What are peoples HONEST views of 6th ed as a whole?

[Erik_Morkai]

As a whole I like the 6th edition. The random terrain is great for spicing up a game.

Hull points: Disappointed a bit BUT I understand and accept it. Won't see me whine about hull points.

Psychic Powers: Love many of the new powers but the randomness makes it hard to build a list around a powerset unless you build around the Primaris.

Not attacking when coming in from outlfank really pissed me off though.

My Eldar got totally shafted but I know I know new Codex and all that. I will believe it when I see it. Until then sucks being an Eldar.

[d6juggernaut]

Dislike the new random factors.

Like the rest

[Radium]

At first I was really hesitant about some of the changes like premeasuring and random warlord traits. But I've come to enjoy those quite a lot.

Overall, I love 6th! It fixes most of the stuff I hated about 5th (mechanization) and for it has really put the fun back in playing 40k.

[brightblade]

My group loves it. We have been playing a long time and feel it is the best edition yet. It is fun, intuitive and evocative. None of the negative issues have raised their heads at all, we all use flyers and vehicles and play in a fluffy yet competitive way. There will always be people who try to take advantage of gaps in rules in order to win and these are the players to avoid. This need to win comes from a lack of respect for the hobby and other players. It is meant to be fun for all, the biggest compliment I can give 6th is that the major moaners about the various changes are the Waac players! Long live fun for all!

My honest opinion, not seen or played in a game of 6th where either player has complained about anything that has happened in game.

[Killgore]

I love it , but it has a few sticking points.

Power mauls are a HUGE let down for me, Chaos and blunt objects go together so well, so I have to do a lot of clipping. Power lances are also a let down, so it's all swords and axes for me and that's boring to look at (Imagine a chaos lord on a bike with a daemonic lance).

Power mauls are one of my favourite things in the new book, I like to strike at init, so fist/ axe won’t cut it for my HQ, a power sword will probably bounce off a 2+ save or invulnerable, so for me the maul allows me to hit hard, very hard with strength 6, fast and often

I've enjoyed 6th ed so far, the rules work fine, pre-measuring is not a big problem and if someone is being incredibly fussy about which model gets hit first then they probably aren’t worth playing against next game.

[Kevlar]

People are upset because they made one weapon good against TEQ, one weapon good against MEQ, and one weapon good against GEQ? With Powerfist the same, a good anti-vehicle and MC weapon? Really? The maul is literally the best weapon of them all against a quarter of the armies.

[Sami]

My honest view of 6th edition follows the trend of most of my views toward Mat Ward (oh no you didn't etc) projects: I really like the new ideas (allies, flyers, challenges, new wound allocation, etc), but utterly mostly hate their implementation (skyfire being mandatory, no wound overflow in challenges, 2+ save characters and Look Out Sir abuse, etc). The core rules don't feel anywhere near as tight as 5th edition did, and very much feels like it was play tested with a "this is what I mean" attitude rather than a "this is what it actually says" attitude. However, my biggest beef with 6th edition have been the codex FAQs which were shockingly bad and the lack of rejigging older books to stand a chance with the newer changes. Sadly, going by the reports from the open day it seems to be company policy not to retroactively update older books (except for, you know, all the times they've done it in the past and some of the updated they did with the 6th FAQs).

5th edition was a solid rulebook with some very broken codexes. 6th may come with the kitchen sink, but don't look to carefully or you'll see the cracks very quickly. I can only hope that the 6th codexes follow the fantasy route for 8th and are far more consistent with their power level rather than the ridiculous one-upmanship of the 5th edition books which just reeked of desperation to scare everyone into buying the new models (yes I am aware GW is a miniatures company foremost).

Oh well, 2 more years and there should be enough books out for everything to be balanced.


edit: my biggest annoyance is that they're still esperately clinging on to the existing armour/AP system rather than either using modifiers or opposing checks like strength/toughness. If you have an Armour Value (not vehicle here) of 6 and get hit by a weapon with armour penetration of 4, you get a 2+ save. AP of 5 would be 3+, AP6 (equal) wound be 4+, etc. But noooo, must sell the terminators and keep marines speshel

[totgeboren]

I don't really like pre-measuring, it will take some time getting used to. But it's not a big problem. Felt a bit strange to measure range with my plasmagun and find out that I was 25" away, and say "Well then I won't fire".
I really like the rest though, but close combat has been nerfed something fierce.

