5386
Post by: sennacherib
Lots of people have been posting strong opinions here and in other forums about the changes made by GW when they released 6th edition 40k.
How do you feel dakka.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Pretty happy with it. I'll reserve final judgement after the BRB FAQ, the SM codex, and the Tau codex.
5636
Post by: warpcrafter
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
I like it. I liked 5th more, but 6th is fun in a different way, I suppose.
My only major gripe is the new USRs. The naming's all different and some abilities are changed, so I constantly have to flip through my book =/
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Exactly.
5th edition may or may not have been a better rules edition, technically speaking, but from my little experience from 6th ed so far, this edition seems to be a lot more fun.
Games of 5th ed at my FLGS would involve playing the games, maybe chatting a little, and then everybody more or less going home. Last monday when I played, people stood around talking until the store closed, mostly relaying epic events that had happened in their games.
If this was GW's intent (which I think we can safely say it was), then they've certainly been rather successful, at least so far.
33172
Post by: ChiliPowderKeg
I've enjoy 6th edition thus far.
Being able to use my brothers marines as allies is pretty fun and has created some thematic moments as hoped 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Im liking the warlord traits, now if only some werent so useless, The Deceit one is useless of you are going second. The Extra Vistory point from an enemy Chracter is useless, no one accepts Challenges then(one did, but it was clear who was winning by then)
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im liking the warlord traits, now if only some werent so useless, The Deceit one is useless of you are going second. The Extra Vistory point from an enemy Chracter is useless, no one accepts Challenges then(one did, but it was clear who was winning by then)
Apparently books are going to get their own warlord tables as well, so we should see some more stuff later on.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, after getting familiar with the rules, I actually like (not love) it. The rule set is more complete than it has been before: flyers, buildings, fortifications, allies, psychic powers, missions, warlord, USR, overwatch.
Some rules are a bit strange like disembarking from a non-open topped vehicle and not being able to charge, hitting of vehicles in cc.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
It's mediocore just as 5th, a little worse maybe. Some good changes overshadowed by cheap cinematics and unnecessary randomness.
39529
Post by: gaovinni
I like the 6th edtion rules. I've had more fun with them so far than with the rules for 5th. I have no complaints.
62185
Post by: Mongoosepanda
I like the sound of challenges, gives characters a chance at a potentially epic fight without being obliterated by other stuff. Allies also remove some of the limitations within armies and makes them a bit more diverse which is nice. 
26672
Post by: Sephyr
So far I don't like it much. Worsens balance issues, still relies too much on random tables for important stuff like we're still playing Mordheim and encourages shielded gunlines with flyers zooming out overhead a bit too much.
Waiting for the FAQ and new books to revise my opinion, but I have low expectations.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
i like it a lot. Big improvemnent on 5th both in terms of tactical depth and balance (there are still balance issues but substantially less so, I find). I also find it more fun -- it just feels better suited to the mythos.
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
After 5 games of 6th I like it a lot. Its not as dramatic a change as Warhammer underwent, but its enough to really make games interesting and fun again.
Basic troops with Rapid fire weapons are a lot more useful, being able to manoeuvre and still put out a lot of fire opened up new tactical options. Its altered the way my Tau play dramatically, rather than a gunline I now push my fire warriors forward putting down fire as they move from cover to cover. They even assaulted and destroyed a land raider half way up the table in my last game, that never happened in 5th.
I also like the way vehicles work now, there not spending most the game not moving or not firing due to glancing hits. They can be easier to destroy with the new HP system, but there also doing a lot more damage with shooting.
Theres also a faint whiff of RT and 2nd edition about the game now, which is a good thing in my book.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I love it, the only four things I can think of I don’t care for are:
>The Space Wolf FAQ finally made its ruling on Canis and his Lighting Claws not being Shredding 
>Skyfire Missiles and complete lack on any information.
>The Power Lance??? I will still use it on my Cavalry and some bikes for fluffy reasons, but what the ???
>>The Space Wolf FAQ finally made its ruling on Canis and his Lighting Claws not being Shredding
40600
Post by: Marshall Ragnar
I like all of it except the pre-measuring. It takes the tactical thinking out of the games.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
As a Necron player, I appreciate 6th to its fullest.
GK haven't been nerfed hard enough though, thus only taking option 2. And pre-measuring sucks :/
10578
Post by: Magc8Ball
As someone that hadn't actively played since early 4th, I don't really care about the specific rules changes. As someone that picks armies for "coolness factor" rather than power level, I couldn't care less about nerfs and buffs that various armies received (except that no assaulting from Transports is a major inconvenience for my Eldar).
I love the existence of the allies rules, even if the execution is a little bit sloppy, because it allows for incredibly thematic armies and might lead to the creation of 40K "Dogs of War" articles to let things like Kroot Mercenaries or Squa... er... Demiurg show up again. I love that measuring anytime is specifically allowed in the rules, because not allowing it was just a completely unnecessary limitation in my opinion.
So... I like 6th Edition on its own merits, and don't really have any grounds for comparison with any recent editions. Is it a well-balanced and competitive set of wargaming rules? No, 40K is still crap in that regard. It IS a fun set of rules for rolling dice around and playing with toy soldiers, which is good since that has always been the intent.
6394
Post by: orknidious
I like 6th ed. Change is good.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
orknidious wrote:I like 6th ed. Change is good.
I just love your deep in depth analssys 
48614
Post by: Welsh_Furey
Rage quit on the first day i will play but it will take some time before i do im so dissilusioned by how badly this book has been writen there is so many loop holes just so gw can turn to players and say look how many pages this book is its worth more than the last its wound me up
60800
Post by: Szeras
I got into 40k just as 6th ed came out. I did do research before that though and chose necrons because of there almost impervious infantry.
6th ed nerfed the infantry but added a much wider variety of air support, artillery, and light armoured vehicles as well as characters and
weaponry that makes any army green (no offence orks) with envy. I'd have to say I'm not entirely pleased with it, however I would say
that it is better than 5th ed.
44702
Post by: Trondheim
I like 6th alot, I find the games I play to be much more enjoyably actually with these new rules, and change is always good.
61319
Post by: evilghost555
For someone who just started to play 40k back in Feb. 2012 and is still learning all the core rules and special rules, i'd have to say i am loving the new additions to what ive already learned. I can see though how someone who has been playing since 5th edition or even before would not like some of the rule changes ie: wound allocation, disimbarking and so forth. But for me its no biggie and at least the wound allaction bit makes more sense to me in the 6th edt. than the 5th.
14424
Post by: RxGhost
I like it just fine. I find the number of people 'doom and glooming' and spreading misinformation about the way the system works (often to justify their righteous indignation and/or their opinion) is way out of control from previous editions.
Like, I don't remember it being this bad when 5th came out. We've got guys in discussion threads flat out lying about the ways the rules work and screaming about how 'GW this' and 'GW that' and it's sickening.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Thanks to all who have participated so far. I was curious about how most of dakka felt and though only 134 people have voted i have to say that this is a large enough number of votes to be able to consider it from a statistical perspective. The results would lead me to conclude that all the grumbling in the forums is primarily being stirred up by the small number of extreamly vocal neck-beared brigade members, and that most of dakka appears to be pretty happy with the changes.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I like a lot of the changes, but some of the others were much to extreme, and overall it feels like an edition based on "well, lets let people use whatever they want really as long as we sell it, and you guys writing it can do whatever you want about your pet peeves".
The hits to tanks (which are now, by far, easier to destroy with less utility than they've ever had in exchange for being able to shoot after glancing hits...as long as its less than 2 or 3), the "random for the sake of it" mechanics, and a lot of unnecessary changes to things like assaulting from reserves really have made it a lot less fun to play.
Not to mention that most games now look like airshows over stadiums than anything else.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I'm mostly with Vakathi on this one (as I am with most things, I find).
There's a lot I dislike about this new edition. Mind, there was a lot I disliked about 5th edition. For every issue that 6th made an attempt to fix, it brought up new ones, some even more glaring than they were in 5th.
Not to mention the addition of many random elements that don't really add to the gameplay in any way, but remove player participation or can change the course of a battle for no reason.
As much as I dislike much of what 6th edition did, I'd say "hate" is far too strong a word. Afterall, I still play 40k. What's more, I wouldn't call 6th edition "okay" either, since there really are some glaring issues in the system. Obviously, if you've read my previous posts, you'd know that I certainly have an opinion on the matter as well. So I can't really answer this poll with the given choices.
30689
Post by: Sanguinis
Wow haven't been on Dakka in a long time, well I took a hiatus from 40k as well. Anyway here we go!
I have yet to play a 6th edition game as I have just gotten back into 40k and, as of yesterday, purchased the rulebook. From what I can tell it seems like it's a much more technical edition. 4th and 5th edition were all about streamlining 40k to make games easier to play as well as make them go faster. 6th edition seems like it's a step backwards for that purpose but that doesn't necesarily mean it's bad. I've read most of the new rules and I have to say that it seams like it makes for a much more action oriented game as well as requiring more thinking.
The things I like about 6th edition are the inclusion of all special rules into the rulebook as well as the vehicle rules. OMG I LOVE THE NEW VEHICLE RULES. I love how they FINALLY put hull points into the game similar to apocolypse because now I won't complain about the fact that I have glanced my friends Rhino 12 times every turn and can do nothing more than crew shaken. At least I'll be happy to know that my shots haven't been in vain. I also love the flyer rules. I had this crazy theory when 5th edition came out that GW was eventually gonna put all the apocolypse units and rules into the main game eventually and it seems like I may have been correct. We might see in a later edition or two the inclusion of Titans into the main game. Finally, I really like the new shooting rules especially the snap shots. I like the fact that you can shoot at assaulting units even though you only hit on 6's. It makes for some epic scenes especially if you have 30 Orkz charging 10 Storm Bolter/Power Fist Terminators.
Some of the things I don't like about it are how close it is to 8th edition Fantasy. I feel like 1st, and 2nd edition 40k were just reworked Fantasy rules for the 40k universe and then 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition really made 40k a unique experiance where as 6th edition is actually following Fantasy again. Some of the similarities are blaringly obvious: Random charge distances, random psychic power tables, Warp Charge counters, Fear on MC, etc. I just don't like how close this ruleset is to Fantasy. It's not a bad thing, it's just my own personal preferance.
Like I said I have yet to play a 6th edition game so I may play one and go "YES!" or "NO!" but until then these are preliminary thoughts based on reading the rulebook.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
I appreciate your opinion, though i would say you likely would fit into the 6th ed is ok but preferred 5th catagory.
On a personal note, where some dakka-ites have reverted to behaving like raving neckbeards, you are not amongst them. I have followed quite a few of the love/hate threads and the ability to rationally express displeasure without melting down to neckbeard status is appreciated. I too wish that this edition was different than what it is but then i am happy to play this version of the game till new rules are released again in a couple of years. My displeasure with the company wont change anything except my experience of the game. GW has lost some of my interest with their release of poorly executed rules price gouging. However, I too still enjoy the game.
