you're a narrative gamer, chances are you like what they did. If you are an optimizer, chances are you hate what they did.

Just like with warhammer fantasy 8th edition.

Radium
29-08-2012, 13:52
If you are an optimizer, chances are you hate what they did.

I'm much like duffybear1988, I play armies that I like and usually field lists that other people think are 'weak' and 'silly'. But I am also a competitive gamer, and I guess within the framework of the armies I like to field (mostly infantry-based Eldar; and I did that way before it was the new thing) I can be considered to be an 'optimizer'. However, I still really, really like 6th edition. I hated 5th, and like AndrewGPaul I kept playing the game because I like the setting and the minis, not because of the rules at the time. Now with 6th, I really want to play more games, and no matter how many games I play, I always want to play another one!

Geep
29-08-2012, 15:45
I'm not a big fan of 6th, unfortunately. A lot of what is supposed to be 'intuitive' and 'cinematic' fails due to half-baked rules. The overall lack of playtesting for this edition can easily be seen with things like the psychic power Scrier's Gaze- which, as written, actually does nothing at all.

Some of my favourite WTF things are:
In nightfight, a forward scouting team must spot an enemy with a searchlight (or equivalent) in order for supporting artillery to attack with barrages from a range of greater than 36". This works (and is in fact required) even if the supporting artillery is shooting indirectly. If the artillery blast scatters onto enemy who weren't spotlighted, the victims gain the Shrouded rule against wounds (as the shrapnel from the indiscriminate shelling apparently needs to see).
Camouflage does almost nothing at night- as the most common agreement seems to be that Stealth can't stack with Stealth. But since Shrouded does stack with Stealth, but not Shrouded, it's harder to shoot something like an Eldar Titan (whose holofields give Shrouded) at a range of 13-24" than it is to shoot that titan at 25-36".
Meltabombs can be stuck on a Monstrous Creature- this is probably one of my most disliked WTF things as it's actually intentional. Why does my creature stand still long enough to let you clamp on a (usually magnetic) device and arm it? How is this not exceptionally difficult (far beyond the encumberance of Initiative 1)? Why can you suddenly no longer do it when my Hive Tyrant has a Tyrant Guard, making the unit an infantry unit?
I also dislike the general 'Pray for 6's!!!' attitude, which completely ignores stat blocks. An ork horde is scarier to assault than space marines due to their shooting capabilities? Similarly with shooting at planes, shooting after going to ground, etc. A similar situation exists for Focussed Witchfire psychci powers. Although a Farseer may cast one more often than a crazy ork shaman, both have equal chances of actually managing to target their preferred enemy?

Some of 6th ed's ideas are nice, but they really need a lot of refining.

Commissar Merces
29-08-2012, 16:17
I like 6th (after you cut the random fat out) but what it is really missing is a detailed Errata or FAQ. Right now players are confused about how things work in this edition. They did an awful job updating the army book FAQ's for this edition. It's almost like they didn't even try to be helpful.

Blinder
29-08-2012, 18:31
I like 6th (after you cut the random fat out) but what it is really missing is a detailed Errata or FAQ. Right now players are confused about how things work in this edition. They did an awful job updating the army book FAQ's for this edition. It's almost like they didn't even try to be helpful.

+1 on the FAQs seeming like they make things WORSE than if they'd just removed the 5e ones and replaced them with a blank page. They desperately need to put a rulebook FAQ together, even if the first version or three only address very basic "yeah we dorked up the wording here" issues, and the codex FAQs also need a wee bit closer look to catch the somewhat glaring holes the existing ones have (at least state that yes, rule X is now THAT good and rule Y is now THAT bad). Getting some of the "are we doing it right?" feeling out of the way would probably make things a bit more enjoyable for those of us who play in somewhat loose groups (where it isn't as easy to just go your own way and part of the point is that anyone can show up and not have to worry about learning a slew of house rulings). As it is I quite enjoy 6th, though I agree a few things are pretty under-cooked, but there are so many times you have to stop and figure out "well how does THIS play out" for fairly common situations/rules it feels like the "get used to it" period will last for years.

Daedalus81
29-08-2012, 19:21
+1 on the FAQs seeming like they make things WORSE than if they'd just removed the 5e ones and replaced them with a blank page. They desperately need to put a rulebook FAQ together, even if the first version or three only address very basic "yeah we dorked up the wording here" issues, and the codex FAQs also need a wee bit closer look to catch the somewhat glaring holes the existing ones have (at least state that yes, rule X is now THAT good and rule Y is now THAT bad). Getting some of the "are we doing it right?" feeling out of the way would probably make things a bit more enjoyable for those of us who play in somewhat loose groups (where it isn't as easy to just go your own way and part of the point is that anyone can show up and not have to worry about learning a slew of house rulings). As it is I quite enjoy 6th, though I agree a few things are pretty under-cooked, but there are so many times you have to stop and figure out "well how does THIS play out" for fairly common situations/rules it feels like the "get used to it" period will last for years.

Fantasy FAQs are updated pretty often. I really wouldn't worry so much.

To address the OP -

People can go buy all the fliers they want. CSM are rolling out with a flier-killer, soon. Couple that with having the most popular models from the new starter and you're going to see that problem go away.

Vehicles don't need more HPs - especially not with repair abilities coming.

If you can't manage randomness then don't play poker. If you don't want to get eaten by trees then don't risk it by going near them. If you're worried about failing a charge 8% of the time then good luck to you.

Lord Inquisitor
29-08-2012, 20:11
The fantasy FAQs were updated fairly frequently at the start of 8th but became less frequent. We haven't had an update in quite a while. Certainly no updates since dec 2011 and no FAQ for Empire or VC.

Deadnight
29-08-2012, 20:32
With respect to the OP, he needs to realise something. its important.

GW are more interested in "changing" a game, than "improving" it. I've played since third. i heard moaning then about how some features of 4rd were great, and some were terrible (and were better in second). I heard the same in 4th ed with regard to third ed and second ed. i heard the same in 5th ed with regard to second through to fourth ed. and im hearing the same things now. Please. Wake up. Grab a coffee. With all due respect, these calls/demands for a "better game" are getting tiresome. you dont like 6th? Im sorry to hear that. i genuinely am. But i am not surprised. Not in the slightest. Neither with what GW produced, nor with the player base's reaction to it. 6th ed was never meant to be "better", merely "different".

Added to that is the notion of "change". Ever edition solidifies into a certain meta, certain workable builds. third had rhino rush, and shoot the rhino rush. fourth had 6man las/plas and skimmerspam. 5th was mechhammer. 6th? 6ths hasnt evolved yet, as we are in that wonderfully brief time where everyone is still figuring things out. give it 6 months. give it a year. you'll have a solidified meta. you'll have "this is what to take if you want workable army X". But i guarantee you while 6th will have its workable builds, they'll be different to 5th. because thats how GW wants it. they've sold their vehicles. now its time to put the emphasis on something else and increase sales there. cynical? yup. but effective. Right now, you're not liking the changes? Fair enough, but honestly, did you expect anything less?

My advice? If you're unhappy. then take a break. dont sell your stuff. you've got tau. wait for the new codex. god knows, us tau players have waited long enough. in the meantime, take a break. walk away from 40k. recharge your batteries. try other games. warmachine. malifaux. infinity. dystopian wars. etcetera. a change of game is a good as anything else my friend. Maybe you'll find it is all that is necessary to put things back into perspective when/if you go back to 50k.

Gonefishing
29-08-2012, 20:36
First off - Not trying create any arguments or bad feeling on this thread, I was just wondering if others out there felt like I did and were not enjoying 6th - Simply put, I am not enjoying it, bit its different strokes for different folks and I have nothing negative to say about people who are liking the new edition.



To address the OP -

People can go buy all the fliers they want. CSM are rolling out with a flier-killer, soon. Couple that with having the most popular models from the new starter and you're going to see that problem go away.


I agree, but thats nothing to do with what I said about fliers - I made the point that fliers are the most survivable vehicles at the moment, but as soon as anti flyer weaponry starts to come out then they will be worse off than other vehicles (which are now very unsurvivable) - see below:



Fliers are alledgedly the great "Hope" as they can only be hit on 6's they are by far the best vehicles you can put on the table nowdays, but take that away and they are actually less surviable than other vehicles. ey only get to Jink (get a cover save) if they give up the opportunity to fire accurately in their next turn, they have tissue thin armour, and limited hull points. At the moment people are running out and spending money on fliers as they are so good, give it a few months however when GW has drummed up enough cash on flier sales and the new codexes/faqs etc have started to release and we will see the release of proper anti flier weaponry - at which point Fliers will join the rest of there vehicle based friends and become highly expensive target drones with limited life expectancy and game use.






Vehicles don't need more HPs - especially not with repair abilities coming.


Are repair abilities coming? First I have heard, I guess they will come out over the next 4 years on a Codex by Codex basis if they do? And that does not really help a vehicle glanced to death in one turn, but I digress....Vehicles ARE less survivable now, and I am speaking as a person that isnt really using them, just someone who feels sorry for mech heavy opponents when they put there models down on the table, again, I did not actually focus on the Hull points issue, but included it in the general problems that vehicles now face - in regards to survivability, and there battlefield utility (Ie. they cant deny objectives anymore and transport rules etc etc) - The main point was that I personally dont like what they have done to the vehicle rules as I like tanks in the game, I like playing against tanks, and I liked using tanks myself occasionally - however 6th (again my personal opinion) has rendered vehicles a expensive / fairly useless option (apart from the cheapest Transports, who if they do survive will get to do there job, albiet slower).



If you can't manage randomness then don't play poker. If you don't want to get eaten by trees then don't risk it by going near them. If you're worried about failing a charge 8% of the time then good luck to you.



Randomness - Dont get me wrong, I like randomness, old Ork Codexes were great fun and the random orky abilities made them grat fun to play against - but 6th edition has introduced randomness but removed the fun element - I roll for my warlord ability, its useless, hurrah. I walk into a bit of woodland, half my unit dies...huzzah, I go to charge someone 3 inches away, roll double 1...huzzah!...thats not fun, its just annoying. Couple that with the facts that the random elements they have added to the game dont counter the enforced predictaibity that the other rules impose on the game, you cant surprise your opponent anymore, lead him into traps, launch outflanking assualts to cause havoc behind your opponents lines (at least not effectively), as a result you have a sort of randomly predictable system that just isnt flexible or fun to play (in my opinion).


I play poker quite alot actually, great game, playing poker successfully however is about playing the percentages not randomly hoping you will luck out the runner runner to your flush/run draw. I have no problem with randomness (as I said) the problem I have with the randomness in 6th is that GW have removed the "Fun aspect" that used to pervade things like the Ork Codex and just made it annoying, from a personal point of view, I look at units like Kroot (special skill Fieldcraft, strongest in woodland etc) and know that if I actually put them inside woodland there is a 50% chance of them buying the farm..... The main problem I have with randomness in 6th however is that it doesent counter the predictability the other have core rules have focused into the game, reserves arrive by the numbers, and your options for trapping / counterattacking your opponent are far less workable under the new rules - its a strange mixture of random predictability.

Only quoted these as you were responding to things and points I did not actually say (especially on the fliers issue) - Like I say, not actually looking to have an argument with anyone about these points, this is just my personal opinion on 6th so far, I am not really "Feeling" it, and the reasons in the OP were some of the reasons that I feel this way, I do actually agree strongly with:


So far, 6th ed strikes me as being the work of someone with some great ideas who lacks the technical ability and knowledge to implement them correctly in a ruleset.

If people like 6th, great (seriously, I am happy for you) - Personally I'm not and jst wondered if I was alone.

Oh well, if I do bite the bullet and sell the trusty Tau there is always Firestorm Armada and Necromunda to fall back on :)

Commissar Merces
29-08-2012, 21:28
I like 6th for the most part, but I dislike the painful transition that was forced on us by GW in regards to horrible FAQ.

Grimbad
29-08-2012, 22:12
If you're a narrative gamer, chances are you like what they did.

I'm a narrative gamer, and I have some pretty strong qualms with what they've done. It's more narrative, in some cases less abstract, but it still won't produce a coherent narrative like a game of second edition will and the new narrative elements very forcefully dictate the style of story you can tell.

Aluinn
30-08-2012, 20:00
I like 6th (after you cut the random fat out) but what it is really missing is a detailed Errata or FAQ. Right now players are confused about how things work in this edition. They did an awful job updating the army book FAQ's for this edition. It's almost like they didn't even try to be helpful.

Yeah, I agree. It feels like they just released the FAQs because they were "forced" to to do so by the fact that there are no rules telling us who can use which pyschic powers in the BRB, and that's all they really addressed in a satisfactory manner. (Well, to be honest I also think they should have been slightly less restrictive about that.)

I like 6th, but as with pretty much any hard-copy printing of elaborate rules for anything (and especially things that need back-compatibility with other printed rules), it needs a good FAQ/errata, and it just doesn't have that yet. Fortunately, it's a relatively easy fix and I feel fairly confident that we'll get one in the near future--not everyone will be happy with everything, no doubt, but I think GW are up to the task, because for the most part the 8th Ed. WHFB FAQ/errata has been very solid.

Caitsidhe
30-08-2012, 20:03
It is slipshod and poorly written. Instead of refining the rules they had, i.e. learning from the past decade, they chose to just make up new untested rules. They just swapped one set of problems for brand new ones. There is no thrill in it for me at all. I don't see why we shouldn't expect the same degree of quality and attention to detail in the GAME SYSTEM as we do the models. If their game system isn't supposed to matter, why the hell are they charging so much for the book? Clearly they think it is all that and a bag of chips.

smaul
30-08-2012, 20:21
Interesting thread

we were brand new to 5th edition, bought it got in about 3 games and found out 6th edition was coming out. So my experience level is low, but reading 6th edition the wound allocation seems really ODD and Im a little concerned that Vehicles will get knocked out so easy. Not looking forward to buying another 6-8 codex's that my son and I bought either, but I guess I should have checked online, I thought 5th edition seemed pretty solid, at least to us noobs.

ColShaw
30-08-2012, 20:28
I'm a narrative gamer, and I have some pretty strong qualms with what they've done. It's more narrative, in some cases less abstract, but it still won't produce a coherent narrative like a game of second edition will and the new narrative elements very forcefully dictate the style of story you can tell.

Agreed. This is my position as well.


Interesting thread

we were brand new to 5th edition, bought it got in about 3 games and found out 6th edition was coming out. So my experience level is low, but reading 6th edition the wound allocation seems really ODD and Im a little concerned that Vehicles will get knocked out so easy. Not looking forward to buying another 6-8 codex's that my son and I bought either, but I guess I should have checked online, I thought 5th edition seemed pretty solid, at least to us noobs.

I wouldn't worry too much about the codicies; it'll be a good while before each army gets a 6th Ed codex. Chances are the ones you've got will remain valid for months, quite probably years in some cases.

althathir
30-08-2012, 21:09
I like 6th ed. so far my big gripes are fliers which I think will get toned down soon when we get another wave of faqs, & the fact that nids can't have allies which is stupid I can understand why they wouldn't fluffwise but the army should have received some benefit for not having the option, I'm hoping they get their own FoC to compenstate.


Could of happened in 5th and had a better shot of it in 5th since the commissar would not have been the only one getting hit. Challanges sort of work in Fantasy where pretty much every unit has a champion that is nothing but challenge bait. The champion is usually no different then the rest of the rank-and-file with the addition of an extra attack. Now in 40k the squad leader is often the one with the special weapon or in the case of Eldar the provider of the squads special abilities. Forcing the guy with the powerfist to fight in a challange against a terminator squad where he will almost certainly gt killed by the terminator sarge is a no brainer. Same with challanging that Dire Avenger exarch so that if he accepts and dies (not that uncommon for a T3 W1 4+/5++ model) the squad loses Defend, Bladestorm, and the 5+ invuln in close combat.

Eldar are a 4th edition book, they're gonna have problems in 6th (or at least I've had a few with them ;)). 6th edition wasn't gonna magically fix them and its unfair to expect it too.

That said I don't think the challenge rules are that great, and it needs to be cleared up what exactly happens to the unsaved wounds (I can understand both arguments in that debate), but the rule is hardly deal breaking.

Latro_
30-08-2012, 21:55
I think the key thing is 5th got to the point were you got very math hammery etc to the point of knowing what to do from the start, what armies to take, how a game would play out just lookign at the lists, chess-like. You still made choices but very calculated and it was more serious/methodical.

6th is similar but now there are a ton of different options owing to randomness of it all. Plus those random options have random outcomes (leading to more random options etc.. etc..). Just the allies system alone opens a flood gate of army x vs army y possible random weirdness that would make a hardcore 5th game cry.
If 5th had become like chess, 6th is chess while playing buckeroo, in space, drunk. You kinda know whats going on, its kinda funny but you dunno if you'll win or not and end up not caring anyway.

I'm on the fence really, i dont play enough games these days to truly say where i stand. Truth be told as i'v got older 40k is more of a fun thing to do when mates can be bothered/in town and its about a beer or 10 and having a laugh. As long as laughs are had and punch in the air moments when you pulled something off then its ok with me.

So far 6th has delivered on that, but again i dont play enough or against a high volume of people to statistically see the bad side of things.

Omniassiah
30-08-2012, 23:25
Eldar are a 4th edition book, they're gonna have problems in 6th (or at least I've had a few with them ;)). 6th edition wasn't gonna magically fix them and its unfair to expect it too.

That said I don't think the challenge rules are that great, and it needs to be cleared up what exactly happens to the unsaved wounds (I can understand both arguments in that debate), but the rule is hardly deal breaking.

I never expect a new edition to magically be perfectly backwards compatible with every codex. But when you rely on so many unique special rules in each codex it means that when you do an edition change as a Designer you should spend the time to go back and revisit how those rules work in the new edition and release Errata for them as necessary. I spotted the issue with the Exarchs on the first pass of the core rules. It is also a dirt simple errata to simply state that once bought the entire unit has the abilities, you just need the exarch to purchase them. Which leads to the problem that for the big boy on the block why don't we have solid FAQs/Errata for the new edition? I could understand that the first one may be bad but its been how long and nothing new?

Moonlounger
31-08-2012, 00:45
GW are more interested in "changing" a game, than "improving" it. I've played since third. i heard moaning then about how some features of 4rd were great, and some were terrible (and were better in second). I heard the same in 4th ed with regard to third ed and second ed. i heard the same in 5th ed with regard to second through to fourth ed. and im hearing the same things now. Please. Wake up. Grab a coffee. With all due respect, these calls/demands for a "better game" are getting tiresome. you dont like 6th? Im sorry to hear that. i genuinely am. But i am not surprised. Not in the slightest. Neither with what GW produced, nor with the player base's reaction to it. 6th ed was never meant to be "better", merely "different".

Bingo, you've hit the nail on the head with this comment. Think about it, nothing else really quite explains it.

I've played since 2nd edition and have seen the pendulum swing back and forth since then. Each and every new edition has issues identified by the gaming community shortly after release, which GW are seemingly aloof and reluctant to FAQ. Typically several novel solutions are identified for various problems by members in the gaming community, yet are never officially incorporated. All things considered, it is not that difficult to have an up-to-date, coherent, and complete set of game rules - the level of documentation just isn't that complicated. Especially after this many editions to build off of. Look at how other game systems have evolved in the last decade or so in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I really do like GW and their products and am still a customer after all these years. I've just found more enjoyment out of modeling and painting than playing GW games. You frustrated gamers have my empathy, but in situations like this it may help to take a step back and see what's going on.

althathir
31-08-2012, 01:51
I never expect a new edition to magically be perfectly backwards compatible with every codex. But when you rely on so many unique special rules in each codex it means that when you do an edition change as a Designer you should spend the time to go back and revisit how those rules work in the new edition and release Errata for them as necessary. I spotted the issue with the Exarchs on the first pass of the core rules. It is also a dirt simple errata to simply state that once bought the entire unit has the abilities, you just need the exarch to purchase them. Which leads to the problem that for the big boy on the block why don't we have solid FAQs/Errata for the new edition? I could understand that the first one may be bad but its been how long and nothing new?

The thing is the issue with exarches is in some ways a non-issue. Yes the squad loses abilities if the exarch dies (which is a bad design IMO same for Icons), but the exarches that should be expected to do well in combat are going beat a lot of the primary challengers (besides ICs). The ones that aren't good in combat, would have been in just as much as trouble in 5th edition if they were charged (cause they were about to get smoked anyways). Furthermore the dire avenger exarch can choose to refuse the challenge, and the squad doesn't lose the 5+.

As far as the amount of time thats passed its been about 2 monthes since the release, and a lot of people haven't messed with all the different rules yet. I expect to see faq's either with the starter (though it may not show up till the limited one is gone), or when the Chaos book is released (which should be fairly soon as well). Thats actually fairly quick for them.

Schismotive
31-08-2012, 02:50
I don't know, I think they could have at least done a decent errata for the older armies. I still pay 50 pts for bare rhinos and don't get me started on the rest... the faq is loaded with typos and garbage rulings for my army.

I like 6th edition as an edition, but I don't like the fact that the vast majority of factions in 40k don't have any way to interact with half the new rules in the book...

Zenithfleet
31-08-2012, 09:03
I've played since 2nd edition and have seen the pendulum swing back and forth since then. Each and every new edition has issues identified by the gaming community shortly after release, which GW are seemingly aloof and reluctant to FAQ. Typically several novel solutions are identified for various problems by members in the gaming community, yet are never officially incorporated. All things considered, it is not that difficult to have an up-to-date, coherent, and complete set of game rules - the level of documentation just isn't that complicated. Especially after this many editions to build off of. Look at how other game systems have evolved in the last decade or so in comparison.

While I agree with this up to a point, I do feel that there used to be more attempts to genuinely address problems than now. 2nd ed used to get regular rules clarifications in the 'Q&A' section of White Dwarf, including some very substantial things (like the new restrictions on wargear cards in ish 195). This might have led to all manner of screw-tightening in 3rd, except that they rebooted the basic game engine instead.

And because 3rd was such a huge change--really it was v1.0 of 'New 40K'--it very soon showed a lot of problems, like, say, Terminators not being terribly useful under the new AP system. The thing is, the design studio actually seemed interested in improving things--or at least they gave that impression.

They updated codexes with amazing speed--some races had two codexes in the same edition, while others got a new printing with 'revised edition' stamp on the cover. Trial rules were previewed in White Dwarf, tweaked and incorporated into 4th ed. (Yes, actual feedback from players! Remember the Ancient and Honorable Order of Techpriests?) Chapter Approved was usually 33% damage control, with FAQs, corrections to earlier rulings, and all kinds of new stuff intended to address problems that had surfaced in the core rules.

For instance, I recall one CA starting with Andy Chambers's lament that lots of people had complained to him that Terminators were no good anymore--at first he felt like saying 'tough bikkies' but upon further contemplation agreed they could be improved. Hey presto, the infamous 5+ invulnerable save. Now you could argue that this proves 3rd ed's core rules (the AP system in this case) were fundamentally flawed, so that they had to keep patching it. You could also grumble that you had to lug around a stack of WD articles or the compilation books to keep track of all the updates. But that's not the point. It felt as if they were trying. It felt as if they cared.

To me, 4th ed really did feel like 3rd ed improved. Not perfected, obviously--but 3rd ed version 2.0. It's not fair for me to comment on 5th and 6th as I haven't played them, but the general impression I get is that 6th especially is more about "let's try cool new things" rather than "let's improve the game". Seems a bit risky.

(You might argue that spending all their time tidying up or revising old codexes would get in the way of cool new things--but let's not forget that 3rd ed completely redid the codexes for every race while also featuring masses of cool new things, from full-fledged Inquisitor codex army lists to the first Cityfight expansion and the vehicle design rules. Oh, and the Tau. And the first Necron Codex. And two global campaigns. And...)

Also, everything feels more of a one-way street now. GW proclaims how ye shall play from on high, and ye shall like it that way! None of the old "oops, we screwed up with that rule, didn't we? Thanks for pointing it out. Here's a little photocopiable rectangle of revised text that you can cut out and glue into your Codex to fix it."

Barador
31-08-2012, 09:13
If the thrill is gone then its time to take it back.

Anyway to be honest this edition has given me my thrill back i cant wait to get gaming again as i have not gamed for along time and this edition has really spurned me on to brush the dust from my dice.

Aluinn
31-08-2012, 12:59
While I agree with this up to a point, I do feel that there used to be more attempts to genuinely address problems than now. 2nd ed used to get regular rules clarifications in the 'Q&A' section of White Dwarf, including some very substantial things (like the new restrictions on wargear cards in ish 195). This might have led to all manner of screw-tightening in 3rd, except that they rebooted the basic game engine instead.

And because 3rd was such a huge change--really it was v1.0 of 'New 40K'--it very soon showed a lot of problems, like, say, Terminators not being terribly useful under the new AP system. The thing is, the design studio actually seemed interested in improving things--or at least they gave that impression.

They updated codexes with amazing speed--some races had two codexes in the same edition, while others got a new printing with 'revised edition' stamp on the cover. Trial rules were previewed in White Dwarf, tweaked and incorporated into 4th ed. (Yes, actual feedback from players! Remember the Ancient and Honorable Order of Techpriests?) Chapter Approved was usually 33% damage control, with FAQs, corrections to earlier rulings, and all kinds of new stuff intended to address problems that had surfaced in the core rules.

For instance, I recall one CA starting with Andy Chambers's lament that lots of people had complained to him that Terminators were no good anymore--at first he felt like saying 'tough bikkies' but upon further contemplation agreed they could be improved. Hey presto, the infamous 5+ invulnerable save. Now you could argue that this proves 3rd ed's core rules (the AP system in this case) were fundamentally flawed, so that they had to keep patching it. You could also grumble that you had to lug around a stack of WD articles or the compilation books to keep track of all the updates. But that's not the point. It felt as if they were trying. It felt as if they cared.

To me, 4th ed really did feel like 3rd ed improved. Not perfected, obviously--but 3rd ed version 2.0. It's not fair for me to comment on 5th and 6th as I haven't played them, but the general impression I get is that 6th especially is more about "let's try cool new things" rather than "let's improve the game". Seems a bit risky.

(You might argue that spending all their time tidying up or revising old codexes would get in the way of cool new things--but let's not forget that 3rd ed completely redid the codexes for every race while also featuring masses of cool new things, from full-fledged Inquisitor codex army lists to the first Cityfight expansion and the vehicle design rules. Oh, and the Tau. And the first Necron Codex. And two global campaigns. And...)