I also like the way casulties are removed, I had a cool close combat between some chaos marines and Dire Avengers last night, really tight, and all the leaders were dead. Was cool to see the grunts get to do something too. ^^

And speaking of. My Lord with Termies teleported behind enemy lines, and after a bunch of snipers and such killed everyone except a single Terminator with a bolter (had used the combi-weapon) and Power Maul. So this guy assaults a bunch of Scouts (the Eldar player has some allied BA Terminators and a squad of scouts. He wanted to use his Space Hulk models!) and boy was I happy about having a mace on my Terminator! Strike at I and kill on 2+, the scout squad didn't stand a chance! So he killed everyone around that objective, meaning I won!

I have only played two games, and what I have learned is that jump infantry is awesome at taking out vehicles. Not so much at taking out shooty infantry. Generally, shooty infantry is king in 6ed, then vehicles, then assault infantry, though you really need assault infantry if you play with lots of buildings (which we do). Trying to outshoot a shooty squad in a building with your own shooty infantry is pointless. However, assault with a bunch of grenade cc guys and you will have that building cleared in no-time.

Having a "Close Combat army" seems like it is bound to fail. CC squads are more of a specialist option now, being good at taking out vehicles and infantry in buildings. But your basic army really needs to be shooty, otherwise you will get destroyed in short order. And vehicles can't even deny enemy units from claiming objectives, so you can't really base your army around them either.

[Str10_hurts]

Its new and refreshing, the definitive verdict will have to wait at least a year.

The short version of the story would be 6th is great and fun for casual/campaign games and less suited for tournaments due to quite a lot of random rolls (note, charges) and needing sixes.

Power play as others had said will always be there, setting rules to you maximum advantage will not disappear in any kind of game/edition.

[brightblade]

I think 40k is like most things in life, you get out what you put in. If you search for gaps between your codex and the rules to exploit then you will always be disappointed. If you play the game the way it is intended to be played then everything will turn out ok.

This edition is fun! Pure fun! Play it so and it will be ok, look to abuse rules to keep your nobs alive and you will not. Simple as.

[TheDoctor]

Not happy, but not rage-quitting either.

After playing a few games, this is the stuff that bugs me the most:

• Pre-measuring - Slows things down, pulls me out of the game: "Let me just move them one inch back so they're in perfect range *measuring* no wait, one inch more, need to make sure I'm not being assaulted by that other unit *measuring*"
• Wound Allocation - Line of sight checking is even more tedious than it was in 5th, especially when combined with wound allocation: "The sergeant is closer man *looks* No it's not, it's the normal marine *looks* Well okay, I guess...roll for it? *looks again*"
• Power Mauls - The vast majority of your opponents will have a 3+ save. I hate having to cut off all my mauls, and feel further insulted by the idea that they're presented as being competitive with the other (real) power weapons.
• Little things - Competitive terrain distribution? Slow. Or worse: a narrative setup, but after you know what your deployment zone is going to be? The previous method was way more elegant. Not to mention the diagonal deployment method...very annoying placing one ruler across the entire table, and then use another to measure 12" from that line. Just doesn't work in practice.

They're all just annoying little things, but together they paint a picture of a chaotic ruleset. Can't imagine how the tournament scene is going to work with this...though I imagine its great for fluff and scenario players.

in regards to diagonal deployment
on a 4'x4' table, your deployment zones should be 17" from the corner

on a 6'x4' table, 20" on the long side, 16" on the short

although double check just to be sure

[Blinder]

(snip)

I have only played two games, and what I have learned is that jump infantry is awesome at taking out vehicles. Not so much at taking out shooty infantry. Generally, shooty infantry is king in 6ed, then vehicles, then assault infantry, though you really need assault infantry if you play with lots of buildings (which we do). Trying to outshoot a shooty squad in a building with your own shooty infantry is pointless. However, assault with a bunch of grenade cc guys and you will have that building cleared in no-time.

Having a "Close Combat army" seems like it is bound to fail. CC squads are more of a specialist option now, being good at taking out vehicles and infantry in buildings. But your basic army really needs to be shooty, otherwise you will get destroyed in short order. And vehicles can't even deny enemy units from claiming objectives, so you can't really base your army around them either.

One thing I'm waiting to see is if we witness the rise of the "reverse speed-bump," mostly-throwaway squads taken by CC-minded armies to assault particularly prickly targets before the expensive professional stabbity types charge in. Then it's back to your regularly scheduled "how the heck do I get my supposed combat troops who *don't* get to ignore the rules into a fight?!?"

[Johnnya10]

I'm really enjoying 6th. Have only played a few games but I think challenges are a great idea. Flyers could be really good but every army needs to get one before we can really judge it. Allies works! I was a huge sceptic at first but now I think it's a great idea.