Cheers Fafnir.
45080
Post by: omgitsduane
Happy with everything except challenges.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
RxGhost wrote:I like it just fine. I find the number of people 'doom and glooming' and spreading misinformation about the way the system works (often to justify their righteous indignation and/or their opinion) is way out of control from previous editions.
Like, I don't remember it being this bad when 5th came out. We've got guys in discussion threads flat out lying about the ways the rules work and screaming about how 'GW this' and 'GW that' and it's sickening.
Could you bother to point me to one such post? I'm curious about those reckless sickening lyiers attacking GW for no reason.
sennacherib wrote:Thanks to all who have participated so far. I was curious about how most of dakka felt and though only 134 people have voted i have to say that this is a large enough number of votes to be able to consider it from a statistical perspective. The results would lead me to conclude that all the grumbling in the forums is primarily being stirred up by the small number of extreamly vocal neck-beared brigade members, and that most of dakka appears to be pretty happy with the changes.
Meaningful Internet forum poll, that would be something. I for example didn't vote because the poll lacks options as I neither hate it nor would say it's Ok. Hating a ruleset would be waste of emotions and kind of strange, I could despise and just stop playing it or sth, also I can't even say if I preferred 5th as thanks to GW release model the upcoming codieces might break it or make it much better. .
There's only one negative option and very strong. "Another mediocore ruleset - better here, worse there" would fit my stance.
61164
Post by: Goat
I like 6th a lot. But its for from perfect. Challenges work nice via the rules but on the table its clunky. Rules loop-holes due to poor writing and editing. But I am also pleased with a lot, the psy powers, overwatch/snapfires. More rule coverage for terrain buildings and units. Oh yea... pre measuring. Game is already long enough with 15 wounds being LOS! around a 2wound model squad.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
sennacherib wrote:The results would lead me to conclude that all the grumbling in the forums is primarily being stirred up by the small number of extreamly vocal neck-beared brigade members, and that most of dakka appears to be pretty happy with the changes.
You say "neck-beard", I say "fanboy".
I haven't played tournaments since 2006, I've been playing since 3rd, and I will not jump on the 6th ed bandwagon and drool about how great it is to be "cinematic". I don't like 6th on principle, not because it nerfs my (non-existent) WAAC tournament list. For reasons done to death elsewhere on this board, as far as I'm concerned it's not "epic", it's epic fail.
And speaking of Epic, one of many reasons I am not down with 6th is flyers. Flyers belong in Epic, not in 40K IMO. A 40K-scale battlefield is too small for flyers. I didn't like it when GW started bringing in flyers in 5th, and it's even more the case in 6th.
Give me 3rd, or 5th, or even 4th.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
So are you saying that you are a fanboy?
Right now flyers are a bit over powered because of the newness of the rules set and the lack of skyfire in other armies. that will all get toned down. I appreciate the effort that they are making to bring in more battlefield aspects like flyers. Rear echelon artillery would be pretty amazing too.
60414
Post by: Gifblaur
Overall I like it. Just a few thoughts for me.
Allies: Oh you want a few Thunderwolves to run with your death company while you make up the rest of your army? Sure, go for it! I actually like allies for that very reason, although nids should have gotten SOMETHING.
Random charge rolls: No, just no. I've had nothing but bad luck with it.
Look out sir: just a bit odd is all. One of those rules I could go with out.
None of the other real big changes effect me or the people I play with. We just didn't make use of some of the cheesier aspects of 40k so losing them now doesn't hurt.
39529
Post by: gaovinni
Gifblaur wrote:Overall I like it. Just a few thoughts for me.
Allies: Oh you want a few Thunderwolves to run with your death company while you make up the rest of your army? Sure, go for it! I actually like allies for that very reason, although nids should have gotten SOMETHING.
Random charge rolls: No, just no. I've had nothing but bad luck with it.
Look out sir: just a bit odd is all. One of those rules I could go with out.
None of the other real big changes effect me or the people I play with. We just didn't make use of some of the cheesier aspects of 40k so losing them now doesn't hurt.
Those random charge ranges are just a big "what the..." in my opinnion. Think about it. A veteran marine that has been in service for a few centuries is going to charge a unit in open ground and that is something he has done hundreds of times and knows exactly what he is doing... and then the charge fails because you rolled one inch too low for your charge range... just... what?
47170
Post by: Dunklezahn
I really like 6th and may even say it's been my favourite edition since 2nd.
Pre-measuring, love it, I'm a guess range veteran so I have no problem telling how far away things are but I like the fact I no longer have an advantage just because i've trained my eyes to work in 12" increments.
Vehicle vulnerability, love it. This is flavoured to taste but I prefer my games full of soldiers, not APC's. I'd much rather see squads of aspect warriors with a tank or two in support be the norm.
The death of No Retreat, finally. Units can actually tar pit again, 30 FNP gaunts will hold you up as you hack through them rather than half of them dropping dead from feelings on inadequacy.
More psi-power variation, awesome. My Zoanthropes and the like can pick up utility powers instead of being locked into psi guns? Sign me up.
Random Charge length, yes please. This is the biggest one, many folks hate the "increase in randomness which in turn decreases the skill requirement" and I couldn't disagree more. Before you got within 6" and you knew you'd make it, end of story. Now you don't know, what if the enemy unit has flamers or gets some lucky overwatch, what if you roll badly. Whats your plan for if you fluff the charge roll? Did you throw them some FNP? have a backup charge in place to stop them shooting you? That randomness rewards the player with contingency plans and punishes those without, I love it, thats my opinion.
The only issue I have to date is that the wound allocation with LOS and characters can get a little fiddly to the point where your rolling a dice stack 1 by one, but such is life.
I'm normally one of the first to mock GW, their FAQ's are still shoddy as all hell with some very wierd decisions, but in terms of the 6th ed rule set i must tip my hat on a job well done.
19636
Post by: Alkasyn
I think this is a move in the right direction, definitely makes the game more fun to play.
29294
Post by: wererat
love it love it love it. Did I mention I love it?
To go over a few points:
Pre-measuring - Love it. Easier for newer players and gives me one more element of the game I can control. as an engineer who works in both SI and IMP I simply cannot "see" 6" increments.
Vehicles - Like it much better than 5th (transport spam) and 4th (skimmer spam). One event that happened sums up exactly what I like about it. My buddy gets a lucky glance with a missile launcher on my vindicator. He's happy because in turn one he has knocked off an hp, making it easier to destroy later. I'm happy because I can still fire my weapons, move, etc. Before it would be lucky glance -> weapon destroyed -> useless.
Challenges, look out sir - I admit, during the rumour mongering I was worried that these rules were going to be a sign of my most dreaded fear: whfb in space! so far I have loved the challenges, daemon prince eating faces, epic duels, etc. I've read a few grumbles about how it can be cheesed (and there is that big argument about how overflow works) but so far at the local shop there hasn't been any shenanigans I've rolled my eyes at.
Look out sir is alot of fun when the character has the same save. Because its like rolling a very, very important feel no pain save.
Wound allocations - Very happy with how this has turned out. My tau friend did an excellent maneuver yesterday that let him gun down my librarian. I was in shock for a full 5 minutes!
allies - So much greatness. Now I can finally bring out a few units from different armies to sample them. A friend used a small force of space wolves with his guard and I just loved how it looked. Since then I've started buying daemons for my csm which is funny because a few months ago if you asked me if I was going to buy daemons I would pout and answer "never in a million years".
Missions - ehhh whaaaa?!?! 5/6 missions objective based? Transports can't deny? Guys have to get out? YES PLEASE.
Random charges - I actually really like this and don't understand the hate towards it. I'm either attempting a gutsy over 6" charge or within 2". I mean like in 5th charges were pretty much random anyways as everyone was in cover (cover being very good in 5th and easy to get). At least you get to add the double 1s for a 2" charge rather than the ol' "Double 1? ooo 1" charge, just out!" Also the chance to charge over 6 is fun for those last ditch efforts. Maybe I'm still getting use to 6e and thinking "In 5th there is literally no way to make this charge."
My only real gripe is that there is alot to remember now with mysterious everything, warlord traits and so on.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
There are some improvements that our game group is feeling, almost a throwback to 2nd and 3rd with some rules.
It does seem like a huge amount of rules, though. A lot of rules within rules that get a little confusing, and the layout of the book is a littlw haphazard.
We'll see...
18080
Post by: Anpu42
As Medieval Reinactor who has been involved with charging a Shield Wall and the recipient the random change distance makes sort of sense. You have to judge the distance you are about to Sprint and what your opponent is doing. More than once we planed on a charge and saw the pikes come down and we went “Not Right Now”.
As told by to me:
There was also a reenactment of the Battle of Hastings that got carried away and the Horseman got tired of the Spearmen actually poking their horses and ran them over. The rest of the day full contact was used. The Horsemen would attempt to run over infantry units and if the Horses saw that it was just a sword and board unit, they would. But if the unit was armed with spears and was ready for the charge, the horses would refuse to charge.
So for me I like the Random Charge, it not “Lets go Lads, Oh crap look, I tripped over a rock!” Its “Lets Go Lads, and charge into the those Guns” followed by the squad going “ You Sarg.”
50012
Post by: Crimson
Overall, i'm pleased with it. I started with the second edition, and sixth reminds me of it in a good way. Overall the rules seem more associative and immersive, rules reflect the 'reality' of the gameworld better.
However there's one thing I don't like: the wound allocation for shooting. The closest model being killed leads to tedious fiddling with positioning and constant measuring.
3309
Post by: Flinty
I've only had a couple of games, but they were enjoyable, except for the challenges rules. I just don't like them.
People seem to be annoyed by some of the random elements in the game now, but I think the new range measuring and definition rules enhance the experience. Pre-measuring on most things makes a lot of sense, because the actual troops on the ground shouldn't have to rely on the ability of their overseeing officer being able to properly eye distances out to see if individual infantry guys are in range of a handy target. However I also think that random charge distances work well as well, because troops moving at high speed aren't going to be able to be as precise as those moving carefully. Warfare (whichbi s what we're trying to simulate after all) is a huge mix of variables that can lead to some surprising results. Being a decent general is about understanding those factors and being able to plan for contingency or recover from unfortunate circumstances.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
sennacherib wrote:So are you saying that you are a fanboy?
You're calling people "neck-beards." I'm calling other people "fanboys." Get it now?
sennacherib wrote:Right now flyers are a bit over powered because of the newness of the rules set and the lack of skyfire in other armies. that will all get toned down. I appreciate the effort that they are making to bring in more battlefield aspects like flyers. Rear echelon artillery would be pretty amazing too.
You like flyers, fine. I don't think they belong in 40K. I think they belong in Epic. I don't want to have to spend $$$ and points on flyers and/or anti-flyer units in 40K.