Also, everything feels more of a one-way street now. GW proclaims how ye shall play from on high, and ye shall like it that way! None of the old "oops, we screwed up with that rule, didn't we? Thanks for pointing it out. Here's a little photocopiable rectangle of revised text that you can cut out and glue into your Codex to fix it."

The idea that corporate GW wants to release new rules in order to keep the game "fresh" and keep people buying new things, and that the design studio wants to keep improving the game, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I can't imagine how the people who have the task of creating rules for the game wouldn't want to make it better; it is their job to design rules and, all things considered, pretty much everyone wants to do their job well. (Granted, for some people it is a discouraging grind and they stop caring, or they signed up purely for a paycheck to begin with, but I can't see this being the case in the GW studio--it would be a dream job, albeit probably much more difficult than imagined, for most gamers, and a lot of the people there have been involved since the early days of the game and are probably heavily invested in it as a thing, to some extent, of their own creation.)

To address your examples, GW used to print more patchy-type stuff for the game in WD and such, that is true, but that was also mostly before they had the current online FAQ/errata system, and that has eliminated some of the necessity. As to the FAQ/errata for 6th being inadequate, I agree (see previous post), but then I'd also point out that it's really early in the edition and that they've overall made fairly extensive and thorough use of it since its inception. Now, would it have been more professional to release thorough FAQ/errata sooner? Certainly, I would say, but it seems that they didn't foresee all the problems that have come up and thus couldn't prepare to address them--they didn't know they even existed. It's easy to argue that they should have known with the benefit of hindsight, but if we're making the argument that they should listen to the player base, it's not reasonable to expect them to read the minds of the player base or foretell their reactions before they happen. If you have complaints, it's only reasonable to expect GW to listen--not on an individual basis, but collectively--and address them in due time. They are probably only now getting to the stage where they have any really good idea of what bothers people, and then you have to give them a bit of time to come up with good solutions.

(As a clarifying example, GW did address the problem with Terminators in 3rd based on player complaints, but it certainly didn't happen a month after 3rd was released--it took a while.)

I'm sure a better FAQ/errata is Coming Soon (tm). It would have been nicer to see it even sooner, obviously, but we have to recognize that GW can't always fix things before or even immediately after we see a problem with them, precisely because they do rely on us seeing problems in order to fix them, as far as I can tell.

Ventus
31-08-2012, 14:16
GW FAQ/errata is horrible for what it should be, and just because they released a decent errata once does not erase all the delays or non-existent FAQ/errata that are needed for the main rulebook and dexes. If I lent $200 to a guy and he took 5 years to pay me back and then I did it again and this time it only took 3 years, all while he was going to movies, buying cases of beer, lottery tickets, etc, this is not a real improvement just because it is a little faster. Not what it could or should have been.

When they released 6th edition an opportunity and necessity was there to release a detailed set of errata/FAQs for each army. Look at tyranids for example to see how badly GW has used the 'online errata'. After dex release it took 6 months to finally get a FAQ/errata that the dex needed the day of release when other dexes took about 3 months for theirs (nids and BA were released at the same time). The nid errata didn't even address some of the numerous problems in the nid dex (but added unnecessary nerfs), even the obvious ones such as the trygon tunnel and pheromone trail that an initial read of the dex brought up the red flags that this rule would not work/be useful in the game were not touched. Look how long it took to reverse the Shadow in the Warp ruling that nids could not effect enemy psykers in tin boxes but they could effect you with psychic powers (and GW still did not fix the many problems with the nid dex - so many of which could have been addressed to make the dex a lot more internally and exteranlly balanced).

So here we are 2 1/2 years later and 6th edition is released. As expected some armies benefit overall from the changes (to varying degrees) while others remain the same level or have builds/units/rules nerfed. These people should know their own game enough to see so many of the problems (I am not talking about perfection - GW just needs to put honest effort in trying to balance the game). Many people on these and other forums have put forth excellent ideas to address dex issues - there are many ways to address problems, and though we all naturally wont agree on a given solution, an honest attempt will for the most part be enough to fix issues and make all armies and MOST units playable/effective in an army.

But GW shows little desire to do this type of thing except in a haphazard manner. They did this; it is detrimental to having a good/balanced game and GW should not be handled with kid gloves over the issue. This is the attitude, IMO, that has destroyed the 'thrill' of the game. The game has lots of potential that GW continuously manages to crush with their, IMO, poor decisions. I'm sure a decent FAQ/errata will be released for some army, sometime, maybe in a few months...years...or maybe never. I don't see them changing their ways since I see no excuse for not acting differently years ago.

And the excuse that GW is a model company that throws out some rules to use their models doesn't wash because they often fail on the model side too. Yes they make some great models. But, for example, the new plastic hive tyrant kit does not come with a single set of MC devourers when for editions of the game a tyrant build with 1 or 2 sets has been made, by GW, one of the best builds. And they charge an arm for the kit. Outrageous. At this point my only hope in saving the game is that GW goes under and is bought out by company that knows how to make a good game and cares about the customer. So I will shelve things for now and wait and see, with faint hope, if GW actually changes and starts caring about the game and its customers.

Zenithfleet
31-08-2012, 14:33
Many pertinent points

Fair enough. (Possibly I switched to nostalgia rant mode for a bit there.) You're right about the online FAQs having moved that sort of thing away from White Dwarf--that's skewed my viewpoint since I haven't been much involved in 5th and 6th gamewise. I may be inhaling the aroma of glossy corporate perfection from the magazine's pages and mistaking it for the attitude of the entire studio. (It also occurs to me that the shift to online means they can actually respond faster, since they don't have White Dwarf's several-month production delay to worry about.)

The thing that troubles me, though, is why they rely on the playerbase to spot these problems. Some of them obviously won't pop up until the global brain starts fooling around with all the combinations of armies and rules--but I keep hearing about other issues that everyone sees within five seconds of opening the book (or so they claim), which suggests to me not enough playtesting beforehand, or at least not with a broad enough playerbase to test things out.

Could their increased pre-release secrecy have something to do with this? I'm sure they used to seek more player input before new rules and Codexes were published, though again this might just be done through different channels now.

One non-40K example that stood out to me was the 3rd ed Space Hulk release. There are at least two missions in there that just don't work. (Mission 2, and the one with the Librarian carrying the cup--was it 8?) As far as I can tell, this is because they were ported over from 1st ed, but the various scenario tweaks and rules revisions--like different squad makeups, new victory conditions and changes to map features--screw them up unless the players deliberately don't try to win.

The thing is, it only took us one attempt at each mission to spot the problems. There are only a dozen missions in the box. So how could the playtesters possibly miss it? Did they actually port the missions over without checking to see if they still worked? For such an extravagant, high-end, pricey, limited-edition release--which happens to be a board game with many, many fewer variables and grey areas--I expected better. And if they can't do it there, I'm dubious about their ability to do it for something far more complex like 40K.

The amazing amount of typos, repeated words and grammatical errors that creep into every expensive book annoys me in the same way, and has done ever since 2nd edition. It just feels like there's a step in the QA process missing somewhere. (Not that GW is alone in this. Fantasy Flight Games seems to have a bit of a reputation for it too.)

Zenithfleet
31-08-2012, 14:46
So I will shelve things for now and wait and see, with faint hope, if GW actually changes and starts caring about the game and its customers.

Or you could go back to an edition/Codex era you feel was more balanced and fun, and play that instead. It's not much good for pick-up games with strangers, obviously, but with the right opponent or gaming group, it works.

My grouchiness in this thread might not convince you, but it's amazing how many fewer nerdrage-induced ulcers I've suffered since I got off the 40K release treadmill and wandered back to 4th and 2nd ed. I haven't felt the sense of being helplessly swept along in the GW current and pummelled by the rapids of a bad Codex for years. It feels like I'm in charge now :D

Aluinn
31-08-2012, 15:21
Fair enough. (Possibly I switched to nostalgia rant mode for a bit there.) You're right about the online FAQs having moved that sort of thing away from White Dwarf--that's skewed my viewpoint since I haven't been much involved in 5th and 6th gamewise. I may be inhaling the aroma of glossy corporate perfection from the magazine's pages and mistaking it for the attitude of the entire studio. (It also occurs to me that the shift to online means they can actually respond faster, since they don't have White Dwarf's several-month production delay to worry about.)

The thing that troubles me, though, is why they rely on the playerbase to spot these problems. Some of them obviously won't pop up until the global brain starts fooling around with all the combinations of armies and rules--but I keep hearing about other issues that everyone sees within five seconds of opening the book (or so they claim), which suggests to me not enough playtesting beforehand, or at least not with a broad enough playerbase to test things out.

Could their increased pre-release secrecy have something to do with this? I'm sure they used to seek more player input before new rules and Codexes were published, though again this might just be done through different channels now.

One non-40K example that stood out to me was the 3rd ed Space Hulk release. There are at least two missions in there that just don't work. (Mission 2, and the one with the Librarian carrying the cup--was it 8?) As far as I can tell, this is because they were ported over from 1st ed, but the various scenario tweaks and rules revisions--like different squad makeups, new victory conditions and changes to map features--screw them up unless the players deliberately don't try to win.

The thing is, it only took us one attempt at each mission to spot the problems. There are only a dozen missions in the box. So how could the playtesters possibly miss it? Did they actually port the missions over without checking to see if they still worked? For such an extravagant, high-end, pricey, limited-edition release--which happens to be a board game with many, many fewer variables and grey areas--I expected better. And if they can't do it there, I'm dubious about their ability to do it for something far more complex like 40K.

The amazing amount of typos, repeated words and grammatical errors that creep into every expensive book annoys me in the same way, and has done ever since 2nd edition. It just feels like there's a step in the QA process missing somewhere. (Not that GW is alone in this. Fantasy Flight Games seems to have a bit of a reputation for it too.)

Hey I'm definitely not claiming that they've been perfect, and there are major screwups from time to time without a doubt. I just think it's hard to second guess them; what seems obvious to players may not be at all obvious to playtesters even if they're very thorough, because they might be operating in very different environments. For example, it seems plain to us that fliers are hard to deal with and that armies need Skyfire weapons. However, in GW playtesting, they may have moved much more heavily than the general playerbase has yet done to infantry-heavy lists that weren't extremely elite, because they expected people to do that eventually, and that type of list can just ignore most fliers and go about winning the game without even bothering to kill them. For example, Vendettas are hugely OP ... if you have anything that it's particularly worthwhile to shoot 3 lascannons at and costs more than ~125 points. If you don't, they're pretty much wasted. The only fliers that are extremely useful against mass infantry that come to mind are the Dakkajet and the DE fliers with missiles, and they all go down fairly easily to non-Skyfire weapons because they're fragile enough that a couple of S7-8 hits imperil them--granted that the DE fliers will likely get to unload first against non-Interceptor weapons, but for all that they aren't very efficient compared to things that do sustained damage, being a kind of one-shot weapon.

A rough parallel here would be 8th Ed. WHFB's BRB magic lores, and particularly the "uber spells" of a few them, e.g. Purple Sun. When 8th was released, many people flipped out and declared the game broken by such tactics as taking a suicidal flying wizard with Purple Sun, zipping up the flank of the enemy army, and casting it with Irresistible Force on the first turn of the game, which could (and still can) eviscerate several expensive units. After a while, it has turned out that this isn't really a reliable way to win games at all and not many people bother with it anymore--certainly not in tournaments, where you need to be able to win consistently and keep things as predictable as possible in your army construction--and GW has also errata-ed one of the items that facilitated it (Power Scroll) in order to make it harder to do. It really sucks when it happens to you, but it isn't exactly the design problem that a lot of players thought it was. Now, things still aren't perfect with regards to these spells, and e.g. Dwellers Below remains a bit too good, but what most people saw when they first read these rules was illusory. At the time the majority of posters probably would have said it was "obvious" that Purple Sun was broken, and now Death Magic is one of the least popular Lores in the game.

I'm not sure that the flier situation in 40K is the same, or somewhat similar at least, but I also can see that it may be. It will just take some time to figure it out. The balance with fliers may be a very razor-edge thing; GW might have found in playtesting that there's a certain threshold of AA weapon availability where they become practically useless and wanted to err on the side of, well, not making a thing useless. And the flier issue is just one example; other problems that seem so readily apparent to us now may be like this, too, or they may not, but we shouldn't dismiss the possibility and assume that what amount to our first forays into the edition give us some definitive understanding of it. Even people who have played many dozens of 6th Ed. games still have to wait to see metagame developments and the like; it matters how their opponents adjust just as much as it matters how they themselves adjust.

Gonefishing
31-08-2012, 22:38
I'm not sure that the flier situation in 40K is the same, or somewhat similar at least, but I also can see that it may be. It will just take some time to figure it out. The balance with fliers may be a very razor-edge thing; GW might have found in playtesting that there's a certain threshold of AA weapon availability where they become practically useless and wanted to err on the side of, well, not making a thing useless. And the flier issue is just one example; other problems that seem so readily apparent to us now may be like this, too, or they may not, but we shouldn't dismiss the possibility and assume that what amount to our first forays into the edition give us some definitive understanding of it. Even people who have played many dozens of 6th Ed. games still have to wait to see metagame developments and the like; it matters how their opponents adjust just as much as it matters how they themselves adjust.

I think thats the point really, at somepoint GW will start releasing Anti Aircraft guns (Flak missiles anyone?) - As soon as they do, fliers are pointless (even more pointless than other vehicle types), vehicles diiiiiiiiiie in 6th, fliers are vehicles but survive because of the mechanic that they can only be hit on 6's, as soon as they start being hit on normal BS then they become even less survivable than the other vehicles out there. They have paper thin armour, low hull points, and generally will only get a save from there Jink....and when they do (if they survive) they only get to snapshot in the next turn.

I have no problem with fliers currently "Awesome" status, I just feel sorry for the people who are going out and spending a shed load of cash on fliers that are going to be obsolete as soon as GW starts releasing the AA guns.

I take your point on the fact that the meta may change, and that things that might seem like problems may not be so as the game changes, but for me my dislike for the new rules isnt actually based on the way my particular codex interacts with them (or doesnt interact with them would be the more accurate way of saying it), its the fact that I am not actually enjoying the games "core" rules/missions etc, a new book/faq is not really going to change that for me unless the new codexes start specifically overwriting the "core" rules with Codex exceptions (Ie. You cant Outflank and assualt, but Genestealers in the new Nids book come with the rule - can outflank and assualt) - and thats something that I dont see GW doing.

In my case (and again, I must state this is entirely my personal opinion) its the way GW have written the Core Rules (with or without much playtesting) of the game, and they way they have implemented those changes to fit their new and radically different "vision" of 40k that I dislike, and the reason I dont really enjoy playing anymore - and if you dont actually like the core rules of the game, no amount of new books or shiny new models are going to change that fact.

Aluinn
01-09-2012, 02:36
I think thats the point really, at somepoint GW will start releasing Anti Aircraft guns (Flak missiles anyone?) - As soon as they do, fliers are pointless (even more pointless than other vehicle types), vehicles diiiiiiiiiie in 6th, fliers are vehicles but survive because of the mechanic that they can only be hit on 6's, as soon as they start being hit on normal BS then they become even less survivable than the other vehicles out there. They have paper thin armour, low hull points, and generally will only get a save from there Jink....and when they do (if they survive) they only get to snapshot in the next turn.

I have no problem with fliers currently "Awesome" status, I just feel sorry for the people who are going out and spending a shed load of cash on fliers that are going to be obsolete as soon as GW starts releasing the AA guns.

I take your point on the fact that the meta may change, and that things that might seem like problems may not be so as the game changes, but for me my dislike for the new rules isnt actually based on the way my particular codex interacts with them (or doesnt interact with them would be the more accurate way of saying it), its the fact that I am not actually enjoying the games "core" rules/missions etc, a new book/faq is not really going to change that for me unless the new codexes start specifically overwriting the "core" rules with Codex exceptions (Ie. You cant Outflank and assualt, but Genestealers in the new Nids book come with the rule - can outflank and assualt) - and thats something that I dont see GW doing.

In my case (and again, I must state this is entirely my personal opinion) its the way GW have written the Core Rules (with or without much playtesting) of the game, and they way they have implemented those changes to fit their new and radically different "vision" of 40k that I dislike, and the reason I dont really enjoy playing anymore - and if you dont actually like the core rules of the game, no amount of new books or shiny new models are going to change that fact.

All I'm saying is wait and see; the rules-mechanics-as-marketing theory is pretty cynical and I don't really buy it (no pun intended :)), because GW doesn't sell primarily to the type of gamer who's going to rush out and buy whatever is competitively the best at the moment, and also because it might be counterproductive to do things that way. In corporate land, they don't care what you buy, only how much you spend (assuming profit margins are roughly equal, which they probably are across broad categories of models barring characters), and by making one thing better they're always making something else relatively worse and, thus, if we accept that if people will buy more of the good thing they'll buy less of the bad thing, selling less of it. Furthermore, 6th made infantry better, which everyone already has, generally in large quantities, unless they just started playing with a mech army at the end of 5th, so there's a counterexample to the idea that they systematically overpower new things and nerf old things. (The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Terminators, monstrous creatures, and psykers.)

Anyway, I don't think it's a scam to present something as OP and then make it "useless"; I think they introduced a new type of unit and don't entirely know how to balance it yet, which is to be expected. I also don't expect anti-aircraft weapons to proliferate to such an extent that fliers become useless, and anyway there's a bit of a self-balancing metagame mechanism: If no one takes fliers then no one takes anti-air, but if no one takes anti-air then suddenly fliers are viable again. However, for what it's worth, I'd guess most armies get 1-2 Skyfire weapons, e.g. flakk missiles for Devastators and the Whirlwind missile type in SM, which are fairly specific and require a bit of a sacrifice in effectiveness against non-flier targets or cost extra points over the base unit, which means no one should be spamming them unless their local meta is dominated by flier spam to some insane degree.

I do think there is an interaction between GW marketing and rules, but as far as I can see it's more like this: They introduce a new unit, or, in this case, unit type with new mechanics to get people psyched to use new models, because new rules get people talking about how the thing plays and generate a ton of interest, but they don't strategically create imbalances on purpose, nor are there marketing people whispering in Phil Kelly or Mat Ward's ear as they write rules (fluff may be another matter, but I don't know). That would be self-destructive, if they actually did it, because it would result in a much more poorly-balanced game than they actually have. You can see how many, many CCGs have rapidly self-destructed by doing that exact thing, and it's extremely obvious and extremely harmful when it happens.

Scribe of Khorne
01-09-2012, 03:34
I've enjoyed every game so far (10-15?).

Cynical sales moves? Sure, you mean like vehicles in 5th? Shocker.

Rules that feel a bit clunky? Shocker.

I like the wound allocation, unless your the type to make life difficult or you play with those types all the time, its really not as hard as some like to make it. LOS! takes almost no time once your used to it, and challenges add some extra thought at a glance, but eventually becomes second nature.

I dont know, I really havent found much to dislike so far.

Ulrig
01-09-2012, 05:30
I have not gave up on 40k yet, despite what my normal crowd most likely thinks. I am going to hold out for my codexes, I should have them both by the end of next year I think. To keep it fun I am much more selective of who I play against. Playing the rules, no house rule crap....but playing for fun.

Challenges are stupid...period. They slow the game down and are not fun. And I am saying this seeing my warbosses easily hold my own with some nasty stuff in challenges.

Hull Points would be ok, but are poorly implemented. Everything seems at least 1 HP short, the bigger stuff should of been 2 more HP each. The whole "transport spam was abused" argument falls on deaf ears to me. I play orks, didn't have them in the first place and I easily crushed the ones my opponents put on the table.

Flier rules are nice, even though my dakka jets are good, I am going to stick to lootas for my anti air.

Assault is where it all went horribly horribly wrong.
Random charge lengths are pretty aweful. It doesn't help the tactical aspect of the game at all, only makes it random and frustrating.
Adding in Overwatch (I like Overwatch) along with remove from front and initiative steps, don't forget challenges....we have a complete udder mess for close combat. Small assault squads are done for....I laugh at the thought of what is going to happen to blood angels. Large assault squads dont always work either. Imagine how much damage a blob of IG would do to a squad of ork boyz.

A lot of the other additions of the game I like, except for the length of time it adds to a game. Its as if the new rules entice me to play larger point value games, but all the rules prolong it to longer games. I cannot imagine what the official tournament scene will be like if the official rules/scenarios edit out a chunk of the 6th ed book.

Faeslayer
01-09-2012, 07:57
There were lots of changes I was worried about. Rather than pick apart all the tiny rules changes, I decided to play a bunch of games, stand back and see how I feel overall.

I have not had as much fun playing 40k since ever.

Bergen Beerbelly
01-09-2012, 22:08
My opinions on it are well known I'm sure. It isn't 2nd edition so in my mind it isn't even 40k. It's a totally different game with the same title. That said, compared to 3rd 4th and 5th it is the best of the edition with the same type of rules mechanic. Since I now play Eldar, my largest complaint is that GW AGAIN decided to take things that were exclusive to Eldar and give them to most everyone else.

I understand why GW will never make the perfect rules set. It gives them an excuse to re write their codexes and core game system every for or five years or so and convince the majority of people buying their miniatures that it is a needed change. This drives sales of new miniatures and new rulebooks. Without it, they would stagnate as a company. Sad really, because everybody knows they could do far better at designing the rules set if they REALLY wanted to.

WarOnFrogs
02-09-2012, 01:16
Oh, and about the thrill being gone. I know that feeling from when the latest Ork codex came at the end of 4ed. I played 4-5 games, won by wipe at around turn 4 each time, and then my orks went into boxes. When you are used to being the underdog, and really having to think and put some effort into winning, having a much easier time takes away most of the fun from the game.
I'm thinking about trying them out again in 6ed, as they are kinda assaulty, they might be better balanced now (that is, harder to win with).

Dude, you must either have been a brilliant Ork player or very lucky! I've played orks for years, and while their 4th-5th codex is damn awesome, I've never found it easy to win with it. I honestly think it's the fairest codex out there in terms of toughness-armour, combat-shooting balance, value-for-points. Then again I've never gone for Kult of Speed which I hear is possibly the best Ork style of list out there and can smash most things.

So far in 6th ed I've had a **** time with Orks. They've really been screwed over - God help Tyranids, who haven't got Orks' volume of shooting to make up for the combat nerf.

Overall, thought I must play more games before I make a final decision, 6th ed is looking like a change-for-change's-sake project: a near-perfect rules system has been drastically changed, largely to perpetuate sales. Some of the changes are good (flyers, cover, scenarios), some imperfect (vehicle damage, random charge, warlord traits) and some terrible (overwatch, challenges, mysterious terrain). 6th ed seems - unsurprisingly - to have been constructed from the perspective of Imperial armies. This has had the result of boosting Tau and Necrons too, but screwing Tyranids and Orks. Other armies like Chaos, Eldar and Dark Eldar can cope, but the situation is less than ideal.

I'm interested to see what the re-released armies will be like over the next few years, but in all I feel that 40k is headed the way of Fantasy - where there's no real balance between armies, and an arguably too-perfect-to-be-exciting rules set has been replaced with a needlessly very different one, eventually to be (hopefully) redacted to be more like its predecessor.

But maybe I'm just bitter :P

Fugazi
02-09-2012, 01:25
Or you could go back to an edition/Codex era you feel was more balanced and fun, and play that instead. It's not much good for pick-up games with strangers, obviously, but with the right opponent or gaming group, it works.

My grouchiness in this thread might not convince you, but it's amazing how many fewer nerdrage-induced ulcers I've suffered since I got off the 40K release treadmill and wandered back to 4th and 2nd ed. I haven't felt the sense of being helplessly swept along in the GW current and pummelled by the rapids of a bad Codex for years. It feels like I'm in charge now :D
Great post. It's your hobby, your spare time.

Disposable Hero
02-09-2012, 07:25
I have played about 10 games so far, and I suck at making a decent armylist. I am also no rule-buff, but what makes me a sad puppy are all the special abilities everything and everyone has.

I think all these special abilities have a huge impact on the game.

If you play WW2 games, you might compare some 40K armies nowadays as SS-infantry, led by Heinrich Himmler himself, being watched by Adolf Hitler.

So, in order to escape the uber in 40k, I am eagerly awaiting the release of Bolt Action.

Vaktathi
09-09-2012, 00:12
On this topic, here's some thoughts I had following the new FAQ release



I'm looking over the FAQ's, and the more I read the more I feel disheartened to play 40k, because it really is just a mess, moreso than it has ever really been, and it's really sapping my desire to play. Especially with all the other great games out there in the current renaissance in tabletop gaming and the huge number of other, typically vastly more affordable, games out there now compared even with just 5 years ago and certainly compared to 10 years ago. I've never wanted to be "that guy" that's always talking about how much "40k sucks and everyone should play game X instead because GW is the sux", but I feel that's where I'm being herded. (or rather, more likely, I'll play the odd game with my typical gaming companions and no longer pickups, tournaments, or events on a weekly basis) 6th edition just feels like it's more trouble than it's worth given how far the rulebook, codex books and FAQ's differ from each other and how critical these very extensive FAQ's are going to be just to play the game correctly relative to previous editions.

We've had a radical change in the rules, the largest since the 2E-3E reboot, with armies going back two editions and no army released in almost a year now (and none designed for the current edition) and while this has always been an issue it's never been messier or more convoluted than it is now. Instead of a natural progression of the 3E ruleset that 4E and 5E were, despite their flaws, the ruleset basically feels like a book where the designers clamped down on some of their pet peeves, tried to make the game what people *thought* 2nd edition was, and make something where everything GW sells can be thrown onto a table with rules and be used together in almost any instance. The game can't decide if it wants to be a skirmish ruleset, a company level wargame, an RPG, a platoon level wargame, or something else altogether. It can't decide if it wants to be GrimDark or HeroHammer. As a result of these things it comes off as clunky and confused, especially with regards to existing armies. The FAQ's have really highlighted this for me, and highlighted how poorly the core rulebook handled the transition and encompassing of the current set of army books.

We got a ton of new close combat weapon rules, and they're applied rather inconsistently (e.g. Axe of Morkai gets to be a powerfist or a Frost Sword, but Kharn and Dante get punted to Initiative 1, Klaives get to be AP2 but Banshee swords do not, etc), new special rules applied over old special rules in ways that sometimes make sense but often don't really do what they original rule was there for (e.g. Ordnance weapon Leman Russ tanks and the change from Lumbering Behemoth to Heavy). We get some AA units that have Interceptor and others that don't without any particular rhyme or reason, and it's very apparently that GW has never been able to figure out what they want vehicles to be or do however and simply want their impact minimized this edition aside from Flyers. Barrage blast weapons and Biker Nobz are now some of the most effective ways to pick a specific model out of a unit. Stuff like this

While future books may rectify this state of affairs, at the rate GW puts out codex books and releases new editions these issues will plague 6th through it's entire lifespan and begin anew with 7th unless they really radically change their release timetable and do things very differently than they have for the last 20 years.