I'm not loving the power weapon rule changes but I'm adapting to them quite well. But really, that's my only gripe so all in all, I definitely prefer it to 5th. It feels more flexible, more exciting and the randomness part can be pretty fun. A few trees trying to eat you is hardly as bad as a vortex grenade bouncing all over the place so it's not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

[Pyriel]

6th ed brings great things in 40k. too bad the FAQs suck and , combined with 6th-ed changes, hurt some armies real bad(oh yes, Eldar, I'm looking at you).

[totgeboren]

One thing I'm waiting to see is if we witness the rise of the "reverse speed-bump," mostly-throwaway squads taken by CC-minded armies to assault particularly prickly targets before the expensive professional stabbity types charge in. Then it's back to your regularly scheduled "how the heck do I get my supposed combat troops who *don't* get to ignore the rules into a fight?!?"

Yeah, I was thinking about this regarding my Orks. Really, assaulting big squads with lots of firepower means you might suffer too many casualties to win the fight. But by assaulting with a small mob of Grots first your enemy has to decide if they want to Overwatch fire at the grots, or hope they fail their assault and save the firepower for the Orks.

Just having a single Deathstar became slightly less viable. Sadly I think the big losers are units like basic ork sluggaboys, Howling Banshees and Wytches.

[semper_fi]

My honest opinion i really like it!
i used to play alot of 5th (almost every night) and then i switched to 6th with my wife, we both added some fliers to our armies and the fun even got bigger!!!

My wife even decided to expand her army after deciding to switch to another one

[Lord Inquisitor]

My overall reaction was "meh".

Good points:

• Proper rules for fliers (yay!)
• Overwatch (finally!)
• Allies & fortifications allow great modelling, theming and narrative opportinuties.
• More detailed terrain, even if it does seem to be out to get you.
• Interesting and varied objective-based scenarios that don't seem to have a "watchtower" scenario of silliness.
• Premeasuring (finally!)

Bad points:

• Wound allocation is just dumb. Just not very well thought out and all sorts of sniping shenanigans will be the norm.
• Overly rules-heavy. Many areas could be simplified. There's a special rule that just gives you two other special rules!
• Fliers really strain the balance of the game, at least until the codexes are updated and everyone gets fliers or AA units.
• Overwatch is really too little for what the game needed, being a stunted version of a "stand and shoot" reaction.
• Allies & fortifications damage the balance of the game, the min-max options are endless.
• Challenge rules ported in from WFB along with all the issues of challenges in WFB and some new ones. A mess and a failure to promote dramatic challenges.

Other areas I'm fairly okay with but am not particularly excited. Hull points are okay but by this point it really begs the question why not actually switch to a Toughness/Wounds system rather than the flaky armour system they have. Random charges are alright, possibly needed because of premeasuring but I am not delighted about extra randomness in the game.

Overall there seems to be a serious lack of interest in making a balanced game, not that it was particularly balanced before. I can't say 6th has set my world on fire, I was hoping for a bit more of a "growing up" in 40K's design philosophy. 8th WFB represented a really good shakedown of the game and a reinvention that worked well, but 6th is very much a minor change based on 5th. 40K seems to be heading firmly in "roll dice and have silly fun" direction but we'll see what the first codex looks like when it comes out.

[Chapters Unwritten]

Yeah i think I would be up for giving it a blast without flyers...but theres just the thought that someone, somewhere will use 9 vendettas lol

And will barely be able to control their position with the flyer rules.

I don't really know why I keep going into these 6th ed threads, the remarks are always so asinine. Above me, someone mentions allies being a horrible thing because of "endless min max possibilities." Virtually every army except the nids got a buff from that change, how exactly is it so balance destroying? And my GOD am I tired of the "zOMG 9 VENDETTAS WTF" stuff.

My opinion is the game is the most tactical it's been in years, and with all editions, it is what you make of it.

[Lord Inquisitor]

It means that for any given unit, you are looking not only at the balance within the list, but now the synergy with every other list it can ally with. Playtesting any given list exhaustively now has gone from "hard" to "pretty much impossible". Given that GW doesn't tend to notice even obvious combos within the lists ("we never thought anyone would take two lashes!") the possibility of them accounting for broken ally possibilities is remote.

As I said above, overall I really like the ally rules. I've been having a lot of fun digging out my bits and pieces of Lost and the Damned models and trying to put together traitor guard allies for my CSM. I think it's good fun. I just don't think it lends itself well to good inter or intra list balance.

[Sekhmet]

What I like better about 6th:

* the neutering of the paladin/nob biker wound factory

What? They got better...

What i don't like about 6th is the randomness of terrain, warlords, and psychic powers.

I also don't like look out sir. It could be fixed if it didn't work if the character started the shooting phase as the closest target. Or alternatively if ics don't get to look out sir on a 2+, but a 4+ like other characters.