47097
Post by: Cursed Dice
I finally snapped a long 5th ed losing streak when 6th came out. Haven't played much but so far I'm happier in 6th.
25359
Post by: TheAvengingKnee
I like a lot of things about 6th edition:
Assaults not being the best option for killing most squads
The much better detailed Glossary at the back of the book
Flyers
Double force org for 2k+ games
Allies
Mysterious water/forests/objective
Archeotech artifacts
Fortifications
Hull points
No 5th edition Dawn of War deployment
Random Charge Distance
Snap Firing
Overwatch
These are a few of my favorite things
11618
Post by: Boneblade
I loves it. Like Smeagol loves the Precious. Except I have not yet reached his level of zen masterfulness. Soon...
60813
Post by: Brometheus
It is definitely my favorite since 3rd.
56543
Post by: Goldshield
I am seeing quite a few similarities between 40k's 5th to 6th and Fantasy's 7th to 8th. Therefore, I would view the game in a couple of years when books have come out and the balance has been swung back hopefully with the whining and complaining about the edition itself drained away.
So that puts me in the 'too early to tell' category.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
Goldshield wrote:
I am seeing quite a few similarities between 40k's 5th to 6th and Fantasy's 7th to 8th.
That's at the heart of the problem.
Goldshield wrote: Therefore, I would view the game in a couple of years when books have come out and the balance has been swung back hopefully with the whining and complaining about the edition itself drained away.
Yes, of course. Because any criticism of GW rules sets must be "whining." Only WAAC gamers, neck-beards and TFG have anything negative to say about them. There couldn't possibly be any valid, principled reasons to dislike them, or reasons that won't be addressed by more books coming out.
7161
Post by: Necroagogo
Too early to tell, for me. I suspect I'll like it better than 5th (which was, in itself, fine).
Only issue so far is with challenges - was quite frustrating the other night to have a whole unit of Wyches (with attached haemy) and a small unit of Kabalites held at bay by a Marine captain with artificer armour whilst my Hekatrix tried in vain to get through his 2+ for half the game.
59924
Post by: RegalPhantom
My impression thus far is mixed, and while they improved several aspects of the game, there are others changes that I feel were either unneeded or in some cases a net negative for the game.
I like the addition of pre-measuring. It now means that you won't have your brilliant master plan fail because you did not perfectly estimate what was 6". Not having pre-measuring did not add anything tactically to the game. Plus my friends and I generally used house rules to allow pre-measuring anyways.
I like the general reduction to cover and the addition of hull points. Both things help depower some of the more unbalanced aspects of the previous version. The nice thing about HP is that while they mean that most vehicles die more quickly, they are now also able to output a lot of fire while they are still alive (less shaken/stun). The cover saves in the previous edition were just too good, and the changes needed to be made.
I haven't played much with the new powers, but they seem cool, and they actually give psykers a reason to exist in most armies.
Fliers are also cool, and it makes me want to get a couple of Night Scythes for my Immortals. Overwatch is also a good addition.
I don't like the addition of random charge lengths. Although it CAN help out assault armies, it just takes the reliability out of them.
I think that Snapfire was not implemented as well as it could have been.
I think that vehicle movement for non-fliers is not as well implemented as it could have been.
I think that walkers have been nerfed too much.
25359
Post by: TheAvengingKnee
In what ways do you think that walkers were nerfed to much(not disagreeing just curious) as well as how could snapfire have been implemented better?
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
I confess that although I'm very happy overall with 6th, I'd have liked walkers to have been a little more durable overall (though quite how to do that is hard -- 4 hull points would probably be too much) and while I like snapfire, it does seem a little off that BS4 snapfires only as well as BS2. Again though, fixing that without making higher BS too good or lower BS too bad is difficult. And both of these are things I can easily live with as they stand.
55803
Post by: Chancetragedy
Personally I love 6th Ed. It feels amazing to me. Things die in ranks and not random allocation now. I love pre measure(mostly because I'm awful at optical geometry) but I understand why some people don't. I love foot liss which seem to have gotten better. I love not playing the same 3x3 mission deployments over and over. And mostly I love the hull points stuff meaning the tanks I love got even better!!!
56543
Post by: Goldshield
LordOfTheSloths wrote:Goldshield wrote:
I am seeing quite a few similarities between 40k's 5th to 6th and Fantasy's 7th to 8th.
That's at the heart of the problem.
Goldshield wrote: Therefore, I would view the game in a couple of years when books have come out and the balance has been swung back hopefully with the whining and complaining about the edition itself drained away.
Yes, of course. Because any criticism of GW rules sets must be "whining." Only WAAC gamers, neck-beards and TFG have anything negative to say about them. There couldn't possibly be any valid, principled reasons to dislike them, or reasons that won't be addressed by more books coming out.
When I meant "whining and complaining" I was meaning more in comparison to the days after 8th dropped and people were yelling "magic is borken!1!!" at the screens until it began to settle down after people have either accepted it or moved on or whatever. It can be a little difficult to pick out well structured arguments in the middle of so much mired vitriol just as much as finding objective support out of pure fanboyism. I was just saying that I will be looking more towards how 40k's balancing structure (good or bad) after a year or two to begin determining how the game is sliding rather then right after the edition hits the shelves since there is some things that need to be worked out in the near future hopefully from GW.
50384
Post by: Sencho
I'm surprised to see that the majority of folks on Dakka like 6th (I'm a fan). It looks like the initial release woes are over.
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
Love it. My favorite part being that my Ethereal Objective marker can Explode.
Had than happen all six turns in a test game against myself.
Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain. That just bogs down the setup something fierce. Other than that, love it.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Sencho wrote:I'm surprised to see that the majority of folks on Dakka like 6th (I'm a fan). It looks like the initial release woes are over.
In most cases people overwhelmingly vote that they like the newest thing, usually just because it's different. Many of the people complaining about how bad 5th was were saying how much of a breath of fresh air it was after 4th and so on and so forth. 7th will be no different with people decrying the staleness of 6th and it's awful repetitive metagame and then once again for 7th as we transition to 8th and we'll likely still have the same core problems we've had for the last decade in that GW never knows what they want vehicles to be, what scale they want this game to be intended for, etc ad nauseum.
15739
Post by: Highland_Piper
I had to stop going to my local GW store because I got tired of the initial release moans.
Things I like:
New vehicle rules - I get more shots out of my vehicles and it forces me to be a bit more strategic with their placing.
Rapid Fire is a plus! It makes more sense when you consider that these are high tech weapons and not muskets
New Measuring rules - I'm also Optically Geometric challenged and even though I've been playing since 1992 with 2nd edition I've never gotten any better at it.
Overwatch - Give my poor Fire Warriors a chance
Random Charge - I like it for my Tau as some times I get lucky  I like it for my Space Wolves because of the same reason (but on the other spectrum)
Snap fire is a plus
Jetpack and Jump pack rules really does set them apart and shows that they each have their own strategic purpose other than moving about quickly
Stealth Suits are actually usable now
I like Character Rules
Wound Allocation: Keeps people from taking off units from the rear of their squad (which I always hated). Stops people from just exposing their Heavy Weapon while the rest of the squad remains out of sight yet keep dying from what I assume are ricocheting bullets?
Things I don't like:
Space Wolf Frost Axe is useless.
New vehicle rule "Jink" lessen the ability to have Disruption Pods for Tau Vehicles
Removal of yet more Tau Wargear
Psychic Rules
Challenges - Although it is cool for Space Wolves I just don't see why a Tau Unit would really care.
Wound Allocation: Now I'm seeing shielding Units such as Demon Princes, Terminators with Storm Shields, etc.
(this is a long standing complaint of mine) Bikes, Jet Packs/Jump troops still locked in assault. They should always have a chance to break away.
Granted I have not played that many games of 6th yet so I'm still confused on some of the new rules.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Vaktathi wrote:what scale they want this game to be intended for
And this specific issue ends up becoming more problematic with each edition, as the game becomes more and more upscaled, regardless of whether the rules do a good job of supporting such upscaling or not. And it's not like GW will ever scale it down either.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Indeed, already we've got more models on the table at a scale much much larger than most company or even battallion level miniatures games on the same boards, with rules actions as minute as challenges in games where there may be 300 models on the board and weapons ranging from small arms to orbital ordnance, aircraft bombs and heavy artillery, with army sizes constantly increasing even when points levels do not.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Highland_Piper wrote:I had to stop going to my local GW store because I got tired of the initial release moans.
Things I don't like:
Space Wolf Frost Axe is useless.
(this is a long standing complaint of mine) Bikes, Jet Packs/Jump troops still locked in assault. They should always have a chance to break away.
Actually the Frost Axe has a purpose, killing Vehicles and MCs
A Wolf Lord on a Thunderwolf can get 6 S7 AP2 Attacks with will mess up most Vehicles. I have thought about giving one a Frost Axe and Power Maul just for that ability. Even on foot S6 Attacks can handle most things.
And yes I hate getting locked in combat in general.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
You don't need a ridiculously kitted Wolf Lord to kill tanks in this edition, that's beyond unnecessary overkill, a squad of bloodclaws will do the job with their krak grenades when you just need 3's at worst to hit and 4's to take off an HP and you only need to take off 3 HP's.
39529
Post by: gaovinni
Iur_tae_mont wrote:Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain.
Just imagine that the battle takes place on Catachan
18080
Post by: Anpu42
gaovinni wrote:Iur_tae_mont wrote:Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain.
Just imagine that the battle takes place on Catachan
Or that Tyranid infested world
39529
Post by: gaovinni
Anpu42 wrote:gaovinni wrote:Iur_tae_mont wrote:Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain.
Just imagine that the battle takes place on Catachan
Or that Tyranid infested world
Or inside Matt Wards head!
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Fafnir wrote:Vaktathi wrote:what scale they want this game to be intended for
And this specific issue ends up becoming more problematic with each edition, as the game becomes more and more upscaled, regardless of whether the rules do a good job of supporting such upscaling or not. And it's not like GW will ever scale it down either.
This. Reaction fire, sniping, look out sir!, and other elements of individual-level (rather than squad-level) micromanagement belong in a skirmish game of 10 - 20 models a side, not (as 40k has become) a mass battle game. The same goes for chrome like subplots and active terrain; in a campaign-drive skirmish game both things are excellent design choices to add colour and depth, whereas in an already-unwieldy mass battle game, they're just unnecessary and unbalancing details. Conversely, fliers don't even suit games of 40k's increasingly bloated scale; even Epic 40k didn't try to represent them on the tabletop in a conventional fashion (rather they launched from off the table to wherever they were wanted, then disappeared to refuel/rearm at the end of a turn).
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I have only played a few gaqes so far and think it is in general an improvement - still some issues but all in all mostly a good thing.
Good
Pe-measuring - about time too
snapfire - nice rule, makes sense along with if you don't move a hvy wepaon you get to fire as normal.