I've never really felt this way before, there's always been issues with 40k, always things to gripe about, but never quite like this, at least to me. 6th just feels like so much of a mess, so many things they are going out of their way intentionally to make not useful or almost mandatory, or mechanics that feel like they are forced (we need a rule to make people visualize EVERYTHING! IT must be...CINEMATIC!) and/or not suited to the size of 40k games (e.g. challenges with armies larger than most Flames of War 15mm scale armies in terms of model and unit count), to the point where it's apparent and immersion breaking even in friendly narrative games. And as for competitive games, well, 6th edition is not in any way a balanced ruleset that works for competitive play and GW came right out and said exactly as much at their Design Studio Open Day that they never intended it to be.



I'm not writing this to say GW shouldn't do FAQ's and Errata, they should and in fact I think they really need to do more than they have (they still missed several major notable issues and then sat on the FAQ's for a month and a half). It's just that the latest round has really highlighted what a mess 6th edition truly is, and how much I just don't feel like dealing with it.

Is this just a phase I'm going through? Perhaps. Is it just that I'm a whiny grognard afraid of change? Perhaps though I've gone through previous editions and edition changes for other games without anywhere near this much issue and often without issue at all. Is it just an issue of where the game is at at this particular point in time? Perhaps, it may change a few years in when we have some army books designed specifically for 6th in their entirety and a large enough number for the metagame to work. Is it possible however that 6th edition really is just an awful mess of an edition that really is a poor excuse for a ruleset? Perhaps so, perhaps all of these are true to some extent.

There's so much patching this game needs, so much distance from previous incarnations, so much that just feels confused and rushed about the ruleset as to what GW actually wants it to be, that I'm having a very difficult time remaining engaged.

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-09-2012, 10:25
I think its spot on with 40k's confused identity. It sort of tires to be a game that does everything for every scale of game you might want and so doesn't succeed in doing any of them well. Its not helped by a whole host of legacy rules/issues it have to incorporate but I think that's one of the fundamental problems and why it just doesn't flow that well. It wants to make it quick and smooth to play a massive battle but also make it important if you squad sergeant have an eye-patch (and a different effect if its the left or right eye, or if its black or green). There are too many contradictory design goals build into the basic system and it creates a range of issues that is always going to be there.

duffybear1988
09-09-2012, 16:02
Vaktathi hit it just right with his view above.

I feel the exact same.

GodlessM
09-09-2012, 16:07
While I enjoyed 5th, I'm enjoying 6th edition a lot more, after all, the game was bound to get stale when the outcome to most games was all but inevitable (deploy in corner in tanks, shoot, run for objectives).

Havock
09-09-2012, 18:14
There ARE other games out there, y'know? I just look at 40k as gaming Mcdonalds. There's usually at least one game in any town, and they're all the same.

Nailed it.

Inquisitor Shego
09-09-2012, 19:31
I concur with Chromedog and Havock on that level. I've now got myself into Flames of War and am loving what I've tried so far with my 352 Infantrie Division. Its not a perfect gaming system, but it sure seems more tolerable.

Mikial
10-09-2012, 01:02
6th Ed in general is pretty okay - a mixed bag really.

Wound allocation is a good thing. Taking casualties from the back is beyond unrealistic, and the unit of Nobz bikers with two saves and every Nob has one of his two wounds allocated as they charge was something that needed to be fixed. Allocating wounds to one model in the front until he is dead makes a lot more sense.

Flyers are okay as far as they go. Shooting them down is a pain, but then, so is shooting down fast movers on a real battlefield. They should come up with some kind of man-portable AA missile rules for infantry to use.

Vehicle glance rules are just plain dumb. I barely even field Leman Russ anymore, unless it's a really big game, just lots of Basilisks and Manticores that can support infantry heavy armies from well in the rear. Transports are still okay since you can usually get your troops far enough forward before they die to be useful, but main battle tanks are just wasted points. So are dreadnoughts for SM.

Overwatch against charging units is not that big a deal. It's pretty rare to roll enough 6's and then wounds to actually make much difference against a charging unit like demons, Nids, or CSMs, but it makes a lot more sense than the unit just standing there watching as they get charged.

The random rolls for Warlord traits and objectives are not a big variable in the game. Just one more roll to make at the beginning that may or may not make any difference in the game play.

Allies table . . . o.0.
Very strange in some case, good in others. My wife loves that she can have some shooty CSMs with her Khorne/Slanesh demon army.

Ozendorph
10-09-2012, 02:20
6th is much more a skirmish ruleset than its predecessor. Most of the guys i play with prefer 2000 pt games, and they simply take much longer to play out now. Each combat feels like a mini-game with overwatch fire, challenges, guys piling in at different initiative steps... I havent played Apoc in 6th yet, and frankly im in no hurry to. Sucks, because thats been my favorite game type since it was published

smileyface
10-09-2012, 04:19
It wants to make it quick and smooth to play a massive battle but also make it important if you squad sergeant have an eye-patch (and a different effect if its the left or right eye, or if its black or green). There are too many contradictory design goals build into the basic system and it creates a range of issues that is always going to be there.

I think this. However, I don't think it's new. I've been thinking this since third.

Omniassiah
10-09-2012, 04:40
I think this. However, I don't think it's new. I've been thinking this since third.

its been there since 3rd, but it really hasn't been that big of an issue till 5th, and now especially 6th IMO. I'd be fine with 40k as either a skirmish or battle game but this confused game now doesn't do anything for me.

russellmoo
10-09-2012, 06:08
Man, some people have a lot of free time on their hands. I've so far managed to get 5 games in- not really enough to know if I like or don't like 6th edition- just enough to learn the complete rules set-

6th has followed in the foot steps of 8th ed fantasy by making everything easier to kill- Reduced cover saves, reduced vehicle durability, reduced FNP, Overwatch, Blasts being more effective, slightly less wound shenanigans- all this means that now you have to put more models on the table and remove more models from the table- this is consistent with GW's approach the goal always being that players need to buy more models.

As far as game length goes- with the addition of mysterious whatever, and warlord traits, and more psychic abilities, and the changes to how terrain is placed, all of these things are going to make a game much longer, until it is all memorized and becomes second hand knowledge- or players just decide not to use certain things- (I don't know very many players in 8th that use all of the exhaustive terrain rules)- once players have memorized that a 2 is a skyfire nexus and that a 4 is an iron bark forest things will go a lot better (my guess is most players will seldom if ever use the Archeotech artefacts) but they are fun and fluffy and can be used to great effect if playing in a story board campaign- Plus eventually we will all have the warlord trait table memorized and this will also speed up play-

I think the OP is really suffering from a local meta that has not caught on, and the fact that the Tau, just like the Necrons and most of the other shooty, gunline type armies received a major boost while players that were running rhino based assault armies got beat over the head with the nerf stick-- I agree that the OP should probably just take a break from the game and come back in a few months after players have all adjusted their army builds and tactics to work in a 6th edition environment-

feelnopain666
10-09-2012, 08:15
I've been playing since 2nd (and something still do), but since I started seeing pass GW, I realized something: 40K wasn't a game, it was a cult! One that required tithing on a constant basis. And considering the premium price, we shouldnt be the ones asking for more Faq's, erratas, etc.
So no, your not the only one. Try another games and you'll see that the only reason of GW success is because of its miniatures and how easy is to find a player and nothing else. As a game is a joke.
Have fun!

Daedalus81
10-09-2012, 13:41
I've been playing since 2nd (and something still do), but since I started seeing pass GW, I realized something: 40K wasn't a game, it was a cult! One that required tithing on a constant basis. And considering the premium price, we shouldnt be the ones asking for more Faq's, erratas, etc.
So no, your not the only one. Try another games and you'll see that the only reason of GW success is because of its miniatures and how easy is to find a player and nothing else. As a game is a joke.
Have fun!

It is not hard to find people who play FoW or PP games. And you don't think the other games more more miniatures to drive sales? I'd like to see you run a business.

Machinehead
10-09-2012, 14:56
It is not hard to find people who play FoW or PP games. And you don't think the other games more more miniatures to drive sales? I'd like to see you run a business.Yes more miniatures get more sales, but most other companies don't skew their rules to decide what people HAVE to buy beyond a decent starting set.

Commissar Merces
10-09-2012, 15:26
The thrill, at least for me, isn't gone but my excitement about the hobby is no longer generated by GW's prodding or new releases. My gaming group and I focus more on making the game better by cutting out the "cinematic" elements of the game and just go back to basics. I am also enjoying doing a planetary empires campaign which has been a true breath of fresh air for me. If you aren't feeling the game anymore, I would suggest taking a break or finding a new system (planet strike, planet empires, etc) to try out if you haven't taken the time to. They are really fun and add some new challenges to the game.

I try not to focus on the new releases anymore or get white dwarfs. I wasn't even going to get the Dark Vengeance box until my girlfriend bough it for me for my birthday. Frankly, if you read WD or most of their website posts I think that leads to gamer depression more than anything else.

Omniassiah
10-09-2012, 15:27
Man, some people have a lot of free time on their hands. I've so far managed to get 5 games in- not really enough to know if I like or don't like 6th edition- just enough to learn the complete rules set-

6th has followed in the foot steps of 8th ed fantasy by making everything easier to kill- Reduced cover saves, reduced vehicle durability, reduced FNP, Overwatch, Blasts being more effective, slightly less wound shenanigans- all this means that now you have to put more models on the table and remove more models from the table- this is consistent with GW's approach the goal always being that players need to buy more models.

As far as game length goes- with the addition of mysterious whatever, and warlord traits, and more psychic abilities, and the changes to how terrain is placed, all of these things are going to make a game much longer, until it is all memorized and becomes second hand knowledge- or players just decide not to use certain things- (I don't know very many players in 8th that use all of the exhaustive terrain rules)- once players have memorized that a 2 is a skyfire nexus and that a 4 is an iron bark forest things will go a lot better (my guess is most players will seldom if ever use the Archeotech artefacts) but they are fun and fluffy and can be used to great effect if playing in a story board campaign- Plus eventually we will all have the warlord trait table memorized and this will also speed up play-

I think the OP is really suffering from a local meta that has not caught on, and the fact that the Tau, just like the Necrons and most of the other shooty, gunline type armies received a major boost while players that were running rhino based assault armies got beat over the head with the nerf stick-- I agree that the OP should probably just take a break from the game and come back in a few months after players have all adjusted their army builds and tactics to work in a 6th edition environment-
Unfortunately, none of the things you mentioned are the things that will seriously slow down the game. It's the rolling to resolve wounds one at a time as soon as a character or FNP is involved that is going to slow the game down. No amount of memorization will speed that up.

Erazmus_M_Wattle
10-09-2012, 15:56
I have never been much of a tactician. Which means I regularly lose games. However with the new rules set I have much more fun losing. Hey, I even win more than the occasional game now.

None of the new rules are as difficult as people tend to make out. The first ever game I played was a blast. We got to grips with wound allocation, LoS and challenges in pretty short order. Hull points have even worked out pretty well for us. It's not been the auto death some have painted it as.

Has the thrill gone? Absolutely not. I've been playing 40k since 1987. I've never had so much fun. I'm like the excited 11 year old who first picked up a copy of Rogue Trader.

Daniel36
10-09-2012, 15:58
Man, I am so happy I gave up on 40K. I sold off almost all of my stuff already (went pretty quickly) and only have my Imperial Guard left, which I am still indecisive whether or not I am keeping them. If anything, from a game rules perspective, I am so over GW. I will enjoy Warhammer Fantasy because it's basically the number one game played at my club, and I have invested too much in it to simply throw it all away, and I still love the models, but besides that, I am heading over to other game systems. No more 40K for me.

Bubble Ghost
10-09-2012, 16:10
Unfortunately, none of the things you mentioned are the things that will seriously slow down the game. It's the rolling to resolve wounds one at a time as soon as a character or FNP is involved that is going to slow the game down. No amount of memorization will speed that up.

You don't have to do that though. If everyone has the same FNP value and the same save, you can still roll them all at once, characters or no. The only reason they don't tell you that is because they can't be bothered explaining how it works - they'd rather say "you can't do it" just to get the whole deal out of their in-tray. Which is shameful.

Individual instances of wound resolution can take longer than in 5th ed, but over the course of a game, you spend a lot less total time on would allocation now.

GrogDaTyrant
10-09-2012, 17:15
I concur with Chromedog and Havock on that level. I've now got myself into Flames of War and am loving what I've tried so far with my 352 Infantrie Division. Its not a perfect gaming system, but it sure seems more tolerable.

I also got into Flames of War, and indeed it is not a perfect system, but it's pretty damned close in my humble opinion. The rules are amazingly tight, the armies are very well balanced between each other, unit spam tends to not work nearly as well as combined-arms tactics (exception to medium-armor spam, which is historically accurate to a degree), and running a list of nothing but the biggest and best unit(s) tends to be an abysmal failure (i.e. King Tiger spam lists tend to be amazingly terrible). Infantry also has so much it can do, and can improve it's survivability considerably by going to ground and digging in it's position. The whole game just oozes strategy and tactics beyond army list creation, and is just historically accurate enough to be fun but not over the top to where you need to give birth to an accountant to play it. As a friend of mine likes to say, Flames of War is World War 2 the movie, in tabletop wargame form, and without any requirements about which nations can fight against each other or on a team. It makes for very interesting 'what-if' battles like Germans and British on a team against Soviets and Americans. I think the most bizarre match-up I've seen was Hungarian and American versus Germans and Soviets.

Midloo
10-09-2012, 17:53
Well I've been enjoying Fantasy and Lord of the Rings (SBG and WotR) for about 5 years now. LotR SBG is still my favorite GW rules system - it's tight, balanced, fast, and fun. 40k has never done much for me, but something about 6th edition piqued my interest and I'm looking forward to playing some more games of it. Maybe it is just the fact that there are more similarities now between 8th ed Fantasy and 6th ed 40k. In terms of luring over existing customers, that was probably a smart move on GW's part.

Garion
10-09-2012, 18:12
I love this ed, because of the ideas, yes some havent been greatly implemented, but meh who cares, you can just tweak them to you taste, I'm sure it even says as much in the rules somewhere, it usually does.

I also like this ed because it is more about the fun, I dont think any fliers are actually very good (probably wrong here ;) ) but they are tons of fun.

I guess it all really depends on why you play... are you a beer and pretzels player or a tourney player. Also I think as a group of people we all take these games far too seriously sometimes.

The thrill isn't gone, it is what you make of it. You can make it fun or dull. As a whole though I like these rules. Now bring back Squats and Chaos Squats and let the mayhem begin :D

Ozendorph
10-09-2012, 18:52
You don't have to do that though. If everyone has the same FNP value and the same save, you can still roll them all at once, characters or no. The only reason they don't tell you that is because they can't be bothered explaining how it works - they'd rather say "you can't do it" just to get the whole deal out of their in-tray. Which is shameful.

Individual instances of wound resolution can take longer than in 5th ed, but over the course of a game, you spend a lot less total time on would allocation now.

Most squads tend to contain a character, whether an IC or just a sergeant-equivalent. Consequently, wound-allocation takes a while. Just as an example, in my game on Saturday a unit of Necron warriors fired on my assault-squad, led by Korvydae. Check range, adjust dice for rapid fire or no. Roll hit, roll wound. 9 Wounds. Now, up until this point, we're playing same as 5th (my guys are out in the open, no need to check LOS to each of them and no reason to focus-fire so we get to skip all that noise, thankfully). BUT, now we must roll each save one. at. a. time. because Korvydae is out in front (like a stud) and I need to start doing LoS! if he starts dropping wounds. Roll 1 - pass. Roll 2 - pass. Roll 3 - FAIL! Doh! Now he's down a wound and I'd rather he didn't lose another. Roll 4 - LOS! pass, time to roll a saving throw for the nearest marine. BUT WAIT. There are a number of marines very close by, and one of them is carrying a plasma pistol while the other rest are carrying bolt pistols. We should measure the distance from Korvydae's base to the marines to determine which is actually closest so the plasma guy doesn't buy the farm before his time. After checking distances, we decide that three of them a equidistant so the LOS! roll is randomized between them before rolling the save. That guy will keep rolling saves (after successful LOS! rolls) until he dies, then it will be randomized between the other two. Right. So roll the save - pass! Roll 5 (of nine!)...

Thing is, this isn't an odd case at all. That's totally normal. In fact, it's fairly easy because they aren't complex wounds coming in (from different weapon types), and of course this is all very streamlined when compared to melee. And mind you, this isn't being nitpicky...that's just following the basic rulebook. Oh, and we're going to get to do a bunch of this on my turn as well, because that whole squad is going to overwatch on the same unit when I charge. At least my guys don't have FNP or reanimation protocols or something to result in another round of rolling ;)

Gorbad Ironclaw
10-09-2012, 19:07
I think this. However, I don't think it's new. I've been thinking this since third.
True, but it sounds like the average game size have been going up over time and so making it more of a problem. Of course I've only played a couple of 500 point games that would actually have benefitted from more rules/granularity rather than the big games the rules seems to encourage but I remember the problem from previous editions and it doesn't seem like its become less of one.

I also don't think its something that's going to change. GW can make people buy massive armies so they are going to and I think the models are too character driven to get rid of the skirmish level detailing so it will remain as a structural problem.

So I'm just sticking to dedicated skirmish games these days since that's my preferred scale.

Ventus
10-09-2012, 19:27
I feel the same way as the OP. Yes you can change the rules in a close group but going to a gaming store to play pick up games will be a pain if you want to change/drop rules since everyone has a different view of what they like and how badly it affects their army. Since any group can do whatever they want with the rules regardless of what GW says Allies were unnecessary and just unbalance things further. If you wanted to play with necrons and GK being pals or DE and Eldar best buds you could do it if your group is fine with it. You could re-write your own dex (and probably do a better job in many cases). Putting it in the rules though means that players will find the hardest combos and some armies that were already good will be even more solid, while others will be less so or left in the cold (nids) with no additional stuff to compensate. This is not saying that players can not have fun or have good balanced match-ups but this will not happen across the board because of poor game design and GW throwing in more random stuff and Allies in some hamfisted way to 'balance' the armies (your dex has a lot of crap - here take stuff from other dexes and buy new models) rather than fix the problems.

Bubble Ghost
10-09-2012, 19:57
Most squads tend to contain a character, whether an IC or just a sergeant-equivalent. Consequently, wound-allocation takes a while. Just as an example, in my game on Saturday a unit of Necron warriors fired on my assault-squad, led by Korvydae. Check range, adjust dice for rapid fire or no. Roll hit, roll wound. 9 Wounds. Now, up until this point, we're playing same as 5th (my guys are out in the open, no need to check LOS to each of them and no reason to focus-fire so we get to skip all that noise, thankfully). BUT, now we must roll each save one. at. a. time. because Korvydae is out in front (like a stud) and I need to start doing LoS! if he starts dropping wounds. Roll 1 - pass. Roll 2 - pass. Roll 3 - FAIL! Doh! Now he's down a wound and I'd rather he didn't lose another. Roll 4 - LOS! pass, time to roll a saving throw for the nearest marine. BUT WAIT. There are a number of marines very close by, and one of them is carrying a plasma pistol while the other rest are carrying bolt pistols. We should measure the distance from Korvydae's base to the marines to determine which is actually closest so the plasma guy doesn't buy the farm before his time. After checking distances, we decide that three of them a equidistant so the LOS! roll is randomized between them before rolling the save. That guy will keep rolling saves (after successful LOS! rolls) until he dies, then it will be randomized between the other two. Right. So roll the save - pass! Roll 5 (of nine!)...

Thing is, this isn't an odd case at all. That's totally normal. In fact, it's fairly easy because they aren't complex wounds coming in (from different weapon types), and of course this is all very streamlined when compared to melee. And mind you, this isn't being nitpicky...that's just following the basic rulebook. Oh, and we're going to get to do a bunch of this on my turn as well, because that whole squad is going to overwatch on the same unit when I charge. At least my guys don't have FNP or reanimation protocols or something to result in another round of rolling ;)


It's not every squad that has a character with loads of wounds and a different save right at the front of it, was my point there. If it's a sergeant level character with the same save as the rest of the squad, you can still roll all the saves at once, and chances are you'll have to do a couple of LOS rolls at most. You're going to get something fiddly a few times a game, but all the other times, it's a lot faster now than it was in 5th. If you're finding it takes longer, I'll have to take your word for it, but in my experience it's been a lot faster.

I will give you that the FAQ ruling that the nearest model has to take the Look Out Sir wound is dumb as a bag of doorknobs though. Would have been so much easier to say that the model with the fewest wounds has to take it. That would stop Paladin shenanigans without inconveniencing everyone else as well. I'm going to be "suggesting" that we ignore that rule in games I play.

Ozendorph
10-09-2012, 20:27
It's not every squad that has a character with loads of wounds and a different save right at the front of it, was my point there. If it's a sergeant level character with the same save as the rest of the squad, you can still roll all the saves at once, and chances are you'll have to do a couple of LOS rolls at most. You're going to get something fiddly a few times a game, but all the other times, it's a lot faster now than it was in 5th. If you're finding it takes longer, I'll have to take your word for it, but in my experience it's been a lot faster.

I will give you that the FAQ ruling that the nearest model has to take the Look Out Sir wound is dumb as a bag of doorknobs though. Would have been so much easier to say that the model with the fewest wounds has to take it. That would stop Paladin shenanigans without inconveniencing everyone else as well. I'm going to be "suggesting" that we ignore that rule in games I play.

For sure, not every unit is rolling with a multi-wound character. But most armies have at least one such guy, right? That guy is often in a squad, and that squad tends to attract a fair bit of attention. I'd say in your average 2000pt game, you're dealing with the scenario I blathered on about (or one fairly similar) once a game-turn. When you get into really goofy squads (see: my inquisition warbands and their unsavory leaders) it gets worse, with everyone sporting different saves, some FNP, etc. And ugh, the melee with all those different initiative steps, lol
I fear what this is going to do to bigger games, like my Apoc games that often run 10,000+ points per side. Is using standard 6th Ed rules even viable at all at that scale? I know my guess to that question ;)

Bubble Ghost
10-09-2012, 20:42
For sure, not every unit is rolling with a multi-wound character. But most armies have at least one such guy, right? That guy is often in a squad, and that squad tends to attract a fair bit of attention. I'd say in your average 2000pt game, you're dealing with the scenario I blathered on about (or one fairly similar) once a game-turn.

Even if that were the case, and I don't think it is, I still don't see how wound allocation totalled up over the whole game would take any longer than it did in 5th ed, where you had to play a stupid Christmas cracker puzzle game every time you suffered damage. I'm honestly finding it a lot faster overall, even accounting for the odd situation where it slows down.



I fear what this is going to do to bigger games, like my Apoc games that often run 10,000+ points per side. Is using standard 6th Ed rules even viable at all at that scale? I know my guess to that question ;)

Well, 40K isn't designed for games that big, and it's disingenuous of them to encourage it. Complaining that 10,000 point games of 40K aren't viable is like complaining that you can't fit 30 people in your car.

Ozendorph
10-09-2012, 21:57
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can't imagine how anyone could (correctly) do 6th Edition wound allocation at the same pace as 5th, never mind doing it faster. Same can be said for 6th Ed setup, movement (given the importance of where each squad member is now), and assault. Even if you ignore all the TLOS and cover checks on a model-by-model basis, and just break it down to the number of individual dice rolls required, 6th is (at least in my opinion) a more cumbersome rule set.


Well, 40K isn't designed for games that big, and it's disingenuous of them to encourage it. Complaining that 10,000 point games of 40K aren't viable is like complaining that you can't fit 30 people in your car.

Thing is, we somehow managed to fit 30 people in my car in 5th edition. I'd continue this metaphor, but it would no doubt result in me comparing 6th Ed to a rusted-out moped, and that's just a silly thing to type ;)

Omniassiah
11-09-2012, 02:36
Even if that were the case, and I don't think it is, I still don't see how wound allocation totalled up over the whole game would take any longer than it did in 5th ed, where you had to play a stupid Christmas cracker puzzle game every time you suffered damage. I'm honestly finding it a lot faster overall, even accounting for the odd situation where it slows down.


But against very few squads did it take any length of time to work out in fifth, most cases it was 8 shots on my five man squad so I'll double up on my 3 basic guys and a single on the commander and heavy weapon guy. Normally 2 maybe up to 4 sets of rolls and your done. Only 2 units took any length of time to figure out, Nobs and Pallies. Now just adding a IC to a unit can seriously bog down firing and in most cases there is really nothing you can do about it and with 5 HQ options at 2k you can have almost all of your troops with one.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 03:19
So play 5th edition. The games I've seen run have been fine. The internet "sky is falling" is really just that.

Grimbad
11-09-2012, 04:25
you had to play a stupid Christmas cracker puzzle game every time you suffered damage.

The stupid puzzle game was optional then as now. People can choose to drag the game down with abuses, or they can play nicely.

On the thread's topic, the thrill is gone for me with 6th edition, and 5th too, but I'm having a blast with the 2nd edition rules. More functional, plausible, and evocative all at once than the current rules.

Voss
11-09-2012, 05:17
This is easily the best edition yet... and Ive been around for ALL of them.

Ive really just kind of gritted my teeth and pressed forward since third... sixth is such a breath of fresh air.

Of course its not perfect... I personally feel like every vehcile could do with 1 more hullpoint, but overall yeah... If it is possible for there to be a "golden age" of 40k, this is it.

Agreed with everything but the specific hullpoint bit, as another who has been around since Rogue Trader. 3rd and its two minor variants were fairly painful to slog through at times. The 'trial rules' at the end of third, and the unholy stepchild/continuation that was fourth actually stopped me from playing for quite a while. 5th was passable, but very clearly absurdly gamist with a lot of the interesting bits that made 40k feel interesting simply hacked out of the system. For bland pick up games (were the point is as much hanging out with a group as it is playing the game) or small tournaments with decent folk, it was a functional system, but it lost of lot of the spark the made the game really fun. 6th is better.

