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