Falling back from things you can't hurt
Fortifcations being able to be bought
lots of optional Fun rules for scenarios and such
new Close combat weapon rules
Not good
The weapon skill chart is still awful - Bloodthirsters and Leilith hit Gretchin on a 3+ really???- totally stupid should be 2+ once double and re-roll if more
Allies table - great idea - poor execution - would have been nice for the writters to take more than a passing interesting in the fluff when drawing this up..
Lots of IC's not being able to hurt each other due to having swords and 2+ saves
Power Lances
Just hope that the psychic rules are not too powerful
59263
Post by: farrowking37
Welsh_Furey wrote:Rage quit on the first day i will play but it will take some time before i do im so dissilusioned by how badly this book has been writen there is so many loop holes just so gw can turn to players and say look how many pages this book is its worth more than the last its wound me up
Explain some of these "loopholes"
I like the way 6th panned out. The flyers are pretty cool, and i like the changes to the melee rules.
16070
Post by: Sarge
I've enjoyed my 6th editions games so far but I don't think the game works as well as 5th. I have a love hate relationship with snap fire and vehicle HP. Premeasuring doesn't bother me. I've not dealt with the random terrain much in 40k but it has screwed quite a few folks in tournaments for fantasy locally. I'm not a fan of random charge distances and close combat weapons having an ap makes combats more complicated. I also don't like the fact that each modeled weapon has different rules eg axes and swords. The game feels more fun but less competitive.
7261
Post by: Dendarien
Likes:
Pre-measuring - finally in the grim darkness of the far future they found a technology allowing them to measure distances
Snapfire - encouraging movement is a good thing
Overwatch - As a Flames of War player, I like this rule a lot more than how 5th just had the counter-attack move
Hull points - I feel like this is a nice balance between vehicles being too soft and too strong
Scoring rules - in 5th it really was annoying that some empty transports could make you lose/draw on the last turn, despite your enemy being almost wiped out
Grenade rules - handy for them to be more than a glorified melee attack
Cover being a 5+ - A 4+ for everything was simply too generous
Dislikes:
Random charge - maybe if they had movement values like in WHFB where you can add your movement, otherwise it does not add anything to the game besides extremely lucky assaults or extremely unlucky ones (Overwatch serves to make this even worse)
Mysterious terrain/objectives - maybe if these were just suggested rules or something, but as a core mechanic are far too random and can have way too much of an impact on the game by just a few die rolls
Flyers - I feel this is outside the scale of 40k (obviously GW gets to decide what scale 40k is, but I think they are just silly). They are also way too powerful at the moment with so few counters available. I'm not against playing strong lists like the Necron air force...but I want to have a fun game not just get plastered while I hope to roll 6s.
Warlord Traits - not a bad idea, but the system is way too random. For instance I play Orks...yay for rolling furious charge as my bonus? It really needs more flexibility.
Allies - I think the only thought put into this addition was "sell more models." I don't want to have to always include Eldrad or a Farseer simply because I have no psychic defense. I want to play my Orks as Orks, muckin about with allies is just plain unorky. IMO this really cheapens each army book as now instead of having a weakness you need to build around, you simply include allies to fill the role. I think most of us can agree that there is very little internal balance to a lot of the codices, now that balance is even more skewed because ability and unit combinations that were never intended to happen are suddenly on the field.
Psychic powers - I don't mind the system of rolling for powers and having lores (I play fantasy and I really love 8th, particularly the magic). My problem is fantasy was designed to where everyone had access to at least some sort of magic user, 40k has no such equivalent for many armies or at least not a very potent one. If in fantasy you don't focus heavily on casting magic, you can at least build around denying your opponent's magic. 40k not so much unless you use allies.
Challenges - As an Ork player I feel this was a huge kick in the nuts to the bread and butter of every Ork army: mobs of boyz with a PK nob. Maybe if it was an IC only rule or something, I don't know...
Double force org chart - Sort of a nitpick, as I have no intention of playing anything over 1850, but I think this along with flyers and allies belongs in Apocalypse where "anything goes."
BTW I voted that I preferred 5th...never thought I'd say that!
I remain hopeful that 6th ed will be like 8th ed for fantasy in that there is a huge initial imbalance, but as codices are released the game becomes quite well balanced. Only time will tell I suppose.
48746
Post by: Billagio
I like it fine, but I think that challenges are a bit silly and not needed
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Challenges does fit in perfectly with the 40k fluff so I like it especially we usually tried to engineer the two enemy warlords meeting face to face on the battlefield.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Im definetly enjoying it to date but much too early for an objective and comprehensive comparison to be made. Still much to be released or rereleased and definite holes in places.
Really enjoying the new terrain angles though, missions and certain random aspects it has.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Modeling: One of the things I’m like is that it’s stepping up us making objective markers. We are planning on making a whole bunch based on the missions. We are also planning on making a bunch of Mysterious Terrain pieces in the next few months.
List Building: It is also reducing the SPAM list. Now that two of the Missions make either Fast Attack or Heavy Support Scoring units most of the list are now starting to have units not used before included.
Warlord Traits: I like them, about the only thing we have done it that if you roll something that is useless [like Acute Senses for Space Wolves] we are allowing Re-Rolls. Though I like the idea of not allowing Special Characters to Roll on them. We will have to see what the group comes up with on that one.
Psychic Powers: I like them; I hope that as each Codex comes out they will define them for each army though.
Power Weapons: I LOVE THEM; this allows/forces you to consider how your model is built. Is also lets you define what each model is doing. The only one I am not sure about it the Power Lance/Spear, but I am going to give it a try oddly enough on a Thunder Lord [I built one using a Grey Knight Halberd and I don’t want to change it or use it as an Power Axe].
Hit Points, sorry Hull Point: These and the change to Glancing Hits have made Vehicle Squadrons even more viable. Is has caused an issue with Björn, but I hope they fix that with an FAQ.
Other than that I am in the still Love 6th Edition Camp.
52752
Post by: StoneRaizer
Love it. 6E rules have completely changed how I play my Wolves. I dropped the Rhinos for a pure footslogging list and it's much more competitive than my 5E list.
Rapid Fire - IMO, this is the one rule that turned my army on its head. Move and still shoot Bolters and Plasma Guns, then switch to pistols and assault. (yes I'm aware I can't Rapid Fire within 12" and still assault) Sure! Or I can get within 12", Rapid Fire and try to bait my opponent into assaulting into a counter-charge. 
Vehicles - Easier to glance to death. Makes Krak missiles (S8) and plasma (S7) more effective. I also dislike the look of Rhinos so now I don't have to use or paint them any more.
Psykers - My Rune Priest has switched from a shooter/sniper role ( LL, Jaws) into a pack buffer by using the Divination table.
Cavalry - TWC are even scarier than before since they ignore difficult terrain and always move 12". Their 24" assault threat range is now easier thanks to the rewritten Fleet rules.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Thanks for all of the feedback. The more votes the better.
59923
Post by: Baronyu
Love change to rapid fire.
Hate random assault distance.
Love mysterious terrain/objective.
Hate random warlord trait/psychic power.
Love flyer's zooming defense(hit on 6).
Hate flyer's zooming movement(90 degrees turn before movement, must move 18").
Love hull points(DE, Haywire).
Hate hull points(more squishy DE vehicles, didn't thought that was possible).
Love shooting phase grenades.
Hate overwatch.
So I'm "neutral" really. But I wouldn't just dismiss any negative comments or criticism as "vocal neck-beard brigade members" shooting their mouth off, some of them do make a good point, just as the others who're singing praises. People're entitled to their opinion, especially if their 5th ed special list has just been destroyed by the changes this ed, they should be allowed to voice their displeasure, they paid money for that list, and will need to pay more to rebuild it. DE, for example, has the gap widened between the boring WAAC venom spam list and the lists most DE players enjoyed playing(WWP, wych cult, etc)... Even if you're not playing competitively, you should still be allowed to win, no one should literally be playing to lose.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Thanks Baronyu
The overly vocal neck beards that i refer to are the group of about 5 people who pop up in every single discussion thread that concerns game play in 6th and then write vitriolic negative rebuttals to everyones posts that have a differing opinion. Essentially the equivillent of a written shouting down of opposing opinions. Sure, express how you feel, but if you look at the over arching opinion of the game, and the vast number of favorable posters who may make only one positive post vrs the vast number of negative posts made by the vitriolic handful of dakkaites , it starts to go beyond just voicing a opinion and enters the realm of whining.
Based just on what is written in those discussion threads, the way the really negative crowd makes it sound, the game is horrible, and the sky is falling, all is lost. Thats why i posted this poll. agreeably, polls like this one will likely attract only those that feel very strongly on the matter (not just positive but negative reactions as well). However, if there really were that many people who thought the game had totally fallen apart, the sky was falling, blah blah blah, then their responce would show in the poll numbers. As it seems just looking at this data set, I would suggest that it strongly supports the case that i made. The majority of gamers are really enjoying the new rules and a small minority are really upset.
Whats really nice, is that the majority of posters here on this thread have stated what they like, didnt like and for the most part have remained on topic. Perhaps because no one has tried to shout down another posters opinion. And i do admit that referring to the minority of vocal complainers as the neck beard brigade does not necessarily further the discussion in a favorable fashion. This is due to my own shortcomings as a disscussion columnist, and the fact that i love the term neckbeard brigade.
59924
Post by: RegalPhantom
 TheAvengingKnee wrote:In what ways do you think that walkers were nerfed to much(not disagreeing just curious) as well as how could snapfire have been implemented better?
For walkers its the combination of the change to Hull Points (with walkers generally having very few) and the fact that units in close combat against walkers can now use grenades at weapon skill, meaning that even if they make it into combat, they won't last very long. They were already weaker considering that most walkers had to slug across the field to get into combat, opening them up to all that close range AT fire (especially since the meta forced people to spam meltaguns). Lets admit it, walkers weren't exactly dominating in 5th (the problem wasn't even vehicles in general, but dedicated transports), but now they are significantly less effective than they were. With Snap Fire, I like how snap fire works when firing at fliers, and I like how it works when firing out of a transport, but I'm not a fan of letting models snap fire non-blast heavy weapons when moving. It seems odd that a lot of armies would waste precious ammo firing a heavy weapon when they have very little chance of hitting the target, and that might even hit their allies since they can't aim the thing when firing. It also ignores that a lot of the reason that you can't move and fire heavy weapons is that you have to brace yourself against the recoil, or else you would knock yourself down. The thought of a guardsman heavy weapon team moving forward at full pace and being able to fire an autocannon unsupported without tipping over and killing one of your buddies seems... unusual. Then again, I'm the only person I know who has made this complaint, so make of it what you will. But in short, I like how snap fire works with some things, but not with others
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:Thanks Baronyu
The overly vocal neck beards that i refer to are the group of about 5 people who pop up in every single discussion thread that concerns game play in 6th and then write vitriolic negative rebuttals to everyones posts that have a differing opinion. Essentially the equivillent of a written shouting down of opposing opinions. Sure, express how you feel, but if you look at the over arching opinion of the game, and the vast number of favorable posters who may make only one positive post vrs the vast number of negative posts made by the vitriolic handful of dakkaites , it starts to go beyond just voicing a opinion and enters the realm of whining.