Balerion
11-09-2012, 07:50
Most squads tend to contain a character, whether an IC or just a sergeant-equivalent. Consequently, wound-allocation takes a while. Just as an example, in my game on Saturday a unit of Necron warriors fired on my assault-squad, led by Korvydae. Check range, adjust dice for rapid fire or no. Roll hit, roll wound. 9 Wounds. Now, up until this point, we're playing same as 5th (my guys are out in the open, no need to check LOS to each of them and no reason to focus-fire so we get to skip all that noise, thankfully). BUT, now we must roll each save one. at. a. time. because Korvydae is out in front (like a stud) and I need to start doing LoS! if he starts dropping wounds. Roll 1 - pass. Roll 2 - pass. Roll 3 - FAIL! Doh! Now he's down a wound and I'd rather he didn't lose another. Roll 4 - LOS! pass, time to roll a saving throw for the nearest marine. BUT WAIT. There are a number of marines very close by, and one of them is carrying a plasma pistol while the other rest are carrying bolt pistols. We should measure the distance from Korvydae's base to the marines to determine which is actually closest so the plasma guy doesn't buy the farm before his time. After checking distances, we decide that three of them a equidistant so the LOS! roll is randomized between them before rolling the save. That guy will keep rolling saves (after successful LOS! rolls) until he dies, then it will be randomized between the other two. Right. So roll the save - pass! Roll 5 (of nine!)...


I bet it took you longer to type that out than it would take to resolve that situation. :p

Schismotive
11-09-2012, 10:09
A lot of the lack of streamlining is from us players just not having fully memorized the new game. We're constantly flipping pages going "what was a 4 on the divination chart again?" or "oh so wait your sergeant rolled a 6 he gets to pick a guy? how's that work?" Even so, I agree that some of the new methods seem more time consuming right now. But personally I don't see much change during my turn, mostly my opponent's turns. I play black templars so I really don't have to deal with half the rules in the book
:eyebrows:

Killgore
11-09-2012, 10:49
Most squads tend to contain a character, whether an IC or just a sergeant-equivalent. Consequently, wound-allocation takes a while. Just as an example, in my game on Saturday a unit of Necron warriors fired on my assault-squad, led by Korvydae. Check range, adjust dice for rapid fire or no. Roll hit, roll wound. 9 Wounds. Now, up until this point, we're playing same as 5th (my guys are out in the open, no need to check LOS to each of them and no reason to focus-fire so we get to skip all that noise, thankfully). BUT, now we must roll each save one. at. a. time. because Korvydae is out in front (like a stud) and I need to start doing LoS! if he starts dropping wounds. Roll 1 - pass. Roll 2 - pass. Roll 3 - FAIL! Doh! Now he's down a wound and I'd rather he didn't lose another. Roll 4 - LOS! pass, time to roll a saving throw for the nearest marine. BUT WAIT. There are a number of marines very close by, and one of them is carrying a plasma pistol while the other rest are carrying bolt pistols. We should measure the distance from Korvydae's base to the marines to determine which is actually closest so the plasma guy doesn't buy the farm before his time. After checking distances, we decide that three of them a equidistant so the LOS! roll is randomized between them before rolling the save. That guy will keep rolling saves (after successful LOS! rolls) until he dies, then it will be randomized between the other two. Right. So roll the save - pass! Roll 5 (of nine!)...



Sounds to me like your gaming circle take things abit seriously,

In my gaming circle we don’t fart around measuring to see who’s the closest model to the Lookout Sir character, if the plasma pistol guy seems the closest, the owning player would take it on the chin and remove him instead of checking who the fraction of the centimetre closest is.


With time people will get used to the rule mechanics, resulting in games flowing nice and quick :)

mughi3
11-09-2012, 12:56
Nope not enjoying 6th all that much, in fact we have had several people just up and quite playing it all together...which has led me to make up a set of house rules(not many mind you, but a page worth) for our local 40K game league that incorporates the best parts of pre-exhisting rules from 3rd, 4th, FW, index astartes, and 5th to be used in 6th ed.

What i went back and did was try and make all builds more viable, aircraft less immune, assault armies work better, vehicles work better and remove some of the randomness that hindered tactical planning.

the nice thing is that these house rules are really nothing more than re-enstating some of the old rules into 6th that long time players are already familiar with.

Dont get me wrong there are many things in 6th i do enjoy, there are just a few things that ruin the game for many people in our gaming group.

Bubble Ghost
11-09-2012, 13:48
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I can't imagine how anyone could (correctly) do 6th Edition wound allocation at the same pace as 5th, never mind doing it faster. Same can be said for 6th Ed setup, movement (given the importance of where each squad member is now), and assault. Even if you ignore all the TLOS and cover checks on a model-by-model basis, and just break it down to the number of individual dice rolls required, 6th is (at least in my opinion) a more cumbersome rule set.

Agree to disagree it is. You could swap "5th" and "6th" over in your second sentence and have exactly my feelings on the matter - I literally do not understand how you can find 6th ed's wound allocation slower than the train wreck it was in 5th. And if you meant to slyly suggest that I therefore must be doing it wrong, I can assure you that I'm not. I think that perhaps people going the long way round now when they don't need to might be why they're finding it slower. And even then it would surprise me to hear they're finding it significantly so.

Weird.


Thing is, we somehow managed to fit 30 people in my car in 5th edition.

But just because you could do it then, doesn't mean that was what the game was for. Not being able to use the game for something it wasn't designed for isn't really a valid criticism, is my point there.





But against very few squads did it take any length of time to work out in fifth, most cases it was 8 shots on my five man squad so I'll double up on my 3 basic guys and a single on the commander and heavy weapon guy. Normally 2 maybe up to 4 sets of rolls and your done. Only 2 units took any length of time to figure out, Nobs and Pallies. Now just adding a IC to a unit can seriously bog down firing and in most cases there is really nothing you can do about it and with 5 HQ options at 2k you can have almost all of your troops with one.

You're focusing on the quickest possible situations in 5th and slowest possible ones in 6th as though those are the norm.





The stupid puzzle game was optional then as now. People can choose to drag the game down with abuses, or they can play nicely.

It wasn't optional though. You had to actively decide who suffered what wound. The system now is almost the same as it was then, just without all the deciding because the game does that part for you. You still roll in groups of identical models, of which there are a lot more because the only criteria for "identical" is the armour save, and you don't have to faff about deciding who gets what wound first.





Bottom line: I find it faster now. Like I said earlier, I will give you that the FAQ's "closest model" change to Look Out Sir is mind-bogglingly stupid on the part of the people who wrote it, since stops an abuse that only a couple of units could use by introducing one that's available to all, doing nothing but make you jump through hoops to achieve something you could already do.

But then it's in an FAQ, and only purpose of GW's FAQs is to get people to stop moaning about how there are no FAQs. They go for whatever the easiest answer for them to write down is, not the best one for the game, and as a result are not to be taken seriously unless you're some sort of tournament diehard who needs to incoroporate them into your training routine.

So, whatevs - if you find it slower, I'm not going to say you're lying. It just surprises me, is all.

Ragnar69
11-09-2012, 15:02
The thrill is back! I had left early 4th edition and many of my old pals followed me. Now we are coming back and really like what we see. I haven't played a single 5th ed game, but when I hear about wound shenangians and MSU spam, I'm really glad I missed it despite playing Space Wolves :)
And I think the current FAQs are pretty good ( at least for GW standards :) )

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 15:12
I bet it took you longer to type that out than it would take to resolve that situation. :p

Maybe a bit longer, and it was every bit as much fun (and cinematic) ;)


Sounds to me like your gaming circle take things abit seriously,

In my gaming circle we don’t fart around measuring to see who’s the closest model to the Lookout Sir character, if the plasma pistol guy seems the closest, the owning player would take it on the chin and remove him instead of checking who the fraction of the centimetre closest is.


With time people will get used to the rule mechanics, resulting in games flowing nice and quick :)

I hear you, and i would say generally the people i play with are easy-going. However, as i said previously, the game works fine (not great, but fine) until someone cares who wins. Thats when ivfeel the game lets you down. Then all the sloppy wording and cumbersome model-by-model measuring and rolling grinds things almost to a halt. I wouldn't consider requiring the players not take the basic rules "too seriously" in order to play an enjoyable match a sign of good game design.

Bubble Ghost
11-09-2012, 15:56
I hear you, and i would say generally the people i play with are easy-going. However, as i said previously, the game works fine (not great, but fine) until someone cares who wins. Thats when ivfeel the game lets you down. Then all the sloppy wording and cumbersome model-by-model measuring and rolling grinds things almost to a halt. I wouldn't consider requiring the players not take the basic rules "too seriously" in order to play an enjoyable match a sign of good game design.

I agree - it's the implicit assertion that 5th ed's wound allocation was better game design that I have trouble with!

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 16:17
I agree - it's the implicit assertion that 5th ed's wound allocation was better game design that I have trouble with!

Right, that's the part we're agreeing to disagree on ;). For the record, I feel 5th edition's wound allocation was "faster" and more cut-and-dry, not "better" - which is a bit more subjective. I just want a system that works efficiently, for the beer & pretzels crowd (of which I am a proud member), the tournament crowd (that I organize events for), and everyone in between. It's a tall order, for sure, but they've had 25 years to work on it, heh


But just because you could do it then, doesn't mean that was what the game was for. Not being able to use the game for something it wasn't designed for isn't really a valid criticism, is my point there.

That statement, I do not get. You do realize they sold an expansion called "Apocalypse" supporting these size games, correct? And a follow-up book? And a couple Imperial Armor: Apocalypse books? And several Apocalypse-only models? Yeah, I'd say players have a right to feel like the game-system ought to support these larger battles (whether you personally enjoy them or not) :)

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 16:44
5ths wound allocation was faster only because in 6th you can get those people that measure to the nanometer to try to argue their special guy can't be targeted and will spend 20 minutes going at 90 different angles to find the one that favors them. At that point, yes no doubt 5th is faster because in 5th they can choose what they want and just take them off the table and it will always be the not-special guy that gets removed. In that regards, no argument, much faster.

That's when I break out the "don't be a dick" rule. If you're rules lawyering or slowing the game down to a crawl to find that nanometer to your advantage, you're the one that's the problem. (you being a general you and not you in particular)

The same issue was in fantasy 6th/7th edition with charges and arguing over tiny fractions of inches slowing the game to a crawl.

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 17:02
The thing is, when you're judging a tournament, you cannot tell players to ignore the written rule and "don't be a dick" when they're resolving a combat. If you're playing a pickup game against a stranger, asking the guy not to "be a dick" when he's following the rulebook is generally poor form as well. Yes, the rules are fine when you're playing your buddies and everyone there cares more about the state of the beer-supply than they do the winner of the game, but when you get outside this best-case-scenario, the rules show major flaws. If I designed the rulebook, I wouldn't feel very good about that.

Bubble Ghost
11-09-2012, 17:03
Right, that's the part we're agreeing to disagree on ;). For the record, I feel 5th edition's wound allocation was "faster" and more cut-and-dry, not "better" - which is a bit more subjective. I just want a system that works efficiently, for the beer & pretzels crowd (of which I am a proud member), the tournament crowd (that I organize events for), and everyone in between. It's a tall order, for sure, but they've had 25 years to work on it, heh

Well, "faster" is clearly subjective, too. And I'm not sure what you mean by "more cut and dry" so I can't really respond to that. But 5th's system, as well as being (I feel) slower, was counter-intuitive, often encouraging you to root for your troops to fail with their more mundane attacks because this would result in more kills in total - and hoping for your brave troops to fail is absolutely unforgivable in a game that professes to be about dramatic heroism and all that rot, no matter how fast you think it was. Shots hitting a character at the front of a unit is nothing like as inverted-reality guano loco as the magic healing bullets of 5th ed. It was an utterly deflating thing that was directly contrary to the objectives of the game. A character tanking wounds is at least a relatively intuitive and dramatic image.

Sadly there's only ever going to be so much progress addressing this sort of thing, though, because of their dogmatic resistance to invalidating in-print codexes. 40K is a huge, bloated behemoth of a rule set that's about 10 times longer than it has any need to be, but that's not something we can ever hope is going to change...



That statement, I do not get. You do realize they sold an expansion called "Apocalypse" supporting these size games, correct? And a follow-up book? And a couple Imperial Armor: Apocalypse books? And several Apocalypse-only models? Yeah, I'd say players have a right to feel like the game-system ought to support these larger battles (whether you personally enjoy them or not) :)

I am of the opinion that Apocalypse was a disingenuous supplement because it encouraged you to use the game for something it is inherently not suitable for, and for which they clearly had no intention of taking into account in future, because it would have been yet one more giant anvil that progress in the core rules was chained to (see above). You were never buying anything other than a 5th edition supplement. If you want to still use it... use 5th ed rules. No one's going to come round and arrest you for that.

I do admit, though, that there are barely the words for how much contempt I had for 5th ed's wound allocation system, all through the life of that edition. It is the only rule ever to appear in a GW publication that I would stretch to using the word "incomptetent" to describe - that is utterly unfit for purpose on any level whatsoever - and I proverbially danced on its grave when 6th ed came out. Even if it was a little slower now, which I don't believe it is, it would be worth it.

Machinehead
11-09-2012, 17:19
The thing is, when you're judging a tournament, you cannot tell players to ignore the written rule and "don't be a dick" when they're resolving a combat. If you're playing a pickup game against a stranger, asking the guy not to "be a dick" when he's following the rulebook is generally poor form as well. Yes, the rules are fine when you're playing your buddies and everyone there cares more about the state of the beer-supply than they do the winner of the game, but when you get outside this best-case-scenario, the rules show major flaws. If I designed the rulebook, I wouldn't feel very good about that.All of this I can agree with.
I will also say 5th Wound Allocation was better. I'm pretty sure by "cut-and-dry" is meant: Rolls saves, remove models. Not measure for saves, break up saves, roll LoS, roll saves, remove models. Yes Nobs and Paladins caused some confusion, so they should of been fixed rather than overhauling everything about wound allocation

Bubble Ghost
11-09-2012, 17:24
But you still had all that buggering about, you just did it before rolling the dice instead of after. And had to do it more often.

This is just tennis now though.

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 17:44
This is just tennis now though.

Indeed. Let's consult the rulebook and see who is correct. Ah, here is the relevant section:

Forcing the Narrative
To resolve your internet argument, measure the line-spacing of each post and multiply the value by the number of consonants, and then throw out the result! The winner is the poster with the whitest text. If there is a tie, roll a d6 on the following table:
1 - ban both posters for 24 hours
2-3 - play a game of Connect Four to determine the winner
4-5 - place both posters in base-to-base and slapfight. Other posters may cheer them on, granting re-rolls or something
6 - Nachos

I'm kind of hoping for 6.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 17:50
The thing is, when you're judging a tournament, you cannot tell players to ignore the written rule and "don't be a dick" when they're resolving a combat. If you're playing a pickup game against a stranger, asking the guy not to "be a dick" when he's following the rulebook is generally poor form as well. Yes, the rules are fine when you're playing your buddies and everyone there cares more about the state of the beer-supply than they do the winner of the game, but when you get outside this best-case-scenario, the rules show major flaws. If I designed the rulebook, I wouldn't feel very good about that.

Oh but you can.

TO just says: Treat all distances of less than or equal to a quarter of an inch as 0.

In the case where you are trying to find the closest model if the differences are all less than a quarter inch, randomize. If you've spent longer than a few moments working out who is the closest model, randomize it because it's obviously so close that they are for the most part equi-distant.

No one's arguing that the rulebook has flaws. People have been pointing out the rules have flaws in them since the internet became popular and this site was named something else (portent.net). The game, as has been said 10,000 times this year alone, was not designed to be stress tested by rules lawyers and people who argue over nanometers. Whether or not one feels that this is good or bad is not the case, it simply is. Spending 10 minutes to find 20 angles where plasma guy is clearly 0.000001" farther than bolter guy is being a bit too obnoxious.

If you want a system where you are being hyper competitive, play warmachine. Or if you must use 40k, the TO should come down with some hard and fast rules to "not be a dick".

I've run competitive leagues for a long long time. The don't be a dick rule has been there since the beginning and has largely served us very well because it was let known in the beginning and we have had some serious competitive guys that view a loss like they view you calling their mother a prostitute. So I know that it can be done because I've made it work myself.

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 18:04
Again, you're just suggesting that people ignore the rules in order to play the game. Everyone's situation is different, but the tournaments I've run in the past draw people from a lot of different stores and different groups. Busting out house rules like "treat quarter-inches as 0" just won't fly. So my guy that's 1.5" away is the same distance as the guy that's 1.75"? That's supposed to clear things up? This isn't about "rules lawyers and people who argue over nanometers", it's about writing a rulebook that works as written. It's not about twisting words or taking things "too seriously", it's about trying to play the rules as they appear in the rulebook. Shockingly, there are people out there that want to do that. And no, I don't see telling them to "play Warmachine" as a constructive suggestion.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 18:09
Ok. Well then continue to bitch and moan for the next four or five years until the new edition comes out. Good luck =)

Though I do believe there is a piece in the rules as written that if they are the same distance that you randomize.

There is no solution to what you want with the current system because the only thing that would prevent rules lawyering over inches go away is to go back to 5th edition where you just take models off how you want.

In which case... just run events using 5th edition.

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 18:10
Excellent reply, well thought out and very useful. Inclusion of the smiley puts it in the running for post of the day.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 18:14
Well that's what you are doing. You are complaining about something and then shooting down all ways to make it better.

So if nothing will make you happy, go back to 5th edition. The more serious of tournament editions. There is no arguing over nanometers there and your tournaments will run smoothly and fast, just like you want.

Or continue to complain over and over again without offering up any real meaningful solutions to your problem. Because that's obviously going to help.

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 18:21
Oh my bad, I didn't realize telling strangers not to "be dicks" and treating fractions of inches as non-existent were your attempts to make things better.

Look, for me, 40k has been an important (easy to make the case for "too important") part of my life for like twenty-three years, and currently I'm a bit frustrated and cheesed off about the recent changes. I'm airing out frustrations in a thread meant for such things, that is all. I don't expect you to somehow fix the problems I have with 6th, I'm just talking about them to see what others' takes are. But your advice to "go back to 5th" "play warmachine" and so on are noted, thanks for the wisdom.

Graeme
11-09-2012, 18:33
Jeez. Did you two used to date each other or something?

Ozendorph
11-09-2012, 18:45
Haha, maybe in a past life ;)

I'll go drink some decaff tea or something

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 19:24
The only issue is that what you are saying has been repeated by a large number of tournament gamers pretty much word for word since June. We get it. We understand. 6th edition does not cater to that playstyle. I'm not arguing against that. It doesn't. GW gave tournament-minded tactical gamers the giant flaming middle finger on June with the release of the new ruleset and gave narrative strategy gamer the green light that they've waited in line over a decade for.

I didn't like 7th edition warhammer fantasy. I've been playing for going on 20 years myself. I quit for a while. I didn't hop on here and list a bullet by bullet diatribe on why 7th was inferior to me that mirrored what twenty thousand others had done in the past couple of months, I just realized it wasn't for me and gave it a rest for a while.

Maybe its just that between here and BOLS and about a half dozen other sites plus local facebook groups with the local hardcore tournament guys, hearing the same complaints over and over again for months gets kinda old. There's nothing new in that the game is now too slow because Bob is going to argue that plasma gunner is a tenth of a micron farther and spends 15 minutes finding the exact angle to prove that, or that the game is now so easy even a monkey can beat a veteran because its so random now with random charges destroying all sense of tactics and random terrain making the game Hello Kitty Island Adventures where five year old Nicky can beat world ESPN champion Rick Jones the Unbeaten on a dice roll, and that only horri-bad buffoons use tanks or vehicles now because everything in the game touts hullpoint reducing guns and will just always rapid fire away at your tanks and destroy them in turn 1.

It comes down to the people you are playing.

A tight tournament is going to have rules that say "please don't spend 15 minutes trying to measure to find the nearest micron" and most people are going to be ok with that. Everyone realizes you are on a time table to get a tournament done. I haven't yet seen where guys are doing this to great lengths at tournaments. I've read about it, but have not seen it yet because most people seem to be pretty reasonable when it comes down to it.

If one happens across a player that is going to fuss and argue over tiny fractions of meters to get an advantage, simply don't play that person again. It really is that simple I think. That doesn't make me not competitive or just in it for the lulz and spuds. The group I'm in has some very competitive people involved, but despite that are also all reasonable.

Sorry for my own diatribe. carry on.

Vaktathi
11-09-2012, 19:53
It's difficult to see where 6th is so much more "narrative" than 5th, unless random elements make a game "narrative". Personally I find my sense of immersion in the game has been less than in previous editions, because so many of the mechanics are very much out of place for the scale the game is played at or feel forced and there for their own sake, or like awkward house rules or test mechanics that were never really hammered out.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 20:36
Random doesn't make a game narrative.

What is a narrative game? One where the game is driven around story elements.

Can you do narrative games in 5th? Absolutely. Can you do them in 4th? Absolutely. 3rd? Absolutely. However often the game was a sterile rendition of a flat table with numbers and counters and logic-matrices being positioned chess-like and with which certain logical-based tactics would rule absolutely. In short... a game very much not like real war, but a fun game none the less.

In 6th edition they added story-based elements to the game that are out of the control of players, much like real war has events that are out of the control over those that wage it.

Cinematic and narrative are hook-words. Ultimately what they did is they shifted from a logic-based tactics match akin to chess and moved it to a strategy based risk/reward system that closer resembles what you'd read about in the novels and books and movies about war... hence "cinematic" and "narrative" come out as the keywords.

It's not very "cinematic" or "narrative driven" to see every marine chapter loaded down with melta gun razorback spam. It is, however... logical to do so because it conquered typical local meta and was easiest to accomplish goals with.

Narrative and cinematic often feature heroes that don't always have the easiest tools and often have to combat things out of their direct control. The current system reflects just that... a system that visualizes what a lot of people read about in the fiction moreso than older editions did which featured armies that were chess pieces. Cinematically and narratively, our heroes and armies must combat the enemy and often time the environment as well. They must overcome obstacles and challenges put forth not just by their opponents but by unforseen events as well. Previously you KNEW how a game woudl unfold like you had the script in your hands.

I can watch a 5th edition game and before the first pieces are moved in turn 1 predict with pretty good accuracy what will happen and how the game will end up. That's not like reading a decent piece of fiction. Some people love absolute tactics that always work.... others don't.

We can of course nitpick this to death, point out a story that was all about razorback melta spam and call it narrative, etc..., and I've seen this debate waged a dozen times since summer began, but ultimately that's where a lot of people are coming from when they use those words.

We of course now that a game that puts unforseen events into it will rile up the players that love absolute tactics. That's akin to making your pieces fight each other in chess. It would be an entirely different game (see the game Check vs Mate for a variation of chess for example). Those that love chess and its absolute tactics would be up in arms.

6th edition, much like 8th edition fantasy, will not be fondly remembered by those tournament players that love absolute tactics. Much like the people that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum are glad to be gotten rid of what they consider stale and boring 7th edition fantasy and 5th edition 40k.

Vaktathi
11-09-2012, 20:53
It basically seems like you're talking about a stable metagame, people routinely having the best tools for the job and the game ending up rather predictable, as being the chief opponent of narrative play if I understand you correctly. 6E likely will eventually coalesce around a new metagame center, the only reason you don't have such things now is that people are still getting used to the system and we haven't had a new army release in almost a year and nothing designed for this edition yet.

I'd be highly surprised if two years from now we didn't have another stable metagame situation, and if that's all that 6E is doing for you to make the game narrative, simply mixing up the metagame, it's not going to last. It may be a *different* metagame, but you'll see the same cookie-cutter spam paradigm we've seen with every edition, it'll just take a bit. Just like it did with 5th. In 3rd and 4th we had Skimmerspam Eldar, Min/Max Lasplas marines, Slaanesh Sirenbomb and Oblits-Pieplate Iron Warriors, etc.

Thus, if all 6th is for you is "yay razorback spam is dead!", then you're going to be disappointed when a new metagame appears over the next year or putting on the same perormance with different actors and you'll end up with the same issue as always. The exact same hopes were seen with 5th (yay, a breath of fresh air, no more asscannon spam, no more skimmerspam, no more Nidzilla!) and 4th and 3rd (in large part 3rd was designed to make Eldar defeatable), etc.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 20:58
Well as I've played since 3rd and have been through many metagames, no I don't think that it will bring about a permanent solution to people spamming to take advantage of some loop hole or imbalance. That will always exist so long as the rules allow crutches to exist in the first place, and I don't see that ever changing.

However, with other elements to throw you off balance that you can't min/max for, it will make the game a lot more interesting despite what the latest crutch is.

Vaktathi
11-09-2012, 21:08
That remains to be seen I guess, part of the problem with many of the "random" elements is that half the time (or more) they literally don't do anything (e.g. oh yay...I have no reserves or we're not playing an objective game or my HQ isn't a fighty HQ...how useful all these Warlord traits are...), while a small percentage of the time they can toss everything off-kilter, and there's not much to be said for winning (or losing games) on account of random events as opposed defeating your opponent's battle plan and outfighting them.

IcedCrow
11-09-2012, 21:13
That depends on what you are after I suppose. Winning from outfighting is great. Winning because you relied on an unbalanced rules crutch is also something I think that isn't really saying much, but is something that is touted in high regard by a lot of people.

To me, winning a game because of a random event should be seen in the same light as winning the game with an unbalanced internet armylist. There's no real effort in taking 9 night scythes in a game to take advantage of the fact most people don't have much AA, or the old Draigo paladin armies taking advantage of wound shennanigans or the other grey knight / space wolf net lists that were so dominant the past year.

The game can't be everything to everyone. If you really want to highlight skill, have both players field the same army. That way the only thing that will really matter is how the army is played, not that it was mathematically superior to the other which helped put the game on easy-mode.

Vaktathi
11-09-2012, 21:20
I'm not saying that winning by having a flat out more powerful army than your opponent is saying a whole lot either (though there is something to be said about bringing the right tools for the job if that's the type of game you and your opponent are playing), but I'm really just not seeing where the increased randomness and confusion in scale (micromechanics for challenges, types of blades, etc in a game with often 200 models on the board...), etc makes for a better narrative environment, especially with so many rather arbitrary mechanics and post-release changes when we'll have another likely rather predictable metagame environment to go with it once again.

Bubble Ghost
11-09-2012, 23:36
To resolve your internet argument, measure the line-spacing of each post and multiply the value by the number of consonants, and then throw out the result!

Sounds like 5th ed wound allocation.




(PS. I see what you did there and cleverly countered into ippon):p

damosan
12-09-2012, 00:18
I've played every edition of 40k and while a part of me will always prefer RT the realist thinks 6th ed. is pretty darn good. The half-baked fearless rules of 5th edition almost made me walk away from the game.

Grimbad
12-09-2012, 00:22
In 6th edition they added story-based elements to the game that are out of the control of players, much like real war has events that are out of the control over those that wage it.

