The Thrill Is Gone?

[Gonefishing]

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

[Azazel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 , just takes a little time.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

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]

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?

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]

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.