"There are a few posters legitimately pointing out serious mistakes in the ruleset and contratictions of rules vs fluff or the designers claimed purpose but sadly there is majority of overenthusiastic sheeplike consumers writing passive agressive rants about the posters who actualy manage to use critical thinking technique. Essentialy the equivalent of a written blockade built with words for any voice of reason about the expensive product from company with a history of shady actions. Sure, express how you feel, but if you look at the tournament section of the forum and the vast number of people who are too busy fixing a flawed ruleset to waste time on posting opinions or vote in meaningless polls made by people desperatly defending their purchase, it starts to go beyond just ranting and enters the realm of blind fanism"
sennacherib wrote:Based just on what is written in those discussion threads, the way the really negative crowd makes it sound, the game is horrible, and the sky is falling, all is lost.
Hardly imo, I think those opinions are just that the current ruleset is worse than the last one. I admit though there's an obvious conclusion automaticaly hitting your head that this is really bad if you consider the amount of money the whole thing costs.
sennacherib wrote:Thats why i posted this poll. agreeably, polls like this one will likely attract only those that feel very strongly on the matter (not just positive but negative reactions as well). However, if there really were that many people who thought the game had totally fallen apart, the sky was falling, blah blah blah, then their responce would show in the poll numbers. As it seems just looking at this data set, I would suggest that it strongly supports the case that i made. The majority of gamers are really enjoying the new rules and a small minority are really upset.
Listen I don't want to be rude but Internet forum poll is too much a flawed tool to draw conclusions, I did poll reasearch proffesionaly at some point. Post the poll in tournament section, will it get you the same numbers? If so, what about the flawed questions with too little choice on negative side then? Or maybe the poll "do you care about polls" with personal questions to determine what people vote and why? Proper poll reasearch is 50 pages of methodology, sample analysis, testing of questions again and again, definitions of terms used in questions etc. I posted this about your poll somewhere else but you ignored it, or did not see it, anyway I'd like you to refer to the point that your poll results border on meaningless, and are for sure not representative of 40k players as a whole.
Not to mention, maybe those people loving the ruleset, if they saw what ruleset was possible with GW avilable resources and a legitimate goodwill, would use 6th edition pages containing rules for shoe polishing. Note that I only speculate and over exagerate, the point is though I have a feeling 6th edition could be so much more if there was no changing for the sake of changing, or the sake of model sales or the sake of not having to work too much.
I have a feeling of quality work looking at 6th edition artwork, I don't have that feeling reading the rules.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
To add to Plumb's post, I didn't vote in the poll, because I feel that any of the options presented in it do not reflect my opinion.
And I'm sure you are aware of how vocal I tend to be about my opinion.
6186
Post by: Lady_Canoness
Hate it.
Finally found an army (Biel-tan Eldar) that I loved in look and feel, and which in 5th I thought I was quite good with. The list was never 'strong', but like Eldar should be it required finess and could really be punishing when used well. Like putting together a puzzle while the other guy shot you. Every game was a blast.
6th comes along and suddenly the exactness, skill, and caution needed to play the army goes right out the window. This is not a game where the player matters more than the list. More than ever, GW is trying to force me to change how I play the game - how I enjoy to play it - by ramming new rules down my throat. 'Did our new edition ruin how you like to play the game? Buy more stuff for ever increasing costs!'
For those of you who are of the opinion that I should buck up and get with the times, no - I like the 40k universe, but I'm out. My money, time, and loyalty has gone over to Corvus Belli and Infinity; a game that lets me play how I enjoy playing and doesn't punish me for using what I want.
6th Edition has dropped me off the 40k bandwagon.
36391
Post by: Roadkill Zombie
To me it's a step up from 5th edition...but so what.....still not 2nd edition with the glaring problems fixed.
5th edition was a step up from 4th edition...but so what...still not 2nd edition with the glaring problems fixed.
4th edition was a step up from 3rd edition...but so what...still not 2nd edition with the glaring problems fixed.
3rd edition was an entirely re made game...NOT 2nd edition......NOT anywhere near as good as 2nd edition COULD have been if they had just fixed the glaring problems....like, you know, they were supposed to do..not re write the whole game like, you know, they did.
6th edition is giving people who never played 2nd a sort of taste of what 2nd was all about....narrative.
I don't agree with GW when they say "The rules to the game have changed and evolved over the years, always retaining the same distinctive feel and enabling the same battles of wits and exciting tactics introduced all those years ago, but each time presenting fresh, new tactical challenges."
That's a load of gak. 3rd through 5th may have been that way but 2nd to 3rd most certainly did not. Now 6th comes along, still using the same bad game engine that they developed for 3rd edition, and only making a few changes to it, and now they are hocking it as the best edition of the game to date...yeah right....it's a step up from 5th...but that's all it is.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
 Lady_Canoness wrote:
6th comes along and suddenly the exactness, skill, and caution needed to play the army goes right out the window. This is not a game where the player matters more than the list.
This, I feel, is something that is of special importance. 6th Edition emphasizes the importance of list building more than ever before. Well thought out tactics will get you places in 6th edition, but a good list will get you much, much further.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
70% of respondents still prefer it to 5th edition.
5% hate it and 7% preferred 5th. These ratio have remained the same the entire time that the poll has been up here, beyond a % fluctuation here or there. Clearly the majority like it regardless of the inherent flaws that an internet pole suffers from.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
Care to share the secret? I still see them getting slaughtered left and right xD
Generally Im enjoying 6th edition, havnt lost a single game yet @.@
though I feel bad for people that doesnt own fliers though....
10347
Post by: Fafnir
 sennacherib wrote:70% of respondents still prefer it to 5th edition.
5% hate it and 7% preferred 5th. These ratio have remained the same the entire time that the poll has been up here, beyond a % fluctuation here or there. Clearly the majority like it regardless of the inherent flaws that an internet pole suffers from.
You're also leaving out the fact that of course people who actually like 6th edition would be more enthusiastic to post and vote about it.
52541
Post by: DiRTWaL
Haven't played it yet.
61506
Post by: StrikingOgryn
I haven't played it, but scouring the rules vs. 5th edition, I like it. Can't wait for Tau and Eldar codices, though.
57518
Post by: Foolamancer
Well, I've never really been a competitive player. I've always been somebody who enjoys the game for purposes of sheer fun, and the ability to tell an epic story about the battle as it's ongoing. My friends and I had already taken to naming our heroes - Boss Skullrenda, Brother-Captain Regier, and Overlord Isos are the three 'centerpiece' characters - and got really into the stories of the battles. Glorious last stands, unexpected turnabouts, epic duels and intercessions from the leaders of our respective armies... all of it was great fun.
Sixth Edition may not be a technically balanced edition, but none of us have ever cared about balance so much as we care about fun. Sixth Edition seems, to me, to be intended to enable more of the type of fun that we enjoy. Characters shape the battlefield more than ever before, duels to the death are part of the rules, and so on. I also love the fact that they've expanded on melee weaponry (though I miss power swords being able to cut through Terminator armor); that was an area I was really hoping would get some more love in this edition, and it did. Vehicle rules also seem much improved, since they're no longer absolute death machines that dominate the entire battlefield while still being important. Monstrous Creatures seem more viable as well, which I like, though I haven't yet played enough to know if I'm right about that.
All in all, I really, really like Sixth. I'm not the best player out there, but I will say that this new edition is a hell of a lot of fun.
33259
Post by: DeadlyFungi
 Fafnir wrote: sennacherib wrote:70% of respondents still prefer it to 5th edition.
5% hate it and 7% preferred 5th. These ratio have remained the same the entire time that the poll has been up here, beyond a % fluctuation here or there. Clearly the majority like it regardless of the inherent flaws that an internet pole suffers from.
You're also leaving out the fact that of course people who actually like 6th edition would be more enthusiastic to post and vote about it.
And you're leaving out the fact that, vis a vis, folks on Dakka that hate Sixth (as skepticism, nay-saying, and negativity, are all hallmarks of "critical thinking"), would likely be just as enthusiastic to post, and vote the negative.Thus your statement there has no merit.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Perhaps, but the point I was trying to make, those with the less enthusiastic or more moderate viewpoints on would be less likely to vote.
If this were a poll given to everyone in the 40k community, not just those who are part of Dakka, and made mandatory, then yes, this poll might be worth something.
Furthermore, those without an opinion summarized by the poll would probably be less likely to vote as well.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
 DeadlyFungi wrote: Fafnir wrote: sennacherib wrote:70% of respondents still prefer it to 5th edition. 5% hate it and 7% preferred 5th. These ratio have remained the same the entire time that the poll has been up here, beyond a % fluctuation here or there. Clearly the majority like it regardless of the inherent flaws that an internet pole suffers from.
You're also leaving out the fact that of course people who actually like 6th edition would be more enthusiastic to post and vote about it.
And you're leaving out the fact that, vis a vis, folks on Dakka that hate Sixth (as skepticism, nay-saying, and negativity, are all hallmarks of "critical thinking"), would likely be just as enthusiastic to post, and vote the negative.Thus your statement there has no merit.
Thank you. +1 There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to using online polling for statistical analysis of a population. An Open Access Pole (such as this one) typically reflect the opinion of the respondents most motivated to respond to the question being asked. Due to selection bias this method of polling is not as statistically accurate as other much more elaborate and expensive methods. However, this pole has the advantage of reaching the rather narrow slice of the population that actually play 40k and are familiar with 6th edition as well as 5th. It is also well suited for assessing the feelings of a very narrow group. Dakkaites. That said. Here we have a poll with over 400 respondents. We need at least 30 for a traditional sample, but since we are dealing with an online poll., the larger sample size tends to reduce the margin of error and increase our confidence in the final result. As DeadlyFungi wisely pointed out, those respondents that are most motivated to respond are also the most likely to respond in open access poling, and given that dakka would appear to have a vocal crowd of willing nay-sayers who are more than willing to speak up and voice their complaints I would assume that the numbers at either tail of the poll would be greatly inflated. (This assumption I have to admit is based entirely on the last 5 or so years i have been on dakka watching huge arguments flare over nothing. If you honestly believe that dakkaites who are upset with something are going to be less likely to speak up than those that are happy, please make that argument i am all ears). This means that the numbers towards the tail ends of the bell curve will most likely be inflated creating a bit more response with the outliers of the group. These outliers would be the love/hate crowd. Currently the love/hate ratio is 7:1, and the like/dislike ratio is about 5:1. I am not suggesting that these results are perfect or that i am a great poll writer or statistician. But i am a biologist who has worked with some stats in the past. As you accuratly pointed out Fafnir i could have included some options that were not represented by the poll. In truth, the sole goal of the poll was to measure the love/hate relationship between dakka and the new rules set, not those with an opinion represented outside of the options i posted. I also was only interested in polling the opinions of those here on dakka and not the entire 40k community, nor was i really interested in the opinions of those who had moderate feelings on the matter, though i did give them an option to respond, and they responded with a 5:1 like/dislike ratio.The Sole reason I posted this poll because i watched several very heated discussions threads here on dakka wherein a handful of persons who really dont like the new rules set repeatedly posted long, vitriolic analysis of the rules and the state of the game. Just looking at the sheer number of posts without looking at the posters, one could be led to believe that the upset crowd was representative of dakka. These data that this poll generated, however flawed (even with a huge margin of error) , suggest something very different.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.