Take narrative control out of the players' hands and it's not a very good narrative game. It's really just a confused mess that wants to be a narrative game. It still doesn't produce any coherent (much less cinematic) story, and for all the heaps of special rules pinned onto units, it still doesn't reflect the background well.
Some parts of the game are left vague and abstract, others are arbitrarily detailed, often pretty clumsily (challenges).

IcedCrow
12-09-2012, 03:58
Sure, except that narrative is not typically what one who runs a min/max list is going for.

Omniassiah
12-09-2012, 05:03
Sure, except that narrative is not typically what one who runs a min/max list is going for.

I don't think I have ever ran a min maxed list out side of 'ard boyz, and I haven't seen any narrative games that make a good story yet in 6th edition. And so were not confused as to what I mean by a narrative game I'll explain it since we all have different ideas. A good narrative rule set is one where just describing what happened in the game makes a solid story, no need to make what happens rules wise work in the story just a solid description of what happens. Unfortunately, 6th doesn't do that for me. If I wrote up a battle report in character would take a lot of wrangling to get what happened in the game to work in a story.

Now 5th edition wasn't really much better, and the problem was always that instead of having a good solid interaction with the board and terrain to make tactics emerge from the abilities of the units versus the terrain on the table. Instead I've been forced to take stuff because of specific rules, I mean most people still really wouldn't want to take their troop choices but have to because of the scoring rules. Or in a 100+ model army I have to be extremely watchful of where I place my models and I don't just mean in the fractions of an inch idea that everyone seems to use. Overall I have seen the problem of "Analysis Paralysis" far more in 6th then in 5th and that is more of a problem with casual games as opposed to tournaments because those are the games that get bogged down much more. I can go on, but I will say that there are somethings I do like about 6th.

Last thing I'll leave on this is my opinion of the "Play better people/don't be a dick" argument. Needing a nice player to enjoy a game with appropriate house rules/whatever is kinda of like needing alcohol to enjoy an activity. If I'm not going to get some enjoyment out of the activity with out alcohol then I really don't need to do it with alcohol. Its the same thing for me with any game system I play because I travel a lot. My next game of 40k could be in Germany, Russia, or one of the other US States, because of that the option to pick my opponent and house rule the game isn't easy.

Schismotive
12-09-2012, 05:42
40k needs a page 5. That would solve everything...

IcedCrow
12-09-2012, 13:18
Well Omniassiah, your situation I would say is not common. Most of us are rooted in an area and have a local pool to choose from.

If I traveled like you, I probably wouldn't play much, if any, 40k.

A game of warhammer against a person that does not fit my personality type is aggravating and not conducive to me staying in the hobby, so I am very careful with who I choose to spend my time with and against. This is also why I do not attend tournaments where I have to go up against random people.

"40k needs a page 5. That would solve everything..."

Having heard the story from the Privateer developer who put Page 5 into existence and how much he laments that he made that mistake because of how it ended up and was basically turned into the standard bearer for players everywhere to do what they want in a game at the expense of the other person, I really doubt 40k needs that.

Treadhead_1st
12-09-2012, 14:40
Eh, I prefer 6th Edition to any of the others I've yet played (well, possibly excepting 4th, as a couple of my armies actually had a Codex then)!

5th became very stagnant very quickly - whilst I will always do my utmost to win, a force that matches the background for the army holds an awful lot more appeal for me than the latest downloaded one (after all, when it is not being used it sits in a display cabinet, and having 30+ similar units is unexciting), and this edition has done more to balance a fluffy-competitive force with a fully competitive one. Nowadays, actually playing well seems to make a difference against Grey Knights and Space Wolves. Have vehicles taken a knock? Yes. However, I feel the decrying of vehicles as "useless" or "noob-bait" (as I have delightfully seen them referred to) is an incredibly short-sighted response - they still provide many vital support aspects for the infantry, and you might actually have to use them as part of a combined-arms mutually supporting force, rather than expecting them to carry the day on their own.

That is not to say that some armies are without problems - the changes to assaulting from reserves has kicked Dark Eldar in the shins a bit (though thankfully they now have AP2 CC weapons again), the changes to assaulting after disembarkation have really kicked the Eldar hard, Black Templars have been horrifically neutered...these latter two will undoubtedly be fixed by new Codex releases (and if we can judge by the Necron Codex and Warhammer Fantasy Army Books, no doubt they will be powerful, competitive, fluffy armies well-balanced against their contemporaries) and the former was rather potent.

I must say, I am greatly amused that people are complaining that assault is worthless these days because of random charge ranges and Overwatch; when last edition and 4th I regularly heard that shooting was worthless compared to an assault army, unless said shooting was all in some sort of metal box (to avoid the assault army). I think the shooting/combat sides of things are quite balanced now - shooting will hurt like hell, particularly if you assault recklessly from long-range, yet there are inbuilt mechanisms for avoiding it - don't want your Wyches getting blown to pieces? First assault with Beast-packs/Talos. Don't want your Death Company facing 90+ Lasgun shots? Throw a Dreadnought at them first. Yes, sometimes the dice-gods will muck up a perfect charge - but given that is something that Fantasy has adapted to very well over the last couple of years (despite similar, if not even more, levels of complaint and abuse hurled at GW about it) I honestly do not see it becoming such a problem. It is just another factor that will have to be borne in mind when designing the army list and your battle-plan: Do you take one 600 point combat-unit-of-death, or would it be a better choice to take two slightly-weaker 300 point units for the redundancy instead? Both are now viable options, on a risk-reward basis.

Overall, I am more excited about 40K than I have been in a very long time. All that is tempering my excitement are the Mysterious Terrain rules (which, being in their own section and the rulebook tells you to modify it as you wish, are essentially optional) and my lack of funds after finishing university. But the actual game mechanics have, in my humble opinion, balanced the game very well and offer up new tactical challenges to overcome whilst making many unseen units far more viable without totally reversing the abilities of the commonly seen ones of 5th Edition.

feelnopain666
12-09-2012, 15:13
And you don't think the other games more more miniatures to drive sales? I'd like to see you run a business.

I dont have a problem with making money, but i have a problem when GW was no longer interested in making a great rule set, but in driving sales. there are other ways to make money and still maintain a quality product without disrespect its customer base.

IcedCrow
12-09-2012, 16:19
The only issue is that not everyone feels like they were disrespected. In fact I dare say that a good many people are happy with the current ruleset now.

Major_Manny
12-09-2012, 16:20
@the OP, you should try Flames of War mate. It's a great game, that just works, and looks so much better than 40k, and isn't as daft.

Vaktathi
12-09-2012, 16:46
The only issue is that not everyone feels like they were disrespected. In fact I dare say that a good many people are happy with the current ruleset now.While yes, many people do like 6th ed, I've found however that amongst many it's not so much the rules but just the shift in the metagame. A lot of people are happy that tanks are easymode to deal with now and that's pretty much all they care about for right now. I know many people who like 6th not for the rules but because the lists they didn't like don't work anymore (essentially amounting to a "well that's what you get for playing that!") and that's pretty much the extent of their reasoning for liking the edition and similar sentiments are rather widespread and perfectly apparent in online arenas.

The fact that big bad X no longer torments them is a huge reason for many people liking 6th without really any more justification than that.

IcedCrow
12-09-2012, 17:06
While I'm sure that's true for some people, we can also say that the reason a lot of people don't like 6th is because their crutch got kicked out from underneath them and they can't easy-mode people any longer with their old bag of tricks and have to come up with a new trick to use and that's pretty much the extent of their reasoning for hating the new edition, which are also apparent in online arenas as well as our own local areas.

The fact that their big bad X no longer dominates is a huge reason many people hate 6th without any more justification than that.

So really that story can be told on both sides of the coin with accuracy.

I'll give you my own point by point reasons for liking 6th more:

* wound allocation garbage is gone. The unit of nobz and paladins that could spread their wounds around and stay at maximum threat and offensive firepower was a bit ridiculous IMO.
* overwatch
* rapid fire weapons being more of a threat and moving the game more towards shooting which is where I feel a sci-fi based game should be
* the psyker powers having a little more influence in the game
* the ability to ally
* the ability to buy fortifications and not be dependent on scenarios or permission to use them
* the removal of the brain dead vertical streak tactic of rushing rhinos forward and vomiting out and attacking with no other thought or care. Note I realize there are other just as brain dead things out there and I'm equally opposed to them but anytime one is stomped out, I do a small victory jig. Now one must support their assault elements instead of just min/maxing them and rolling forth.
* terminators being a bit more resiliant with the AP on weapons being across the board. ANd I'm not a marine player.

Nurgling Chieftain
12-09-2012, 17:12
My Eldar still long for 4th edition. :D

GrogDaTyrant
12-09-2012, 17:23
While yes, many people do like 6th ed, I've found however that amongst many it's not so much the rules but just the shift in the metagame. A lot of people are happy that tanks are easymode to deal with now and that's pretty much all they care about for right now. I know many people who like 6th not for the rules but because the lists they didn't like don't work anymore (essentially amounting to a "well that's what you get for playing that!") and that's pretty much the extent of their reasoning for liking the edition and similar sentiments are rather widespread and perfectly apparent in online arenas.

The fact that big bad X no longer torments them is a huge reason for many people liking 6th without really any more justification than that.

That is pretty much what I've seen, as well. I think a lot of that stems from what GW does with a new edition, and how they go about 'updating' things. GW's improvements to a game (especially 40k) tend to have a pendulum-effect of sorts, with a lot of changes made for the sake of change. As I've come to see it, GW just "shakes up" the rules and dumps them back out, as was seen with the move from 3.5 to 4th, and 4th to 5th. 6th is certainly a much more radical change by comparison, but it's still much more of a shake up than an actual improvement. No Retreat was removed, after being implemented in 5th to neuter fearless hordes (along with units to abuse it with). Vehicles went from mobile coffins in 4th, to nearly everyone should be mechanized in 5th, and have now been brought back down to glass-armor levels. And I haven't even touched upon the internal pendulum shifts you see within a codex release (i.e. Carnifex from 3rd -> 4th -> 5th).

Basically what I've noticed (personally) is that GW doesn't make 'improvements' when they write a new edition, they just make sweeping changes (good and bad) that shake the meta up. Eventually that meta begins to slowly solidify again, and the glaring (new) problems begin to become apparent until they make the next edition.

Vaktathi
12-09-2012, 18:08
While I'm sure that's true for some people, we can also say that the reason a lot of people don't like 6th is because their crutch got kicked out from underneath them and they can't easy-mode people any longer with their old bag of tricks and have to come up with a new trick to use and that's pretty much the extent of their reasoning for hating the new edition, which are also apparent in online arenas as well as our own local areas.

The fact that their big bad X no longer dominates is a huge reason many people hate 6th without any more justification than that.It exists yes, but, at least in my experience, significantly less pervasive as the type of players that typically play such things go after whatever is strongest regardless and often hop from list to list anyway making an edition change less of an issue because they're used to making changes to stay on top. I've seen a lot less of people being upset with 6th over lost power builds than people liking 6th because the metagame is different.




So really that story can be told on both sides of the coin with accuracy.

I'll give you my own point by point reasons for liking 6th more:

* wound allocation garbage is gone. The unit of nobz and paladins that could spread their wounds around and stay at maximum threat and offensive firepower was a bit ridiculous IMO. Totally agree with that, though it required an Errata changing the wording of the rules to actually fix.



* overwatch While I like the concept, in execution more often than not it ends up being irrelevant.



* rapid fire weapons being more of a threat and moving the game more towards shooting which is where I feel a sci-fi based game should be Totally agree



* the psyker powers having a little more influence in the game A big 'eh' to me personally, never been a huge fan of them either way, but not something I hold against 6th.



* the ability to ally In theory, I like the idea, however the way they implemented is very lopsided and getting extra FoC slots rather than having to use your 2/3/6/3/3 means that an army utilizing allies has additional flexibility and objective carrying capacity than an army not utilizing allies.


* the ability to buy fortifications and not be dependent on scenarios or permission to use them The implementation of this is really awkward however and feels very sales oriented. I'd much rather just be able to buy generic bunkers, pillboxes, tank pits, trench lines, etc than a "Fortress of Redemption" or "Imperial Bastion". Other games have implemented such things significantly better (e.g. Flames of War, Heavy Gear, etc).



* the removal of the brain dead vertical streak tactic of rushing rhinos forward and vomiting out and attacking with no other thought or care. Note I realize there are other just as brain dead things out there and I'm equally opposed to them but anytime one is stomped out, I do a small victory jig. Now one must support their assault elements instead of just min/maxing them and rolling forth. Hrm, I don't think this ever worked in 5th ed except against a small number of opponents. Against any sort of capable opponent you'd be cut to pieces if you just threw your rhinos forward without support.

Now transports are unreasonably difficult to use effectively at all given they have half the average lifespan against most weapons, amongst a host of other issues as well.





* terminators being a bit more resiliant with the AP on weapons being across the board. ANd I'm not a marine player.Eh, as someone with a Marine army terminator resiliency never bothered me too much, they still die all the same to shooting, other terminators, MC's and powerfists, my primary issue is with the the utility of a lot of units that no longer are as capable as they paid to be and are unlikely to be updated any time soon.



Aside from the issues of scale, randomness, arbitrary elements/mechanics, overabundance of special rules (we have special rules that simply grant multiple existing special rules), etc, particular areas of issue I have are vehicles changes (utility drastically reduced, made easier to kill than in any other edition of 40k, unnecessary existence of two overlapping kill mechanics), the retention of a Kill Points mission, Flyer implementation (though shares blame with codex writing), changes to reserves making reserve strategies untenable coupled with the inability to assault from reserves of any kind just seems unnecessary.

I don't mind random charges, I like many of the changes made, such as those to Rapid Fire weapons, or at least the concepts underlying many of the changes, I just don't find 6th to fundamentally be a better game than 5th in any way. It's different, but it fixes few things wrong with 5th, at least without creating a slew of new issues (e.g. it's good that No-Retreat no longer has the liabilities it once did, but now there's no downside at all to losing combat for fearless units and thus have little incentive to be supported if they can kill an opponent through attrition over several turns, and they're a bit too good as tarpits), changes many things that weren't an issue, and add's a ton of stuff nobody asked for while unfortunately poorly implementing many things people did ask for.




Basically what I've noticed (personally) is that GW doesn't make 'improvements' when they write a new edition, they just make sweeping changes (good and bad) that shake the meta up. Eventually that meta begins to slowly solidify again, and the glaring (new) problems begin to become apparent until they make the next edition.This does look like what's going on, but I can't tell if it's intentional or they're just *that* confused over what they want the game to be as we've gone through 3 different design staffs in 3 editions with 3 different design paradigms. :p

Thrax
12-09-2012, 21:26
That is pretty much what I've seen, as well. I think a lot of that stems from what GW does with a new edition, and how they go about 'updating' things. GW's improvements to a game (especially 40k) tend to have a pendulum-effect of sorts, with a lot of changes made for the sake of change. As I've come to see it, GW just "shakes up" the rules and dumps them back out, as was seen with the move from 3.5 to 4th, and 4th to 5th. 6th is certainly a much more radical change by comparison, but it's still much more of a shake up than an actual improvement. No Retreat was removed, after being implemented in 5th to neuter fearless hordes (along with units to abuse it with). Vehicles went from mobile coffins in 4th, to nearly everyone should be mechanized in 5th, and have now been brought back down to glass-armor levels. And I haven't even touched upon the internal pendulum shifts you see within a codex release (i.e. Carnifex from 3rd -> 4th -> 5th).

Basically what I've noticed (personally) is that GW doesn't make 'improvements' when they write a new edition, they just make sweeping changes (good and bad) that shake the meta up. Eventually that meta begins to slowly solidify again, and the glaring (new) problems begin to become apparent until they make the next edition.

^Bingo!^ This is EXACTLY the case and very well put! Hence the disappointment of another opportunity lost. The argument to wait 4-5 years for the next set of rules doesn't wash when you know they won't get any better then either.

The_Klobb_Maniac
12-09-2012, 23:18
While yes, many people do like 6th ed, I've found however that amongst many it's not so much the rules but just the shift in the metagame. A lot of people are happy that tanks are easymode to deal with now and that's pretty much all they care about for right now. I know many people who like 6th not for the rules but because the lists they didn't like don't work anymore (essentially amounting to a "well that's what you get for playing that!") and that's pretty much the extent of their reasoning for liking the edition and similar sentiments are rather widespread and perfectly apparent in online arenas.

The fact that big bad X no longer torments them is a huge reason for many people liking 6th without really any more justification than that.

Your condescension is admirable. Er. wait.

Fact is, many like it because it shifts the meta in a way that encourages more fun play; I.E. infantry clobbering eachother somehow. Tanks => less fun in large part because you want it to feel like a battle; not a WWII Russo/German Tank war or something. People want to feel like Gettysburg and not Valley of Tears. The fact the ruleset pushes it towards that ideal is a great thing.

Moreover, it some people DO like the rules. The meta can't change in a way that destroys that. I, for one, like the wound allocation. The fact that most of the lame 6th ed stuff is taken care of already (LoS! problems for one) is great. That was one of my last big gripes about this edition and now it's gone. The oversights in the rules have mostly been taken care of and now that they have the rest of the ruleset, which I pretty much adore, is golden.

One that some friends hate is overwatch and transport rules; but it's mostly just that some codices could use an update IMO and less that stuff was cool in 5th ed. 5th ed said "position however you want because mobility is moot" with outflanking, deepstriking, infiltrating and all manner of other pseudo mobility resulting in charges on Turn 2 or even Turn 1 without being able to do anything about it aside from deploy well and cross your fingers their rolls don't pan out. 6th got rid of "Free" charges and makes positioning units (say out of LOS or something) all the more important. No longer do you dictate the battle by merely having full outflank armies or other weirdness; now it's a convenience that requires you to still position well and it may not be a beneficial maneuver. I'm almost surprised there's no overwatch mechanic to discourage shooty outflanking as well, but meh.

6th encourages you to move with the changes to Rapid FIre and the ability to snap fire. No more does every rapid fire army have to stand still nor do they require transports to keep it from playing like 4th ed. Gone are the days where everyone sits still pummeling eachother and here are the days where every army can take advantage of basic weaponry.

you may dislike it, but I even like the casualty removal. I like it to it's core because so much in 5th ed was resulted in stagnant games; be it "hey I charged turn 2 again *troll*" or "let's stand n shoot for 6 turns" or some other combination of rules that forced not only everyone into transports; but that transports were the only way to have firepower that wasn't, quite simply, boring to use.

6th also got rid of reserve denials and other similar tactics that involved, quite literally, not playing for a turn or two; hardly enjoyable for the opponent. 6th took the focus off of gimmick lists (especially after the FAQs) and feels all the more visceral for it.

Take that for what it is; but I find that much more enjoyable than purposely utilizing how to abuse rules with each army.

Ozendorph
12-09-2012, 23:30
I feel Vaktathi's point was just strengthened, somehow

Vaktathi
13-09-2012, 03:26
Your condescension is admirable. Er. wait. It wasn't condescension nor was it a blanket statement applied to everyone who likes 6E. It is merely an observation on the attitudes of a non-negligible subset of that group. Take it for what it is.



Fact is, many like it because it shifts the meta in a way that encourages more fun play; I.E. infantry clobbering eachother somehow. Tanks => less fun in large part because you want it to feel like a battle; not a WWII Russo/German Tank war or something. People want to feel like Gettysburg and not Valley of Tears. The fact the ruleset pushes it towards that ideal is a great thing. That's a highly subjective opinion, and even many heavily mechanized armies still had large numbers of infantry. My 17 IG tank list still had 85 infantry, half again or even more than double the number of infantry of many opposing armies.

You are projecting your own opinion onto a statement and thesis that isn't necessarily true. Many don't like the meta change because it shifts it to a "gettysburg" feel (I've never encountered anyone that played 40k because they wanted to recreate Gettysburg in Space, though I guess if you want, you can play an IG gunline that gets to scythe down another IG list that's attempting to charge it...), rather it's just something new or that one list they could never beat suddenly doesn't function and they don't have to deal with it.



Moreover, it some people DO like the rules. I believe I conceded that point...


The meta can't change in a way that destroys that. I, for one, like the wound allocation. The fact that most of the lame 6th ed stuff is taken care of already (LoS! problems for one) is great. That was one of my last big gripes about this edition and now it's gone. The oversights in the rules have mostly been taken care of and now that they have the rest of the ruleset, which I pretty much adore, is golden. Yes, fine, wound allocation is less abuseable now (though LoS sniping is back again), I agree, that's not what I was harping on.



One that some friends hate is overwatch and transport rules; but it's mostly just that some codices could use an update IMO and less that stuff was cool in 5th ed. 5th ed said "position however you want because mobility is moot" with outflanking, deepstriking, infiltrating and all manner of other pseudo mobility resulting in charges on Turn 2 or even Turn 1 without being able to do anything about it aside from deploy well and cross your fingers their rolls don't pan out. It accomplished this largely through making everything less capable, more predictable. You can't be charged off an outflank anymore, so most outflanking units aren't going to make much use of it and usually are going to get cut to pieces before they can do anything as most are assault oriented units. Transports die before they can reach where they are going and lost the majority of their utility. Reserve denial was there to blunt gunline alpha strikes so now you just have to eat it and hope you've got something left. It turns the game into more of a shooting gallery and this is from an IG player.


6th got rid of "Free" charges What on earth is a "free" charge?


and makes positioning units (say out of LOS or something) all the more important. No longer do you dictate the battle by merely having full outflank armies or other weirdness; now it's a convenience that requires you to still position well and it may not be a beneficial maneuver. In other words, the battle is much more straightforward as there are fewer vectors of attack and an opposing gunline can just look straight across the board without worry :p



6th encourages you to move with the changes to Rapid FIre and the ability to snap fire. No more does every rapid fire army have to stand still nor do they require transports to keep it from playing like 4th ed. Gone are the days where everyone sits still pummeling eachother and here are the days where every army can take advantage of basic weaponry. No that's still around, the heavy weapons (the things thing provide the majority of punch for many units) still are most effective when stationary, it just means when people get close moving is much more viable. It's a change I like, but it's not like you see marine units waltzing across the board to pop off a couple extra bolter shots while their lascannon, heavy bolter or krak missile hope's that a 6 instead of a 3.



you may dislike it, but I even like the casualty removal. I didn't say I disliked it.


I like it to it's core because so much in 5th ed was resulted in stagnant games; be it "hey I charged turn 2 again *troll*" That's still something I see regularly with 6th, it's just different units doing it. I've had several games where I've been charged turn 1.


or "let's stand n shoot for 6 turns" or some other combination of rules that forced not only everyone into transports; but that transports were the only way to have firepower that wasn't, quite simply, boring to use. Standing and shooting for 6 turns is actually turning out to be one of the most effective ways to play 6th edition given how mixed and assault oriented armies have to slug it across the board so much more and tanks die easier than they have since at least the last 14 years if not longer.



6th also got rid of reserve denials and other similar tactics that involved, quite literally, not playing for a turn or two; hardly enjoyable for the opponent. Was it broken in any way? Not really. It didn't really bother most people, and it was a method by which to blunt or avoid turn 1 gunline alpha strikes and barrage spam. It's not like Reserve denial lists were consistently a thing people had an issue with or that they ruled the tournament scene in 5E. I don't recall IG Al-Rahem lists, SM biker lists, Dark Eldar WWP lists, or Eldar double-autarch lists exactly stomping over everything and repeatedly being complained about.


6th took the focus off of gimmick lists (especially after the FAQs) and feels all the more visceral for it. ? If anything 6th is significantly more gimmicky between far more micro mechanics, new special rules, flyers, psychic powers, random tables, and the fact that the newer the army book the more likely it is to be ludicrously filled with gimmicks (e.g. Necrons, Grey Knights, etc). And in time, as more army books are released, a new metagame will form that's just as "stale" as the old metagame was once they're adapted to the new core ruleset and everyone figures everything out. It's happened with every previous edition of 40k and 6th doesn't appear to be any different.



Take that for what it is; but I find that much more enjoyable than purposely utilizing how to abuse rules with each army.Meaning...what? That you just didn't like the meta of certain units or facing threats from multiple vectors in the last edition? I think this line indicates my previous statement has some truth in it, and you're going to be disappointed when the same symptoms appear again as they have with every edition :p

Ronin_eX
13-09-2012, 04:45
This thread has taught me that arguing about preferences is silly... oh wait, no, the Internet as a whole taught me that. I am amazed that people who enjoy 6th Edition are wasting their time in a thread that is for a bitch fest about things people don't like about 6th. I love 6th, myself. But I don't see what good comes about trying to prove some people on the internet were wrong about their personal preference. If they want to be in a thread lamenting how the game has moved on from them, then let 'em. Meanwhile let's make our own thread about how awesome 6th is... with blackjack and hookers!

Let these guys have their own thread without us pro-6E'ers crappin' it up with pointless arguing.

Thrax
13-09-2012, 05:09
Indeed. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Ronin_eX
13-09-2012, 05:46
Just to inform everyone... I made a thread for 6th Edition. To those that want to continue discussing where they thought it made missteps I will leave you to your thread and hope others leave you in peace. As someone who was not a fan for the past decade or so, I understand how it can be annoying to feel like you are continually shouted down by everyone. So as someone who has had his time bitching about stuff I salute you and leave you to it. Enjoy!

*saunters out of the thread*

The_Klobb_Maniac
13-09-2012, 05:48
@Vak (My utmost apologies for the wall of text. It didn't start out this big..)

Well what I mean by:
-"Free" charge- Uncounterable. Be it outflank or reserves I pulled off many charges I essentially shouldn't have been able to. Outflanking can still be useful but it's no longer a go-to if an assault unit has it; it's more of a rare occurence. If there's a good spot to go to (or a few) you may plop them into outflank but it's no longer "better stay 12+d6 away from board edges all the time forever" if you get my meaning. The reserves bit didn't come up a ton; but it was the same idea; you essentially had a unit at full force concentration that had a 72" wide swath of where it was at any time, couldn't be shot, couldn't be avoided (other than avoiding 18"+ zone of their boardside.) It's cheese to just pick anywhere along the board edge and charge from it. I wish they had done something with the shooting bit of outflank as well for the same reason; but that's more out of principle and less because I've ever cared about it.

-Opposing gunlines can still be disrupted :s. Outflank still comes in handy here, faster jump infantry charges (depending how you go about it) can also disrupt it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this; I just don't see sitting perfectly still as the best way forward. Armies like DE can make a mockery out of something like that if they've brought the weaponry with 'em. SM with a bunch of LS could potentially do the same thing. IMO long ranged weapons, since they can eat infantry and vehicles alike, force one side to always be attempting to close with the other. Necrons for instance can't really sit back and gunline it unless the opponent lets them or is an army that relies on less than 24" range (can't think of any really; maybe Eldar?) Most of the marines will have to be aggressive in order to not get torn apart at range I believe. I could be wrong.

-6th may feel gimmicky, but the lists seem much less capable of doing it. The mechanics are difficult to abuse reliably at the moment, at least it seems that way.

-I called you condescending as it seemed the logic was "If you like that vehicles are easier to kill now, you were bad at 5th ed." Fact is; I never had enough AT with my Orks, I could only scratch it together as IG (footslogging being the reason, but I knew that going into them), and Necron were really pushed down avenues (pretty much lance teks, heavy Ds, wraiths or scarabs) meaning you couldn't take many options. in 5th you were basing entire armies, rating them, on how much AT you could put in and reliably get it to work. in 6th it feels like you still want a lot, but you can survive without pushing your entire army to the bring of it's AT limits. I like that vehicles are merely worth their points :p, and not significantly tougher than they should be. Maybe hull points isn't the best route, but I've taken a liking to the idea of blowing bits off of the vehicle 'til it dies. My BWs have never been better lol


-Honestly reserve denial didn't bug *me* and it wasn't the end-all be-all; but as a game, it seems odd that one can just opt to not play for 2 turns. That you could say "it doesn't matter if you get first turn or second turn because I'm guaranteed to shoot before you do." It may not have been the best, but it was a deliberate avoidance of playing the game for (usually) 2 turns in order to allow you to skimp on troops *even more*

-By gimmicks I mean things like all-outflank armies, reserve denial, scout-move charge spam (deffcoptas, scouts, valks+vets, etc..) and similar. Again, these weren't the top lists, but it's annoying as a player and a turn off to the game when people have nothing they can do but mech up against certain attacks. If the only way to prevent a charge is buying a transport because every game you get charged T2, then you basically have to carve your list within an unnatural mold. Even if/when gimmicks come up in 6th I have a feeling they'll be much more counterable than in 5th.

-Mobility in 5th wasn't "multiple attack vectors", it was "I'm anywhere I want with every unit at any one time." It was less of a game even than 6th! If you wanted you could have nearly any unit pop up pretty much anywhere on the board with no option to do diddly to it. Shooting can still be that way in 6th, I'll admit, but outflanking isn't what it was, and neither are infiltrating assaults or similar. 6th makes parts of it more predictable (let's face it, chess is predictable and it's heralded as one of the best games! Thusly, let us not focus on this) but in a good way. If the opponent can say "alright, for him to assault from outflank he'll need to do it by going there or he'll eat a bunch of my firepower. If he doesn't, what would he use as bait?" etc.. In 5th this was instead 'I must stay 18" away from the edge or I'll be assaulted on T2 or T3 by those *blah*'. One sounds mighty more tactical to me; even if it's more predictable. Predictable means thinking through problems, 5th was "here's a surprise you can't dodge, enjoy!" with everything. I can't count how many times an opponent screwed up by an inch or two to deal with battlewagons and got charged due to absolutely huge charge ranges. Now if they know what they're doing they can at least *likely* avoid it. No more surprise game-overs due to assaults coming out of nowhere. Do you get where I'm coming from here?

-transports being the only mobile firepower in 5th => they were the obvious eventuality. With almost everything effectively moving and shooting (except heavy weapons on infantry) we have myriad more competitive possibilities I imagine. mobility + firepower (+ [sometimes] durability) dictates the true worth of probably 90% of the units out there; upping the mobility of skimmers, jetbikes, tanks, rapid fire infantry, and (to a lesser degree) heavy weapons means we should see a more diverse game overall; because units should no longer have such massive mobility issues. Even a footslogging 2xPlasma squad doesn't sound so bad in 6th. In 5th that would be a death sentence of 150-180 pts; doomed to failure.


The meta will evolve; but i could even see rhino-rushing coming *back* in a new form potentially. Who knows? 50 marines move up 6, deploy 6, shoot or run D6, charge T2? Likely no one has played with it much because it seems so *bad*, but 50 marines are a lot to take down when more powerful threats are behind them. 1000 points of assaulty Grey Hunters with 1000 points of shooty backup seems like a testable hypothesis; especially since the hunters won't get stuck at a wall of unkillable vehicles. Yes it will evolve, but I think variation will rule 6th more than we anticipate. My point is mostly that the ruleset, while more predictable, will lead to more tactical options since there aren't so many "whoops" that auto-happen.

How are you getting T1 charged anyway? Scout moves don't do it IIRC, Infils don't do it, you can premeasure open-topped/assault vehicles. 2/3rds of the deployments allow you to be farther away than before. I'd be curious if you just baited the enemy or if you somehow fell for a T1 charge unexpectedly. Either way, T2 charges I also think will be somewhat difficult in practice; even though they always seem so feasible. That random charge range hurts when you screw up. Footslogging assault seemed more viable on paper until I saw-it-attepted/attempted it.

Bubble Ghost
13-09-2012, 13:19
For the record, I'm not pro-6th ed. I'm just less anti-6th ed than I was anti-5th ed.:D 40K is never going to be a proper game, for the simple reason that they don't think it needs to be. Its purpose is simply to serve as a cinema trailer for the miniatures. Taken as a whole, 40K was and remains a crime against game design, but none of that matters for the execution of its mission statement. 6th ed is not enough to inspire me to buy any new plastic dudes, but then it was never going to be - I'm cheerful enough that it gives me something better to do with my existing plastic dudes than 5th ed did, and indulge my enjoyment of the game's setting and the culture that goes with it. There's a spark within 6th ed of the game someone wants it to be, if only they could shake off the corporate handcuffs, and that's enough to make me fairly well-disposed towards it.



No more surprise game-overs due to assaults coming out of nowhere.

And this is probably the single biggest reason why. The number of people now complaining to high heaven that their guys who take light armour and swords onto a battlefield in a universe where everyone else has a machine gun now actually get *gasp* shot at!! is an indication of how horrifically out of calibration the game was before.

I fully expect "assault creep" to kick in through codexes though, as armies steadily introduce more and more ways to sneak around the sensible new limitations, to make the latest thing seem to be a stand-out exception to the norm.

The 6th ed Blood Angels book ought to be interesting.:shifty:

BrotherCaptainS
13-09-2012, 13:32
perhaps you should wait to judge until after the new chaos marine dex. Remember, we don't have a true 6th ed codex. crons and knights are dang close but no official 6th codex, I bet a lot of confusion goes away with that. Plus according to rumors, codicies are going to be hammered out a bit quicker, with white dwarf helping along the way. You have to FAQ books that don't match up with the current edition.

IcedCrow
13-09-2012, 13:42
That's one of the biggest thing for me honestly. In a game set in the future I'd expect swords and shields to not be as strong as the machine gun.

ColShaw
13-09-2012, 14:04
That's one of the biggest thing for me honestly. In a game set in the future I'd expect swords and shields to not be as strong as the machine gun.

I don't think 40K is quite the right game for you, in that case. Most of the stuff in the 40K universe makes absolutely terrible tactical sense, including the emphasis placed on assault armies. This isn't a science fiction game; it's a fantasy game set in space, much like Star Wars is fantasy rather than sci-fi.

IcedCrow
13-09-2012, 14:18
I don't think 40K is quite the right game for you, in that case. Most of the stuff in the 40K universe makes absolutely terrible tactical sense, including the emphasis placed on assault armies. This isn't a science fiction game; it's a fantasy game set in space, much like Star Wars is fantasy rather than sci-fi.

I've already come to that conclusion back in the 90s when Blood Angels were tearing apart my army in close combat =P

However, there really isn't another game that one can go to. I am not a ww2 player and don't like ww2 games so Flames of War does nothing for me.

In a game with a lot of tanks, giant battle mechs, laser guided missiles, and machine guns, I want shooting to be somewhat strong, and now it is. (and despite 40k being fantasy in space, it contains tanks, battle mechs, laser guided missiles, machine guns, so to me represents sci-fi)

Bubble Ghost
13-09-2012, 14:26
That's one of the biggest thing for me honestly. In a game set in the future I'd expect swords and shields to not be as strong as the machine gun.

I sort of agree, although that opinion largely depends on whether you see 40K as sci-fi or not. Personally, I don't, really - it's more about mythology. The only factions who represent mere mortals in this kind of context (Guard and Tau) DO rely heavily ingenuity rather than physical prowess, thus filling the usual role of a human character in folklore. All the other races variously represent angels, faeries, demons, plagues of locusts and Book of Revelations stuff like that, and are as much about the arcane symbolism of smashing each other with axes as they are about pewpew wagons. I don't think there's an innate problem with that.

No, the problem with the way assault was handled in 5th ed for me was the way a unit could essentially teleport across an enormous stretch of the battlefield and into close combat. Many melee units could transit from one position of complete immunity from attack (such as in reserve or a vehicle), across a very dangerous battlefield, and into another safe position (close combat), with the absolutely certain knowledge that there wasn't the slightest chance they would be attacked en route. And not only this, but it actually rewarded them for this cowardice with a giant bonus to attack. The game's two methods of attack, shooting and assault, essentially operated on totally different representations of reality, and the juxtaposition was jarring - ramming the artificial nature of the gameplay down your throat with deflating, implausible cheap shots, even as it tried to conjure an atmosphere.

Luckily the blanket ban on charging from out-of-play positions, plus the variable charge distance/overwatch interaction, goes a long way towards fixing - by acknowledging the innate risk in charging. YOU may know that it's not your opponent's "turn" right now, but your troops don't, and so you shouldn't be able to order them to act as though they do. Admittedly a 2D6 roll is a simplistic way of doing this, and a more modern game might use a proper system of choice of actions to represent it. But in terms of the narrative logic of the game, it gets the job done. The whole thing feels so much more believable, which for such a relatively small change has to go down as one of the slickest bits of design in the book.

IcedCrow
13-09-2012, 14:52
I have over the years grown accustomed to 40k's mix of shooting with assault so I can live with it (obviously, I have invested a ton of money into it). What you are saying above is how I feel as well. The assault elements were just a little too easy in my book to pull off.

Gorbad Ironclaw
13-09-2012, 15:17
However, there really isn't another game that one can go to. I am not a ww2 player and don't like ww2 games so Flames of War does nothing for me.


Depends on what scale your looking for. Infinity makes close combat really rather difficult and dangerous to pull off and the vast majority of units won't be terribly good at it even if it somehow does happen, but its a skirmish game with maybe a dozen models on each side and frankly wouldn't work with armies even remotely the size of 40k forces.

It does however feels significantly more sci-fi than 40k does.

Nurgling Chieftain
13-09-2012, 15:45
The number of people now complaining to high heaven that their guys who take light armour and swords onto a battlefield in a universe where everyone else has a machine gun now actually get *gasp* shot at!! is an indication of how horrifically out of calibration the game was before.
That's one of the biggest thing for me honestly. In a game set in the future I'd expect swords and shields to not be as strong as the machine gun.I don't really mind machine guns being great at gunning down lots of guys with pointy sticks, I just want the guys with pointy sticks to be cheap enough to present a serious threat anyway. :p

Bubble Ghost
13-09-2012, 16:22
Oh, granted. I just don't think the integrity of the status quo is a good enough reason to refrain from making a necessary change to the basic rules. I don't think matters if unit type X is less cost effective for while if it means a better game at the end of it.

GrogDaTyrant
13-09-2012, 18:39
I don't really mind machine guns being great at gunning down lots of guys with pointy sticks, I just want the guys with pointy sticks to be cheap enough to present a serious threat anyway. :p

To hell with that. I want more customization and the ability to field more than 1 unit of 'Ard Boyz once again. Hell more 'Eavy Armor options wherever I feel like paying points for it, would be great! I personally always loved the look of my old 'Ard Boy Burnaz.

The_Klobb_Maniac
13-09-2012, 19:14
I'm with ya Grog. But I can't be started on an Ork book rant lol.

While this isn't a fluff thread, I view overwatch less as "extra shots" and more as "more accurate shots from the previous round as you get closer." Since 40k assumes you're as accurate at 1ft as you are at a mile and a half, I like the idea that there's some *little* bit of consolation as you get close; or in some instances they get a quick shot off at the guys taking the time to:
-Jump off a transport
-Hop over a wall
-Start murdering them in CC

Those shots make more sense than standing helplessly as they just.. eat your face. Rapid fire sort of also justifies more accurate behavior at ranges, but.. meh..

Ozendorph
13-09-2012, 19:37
I dig overwatch. I think of it as a last-ditch, desperate attempt to fend off the razor-sharp fangs and whirling chainaxes that are about to reduce you and your mates to a red mist. I don't think it's any surprise that various overwatch scenarios are cited again and again in the "favorite moments of 6th Ed" thread. I wish we were getting overwatch on its own, and not bundled with other rules that blunt assault troops and stretch out combats, but what can ya do. I think a lot of players would have loved overwatch in 5th Ed ;)

Haravikk
13-09-2012, 19:57
First off - Vehicles....In 6th I just dont see the point
I've said in other threads, but I think we still haven't really settled into a pattern yet. Now that vehicles are somewhat more vulnerable, we'll hopefully see less excessive mech lists, and in so doing we should also see less anti-mech, as there's no point springing the points for the heavy anti-tank weapons if your opponent is now taking more infantry. As this trend reaches a stable level I think we'll have a situation where people are actually taking tanks that their army needs, such as transports on their important close-range units and maybe a heavy-hitter for dealing with certain types of enemies. Make sure you're not contributing to the problem by taking more anti-mech than you need to now :)


I go to charge someone 3 inches away, roll double 1...huzzah!...thats not fun, its just annoying.
It also removes the need for guess-ranging, which is a change that was made to fantasy and made a big difference, as guessing ranges only made the game harder for new players since seasoned players would guess pretty accurately most of the time anyway. It means you no longer declare a charge against something that looks in range only to find out that it's not in range at all… huzzah! not fun at all ;)


barrage has now become the best sniper weapon in the game
How do you figure that one? You do remember that barrages scatter, and usually scatter more than any other blast weapon?


I dunno, I think you're making too much of these "niggles"; 5th edition had far worse ones, while 6th adds more fun back into the game IMO as 5th had become something of a grind. It remains to be seen what 6th edition codexes make of the game, as the 5th edition lineup was a joke of constant escalation and an apparent disdain towards balancing anything. If 6th's codexes are more like 8th edition fantasy's, which are pretty well balanced, then 6th edition should be really good, as it adds a lot of stuff that's just waiting to be used in new books.

Vaktathi
13-09-2012, 20:26
I've said in other threads, but I think we still haven't really settled into a pattern yet. Now that vehicles are somewhat more vulnerable, we'll hopefully see less excessive mech lists, and in so doing we should also see less anti-mech, as there's no point springing the points for the heavy anti-tank weapons if your opponent is now taking more infantry. As this trend reaches a stable level I think we'll have a situation where people are actually taking tanks that their army needs, such as transports on their important close-range units and maybe a heavy-hitter for dealing with certain types of enemies. Make sure you're not contributing to the problem by taking more anti-mech than you need to now :)The problem with this train of thought is that the same weapons that are used to kill tanks also the ones people typically kit out on to kill everything else as well. Lascannons, Missile Launchers, Plasma Guns and the like are highly useful against half the infantry in the game, MC's, etc that are likely to be encountered by most players frequently. There's a reason las/plas was popular in 3E and 4E even when tanks were relatively rarely taken, because such weapons are highly useful against just about everything that isn't a horde infantry unit.

There's no reason at all to take less of such weapons, especially with the reductions in power weapon capability and needing additional alternatives against 2+sv units and the like. Vehicles being roughly twice as easy to kill in most instances isn't going to reduce the attractiveness of such weapons when instead of taking 5 or 6 turns to kill all your opponents tanks you can do it in 2 or 3 and then turn those guns on the heavy infantry that are highly vulnerable to such weapons.



How do you figure that one? You do remember that barrages scatter, and usually scatter more than any other blast weapon? It's the way they allocate wounds, they're rather abusive, especially when you have a lot as you can put center the blast on a specific model you want and it's got to take the saves first if you hit.



I dunno, I think you're making too much of these "niggles"; 5th edition had far worse ones, while 6th adds more fun back into the game IMO as 5th had become something of a grind. It remains to be seen what 6th edition codexes make of the game, as the 5th edition lineup was a joke of constant escalation and an apparent disdain towards balancing anything. If 6th's codexes are more like 8th edition fantasy's, which are pretty well balanced, then 6th edition should be really good, as it adds a lot of stuff that's just waiting to be used in new books.One will notice many of the 6E books complained about were released roughly the same time or after the 8E fantasy reboot and written by the same authors :p

Bubble Ghost
13-09-2012, 20:28
Overwatch is great but it's also very sneaky. It's not there to do what the Overwatch mechanic from 2nd ed was, so comparing it negatively to that is pointless. 6th ed's Overwatch isn't meant to model defensive or ambush fire - its only purpose is to regulate the variable charge distance mechanic, to be a little slap on the wrist that discourages you from mindlessly declaring charges whenever you happen to be within the maximum range.

And that's important because what really models defensive fire is that variable charge distance itself. If doesn't show how far the assaulting unit gets, it shows when they arrive - which could well be after the events depicted by your opponent's next turn, if you're not careful. What the "random" charge distances do is blur the boundaries between player turns, preventing you from abusing your godlike player's knowledge of whose "turn" it is by waltzing into combat in total safety, and forcing you instead into a decision making process more like the one that would be facing your squad leader on the tabletop. The consistency between assault and shooting, where models must expose themselves to retaliation in order to attack, is therefore improved, and the whole game feels more real as a result.

Which is why I reckon Overwatch + random charges, taken together, are the single best change in the whole edition. There is now a bit more war and a bit less game in this wargame. The fact that Overwatch fire itself nicely evokes dramatic last ditch defense is just a cool bonus!





How do you figure that one? You do remember that barrages scatter, and usually scatter more than any other blast weapon?

He's right there, unfortunately. The wound allocation rules, perversely, state that with barrage weapons, you begin allocating wounds to the model nearest the centre of the template rather than nearest the shooter. And you get to place the template over whoever you want. A sniper rifle has a 17% chance of a single, modest hit against a chosen model; with barrages, you have a 33% chance of battering the model of your choice with hit after hit of devastating artillery fire until it inevitably dies. It really is ludicrous.

The_Klobb_Maniac
13-09-2012, 20:49
It'd be interesting to see if they attempt to fix that in an FAQ actually. WHo knows, maybe barrage weapons will get one of the following:
-Random allocation
-Still scatters on a hit (by the arrow), but maybe only 1d6, or pick the lowest of the 2d6? or something
-LoS! update that... does something.

I'd actually really like to see #2. Then it won't scatter *much* but will still be "not a sniper" and thus more acceptable. I always thought it was weird that they get direct hits anyway.

Vaktathi
13-09-2012, 20:59
I'd be fine if they removed the ability to snipe models out of units with barrages (e.g. if they just made it like all other allocation), but always forcing scatter even on a hit would destroy the utility of many such weapons, particularly small blast weapons.

Treadhead_1st
14-09-2012, 00:30
It'd be interesting to see if they attempt to fix that in an FAQ actually. WHo knows, maybe barrage weapons will get one of the following:
-Random allocation
-Still scatters on a hit (by the arrow), but maybe only 1d6, or pick the lowest of the 2d6? or something
-LoS! update that... does something.

I'd actually really like to see #2. Then it won't scatter *much* but will still be "not a sniper" and thus more acceptable. I always thought it was weird that they get direct hits anyway.


I'd be fine if they removed the ability to snipe models out of units with barrages (e.g. if they just made it like all other allocation)...

The trouble is, given how wound allocation works to be "more cinematic" now, a (for example) Griffon shot landing at the tail-end of a 31-model Ork mob ought to do some serious damage, to the area that it hit (as it is falling from the sky rather than hurled parallel to the ground)...yet the Warboss in Mega Armour at the front of the unit could take all 8+ hits and saunter through unscathed, despite being a good 6-12" away from the actual blast.

So we either have to put up with such weapons being horrifically inaccurate (always scattering), sniping specific models (through damage from the centre of the blast), or bouncing off of a bloke in good armour a considerable distance from where it hit. If we went back to the old "anyone under the template" rules there would be just as much complaining for the more powerful weapons such as Basilisks, and it would take bloody ages having to "randomise" all those hits onto different models - otherwise the most indiscriminate weapons suddenly become the only weapons against which the opponent can choose who his hit.

No, all-in-all, I think the "sniping" problem is the best way to represent barrage shots, as although it is a little unrealistic and unfair to the opponent, anything else is even worse for the controlling player.

The_Klobb_Maniac
14-09-2012, 00:46
Scattering a mere D6 on a hit would hardly be "horrifically inaccurate", especially for a target you could see (as you'd likely still subtract your BS.) As it is, you "guess" as good with a mortar who can see as you can shoot with a rifle.

Bubble Ghost
14-09-2012, 11:53
The trouble is, given how wound allocation works to be "more cinematic" now, a (for example) Griffon shot landing at the tail-end of a 31-model Ork mob ought to do some serious damage, to the area that it hit (as it is falling from the sky rather than hurled parallel to the ground)...yet the Warboss in Mega Armour at the front of the unit could take all 8+ hits and saunter through unscathed, despite being a good 6-12" away from the actual blast

Allocating from the front of a unit is just an abstraction in the first place, I don't see what's special about barrages that means they get to work on a higher level of realism (and bear in mind that allocating from the centre of the template is only realistic in a vacuum - it's pretty damn unrealistic that you could just place that template exactly where you wanted to start with).

This is especially when that (very isolated) extra realism comes at the cost of something that is not only equally stupid, but by its very nature as additional realism, breaks the internal consistency established by the rest of the rules. It makes barrage weapons not only super-effective against mobs, but also super-effective against tiny elite units with an expensive specalist to knock out. If you're going to play the "ought to" card, is that what barrages ought to be for?

A better rule for barrages might be that they're easy to see coming - and so they use regular wound allocation, but characters must always take, and automatically pass*, a Look Out Sir roll. Essentially totally ignored for wound allocation. Then barrages could bypass wound tanking, as you quite reasonably note that they ought to, but without sniping specialists as well. And it would actually add to the atmosphere of the game by making barrage weapons more indiscriminate, not less - the ideal weapons against big units, not so hot against elites, and with an intuitive rationalisation for it.


*Not necessarily even this part.

Balerion
14-09-2012, 17:47
Another solution to Barrage Sniping would be a rule requiring the template (or the first template in a multiple barrage) to be placed so that it covers the most models possible in the target unit (a rule used by teardrop template weapons, iirc).


Overwatch is great but it's also very sneaky. It's not there to do what the Overwatch mechanic from 2nd ed was, so comparing it negatively to that is pointless. 6th ed's Overwatch isn't meant to model defensive or ambush fire - its only purpose is to regulate the variable charge distance mechanic, to be a little slap on the wrist that discourages you from mindlessly declaring charges whenever you happen to be within the maximum range.

And that's important because what really models defensive fire is that variable charge distance itself. If doesn't show how far the assaulting unit gets, it shows when they arrive - which could well be after the events depicted by your opponent's next turn, if you're not careful. What the "random" charge distances do is blur the boundaries between player turns, preventing you from abusing your godlike player's knowledge of whose "turn" it is by waltzing into combat in total safety, and forcing you instead into a decision making process more like the one that would be facing your squad leader on the tabletop. The consistency between assault and shooting, where models must expose themselves to retaliation in order to attack, is therefore improved, and the whole game feels more real as a result.

Which is why I reckon Overwatch + random charges, taken together, are the single best change in the whole edition. There is now a bit more war and a bit less game in this wargame. The fact that Overwatch fire itself nicely evokes dramatic last ditch defense is just a cool bonus!

Excellent post.

Haravikk
14-09-2012, 21:15
It's the way they allocate wounds, they're rather abusive, especially when you have a lot as you can put center the blast on a specific model you want and it's got to take the saves first if you hit.
Ah, hmm, I see the point. It might be nice to see some kind of Initiative based save back for that kind of thing, e.g - if you pass an Initiative test against a blast you get the equivalent of Shrouded against that damage. Maybe something else to account for the fact that some of the worst blasts also ignore cover :p


One will notice many of the [5E] books complained about were released roughly the same time or after the 8E fantasy reboot and written by the same authors :p
Yeah but that's just how 5th edition books were done, I wouldn't have expected them to change that since they weren't likely to be aimed at 6th edition compatibility anyway, because GW is crazy that way :)

feelnopain666
15-09-2012, 08:23
It also removes the need for guess-ranging, which is a change that was made to fantasy and made a big difference, as guessing ranges only made the game harder for new players since seasoned players would guess pretty accurately most of the time anyway. It means you no longer declare a charge against something that looks in range only to find out that it's not in range at all… huzzah! not fun at all.
Them why we couldnt simply use pre-measurement?! why do we need mere random elements? in this edition its only missing random weapon range and random movement:evilgrin:
When most of our actions depends on a dice roll, it depends more in luck than in tactics. That is my major complain about this "game":mad:

Grocklock
15-09-2012, 08:55
Them why we couldnt simply use pre-measurement?! why do we need mere random elements? in this edition its only missing random weapon range and random movement:evilgrin:
When most of our actions depends on a dice roll, it depends more in luck than in tactics. That is my major complain about this "game":mad:

If you are playing your games using pure luck then more power to you I prefer to use tactics. I mean what you have just said can be applied to almost anything. I mean in reality everything in life is about luck. But there are different kinds of luck most predominently blind luck and mesurable risk. Blind luck is when you have no chance at all over the result such as trying to get a 5+ on a single dice. We have no real control over weather or not that dice will be a 5+ or just merally a 1 though 4.

but when you add more veriables you are now in the realm of mesured risk

Now lets say we are trying to get a 5+ but roll 2 dice. What we have done here is add more veriables to the equation which are in our favior. for instead of the result being a 1 in 3 as before the result now is a 32 in 36.

But with 40k being such a diverse game it would be hard to caluculate all of the veriables such as the distance you wish oto charge the probobility of getting it on that dice, if i just wait another turn to get the charge. I think it is quite lodacrise to distill 40k down to dice.

For instance when you cross the road there is an eliment of risk involved but it is messured luck you are able to judge the speed of apreoaching vehicles and also the speed at which you can cross the road. You internally mesure the distance and guess whever or not you can make it across in time. This means you are weighing up the risks. Because you could still get hit by the car but it is a calculated risk.