A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.
Many of the people decrying 5th as being awful now were the same ones saying how great 5th was and how awful 4th was.
I'd like to pull this little nugget from a forum thread several years old when discussing a similar topic about 5th ed vis-a-vi previous editions.
Grot 6 wrote:.
5th is your favorite until 6th comes out.
I feel this is particularly apt. With any new release, the majority of people will say they like it, but when people look back on it next to other previous editions after new ones have come out, or simply after the metagame has been firmly established, then their opinion is often different.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:70% of respondents still prefer it to 5th edition.
5% hate it and 7% preferred 5th. These ratio have remained the same the entire time that the poll has been up here, beyond a % fluctuation here or there. Clearly the majority like it regardless of the inherent flaws that an internet pole suffers from.
- it's posted in 40K General Disscusion section and competitive players who are more likely to dislike 6th edition might not be as much a lurkers here as more narrative players. I can't say, you can't say, I suggest a poll about it
- how many people voted? The forum has 61 972 registered users
- how about a measurment of time the topic was on the first page, at what time and the impact on results it has? Who are you, where are you from, at what time do you usualy surf the Internet, how old are you, how would you describe the game culture around you, are you competitive or narrative driven, do you consider polls a worthy tool to prove a point on forum, so many questions, so many polls
- I'm a harsh critic of 6th but did not vote, how many are there like me and why? I suggest a poll about it
- the posters positive towards 6th might still be running on "newness" fuel and maybe in half years time will change their minds. I suggest a poll then btw
- separete poll for each of the questions accuracy could be needed too, note though that those might need some research and preparation before as well
- last but not least, dakkadakka might be the forum with more narrative driven players as competitive ones go to sites with articles more suited to them. Hmm, a global community poll? Might work.
This poll proves nothing, you can corelate the steady percentage of positive answers with general opinion the whole day but scientificaly the data is worthless. You may accidentaly be right that "majority likes it" but you can't use this poll results to prove it, imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Sole reason I posted this poll because i watched several very heated discussions threads here on dakka wherein a handful of persons who really dont like the new rules set repeatedly posted long, vitriolic analysis of the rules and the state of the game. Just looking at the sheer number of posts without looking at the posters, one could be led to believe that the upset crowd was representative of dakka.
I think that logical long, vitrolic analysis of rules and state of the game is worth more as a measure of the ruleset quality than the poll showing that people "like" the new edition. Why does it bother you btw that it would look like the upset crowd is representative of Dakka?
5386
Post by: sennacherib
So it looks like you have your work cut out for you. I welcome your efforts to help analyze peoples feelings on 6th ed. I will gladly participate in any polls that you come up with, and will comment on them in order to help keep them up on the front page so they get greater exposure. Perhaps you could use survey monkey and post a link here in whatever thread you choose to post.
as for your question why it would bother me that the small vocal minority of unhappy gamers would appear to represent dakka. ITs not what they appear to represent. its the way they are representing. The same posters started popping up on any thread about 6th ed and game play and posting angry diatribes in response to anyones post that did not mirror their feelings. The way they made it sound, GW had ruined the game, the sky was falling, oh woe is me, anyone who likes the game now is an idiot... etc etc. Their posts were met with by a similar group who argued that the game was still fun, things change move on etc. Some very good arguments were made on both sides. however it was very difficult to tell what the majority of dakka posters thought. thus the poll.
This is often how it goes on Dakka. You appear to be fairly new here, though you may be a long time lurker (i have no way of knowing except your joined on date). a few posters with very strong opinions post repeartedly their feelings on any thread concerning what they are really emotional about. This makes it very hard to discern what the overarching emotional responce to the topic is. I wanted to know if the myriad of negative posts which seem to have been posted by a minority of dakka memebers represented how dakka felt.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
My local community has really bloomed with 6th edition. I've yet to see or hear of a single person that doesn't like the new rules thus far.
I know for some us, well me for sure, 5th edition was a hangover that made my simple brain over-complicate things that are in fact very easy and logical in this edition.
Having played every edition of 40k, I'll say this - more or less, every edition HAS been an improvement - and the loudest internet-FREAKOUTS seem to always be amongst people that don't actually play games but sit around at home reading rules and getting upset.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
 Vaktathi wrote:I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.
A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.
Many of the people decrying 5th as being awful now were the same ones saying how great 5th was and how awful 4th was.
I'd like to pull this little nugget from a forum thread several years old when discussing a similar topic about 5th ed vis-a-vi previous editions.
Grot 6 wrote:.
5th is your favorite until 6th comes out.
I feel this is particularly apt. With any new release, the majority of people will say they like it, but when people look back on it next to other previous editions after new ones have come out, or simply after the metagame has been firmly established, then their opinion is often different.
Spot on. I'm bookmarking and printing this post for use when 7th ed 40K is about to come out and fanboys worldwide are whining about how old and stale 6th ed is and what a lousy rule set it was, how glad they are that something new has come along to make the game "fun" again, and how people who don't like 7th ed should shut up, move on and play.
For anyone who's interested, there's a new Facebook group dedicated to gamers who want to escape the trap that is constant edition/codex revision and continue to play the editions/codices they bought into in the first place:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/514140121933633/
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
In the Future there is only Fear of Change.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
In fairness there is a natural reluctance to embrace change when that change may involve (perhaps substantial) expense. There is also a natural conservatism that tends to regard new as worse and long term players of any system always have an idea of how the game should progress that may differ from how it does (I well remember my dismay at Runequest's switch from the well established 2nd to 3rd and also the demise of the historical based 7th edition WRG rules).
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Vaktathi wrote:I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.
A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.
I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I see the opposite effect. Whenever a new edition or even Codex comes out, tons of people freak out and claim the sky is falling. However, once they've had time to acclimate themselves to the new rules instead of just fixating on things that sound bad without having actually played games, their opinions lighten up. You can see this with every new Codex ever-- the rumors always get called broken, people bemoan how GW is ruining game balance and the new book can never be stopped, and then the rules come out and are actually fine once people get used to them.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
I'm a long time player (every edition of 40k). My reactions are not 'knee-jerks', and I have only my own opinion - but time has proven, to me anyway, that every new edition was generally better and more fun than the last.
The 1st edition was not really very playable, the 2nd was ridiculously unbalanced and complicated for no reason in places, but more fun than the last; first run of 3rd ed went too far in a different direction but the tournament community exploded and the game was fun, after some rule updates it was a great edition. 4th ed had a codex lag problem but the ruleset was more balanced and a necessary step. The 5th ed really brought the tournament community to life and we saw so much new and renewed interest in this super fun game. So far 6th edition seems to be a homerun in so many regards and imo it's a true Evolution of all these editions.
One thing that has ALWAYS been the case is --- especially with Codex releases, the loudest complaints come from folks that don't actually play games, but instead just read rules and get upset.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
Opposition =/= "Fear of Change".
Get off your high horse. Not everyone agrees with the GW fanboys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.
A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.
I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I see the opposite effect. Whenever a new edition or even Codex comes out, tons of people freak out and claim the sky is falling. However, once they've had time to acclimate themselves to the new rules instead of just fixating on things that sound bad without having actually played games, their opinions lighten up. You can see this with every new Codex ever-- the rumors always get called broken, people bemoan how GW is ruining game balance and the new book can never be stopped, and then the rules come out and are actually fine once people get used to them.
Ah yes, the "lie back and enjoy it" attitude.
Well, some of us don't feel like lying back and enjoying it. Some of us think challenges, random magic, er, psyker powers, magic landscapes etc. belong in WHFB (if they even belong there), don't want to play under those rules, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us think flyers belong in Epic, don't want to spend $$$ on them, don't want to spent points and $$$ dealing with them, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us want to play the game we bought into, not the latest rules dump by faceless GW suits looking to pump up sales from GW fanboy-dom.
I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Opposition =/= "Fear of Change".
Get off your high horse. Not everyone agrees with the GW fanboys.
Opposition? ...heh the rulebook just came out. How many games have you played at this point?
LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kingsley wrote: Vaktathi wrote:I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.
A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.
I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I see the opposite effect. Whenever a new edition or even Codex comes out, tons of people freak out and claim the sky is falling. However, once they've had time to acclimate themselves to the new rules instead of just fixating on things that sound bad without having actually played games, their opinions lighten up. You can see this with every new Codex ever-- the rumors always get called broken, people bemoan how GW is ruining game balance and the new book can never be stopped, and then the rules come out and are actually fine once people get used to them.
Ah yes, the "lie back and enjoy it" attitude.
Well, some of us don't feel like lying back and enjoying it. Some of us think challenges, random magic, er, psyker powers, magic landscapes etc. belong in WHFB (if they even belong there), don't want to play under those rules, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us think flyers belong in Epic, don't want to spend $$$ on them, don't want to spent points and $$$ dealing with them, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us want to play the game we bought into, not the latest rules dump by faceless GW suits looking to pump up sales from GW fanboy-dom.
I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
That seems a sensible approach: there are plenty of options, including house-ruling your own 40K rules.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
 Blood and Slaughter wrote:I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
That seems a sensible approach: there are plenty of options, including house-ruling your own 40K rules.
One group I used to play with used house rules all the time, though we did a few major campaigns so we had alotta custom stuff for various planets and the like.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:So it looks like you have your work cut out for you. I welcome your efforts to help analyze peoples feelings on 6th ed. I will gladly participate in any polls that you come up with, and will comment on them in order to help keep them up on the front page so they get greater exposure. Perhaps you could use survey monkey and post a link here in whatever thread you choose to post.
No polls from me because Internet polls are predominantly useless. It's not that your particular poll is so wrong, what I want to show is that it's extremly hard to obtain any serious data from Internet poll Even if you gave the effort to create a good question set you would still have to analyze the sample etc via PM or another polls. . Lots of senseless work and like shooting flies with Abrams. I only have issue with you drawing hard conclusions like "majority for sure likes it", I'm quite certain you can't. I hope I didn't come off as rude, I don't want to attack you because you like 6th, just posted a few examples of difficulties in this area
sennacherib wrote:as for your question why it would bother me that the small vocal minority of unhappy gamers would appear to represent dakka. ITs not what they appear to represent. its the way they are representing. The same posters started popping up on any thread about 6th ed and game play and posting angry diatribes in response to anyones post that did not mirror their feelings. The way they made it sound, GW had ruined the game, the sky was falling, oh woe is me, anyone who likes the game now is an idiot... etc etc. Their posts were met with by a similar group who argued that the game was still fun, things change move on etc. Some very good arguments were made on both sides. however it was very difficult to tell what the majority of dakka posters thought. thus the poll.
On the other hand, anyone who dislikes it is WAAC bordering on TFG, according to the other side of the argument. Ok though, I thought you worry for GWs writers feelings if they accidentaly saw this or sth. Btw I wouldn't say tht they ruined the game but seem to try imo
sennacherib wrote:This is often how it goes on Dakka. You appear to be fairly new here, though you may be a long time lurker (i have no way of knowing except your joined on date). a few posters with very strong opinions post repeartedly their feelings on any thread concerning what they are really emotional about. This makes it very hard to discern what the overarching emotional responce to the topic is. I wanted to know if the myriad of negative posts which seem to have been posted by a minority of dakka memebers represented how dakka felt.
This is often how it goes on any forum and yes I was quite a lurker (6th made me register, heh) but whatever, my stance is it's not majority that counts but hard logic, the numbers are irrelevant to the discussion. Imo ofc.
62560
Post by: Makumba
sennacherib wrote:Thanks to all who have participated so far. I was curious about how most of dakka felt and though only 134 people have voted i have to say that this is a large enough number of votes to be able to consider it from a statistical perspective. The results would lead me to conclude that all the grumbling in the forums is primarily being stirred up by the small number of extreamly vocal neck-beared brigade members, and that most of dakka appears to be pretty happy with the changes.
checking it the wrong way . no study with one question is ok . SM players form the majority of the game field . they can/have flyers or can ally them with battlebrothers . If necrons were as popular as GK , then you would have a lot more people disliking the edition .
the edition is ok . there is stuff changed just to changed stuff and stuff changed to sell more models . nothing new . too much randomness that hits more or less only one way of playing the game is not good for the game in the future . No one who wants a good working army will build an assault one ,unless there comes a codex that totaly ignores random charge/charging out of transport etc . Tbis will shift the meta game to more gunline/shoty type armies .If assault units are going to be used they will be counter ones or ones that can double as both shoty and hth units like paladins for example. All of that wouldnt be a bad thing , if there didnt werent armies in the game that dont do shoting well or at all . I dont envy a WE player for example . two editions of meh kind of sucks , thats like 10 years wasted game time .
there is also some for fun stuff that GW made to makes stuff "cool" like challanges , but it feels as if they forgot they have paladins/nobz in the game. and with a the ally rules they can have paladins in more or less every imperial army . not a big thing now , but will start getting more problematic with each new dex.
I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
well considering that many tournaments still go no FW , 1999+1 or no random terrain , that is more or less what is happening . But at the same time those guys are getting flakk from non tournament gamers for "not playing w40k" with the full rule set and that because tournament Orgs/players dont like too much randomness it somehow makes them worse kind of players .
18080
Post by: Anpu42
As for the three random things I keep seeing as “Hate/Disliked” items: Mysterious Terrain, Warlord Powers and the Psychic Powers.
Mysterious Terrain: I don’t recall a Single Mission that Requires them.
Warlord Powers: If you and your opponent don’t like them. Don’t use them or allow you to choose.
Psychic Powers: See Warlord Powers.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
The 'Randomness-FreakOut' is totally ridiculous and unfounded anyway... the affects of these "random" elements are SO incredibly overblown; and the reason this freakout has little to no legitimacy is because it began long before the rules were even released. Simply playing some games should cure this; but I realize that is asking a lot of folks that love to complain.
So far I've rolled the 'Exploding' random objective several times and it has yet to even cause a wound on either side. The rest of the stuff is pretty fun and at best, has a very small impact on a very small area of the game.
Random terrain seriously ...it's totally ridiculous that people are so afraid of this. I've yet to see a wound caused by this even when the brainbugs successfully made a model attack his own unit, which was just hilarious anyway. Why freakout about this? Even if it DOES cause a wound, god forbid! ...so does regular dangerous terrain sometimes.
Random psychic powers are not truly Random at all - you can choose powers from your codex, you can roll on several small tables of your CHOICE, and still if you don't like what you've rolled you can CHOOSE to take the standard power. You now have MORE choice.
Warlord powers are entirely extra and free... most really have but a small impact if any on games. I hear everyone bellyaching about that one guy that won a game because his Warlord was scoring... well unless this power (to score) was magically revealed at the very last second then that is not why he won the game, his opponent let this happen.
Makumba wrote:
I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
well considering that many tournaments still go no FW , 1999+1 or no random terrain , that is more or less what is happening . But at the same time those guys are getting flakk from non tournament gamers for "not playing w40k" with the full rule set and that because tournament Orgs/players dont like too much randomness it somehow makes them worse kind of players .
"Worse kind of players" I don't know... but ridiculous for being so afraid of virtually nothing... umm yes absolutely.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 Gunzhard wrote:
So far I've rolled the 'Exploding' random objective several times and it has yet to even cause a wound on either side.
When you're playing a marine army sure. It's not so ignorable when your guys are T3 4+/5+ sv and can't take refuge in transports anymore.
Warlord powers are entirely extra and free... most really have but a small impact if any on games. I hear everyone bellyaching about that one guy that won a game because his Warlord was scoring... well unless this power (to score) was magically revealed at the very last second then that is not why he won the game, his opponent let this happen.
These can have a *huge* impact on games. Reserves manipulation, stealth in ruins on certain boards, etc. In more than half the games I've played or watched, the Warlord power has had a noticeable effect on the outcome. In fact, I won my last game in large part due to my Warlord ability.
The problem is that many are useless, and others provide a varying degree of power depending on what army you are playing, and very much can in some cases flip an outcome.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
Vaktathi wrote: Gunzhard wrote:
So far I've rolled the 'Exploding' random objective several times and it has yet to even cause a wound on either side.
When you're playing a marine army sure. It's not so ignorable when your guys are T3 4+/5+ sv and can't take refuge in transports anymore.
In my last two games against Dark Eldar it was the DE player on the exploding objective... I don't recall what the Toughness and Save were but they were certainly not marines... none of them died either. But seriously - if one did die? BFD. Are you expecting to play this game without losing any models?
Vaktathi wrote:
Warlord powers are entirely extra and free... most really have but a small impact if any on games. I hear everyone bellyaching about that one guy that won a game because his Warlord was scoring... well unless this power (to score) was magically revealed at the very last second then that is not why he won the game, his opponent let this happen.
These can have a *huge* impact on games. Reserves manipulation, stealth in ruins on certain boards, etc. In more than half the games I've played or watched, the Warlord power has had a noticeable effect on the outcome. In fact, I won my last game in large part due to my Warlord ability.
The problem is that many are useless, and others provide a varying degree of power depending on what army you are playing, and very much can in some cases flip an outcome.
Wow - c'mon man that is a total exaggeration. Essentially all of these powers/affects you can find, and have to deal with, from elsewhere in the game/codex... but the Warlord versions are all mostly watered down. It's just another thing you, might, have to account for as the opposing player - which is entirely what this game is about, unless you just want a 'win-button' net list. NONE of the powers are over-powered and none are useless - but certain armies obviously benefit more or less, or sometimes not at all, from certain powers. To say they have a *huge* impact on the game is just not accurate.
The "flip the outcome" argument is also nonsense because your opponent should know what your Warlord power is before the game begins. It should be no surprise, it should 'flip' nothing.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
Gunzhard wrote:
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.
Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.
"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded." Automatically Appended Next Post: Blood and Slaughter wrote:I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.
That seems a sensible approach: there are plenty of options, including house-ruling your own 40K rules.
House-ruling is something I've often thought of doing, maybe combining the best (or at least good) aspects of 3rd, 4th and 5th. I'd be happy to collaborate on such a project.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
LordOfTheSloths wrote: Gunzhard wrote:
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.
Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.
"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded."
Again I ask, how many games have you played to draw your vast 'open-minded' conclusion from? Did you have the rulebook several months before the rest of us or something?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Gunzhard wrote:
In my last two games against Dark Eldar it was the DE player on the exploding objective... I don't recall what the Toughness and Save were but they were certainly not marines... none of them died either. But seriously - if one did die? BFD. Are you expecting to play this game without losing any models?
Not really what I was getting at. I'm saying the unit as a whole dies a whole lot easier, and thus holding the objective is much more difficult. Casualties are expected, I'm really not new to this game, I've been known to laugh at opponents when they killing 30 guardsmen in close combat means anything to me 
The problem isn't casualties, it's the ability to hold the objective, which, with weeny units, becomes a very big deal when the objective itself is deadly.
Wow - c'mon man that is a total exaggeration.
Handwaving and saying it's an exaggeration does not make it so.
Essentially all of these powers/affects you can find, and have to deal with, from elsewhere in the game/codex... but the Warlord versions are all mostly watered down.
And they're usually very restricted and/or impost restrictions (e.g. If Eldar want reserve bonuses, they can't take their full complement of psychic support), or cost a fair amount of points, and aren't available to all armies.
It's just another thing you, might, have to account for as the opposing player - which is entirely what this game is about, unless you just want a 'win-button' net list.
yes... because win-button net-lists are what I'm talking about...>_>
What I'm saying is that they're very much imbalanced and for some armies they may not make much difference while for others they may swing the game.
NONE of the powers are over-powered and none are useless
Saying so doesn't make it so. Virtually none of the personal warlord powers are going to do much for an IG army, likewise if deploying 2nd, Master of Deceit isn't doing much for anyone.
- but certain armies obviously benefit more or less, or sometimes not at all, from certain powers. To say they have a *huge* impact on the game is just not accurate.
I've played games where they've done just that. Getting Stealth in ruins (and thus a 3+ cover) with an IG gunline is a hilarious thing when the table's got 3 large Ruins in your deployment zone while you're opponent is sitting there thinking "wow, my Counterattack Warlord ability is going to be *SO* useful against an IG gunline..."
The "flip the outcome" argument is also nonsense because your opponent should know what your Warlord power is before the game begins. It should be no surprise, it should 'flip' nothing.
I'm not saying it should be a surprise, I'm saying it can change the outcome of what would have happened it the Warlord power was not present, and often times there isn't much one can really do about it (e.g. the actions and decisions often would remain largely the same regardless, the other side's impact is simply larger)
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
Gunzhard wrote:LordOfTheSloths wrote: Gunzhard wrote:
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.
Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.
"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded."
Again I ask, how many games have you played to draw your vast 'open-minded' conclusion from? Did you have the rulebook several months before the rest of us or something?