So if anything 40k before in regards to charging was more point and click as the only veriable there was is the ability to guess ranges.

Now you have to weight up the risks. Do I charge in? how close am i, how easy is that to achive on two dice, will i suffer alot of casualties on the way in. all of these dississions are made based off of past experiances and tactics.

IF anything the tactics are back and it is a foolish person to say otherwise.

Gorbad Ironclaw
15-09-2012, 09:11
The idea you can only have tactical aspects of the game by introducing random movement is fundamentally flawed. FoW features premeasuring of everything, no random movement and I'd say its very tactical for exactly those reasons. Its just that GW is from the school of though that favours randomness as the fundamental game mechanic. Now there isn't anything wrong with that. But its only one approach to game design and it won't be for everyone so when you increase the random element there will be some people who don't like it.

Grocklock
15-09-2012, 11:21
The idea you can only have tactical aspects of the game by introducing random movement is fundamentally flawed. FoW features premeasuring of everything, no random movement and I'd say its very tactical for exactly those reasons. Its just that GW is from the school of though that favours randomness as the fundamental game mechanic. Now there isn't anything wrong with that. But its only one approach to game design and it won't be for everyone so when you increase the random element there will be some people who don't like it.

I think you are kind of right, in that there are other ways of changing the game that they could of gone with but they didn't. The problem is that what ever dessission they make there will be people who don't agree with it. Such as FoW, vthis is a game i have played but is not for me. There are dessissions they have made that I decided I didn't like so I switched to a game that I did like.

Haravikk
15-09-2012, 14:07
Them why we couldnt simply use pre-measurement?! why do we need mere random elements? in this edition its only missing random weapon range and random movement:evilgrin:
When most of our actions depends on a dice roll, it depends more in luck than in tactics. That is my major complain about this "game":mad:
Because charges shouldn't always succeed, for a variety of reasons. The old guessing of ranges didn't really do this since seasoned players might as well have been measuring anyway, so instead we now get random ranges to represent the difficulty of charging over longer distances or the possibility for a unit to loses its nerve or encounter difficulties (e.g - an enemy's Overwatch might be too much for them, even if it doesn't do all that much damage) etc. The result is that you have to play tactically by always considering that a charge can fail and plan accordingly; for example, you've got a decent, but not great, chance of succeeding with a unit at 6", but if you have two units then the chances of both failing are similar.

Warhammer games have never been like chess, there's always a random element that could let you down, so the tactics are in how you plan for, and deal with, failure. Having charges as a practical certainty never contributed anything to tactical play. Sure the random range can lead to silly situations where berserk, Fearless warriors somehow lose their nerve, stop to tie their shoelaces or whatever, while charging someone 3" away, but dealing with freak circumstances like that is part of the challenge; if in that example your entire battle strategy hinged on that unit getting into combat on that turn, then the strategy was flawed :)

PATOURSON
15-09-2012, 14:15
So far, 6th ed strikes me as being the work of someone with some great ideas who lacks the technical ability and knowledge to implement them correctly in a ruleset.

+1

There are many good ideas in this 6th edition, most of then not "new" and dating back to 2nd edition (overwatch).
What I hate the most in this edition are Flyers, Challenges and "No Assault After Disembarking".

Challenges because the concept is IMO stupid,
Flyers because they do not fit in a skirmish tactical game played on an area equivalent to a soccer stadium
No assault because I do not believe this is "realistic"

I will however wait for the next codexes to build (correction: confirm) an opinion...

Bubble Ghost
15-09-2012, 14:16
The idea you can only have tactical aspects of the game by introducing random movement is fundamentally flawed. FoW features premeasuring of everything, no random movement and I'd say its very tactical for exactly those reasons. Its just that GW is from the school of though that favours randomness as the fundamental game mechanic. Now there isn't anything wrong with that. But its only one approach to game design and it won't be for everyone so when you increase the random element there will be some people who don't like it.

Portraying this as "random lolwhut vs. tactics" is completely misleading, anyway. Fixed assault distances work in Flames of War but did not work in 40K, and that is because the circumstances and objectives of melee combat are totally different in the two games. Random charges would be lolwhut random in Flames of War, because the factors the charge roll is supposed to represent are already present in that game. But the charge roll makes 40K more tactical, not less, because now you are forced to plan for and earn an advantage which, previously, was dispensed purely by the arbitrary turn sequence and your troops' movement speed, neither of which had any business being deciding factors in close combat.

Szalik
15-09-2012, 15:34
In my opinion there was already too much "random" in this game in 5th edition. Adding "random" charge movement removes yet another static element of the game on which player's gameplan could be based. Nowadays we have random game lenght, random reserves and outflanking (damn it, even side from which they enter is random), random charge distance etc.

Both "to hit" and "to wound" charts are badly written (where are 2+ and 6+ on to hit chart, where are auto wounds with S higher than 2xT, why does the roll of 1 must always fail ?) What will be next, random FOC, random units I have on the table or random army I have to play (auto lose if I don't own it) ?

I think that the game reached a point where I don't really need a long term game plan, what the hell for, if everything is decided by the dice rolls, I just need to respond to the dice results.

I think GW makes this game so much based on randomness to make their main audience, kids, thrilled. For most of the kids, if something is predictable or requires them to think about long term consequences, it is easily labeled as "boring". With all this random fest they can just jump into the middle of board with their miniatures and have a chance of winning.

GW repaired some of the issues from 5ed in their new rulebook but also spoiled some others both old and new. They added some nice things but their fundamental idea is still the same - random = fun. Good for them and their main audience but not for me. I love the miniatures, the setting but lecture of the main rulebook haven't convinced me yet to play one game since June.

Scammel
15-09-2012, 16:09
I think that the game reached a point where I don't really need a long term game plan, what the hell for, if everything is decided by the dice rolls, I just need to respond to the dice results.


Welcome to warfare. History shows us time and time again how random crap buggers up the best-laid plans on this relatively sane, boring planet. Warhammer is a WARgame, one primarily designed to enable players to have fun commanding colourful armies whilst suffering the tumult of conflict - ensuring a balanced engagement every time is a secondary concern. On the other hand, I might classify something like Warmahordes as a warGAME, where clever tricks and combos are the order of the day, whilst an experience in the universe in which they're set is not the primary objective. My view on the issue, anyway.

Bubble Ghost
15-09-2012, 16:16
^That.

I still just don't understand why so many people think that regardless of context, certainty = "tactics" and uncertainty = "random."

Machinehead
15-09-2012, 16:26
Because charges shouldn't always succeed, for a variety of reasons. The old guessing of ranges didn't really do this since seasoned players might as well have been measuring anywayIt would almost be like they had experience in this kind of situation that would carry over from one game to the next so they can grow as a player. Rather than starting from square one every game

Scammel
15-09-2012, 16:30
It would almost be like they had experience in this kind of situation that would carry over from one game to the next so they can grow as a player. Rather than starting from square one every game

The experience they're gaining is different, not gone. 'Range guessing' is the skill of a player. 'Making sure I have a back up if my plans go awry' is the skill of a general.

Omniassiah
15-09-2012, 18:01
The experience they're gaining is different, not gone. 'Range guessing' is the skill of a player. 'Making sure I have a back up if my plans go awry' is the skill of a general.

But the only back up plan in 40k is throw another unit at it, be it through assault or shooting. A back up plan for protecting an assault unit in case it got into trouble would be to smoke or pin the unit and surrounding units its assaulting, unfortunately smoke is not available in 40k and pinning is ineffective at best. Pinning weapons should be a valuable tool for an assault army that they should never leave home without, but frankly nobody goes out their way to include a pinning weapon (For the specific purpose of pinning not the fact that its a really killy weapon Basi/Manticore for example) in their army because its horrifically unreliable to pull off and doesn't really do anything meaningful when it does.You see similar problems with flamethrowers and grenade launchers as special weapons. No list really takes them because they don't really have a good role, both the plasma gun and the meltagun are far more useful in pretty much every situation.

I've also heard a lot of talk in several threads about players needing to support vehicles with infantry and the advantages of combined arms, but I haven't seen a single mention of how to do it. There are no rules that allow for it in game. The only was to support you tanks to protect them from assault is to kill the units first, which is the thrown more units at them again, or to form a wall of models surrounding it. Neither is something I would consider as even remotely a good game play mechanic. Also look at the commonly suggest method of dealing with a Heavy assault unit like Terminators, Shoot them a lot/Mass fire. Its never make sure you bring a unit that can cut through their armor, its just shoot them more. I'm not complaining that its a bad hail mary method of dealing with them but when its considered the primary method we have a problem. 40k has become a game of throwing dice at your opponents units as opposed to actually using tactics, now its always been like that to some extent after 3rd buts its just gotten worse over the editions.



Welcome to warfare. History shows us time and time again how random crap buggers up the best-laid plans on this relatively sane, boring planet. Warhammer is a WARgame, one primarily designed to enable players to have fun commanding colourful armies whilst suffering the tumult of conflict - ensuring a balanced engagement every time is a secondary concern. On the other hand, I might classify something like Warmahordes as a warGAME, where clever tricks and combos are the order of the day, whilst an experience in the universe in which they're set is not the primary objective. My view on the issue, anyway.

Funny thing is all of the tactics I've seen for 40k and fantasy any more are clever tricks and combos that usually abuse a specific rule mechanic. Don't take that as a damnation of the game, its just almost a universal theme in most non-historical miniature wargames. Really only Historical or Semi-historical (FoW) games show any real solid rules that allow for proper movement to contact, suppression, and non-routing morale effects.

Haravikk
15-09-2012, 21:04
It would almost be like they had experience in this kind of situation that would carry over from one game to the next so they can grow as a player. Rather than starting from square one every game
Not, it would be more like they simply had a rule in the game that only served to penalise new players since it served no purpose against experienced ones. What the game is supposed to reward is good overall strategy, and good tactics on the battlefield by reacting well when things do and do not go your way.


But the only back up plan in 40k is throw another unit at it
Not necessarily; it's more of a case that you need to think to yourself "well if this charge does fail, where does that leave the squad", specifically, don't charge into the open if a failure's going to leave your squad where it can be easily destroyed. I've been playing for ages now with random charges in fantasy and they're just a big improvement all round. That said, fantasy does have the advantage that you also add your Movement value to the charge range, which means a guarantee minimum distance; it's a bit unfortunate 40k doesn't get that (unless you count the minimum 2") as it means there is a buffer for a guaranteed charge.

Still, I see it as a big improvement, and a boost in many ways to jump infantry and Fleet units as the combat specialists who can more easily secure a charge.

Mikial
15-09-2012, 21:14
Funny thing is all of the tactics I've seen for 40k and fantasy any more are clever tricks and combos that usually abuse a specific rule mechanic. Don't take that as a damnation of the game, its just almost a universal theme in most non-historical miniature wargames. Really only Historical or Semi-historical (FoW) games show any real solid rules that allow for proper movement to contact, suppression, and non-routing morale effects.

This is so true. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and play a lot, but I harbor no illusions that actual tactics will win games. It's primarily a game of buckets-o-dice in both shooting and cc, and in choosing the right list to counter your opponent's list.

While there are some tactics involved, mainly in setting up smart and using the terrain effectively, as far as real tactics go, it's not really a 40K skill. Far more decisive is cheesy army skills, like regenerating Necrons with rifles that always glance on a six to kill tanks with massed fire, and charging massively deadly CC units like Bloodcrushers into combat as quickly as possible. It is basically an impossibility to win against a better army list using anything approaching real tactics like combined arms and Bounding Overwatch fire and maneuver like actual combat units do.

Omniassiah
15-09-2012, 21:36
Not necessarily; it's more of a case that you need to think to yourself "well if this charge does fail, where does that leave the squad", specifically, don't charge into the open if a failure's going to leave your squad where it can be easily destroyed. I've been playing for ages now with random charges in fantasy and they're just a big improvement all round. That said, fantasy does have the advantage that you also add your Movement value to the charge range, which means a guarantee minimum distance; it's a bit unfortunate 40k doesn't get that (unless you count the minimum 2") as it means there is a buffer for a guaranteed charge.

Still, I see it as a big improvement, and a boost in many ways to jump infantry and Fleet units as the combat specialists who can more easily secure a charge.

Fantasy has an advantage that 40k does not, In fantasy it is extremely hard to have a unit destroyed or severely mauled in one turn with out any chance to respond, while it is very common in 40k especially at short range like a failed charge. That said I have one more games of 40k because people were hesitant about losing models instead of just going on the attack. 95% of the rules in 40k are offensively related, few times will you find it was a better idea to not push the attack and its usually because even after moving your still going to be on the long side of the charge. Even with that case you should still be barreling down on your opponent as fast as you can with an assault, and staying in cover farther back to keep your assault unit safe will rarely pay off in the long run compared to moving out of cover to get that closer assault.

Now if you roll double 1s or a 1 and 2 for your difficult terrain test(because you were using the cover that everyone suggest you use), your right it would be stupid to move out of cover to try for a 9"-10" charge. But what do you do when that same unit gets 5" for its difficult terrain needs to roll a 7 to charge and only manages a 6? There is nothing about that situation that is a statistical oddity, its a risk I would take every single time. Problem is when it happens the only back up plan to it is another unit to shoot or assault the target as well. Remember it will never be a guarantee that you will always have the perfect spacing between cover for every single assault you will want to launch. You will have to move out into the open more often then not.

As for Fantasy and random charges it was a requirement because of reasons that are not present in 40k. Mainly different movement rates on each units. Without random charges any idiot with a unit that can move 5" will get the charge on a unit that moves 4" when you can simply measure to ensure that your unit is just out of charge range. When the entire game is focused around the results of close combats and charges that is something that must be included. My current #1 game is FoW and it has pre-measuring, fixed assault distances, and fixed distances for moving across terrain; however, random assault ranges have been discussed tried and found to generally just not add anything to the game. I'd suggest going back to a fixed 6" or 7" charge for a few games and you'll find it doesn't break the game one bit.


This is so true. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and play a lot, but I harbor no illusions that actual tactics will win games. It's primarily a game of buckets-o-dice in both shooting and cc, and in choosing the right list to counter your opponent's list.

While there are some tactics involved, mainly in setting up smart and using the terrain effectively, as far as real tactics go, it's not really a 40K skill. Far more decisive is cheesy army skills, like regenerating Necrons with rifles that always glance on a six to kill tanks with massed fire, and charging massively deadly CC units like Bloodcrushers into combat as quickly as possible. It is basically an impossibility to win against a better army list using anything approaching real tactics like combined arms and Bounding Overwatch fire and maneuver like actual combat units do.

Too add, I will say the only tactic in 40k is getting in your opponents head. I have won more games with my frankly crappy eldar list (it has warlocks with out powers) because of simply ramming it down my opponents throat. I have preached to new players that every turn you are not using a unit to kill something or hold an objective is a turn you have wasted. fancy maneuvers, and intricately laid plans will lose to an aggressive army most of the time. Most games against someone else who plays aggressively almost purely comes down to dice rolls. Now people may say that gunline armies are playing defensively, but they are not, the only reason they are not moving is because it is required to maximize their out going damage.

40k is 95% offense/5% defense, I'd put warmachine at around 90%/10%, and FoW at 50/50. You can tell this by the number of rules and abilities that affect your units either offensively or defensively in those games. Things like cover in 40k is only marginally useful because a majority of the units in the game are t4 3+ save and the basic weapons of the game rarely if ever break Ap5. The ability to ignore cover is generally not something that you really need to plan into your list because of it. Compare that to FoW where it takes 12 rifle/mg shots to kill a stand (4+ to-hit, 3+ save) in the open to 108(6+ to-hit, 3+ save, 6+ firepower) if they dug in and sat tight or worse impossible to hit if your at long range. That makes planning to take out dug in infantry to be a requirement of any army list.

Verm1s
15-09-2012, 22:34
Topic somehow reminds me of a Larry Leadhead strip (http://www.larryleadhead.org/c30.html) I saw today. Not necessarily in a bad way.

I've only read the first page of this topic (no way I'm trawling through the the other ten) but I'm a bit concerned about the voices who've already said to give it time, get used to it. Voices who liked it straight away. If the game is so dissatisfying to someone, I think all he can do is 'get used to it', if that. Get used to the irritating bits. Get used to list-building around them. Get used to playing the rules, not playing the game.

Makes me think of my historicals club, becoming disgruntled with WAB and Warhammer Historical. There was a lot of doubt that Warlord Games' rules sets would be worth playing, let alone be a better alternative, but that all changed after just a game or two. The rules spoke for themselves. But Gonefishing gladly jumped into 6th ed. right away, and has already played a number of games. No good. How much longer does he have to grind away at something he finds unenjoyable, or how many devotees have to nag at him to "just have fun", until it becomes 'fun'? How much of it is due to dreaded 'change', and how much is down to the dawning thought that GW doesn't really write good games?

logan054
15-09-2012, 23:03
Terrain now purchasable at a 33% increase in price
We need all these fliers to protect us from all these fliers. That's why there's no Skyfire update
Transports suck. Better buy more infantry.
Buy allies! Ooooh, now you have a gateway drug to a new army

Its the same problem every time they try and fox something abusive, rather than take a scalpel to the problem they take a sledgehammer to it, I decided to have a little break from 40k, I think once I get my Vampire counts and warrior chaos done I will come back, not that I really had any problems changing my list for 6th ed, my grey knights still work fine, I guess I will have to wait and see what they do with chaos, alpha legion seem like a tempting choice.

nosebiter
15-09-2012, 23:13
So far, 6th ed strikes me as being the work of someone with some great ideas who lacks the technical ability and knowledge to implement them correctly in a ruleset.

This just hits the nail on the head sooooo much. 6th feels like they had alot of ideas, had no clue how to get them to work, stole from apocalypse, fiddled abit, added stuff from warhammer, fiddled abit and then gave up.

6tth is a complicated game, with clunky mechanics, when it should have been a complex game with streamlined mechanics.

Bubble Ghost
15-09-2012, 23:50
...when it should have been a complex game with streamlined mechanics.

It was never going to be that. There was literally zero chance. They could put the world's greatest games developers in charge of 40K and it would still come out as a cluttered, sprawling mess, and that is because GW would tell those games developers: it has to be compatible with the old codexes. At all costs. That is all that matters. Couldn't care less whether it's any good - just slip it nicely into our product range. Thanks.

Gorbad Ironclaw
16-09-2012, 01:03
Portraying this as "random lolwhut vs. tactics" is completely misleading, anyway.
Although GW have gone in a direction that's starting to be too random to me, I didn't meant to say you can't have tactics in a random game. You certainly can. GW have also done it very successfully before, with a game like Blood Bowl. It can be very random, but, especially in a league, it also gives you the tools to skew odds in your favour. Personally I find that somewhat lacking in the main games, options to push things more in my favour. But that's probably more about preferring a different kind of game play than either option being inherently more 'tactical'. The various approaches will be very different though. And of course, Flames of War, as was the example, had other mechanisms to make assaulting difficult/a choice to think about. It was incredibly deadly and defensive fire/overwatch have a much bigger kick than in 40k. Unless of course you did something to mitigate that.



However as for 40k being a WARgame I don't really buy that. It does not feel even remotely like a simulation to me, not even of its own background material. Its still all about using the rules correctly to your advantage, there are just fewer combo options than a game like War machine because they want to emphasis completely different ways to play.

Bubble Ghost
16-09-2012, 13:18
AHowever as for 40k being a WARgame I don't really buy that. It does not feel even remotely like a simulation to me, not even of its own background material.

I agree. In fact, in a another post I made about the random charge distances recently, I finished with "much more of this, and we might have to start calling 40K a wargame.":D

You don't have to pigeonhole everything as either one or the other, though, as pure simulation or pure game. 40K is mostly gamegame, but it has less of that and more simulation elements than something like Warmachine does, and I don't think there's anything wrong with occupying a middle ground. It does not automatically follow that "uncertainty = random = bad", even if you're not a historical simulation. Which is the point I was agreeing with.

Schismotive
17-09-2012, 03:23
I'd like to add that the strategy of 40k lies only in playing the odds in your favor. Make safe bets, always assume the worst, and do what you can to mitigate bad luck. Other than that positioning is the only bit of 'real' strategy there is.

That being said I've played 'tactics' to no end through 5th and now into 6th. What I'm disappointed in is this: tactics mean nothing. I've played enough games against grey knight players who don't know the first thing about strategy, and gotten tabled. They just move up and shoot, move up and shoot, all the while I'm flanking and popping smoke and taking cover and using good positioning, saturation, with competitive builds and keeping objectives in mind, everything. Yet I still can't touch GK or necrons or what have you these days... I've learned that it's all just bad luck, and bad balance of the game.

So tactics is really just relying on the best odds, which cannot be called tactics in truth because it's just a matter of "heads or tails."

mughi3
17-09-2012, 12:00
I'd like to add that the strategy of 40k lies only in playing the odds in your favor. Make safe bets, always assume the worst, and do what you can to mitigate bad luck. Other than that positioning is the only bit of 'real' strategy there is.

That being said I've played 'tactics' to no end through 5th and now into 6th. What I'm disappointed in is this: tactics mean nothing. I've played enough games against grey knight players who don't know the first thing about strategy, and gotten tabled. They just move up and shoot, move up and shoot, all the while I'm flanking and popping smoke and taking cover and using good positioning, saturation, with competitive builds and keeping objectives in mind, everything. Yet I still can't touch GK or necrons or what have you these days... I've learned that it's all just bad luck, and bad balance of the game.

So tactics is really just relying on the best odds, which cannot be called tactics in truth because it's just a matter of "heads or tails."
pretty much
40K is a "buckets of dice=win " game.
if you want to get into games that really work your on table strategy you really have to turn towards skirmish level games like warmachine which is all about activation sequence or infinity which is all about cover, movement, firelanes, and bringing the right gun to the right gunfight at the right time.

the endearig thing about 40K aside from the large community pool of players which can be found nearly everywhere you go, is the fluff/back story

fortunatley battlefleet gothic retains the fluff both in narrative and special rules for the 40K universe. coupling with a far simpler and clearer rules set.

Caitsidhe
17-09-2012, 14:25
6th Edition is Candyland for adults and a marketing tool for GW. The clunky mechanics are either (depending on your perspective):

1. Poorly designed and lacking any kind of balance (as always) or
2. Well designed to equalize the outcome of the games to be more random short of certain buying

What I am implying is the random factor has been increased in a way that the respective skill on the table has been lowered as a factor while the skill (or wallet) of the respective players prior to coming to the table has been raised. You can keep up with trends and buy your way to a better list. This is the marketing tool which GW is using very effectively. If you believe for a moment that all these flying units being available and pushed now while the units to cope with them are few (and what is available is being pushed for sale) then I have some nice bridges to sell you in New York City. If two players are both keeping up with trends in buying, it falls more to the random than the respective skill of the opponents on the table. This is also a sales tool. If a twelve year old can fight a veteran player with a reasonable chance of performing well, you will be able to sell to more young, poor players. Candyland is very popular with young children because it gives them the illusion of being just as good as the older siblings. Once kids get old enough to figure out they have zero input in Candyland beyond giving the spinner a twirl, they tend to stop playing.

IcedCrow
17-09-2012, 17:08
40k has never really been a game to highlight great "skill" unless the skill has been identifying what is the most powerful unit and then spamming it enmasse. That skill is something I can teach my pet cat.

Caitsidhe
17-09-2012, 18:32
40k has never really been a game to highlight great "skill" unless the skill has been identifying what is the most powerful unit and then spamming it enmasse. That skill is something I can teach my pet cat.

We agree, although that skill (teachable to a cat or not) is a basic military skill. Logistics is just as much a part of military science as knowing how to take the high ground and so on. While 40K has never been a game of intense strategy, there are times and editions wherein the weight fell more on the skill of the individual players and less on the dice and/or pocketbook. This isn't one of those editions. This edition, so far at least, is all about the coin. You can buy (or spam if you like) overwhelming force with the faction of the week, or you can rely on the heavy increase in random factors to assure that you win now and then.

duffybear1988
17-09-2012, 18:56
I have gone back to playing 3rd and 4th edition. The game was more tactical and the army lists were much more varied.

Schismotive
17-09-2012, 22:21
pretty much
40K is a "buckets of dice=win " game.
if you want to get into games that really work your on table strategy you really have to turn towards skirmish level games like warmachine which is all about activation sequence or infinity which is all about cover, movement, firelanes, and bringing the right gun to the right gunfight at the right time.

the endearig thing about 40K aside from the large community pool of players which can be found nearly everywhere you go, is the fluff/back story

fortunatley battlefleet gothic retains the fluff both in narrative and special rules for the 40K universe. coupling with a far simpler and clearer rules set.

Yep, that's why after 6th ed came out I started playing a lot more warmachine/hordes. It's now my main game to be honest. I also really want to check out infinity it looks super fun...

And yes I agree that the 40k universe is still pretty good for the fluff, BUT the new edition and some of the new codices just completely betrayed all that storyline and just did whatever they felt like. (allies, grey knights, necrons, I could go on)

mughi3
18-09-2012, 13:31
Yep, that's why after 6th ed came out I started playing a lot more warmachine/hordes. It's now my main game to be honest. I also really want to check out infinity it looks super fun...

And yes I agree that the 40k universe is still pretty good for the fluff, BUT the new edition and some of the new codices just completely betrayed all that storyline and just did whatever they felt like. (allies, grey knights, necrons, I could go on)

I am still working at making 6th ed enjoyable but it is currently irritating the snot outta me. all armies should be viable but they are not given the way 6th is written. the anti-vehicle players love it, the tread heads hate it, and certain army builds simply do not work. as pointed out in another similar topic the game has become "airshows over stadiums"

the IG have seemd to fair the best with a good selection of aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons and the abiltiy to take down masses of infantry. i am currently working on a few house rules changes that barrow some of the best rules from the past 3 editons to tweak 6th to make it viable for all armies to have a chance at success in. currently aircraft are to durable, ground vehicles are to fragile(especially non-skimmers) and assault armies have been kicked in the shins.

Szalik
18-09-2012, 17:09
I am still working at making 6th ed enjoyable but it is currently irritating the snot outta me. all armies should be viable but they are not given the way 6th is written. the anti-vehicle players love it, the tread heads hate it, and certain army builds simply do not work. as pointed out in another similar topic the game has become "airshows over stadiums"

the IG have seemd to fair the best with a good selection of aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons and the abiltiy to take down masses of infantry. i am currently working on a few house rules changes that barrow some of the best rules from the past 3 editons to tweak 6th to make it viable for all armies to have a chance at success in. currently aircraft are to durable, ground vehicles are to fragile(especially non-skimmers) and assault armies have been kicked in the shins.

You may want to have a look at my experimental changes to 6th edition that I posted in the rules development forum. Give them a try or just use as an inspiration for your own work.

scapegoatboy69
18-09-2012, 21:31
I think that 6th was a step in the right direction in a lot of ways. Mostly in trying to make your Warlord more important and to encourage lists with more variation.

Combined Arms as a concept makes me a happy player.

That said, 40k isn't so much a game as an excuse to show off your pretty models. As has been stated elsewhere, GW is a model making company that happens to run a game. They aren't a gaming company that happens to make models.

Sinisterfence
18-09-2012, 22:44
My friend and I still pretty much play 3rd ed. (well, we use the 5th rulebook as a reference, so it's a hybrid of the two) due to a lack of local players/ living 2+ hours away from each other/ not wanting to play against kids in a busy store and not playing often enough to bother relearning the rules. If you don't like 6th, see if your group wants to continue playing a previous edition. Just because 6th is the latest doesn't mean you have to play it.

big squig
19-09-2012, 20:07
Yeah, after quite a few games of 6th I think I'm done. I really hated 5th ed too and this seems to be no different. Mostly these days I'm just playing better games like kings of war.

Senbei
19-09-2012, 21:08
Yeah, after quite a few games of 6th I think I'm done. I really hated 5th ed too and this seems to be no different. Mostly these days I'm just playing better games like kings of war.

I intend having a nose through the Mantic rules, maybe when I get paid.

That said, I'm one of the few people who still loves the RT rules, simply because there are no races that get a rule that any other can't have (unlike 3rd to 6th where every army seems to have a ton of special rules).

Ulrig
20-09-2012, 04:23
Ive heard good things about Mantic Rules. I plan on picking up a couple armies one day.

Schismotive
20-09-2012, 07:13
I honestly don't have the time to "get good" at 40k all over again. 6th is so much of a revamp that I really enjoy it, but too many armies got cast into the realm of unplayability, including my own. (black templars ofc.) It's like gw wanted 40k to boil down to: "Are you playing grey knights, space wolves, blood angels, imperial guard, or necrons? you're not? Then get out, sorry, but buy new models so you can come back and play."

Caitsidhe
20-09-2012, 13:53
I honestly don't have the time to "get good" at 40k all over again. 6th is so much of a revamp that I really enjoy it, but too many armies got cast into the realm of unplayability, including my own. (black templars ofc.) It's like gw wanted 40k to boil down to: "Are you playing grey knights, space wolves, blood angels, imperial guard, or necrons? you're not? Then get out, sorry, but buy new models so you can come back and play."

Pretty much.

Major_Manny
20-09-2012, 14:08
At least i'm not the only one. Played at 5 games in the last 18 months. Not tried 6th yet (and never will), but everything i've heard about it sounds daft. The allies rules is just a way for GW to sell more, and for people to really **** each other over in pick up games when crazy combo's start coming out.

I've been playing FoW lots just lately, it's great. I really recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in WW2 history. The opponents i've faced in tournements are great, hardly any arguments as the rules are a much tighter set, and less open to people's perspective. If people want to get into the game, then i'm in a gaming group who play at Maelstrom games, we can help teach you the rules, and even lend you anything you may need for your first few battles.

GrogDaTyrant
20-09-2012, 16:30
I've been playing FoW lots just lately, it's great. I really recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in WW2 history. The opponents i've faced in tournements are great, hardly any arguments as the rules are a much tighter set, and less open to people's perspective. If people want to get into the game, then i'm in a gaming group who play at Maelstrom games, we can help teach you the rules, and even lend you anything you may need for your first few battles.

I second everything you said. Flames is a an amazingly well-designed system, and the developers are on the ball with keeping it balanced, enjoyable, and even competitive. The thing I like the most about the system, is that it really is a true combined-arms and highly strategic system. About the only GW game I've seen that really comes close to it in that sense was Epic 40k.

Dwarf Longbeard
20-09-2012, 16:32
I agree here as well, the rules have been done really good and I've always liked how each army is very different.
I'm currently doing tyranids and just starting an imperial guard army; but after doing warhammer 40k for a lot of years and seeing it develop I find it really sad that GW have decided to put all the emphasis on marine chapters, the codex marines is a good book but they seem to have got carried away with the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights making armies which are really powerful have all the benefits of the codex marines and no drawbacks and make other armies seem a bit inferior, not saying that their impossible to beat but at the same time don't always make for the greatest of games.

I do find it ironic that in the old Epic Space Marine game all the armies were fun to play as with none really seeming to be a standout must-have army, then in the game of Warhammer 40,000 the besdt army choice seems to be marines :(

IcedCrow
20-09-2012, 16:36
I've tried to get epic going here many times and never can do it.

Dwarf Longbeard
20-09-2012, 16:49
Thats a shame, epic was one of the first games I played and it was an amazing game it would be great if GW released it again as it used to be :)
I do think people have missed out on not having the chance to play it, the armies all looked good and a full army of squats was impressive to see

Rainbow Dash
20-09-2012, 19:24
I too agree with you, OP, but let me share a little something. When 4th Ed came out, I played Alpha Legion with pure 100% infiltrate, and DE Raider Rush from 3rd Ed. When 5th Ed came in I reacted to it with bitterness. I soon discovered unless I had Rhinos, I was screwed. My DE I'd abandoned because the codex now felt so obsolete it was an insult to play with those models and that list. I took a six month break, came back with a fresh head, open mind, and studyed the edition. Personally I abhor challenges, allies, remove the nearest, fliers. lets not believe the nonsensical "we want this cinematic". We have static plastic figurines. This isn't COD. This edition was about selling toys and making money. Terrain now purchasable at a 33% increase in price We need all these fliers to protect us from all these fliers. That's why there's no Skyfire update Transports suck. Better buy more infantry. Buy allies! Ooooh, now you have a gateway drug to a new army NOBODY 100% likes a new edition, because it means change, and change means effort. We're all adjusting, some better than others. Those who adjust the fastest are the strongest advocates. A sloth like me needs a long break. I recommend that. Come back in 3-6 months, especially after games day and the first couple of 6th ed codecies appear. That'll expand your mind some, and be the real make or break time. 5th Ed was horrible. 6th Ed is better. Not perfect, but better. My irk is more with GW as a practice (yes I know they must make money). I'm taking a step back to cool my heels. Do the same as I. Step back, and think. If you find you're no longer enjoying it, you'd be surprised the money you save. If you love it, that perspective will give you a great edge. yes they are a company but if I am gonna spend so much money on a product I expect to somewhat enjoy it 6th ed is a mess and I flat out can't stand it GW used to be good in the sense that if one of their rulesets pissed me off, I'd jump to the other game (I missed a lot of 4th ed for fantasy, until late 7th when that game went insane, then switched to 40K, then tried 8th, hated it, and kept with 40K, now 6th is out, and I hate it... now what do I do? I guess try and play some earlier editions with people...or another game) I like my chaos, I converted every single model... both games are quite crappy to me, which is a shame, I want to like them, I want to buy the models and play these games but I just find them bad. Its fine GW wants to charge these outrageous prices, I buy second hand anyways. Its fine for a company to want to make money, every company does that. But I do expect to get something half way good for my money. Not finecast, buildings of skulls and 6th ed

IcedCrow
20-09-2012, 20:15
Funny. A lot of people don't find 6th a mess at all. It has brought a lot of older players back to the hobby here.

So speak for yourselves.

I can understand taking a step back. I quit for three years because 7th ed fantasy bored me to tears. 5th ed 40k was "ok". I played it. Enjoyed it for what it is. I enjoy 6th for what it is.

So many internet masters who speak as if they are masters of game design or offering up not an iota of constructive criticicism (why exactly is it crap? what makes it so horrible and a "mess"?) talking about what a mess 6th is, how crap it is... that's great. So go find a game you enjoy. Then enjoy that game. So much time spent on internet forums crying about how you hate the edition and how horrible it is, just leave and go play a game you like and spend your money and free time on something you enjoy.

If you're going to bash the game, offer up something to debate. Otherwise why waste your time typing about something you hate or can't stand?

Vaktathi
20-09-2012, 21:26
People have offered up all sorts of alternative and reasons why certain things don't work and issues for debate. There's plenty in this thread and others to reference. I don't like HP's for example because it's both unnecessary and punitive to have two overlapping kill mechanics that functionally make vehicles into easily crippled MC's, I don't like the Warlord chart because too often they're either irrelevant or too useful depending on build/opponent/mission and are just unnecessary in the first place. I don't like what they did to Power Axes because it basically makes them crappy powerfists instead of anything actually distinct, differentiated purely by being cheaper than powerfists (unlike say, Power Mauls, which give higher S at normal init without having a similar weapon that duplicates that role) while a much better option would have just been to make them -1 init instead of auto-I1 (meaning most units would still be striking at I3 or I4 for characters). Etc.

Inquisitor Shego
20-09-2012, 22:10
Just to clarify by the way. There's nothing wrong with

A) Disliking GW and its practices
B) Disliking this edition
C) Moving to a different game
D) Giving up gaming all together

Free country, and we all have an opinion (unless they have GWs in Belarus). I for one am taking a break (and getting into Flames of War and MTG, liking both so far). Just don't be one of those gamers who treats leaving GW like you do leaving your girlfriend/boyfriend, where it becomes point scoring and spite. They're more scared for your wallet than your hurt feelings. Either way though, I am still enjoying the collecting side, and looking forward to Games Day (I picked the tickets up in May). This will be the event that I suspect makes or breaks it for me. Failing that, I'll always have Gothic, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl, plus I can always dust off my armies for a game or two when the urge takes me. But this break is nice. It has done me the world of good. I guess I'm waiting on the Chaos Marine Dex to pull me back in.

Here's a question. What would it take for GW to win those of you back who are still on the fence?

Senbei
20-09-2012, 23:06
Here's a question. What would it take for GW to win those of you back who are still on the fence?

Dump finecast (it will happen eventually, when EVERYTHING goes plastic)

Cut back on special rules.

Fix hull points, especially on slow light vehicles and walkers.

Allies could be done better.

Gonefishing
20-09-2012, 23:27
Here's a question. What would it take for GW to win those of you back who are still on the fence?

It seems churlish to say it - but releasing 7th edition.....

The Codexes really dont matter to me at this point, I have been waiting for a new Tau Codex for 6 years now - and the rumour mill says it will finally come in 2013, but for me this is now an irrelevance (which is a shame). They can release the book, give Tau cool new toys and bring them up-to-date, but it wont change the fact that I personally dislike the core rules of the game and completely disagree with the direction GW is now traveling in. A new codex will not change the core rules of the game - unless GW use the Codexes to overwrite the core rules - which they wont do.

What I would really like to see is a "Gamers" edition, I played 40k because I enjoyed the game, yes some of the models are quite cool, and the fluff can be an interesting read, but neither of these things would tempt me to spend money on little toy soldiers without the actual "game". I dont particually enjoy the Hobby side of the game (painting/modeling), and I dont want to have to house rule a game to make it playable - I want to play the rules in the book.

So for me - a gamers edition, without the use of the sentences like "Forging a narrative", or words like "Cinematic" (my imagination can provide these things without it being dictated by the core rules). Release a Gamers Edition, that used a tight defined ruleset and promoted balance and decent game design rather than giving up entirely on that and give the customer a choice of cinematic narrative forging or playing a balanced ruleset.

I doubt GW would ever do it, but a gamers edition would placate both camps, and give people a choice to use the rules set that most appeals to them - would be interesting to see what generated the most sales!

The_Klobb_Maniac
20-09-2012, 23:44
Disclaimer: This post is all over the place.

I don't think that'd work. It'd be like the FW vs. Codex thing. There'd be camps that say "this is correct!" and "I don't have to play you!" and "Nuh uh I can refuse if you're ugly" debates galore. It's like HC COD, where it's just different and you split the community (which is bad.) While I think tighter rules are good, they already moved that direction this edition. It's much tighter than it was and the FAQs are moving along better than they had been. If they keep up on FAQs every, say, 3-6 months, that'd be awesome! Frankly, one of the reasons I like this edition so much is that it IS so much tighter. There's so few debates to be had on core rules at this point. Last edition we had 2-year long unsolved arguments where things were consistently and constantly house-ruled; where things were never certain if they were played right and we just approximated. As of right now, most of the rules are pretty solid, like them or not.

On the HC COD thing, I see FW as similar to when a company releases an expansion that isn't backwards compatible (although FW is.. so...) where it ends up shrinking the community sometimes because people can't keep up. DLCs are annoying for this for sure.

This game will never be "MTG tight" ya know? And if it was, I don't know if it'd be quite as entertaining.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 02:12
I would suggest then that those who are looking for a tight laced logic-centric tactical chess-like game find one that appeals to them. 40k has never been it. We get it we really do. I fully agree with those that say that it's not. Because it's not.

I just think that it seems like a great waste of energy to repeatedly slam something over and over again. It kind of feels like politics. We get it. If you are seeking a tactical GAME like chess and less of a story driven game or a game that introduces things out of your control, you hate it and its a mess. No argument, you hate it. Cool.

* Warmachine
* Mantic Kings of War
* Mantic's sci fi game
* Flames of War

Those are all pretty popular alternatives. You could spend your time on those sites discussing why you love those games instead of spending hours here telling us why the game is horrible. I guess since the game was released in early June, hearing the same negative things being parroted over and over again get old. When I took a three year break from warhammer and 40k because i really didn't like 7th ed fantasy or 4th ed 40k, I stopped coming onto warhammer related sites since they no longer interested me. I don't see the point in repeatedly visiting a site of a game you can't stand to tell everyone you can't stand it after several months of doing so.

We get it. It's time to move on.

Machinehead
21-09-2012, 03:05
I would suggest then that those who are looking for a tight laced logic-centric tactical chess-like game find one that appeals to them. 40k has never been it. We get it we really do. I fully agree with those that say that it's not. Because it's not.

I just think that it seems like a great waste of energy to repeatedly slam something over and over again. It kind of feels like politics. We get it. If you are seeking a tactical GAME like chess and less of a story driven game or a game that introduces things out of your control, you hate it and its a mess. No argument, you hate it. Cool.

* Warmachine
* Mantic Kings of War
* Mantic's sci fi game
* Flames of War

Those are all pretty popular alternatives. You could spend your time on those sites discussing why you love those games instead of spending hours here telling us why the game is horrible. I guess since the game was released in early June, hearing the same negative things being parroted over and over again get old. When I took a three year break from warhammer and 40k because i really didn't like 7th ed fantasy or 4th ed 40k, I stopped coming onto warhammer related sites since they no longer interested me. I don't see the point in repeatedly visiting a site of a game you can't stand to tell everyone you can't stand it after several months of doing so.

We get it. It's time to move on.There's a HUGE issue with this. Many, likely most, people here complaining have already put time, effort, and most importantly MONEY into this game. When the product is given such a drastic change from what's it's been building to for the last 10 years what do you suggest they do? Just go with saying all the time and money was a waste and start all over again?

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 03:15
Well I would suggest they do what I did. Which is put it away for a while and find something else.

Do you really think if you come on here screaming and throwing fits that suddenly you're going to get an edition change that gives you your way?

Do you really think that the vast majority hates the new edition?

Why is it more fair for you to get a system you enjoy and the people who like the current system to not like it?

40k has been the tactical chess game for over a decade now. They switched audiences for a while. Do you know what the reaction was when it was announced they'd be going more "narrative" and catering less to tournament style gaming? They got a room full of applause. While I know there are a LOT of people who like the old style chess/logical structure, there are also a LOT of people that like the strategy/narrative structure more. So which side gets to win?

Well... none of us work for GW and have zero say. So to say 'both sides should win' is fine and well but obviously has never happened. So that leaves either making your own game... or finding a game that suits your needs... you know like the rest of us who don't really like the old way have had to do.

Why is it ok for the tactical chess crowd to scream bloody murder and pout and throw a fit because the game doesn't cater to them anymore when for over a decade the other side of the coin had to sit and deal with a system they didn't like?

A lot of the guys that didn't like the game put it away. And they invested just as much time and money. I know I have a lot tied into both systems when I put it down from 2007 - 2010. Do you know how many posts I made about how much I hated 7th and what a mess it was or how boring 4th ed 40k was?

*0*

Why should the game always cater to you? Why should it always alienate the other side?

The other side gets its time in the sun for a while now. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

Omniassiah
21-09-2012, 03:41
I just think that it seems like a great waste of energy to repeatedly slam something over and over again. It kind of feels like politics. We get it. If you are seeking a tactical GAME like chess and less of a story driven game or a game that introduces things out of your control, you hate it and its a mess. No argument, you hate it. Cool.


Why are those bolded things mutually exclusive? Why can't I have a solid tight rule set that provides a good story? This is the thing that always gets me in these discussions, those who want the rule set to be tighter and a bit more balanced still want the solid feel of the universe while the other side just seems to look at having rules be less ambiguous like its the black plague. Okay, maybe it is like politics. Personally I like the universe, well at least before the it goes to 11 stuff, but the rules have just started to be a convoluted mess of 3 editions.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 04:05
Why are those bolded things mutually exclusive? Why can't I have a solid tight rule set that provides a good story? This is the thing that always gets me in these discussions, those who want the rule set to be tighter and a bit more balanced still want the solid feel of the universe while the other side just seems to look at having rules be less ambiguous like its the black plague. Okay, maybe it is like politics. Personally I like the universe, well at least before the it goes to 11 stuff, but the rules have just started to be a convoluted mess of 3 editions.

I don't see the rules as that big a deal. They aren't perfect by any means but they entertain me. Less ambiguous wouldn't bother me either.

What people harp on over and over and over and over and over and over is that their style of game is no longer represented or catered to and less about how the rules are structured. The old "the game is so random even a 5 year old can beat a vet now" garbage that has been repeated and parroted for months now.

I personally don't want a tactical chess game because I want a game that has unforseen elements in it that you have to react to. So I don't want a tactical game like chess with story elements, because it would still be dull and boring to me and play itself out pretty much like it was scripted.

That's my own preference.

I still go back to what we think we will accomplish by stating how awful the game is 100x over when we get it and understand the first dozen or so times back in June that random unforseen elements in games **** tactical players that don't like that off. That doesn't make it a bad game. That makes it a game not desired by players that want cut and dry tactics.

Schismotive
21-09-2012, 05:32
Unfortunately what's really hurting the game is how utterly unbalanced it is... older armies can't even make proper lists anymore. And I haven't won a game of 6th since my army is so bad...

big squig
21-09-2012, 06:20
I am TOTALLY fine with making 40k more narrative and cinematic. The last thing I want is for 40k to become chess or mtg like and be tournament centric. I think all wargames are terrible for tournament play. Any game with 3D figures and terrain and measuring can't be all that tight or exact.

That said, I also still feel like you can have a narrative and cinematic games with simple clear rules. That's my problem with 40k right now. It's just really really messy. It's like they got half-way done making a game and just quit.

Ya know, GW makes great models, so maybe that's what they should stick too and then they could out-source the game design and rules printing to fantasy flight games. They already have permission to use the warhammer license and have made some good stuff. They have more and better designers as a resource compared to GW too.

duffybear1988
21-09-2012, 09:09
Well I would suggest they do what I did. Which is put it away for a while and find something else.

Do you really think if you come on here screaming and throwing fits that suddenly you're going to get an edition change that gives you your way?

Do you really think that the vast majority hates the new edition?
No, but then the vast majority voted in George Bush, Kept Hitler in Power, believe that 9/11 was the work of terrorists. The vast majority of people are quite happy living their lives looking through rose tinted glasses.

Why is it more fair for you to get a system you enjoy and the people who like the current system to not like it?
Because a few of us are the exception to all the rules. I have been playing this game since it was Rogue Trader so surely my dedication should count for something.

40k has been the tactical chess game for over a decade now. They switched audiences for a while. Do you know what the reaction was when it was announced they'd be going more "narrative" and catering less to tournament style gaming? They got a room full of applause. While I know there are a LOT of people who like the old style chess/logical structure, there are also a LOT of people that like the strategy/narrative structure more. So which side gets to win?
If you fill a room with idiots and tell them something 'amazing' then you will probably get a clap - that's what happens when you surround yourself with 'Yes Men'. I imagine that the politicians and bankers clapped as they drove the world into economic meltdown...

Well... none of us work for GW and have zero say. So to say 'both sides should win' is fine and well but obviously has never happened. So that leaves either making your own game... or finding a game that suits your needs... you know like the rest of us who don't really like the old way have had to do.

Why is it ok for the tactical chess crowd to scream bloody murder and pout and throw a fit because the game doesn't cater to them anymore when for over a decade the other side of the coin had to sit and deal with a system they didn't like?
Because frankly we have invested so much into this game. This game has been tactical chess for a lot longer than 10 years. GW took an idea and made it into a thinking mans game. Now we find out that they have torn down everything we used to know, everything we have invested in and have given us something completely different. It's like voting in the Labour party for 20 years and then finding out that they have renamed themselves the Conservatives and are changing everything they already did just to sell more to kids and idiots.

A lot of the guys that didn't like the game put it away. And they invested just as much time and money. I know I have a lot tied into both systems when I put it down from 2007 - 2010. Do you know how many posts I made about how much I hated 7th and what a mess it was or how boring 4th ed 40k was?
I disagree - 3rd, 4th and 5th editions of 40k were very similar in principle and play. Nothing is as messy as 6th edition...

*0*

Why should the game always cater to you? Why should it always alienate the other side?
Because it has always catered mostly for my side.

The other side gets its time in the sun for a while now. There's nothing unreasonable about that.
True, but how many people will put down their Warhammer and not return? It's all very well catering for kids, but they never stick with anything for long. How about showing the veteran oldies some love.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

Caitsidhe
21-09-2012, 13:10
When I buy a car I expect it to look nice both interior and exterior. More importantly, I expect it to drive well, i.e. not be a lemon. When we buy a product, particularly a so-called luxury product, it isn't unfair to expect the full package. The models look good. Check. The game is garbage. What else is there to say? They market it and label it as a game. They don't get to have it both ways. I agree that IF they want to claim they are just a hobby company, they should get out of the rules business altogether and let someone else (or hire them) to produce a quality game to go with the models. This mindset of accepting mediocrity or downright garbage on the basis that they do a good job on the models is alien to me. I want what I pay for. Those rule books and various codex aren't cheap. I expect a fair exchange which they are not providing.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 13:31
Ok. So if the game is garbage and you hate it, why bother spending anymore time on this site posting about it?


Because it has always catered mostly for my side

I've had to endure roughly fourteen years of that side, and it was a side I wasn't really happy with so you'll understand why I am happy that I get to enjoy something that I enjoy over something that I felt I had to endure.


If you fill a room with idiots and tell them something 'amazing' then you will probably get a clap - that's what happens when you surround yourself with 'Yes Men'. I imagine that the politicians and bankers clapped as they drove the world into economic meltdown...

There's a good example of condescension that sparks internet flame wars. The room wasn't full of yes men or idiots. It was full of people who love the game and have endured the past few "trainwrecks" of the game who were tired of the tournament mentality running the game and were elated to hear that they'd finally get a bone thrown their way.


This mindset of accepting mediocrity or downright garbage on the basis that they do a good job on the models is alien to me.

If the game was garbage, I don't care how pretty the models are, I wouldn't be a part of it (as I demonstrated from 2007 - 2010 when I packed up my stuff and found other things to do with my spare time). If someone, however, loves the models over the game, that's their right. Not everyone is in the hobby strictly for the game. And I'd say the majority of people that I know and game with love the new rules and would strongly disagree that they are garbage.


Those rule books and various codex aren't cheap. I expect a fair exchange which they are not providing.
So again that goes back to, if the game is garbage to you, why would you bother wasting your time posting about it ad naseum? I mean I can understand the initial posts back in June but here we are rolling into October and the same people are saying the same things as if that is going to change something or that we don't already know how you feel about the subject.

I don't like Flames of War. I don't like Warmachine. They don't "do it" for me. So I don't play them. And I have made no posts on their forums or fan forums about how I don't like their game.

I used to play Magic back in the mid 90s when it was a new concept and loved it for a couple of years before the tournament mentality burned me out on it and I sold my cards.

The same principal applies here. Sell your stuff and move on, or hold on to it and wait for the new edition in five years or so and hope that it brings back fixed charge length, no random terrain, gets rid of challenges, and makes tanks and transports no-brainers to take in assault again and makes it so that they are very hard to kill, and then enjoy it. I have no doubt that those days will happen again. For the next five years at least, I will enjoy the game for what it is. When "The Thrill is Gone", I will put my stuff away or sell it. I may post a couple times my disappointment but raging for months doesn't seem very constructive or useful.

They need a new forum here "people that hate GW games" and you can all get together down there and talk about how great other games are and how GW games are for the devil and how garbage they are etc. It would certainly clear up a lot of strife on the boards and make them more worth coming to, because when I come to a warhammer site I want to read about tactics, modeling, etc, not hear the same dozen or so guys continuing to rage like republicans still do four years after Obama got elected saying the same things over and over. We get it we really do. You don't like the game. It's candyland for adults. All of us that like the game now could never beat any of you for real and that's why we like it. We're all yes men and brainless idiots and GW fan boys. Not a one of us has any tactical capacity in our brains so of course like stupid baby seals we clap for a system that makes up for our retardation (somehow I managed to squeeze out a decent chess rating and a good dozen tournament plaques from older edition of fantasy and 40k, that must be a fluke though as I don't have any tactical merit) I think I covered most of the condescending comments I've seen thrown that way, if I missed one let me know.

I hope Flames of War, Warmachine, or Mantic games bring the happiness back into your life that was robbed from you when 8th ed fantasy and 6th ed 40k introduced random elements and steered the game from tactical to strategical. I hear they are a lot of fun for those types. In fact, nearly 100% of our optimizer tournament crowd wholesale quit 40k for warmachine and are having a blast with it and we don't hear them slagging 40k anymore and it's been a golden time of "everyone is having fun again".

So if "the thrill is gone", find a new thrill.

IcedCrow
21-09-2012, 13:43
Something you may like is a diceless system floating around the internet. I found it on a blog in Aug and some of our locals are trying it.

It is 40k though there is nothing random. No random movement. No random terrain. No dice.

Essentially its 100% tactical like chess. It actually looks like fun.

Units have a firepower rating and a defense rating and a melee rating. You simply shoot, and remove models, or engage in combat, and remove models and you have a unit threshold that you have to breach before they flee, and if you kill that many models they fall back.

Game also supposedly can be done in an hour or less and plays like freeform chess would.