The question is irrelevant. I can read the rules like anyone else, and draw my own conclusions based thereon. I don't need to play months' worth of games to know that I don't want to play with flyers, that I don't want to play with anti-flyer units, that I don't want to play with challenges, that I don't want to play with random charges, that I don't want to play with hull points, that I don't want to play with not being able to assault out of vehicles, etc.
You are happy to do so. Good on you. Play 6th all you want. It's all yours. I'll stick to previous editions and house rules.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
Vaktathi wrote: Gunzhard wrote:
In my last two games against Dark Eldar it was the DE player on the exploding objective... I don't recall what the Toughness and Save were but they were certainly not marines... none of them died either. But seriously - if one did die? BFD. Are you expecting to play this game without losing any models?
Not really what I was getting at. I'm saying the unit as a whole dies a whole lot easier, and thus holding the objective is much more difficult. Casualties are expected, I'm really not new to this game, I've been known to laugh at opponents when they killing 30 guardsmen in close combat means anything to me
The problem isn't casualties, it's the ability to hold the objective, which, with weeny units, becomes a very big deal when the objective itself is deadly.
Wow - c'mon man that is a total exaggeration.
Handwaving and saying it's an exaggeration does not make it so.
Essentially all of these powers/affects you can find, and have to deal with, from elsewhere in the game/codex... but the Warlord versions are all mostly watered down.
And they're usually very restricted and/or impost restrictions (e.g. If Eldar want reserve bonuses, they can't take their full complement of psychic support), or cost a fair amount of points, and aren't available to all armies.
It's just another thing you, might, have to account for as the opposing player - which is entirely what this game is about, unless you just want a 'win-button' net list.
yes... because win-button net-lists are what I'm talking about...>_>
What I'm saying is that they're very much imbalanced and for some armies they may not make much difference while for others they may swing the game.
NONE of the powers are over-powered and none are useless
Saying so doesn't make it so. Virtually none of the personal warlord powers are going to do much for an IG army, likewise if deploying 2nd, Master of Deceit isn't doing much for anyone.
- but certain armies obviously benefit more or less, or sometimes not at all, from certain powers. To say they have a *huge* impact on the game is just not accurate.
I've played games where they've done just that. Getting Stealth in ruins (and thus a 3+ cover) with an IG gunline is a hilarious thing when the table's got 3 large Ruins in your deployment zone while you're opponent is sitting there thinking "wow, my Counterattack Warlord ability is going to be *SO* useful against an IG gunline..."
The "flip the outcome" argument is also nonsense because your opponent should know what your Warlord power is before the game begins. It should be no surprise, it should 'flip' nothing.
I'm not saying it should be a surprise, I'm saying it can change the outcome of what would have happened it the Warlord power was not present, and often times there isn't much one can really do about it (e.g. the actions and decisions often would remain largely the same regardless, the other side's impact is simply larger)
Saying it so, doesn't make it so is exactly right. Dude you are forgetting that we are not always pitting the exact same SM list versus an identical SM list with matching deployment zones and matching powers and matching dice. There are SO many ways to get Stealth in this game, and Counter Attack for that matter... are you telling me you give up whenever this scenario of yours happens? Or only when you've just learned about it before the game has begun? Further most of the Warlord traits apply to the warlord and his unit, if he can even join one; and even the Strategic Traits apply mostly to specialty type units like outflankers or infilitrators or even just the units you choose to hold in reserve.
Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is. You are choosing to over-emphasize the affect of these specific, and mostly narrowly applicable, rules because they are new. But I'd be REALLY surprised if your Warlord Trait scenario was the first time you've seen a shooty unit with buffed cover or an Assaulty unit with Counter-attack in a situation where it didn't help. If 'win-button' lists are not your bag, which is good to hear, then how does it make sense continue the same "actions and decisions" if you know it will cost you the game because of a rule that is as drastically impacting as you say? I just don't get why THESE rules, these very narrow rules, amongst all of the rules on the table at one time, are so unnerving and game changing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordOfTheSloths wrote: Gunzhard wrote:LordOfTheSloths wrote: Gunzhard wrote:
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.
Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.
"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded."
Gunzhard wrote:
Again I ask, how many games have you played to draw your vast 'open-minded' conclusion from? Did you have the rulebook several months before the rest of us or something?
The question is irrelevant. I can read the rules like anyone else, and draw my own conclusions based thereon. I don't need to play months' worth of games to know that I don't want to play with flyers, that I don't want to play with anti-flyer units, that I don't want to play with challenges, that I don't want to play with random charges, that I don't want to play with hull points, that I don't want to play with not being able to assault out of vehicles, etc.
You are happy to do so. Good on you. Play 6th all you want. It's all yours. I'll stick to previous editions and house rules.
Irrelevant? ...that is the only question that matters. How can you claim to be 'open-minded' when you are not even TRYING the rules? That's like saying you don't like Broccoli because a magazine said it tastes bad... imo it does taste bad, but at least I've TRIED it - and numerous times. How do you expect to have a credible opinion of the game when you are not out playing the game? I mean seriously how do you envision that you even have a leg to stand on? At least for the sake of proving me wrong - go out and play 30 games, give it a few months at least, then tell us you hate it.
62925
Post by: Chapter Master Prascus
I feel that 6th edition is good,but vehicles having structure points kinda nerfs one of my army lists witch is based around rhinos, stormravens,ect
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.
I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
Fafnir wrote:I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.
I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.
My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.
What else should I be defending? ...I have played every edition of this game and I believe that it has only continued to get better and more fun, with better and cooler units and better and cooler models. Not everything is a homerun, not everything is perfect and GW will never create a game that makes everyone happy, but it's still an awesome game.
Even the haters and complainers still have interest in it. Further, I am certainly not some wise old sage, but this exact thread with the same fears and complaints - has happened several times throughout the history of this game.
The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released. At least Vaktathi seems to be playing the game and making rational examples, though I think he is greatly exaggerating the affect of certain new elements in the rules; mostly because in the games I've played or 'sat in' I've experienced something else.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Gunzhard wrote: Fafnir wrote:I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.
I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.
My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.
But clearly, most of us HAVE tried 6th edition.
The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released.
And now we have the rules. So those calls of BS are completely pointless.
At least Vaktathi seems to be playing the game and making rational examples, though I think he is greatly exaggerating the affect of certain new elements in the rules; mostly because in the games I've played or 'sat in' I've experienced something else.
I'd say that his examples are without any hyperbole. For example, Warlord Traits. If the Dark Eldar player gets the trait that allows them to force night fight, that's a huge boon that can win the game right there.
Or giving the warlord the ability to be scoring. With some characters being as survivable as Draigo or Lysander, that's huge.
If you've read the warlord traits, and can't see how some of them can be entirely game changing with the right army, then your grasp of the game must be extremely limited.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Gunzhard wrote:
Saying it so, doesn't make it so is exactly right. Dude you are forgetting that we are not always pitting the exact same SM list versus an identical SM list with matching deployment zones and matching powers and matching dice.
No, I'm not, that's kinda my point. A huge number of these abilities are utterly useless to some armies and very powerful for others.
There are SO many ways to get Stealth in this game, and Counter Attack for that matter...
I addressed this already. Not every army can, and certainly not often outside of limited builds. Either way, irrelevant to the argument, the point was that one side (mine) got a huge advantage in that I'd just been made significantly harder to engage, while my opponents ability was quite literally worthless, he was never going to get assaulted and certainly not in his own deployment zone, and it swung the game because I was provided with a clear advantage and was able to deploy and set up in such a manner that meant I would take very few casualties by the time my opponent reached my positions and thus was unable to dislodge me by the time he got there.
are you telling me you give up whenever this scenario of yours happens?
No, I'm saying it detracts from the tactical challenge of beating an opponent on fair footing and the fun of the game when it comes up. "giving up" or not isn't what this is about.
Further most of the Warlord traits apply to the warlord and his unit, if he can even join one; and even the Strategic Traits apply mostly to specialty type units like outflankers or infilitrators or even just the units you choose to hold in reserve.
Yes...hence my point, why many of them often prove to be utterly worthless or very powerful.
Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules.
The problem is that they aren't even handed, they're basically a free bonus that often provides a major boost to one side and proves utterly worthless to the other. When a good player is able to make use of a warlord ability while their opponent rolled something they can't use, that really throws an unnecessary kink in the game.
You are choosing to over-emphasize the affect of these specific, and mostly narrowly applicable, rules because they are new.
I don't think I am, too many of these abilities add huge advantage to niche builds while proving useless to others or are just very useful to certain types of armies or dependent on if you go first or second. They're just too variable and arbitrary.
There's nothing narrow about many of these. For any army that isn't relying on a powerful combat lord and isn't relying on reserves (a great many armies), literally half the warlord abilities won't do anything for you. If you've built an army built around a mobile force with a killy HQ and a good chunk of reserves, you'll almost always gain a benefit to Warlord abilities.
But I'd be REALLY surprised if your Warlord Trait scenario was the first time you've seen a shooty unit with buffed cover or an Assaulty unit with Counter-attack in a situation where it didn't help.
It's not, but that's irrelevant, the point is that the game just awarded, arbitrarily, a powerful ability to one side and a completely pointless one to another, and there was no counterbalance to the side that got something useful, no points spent or force restrictions or increased objective need, etc.
If 'win-button' lists are not your bag, which is good to hear, then how does it make sense continue the same "actions and decisions" if you know it will cost you the game because of a rule that is as drastically impacting as you say? I just don't get why THESE rules, these very narrow rules, amongst all of the rules on the table at one time, are so unnerving and game changing?
It's specifically because they're so variable, some are very narrow in their applicability and are quite often worthless and other times very powerful, others will almost always be useful, at least one's is almost exactly 50/50 depending if you won the roll to go first or not. And it's not *JUST* the Warlord rules, they're just an example. Mysterious Terrain and Mysterious Objectives have similar issues.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Vaktathi wrote:
And it's not *JUST* the Warlord rules, they're just an example. Mysterious Terrain and Mysterious Objectives have similar issues.
Oh boy, I do not look forward to rolling the psyker rape terrain on my Paladins...
Playing a pretty good game. All of a sudden, player lands on mysterious terrain. My Paladin Squad gets nuked for no reason. Game over.
Fun!
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
Fafnir wrote: Gunzhard wrote: Fafnir wrote:I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.
I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.
My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.
But clearly, most of us HAVE tried 6th edition.
Funny I was distinctly replying to a guy in this thread that doesn't play... just reads rules and gets upset. Are you telling me that is not just silly?
Fafnir wrote:
The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released.
And now we have the rules. So those calls of BS are completely pointless.
And you have it all figured out already? I've been playing 6th edition and I've still yet to play through a game where I didn't get at least one rule, if not several, wrong - because the book is so new. It will certainly be some time before the local or region or tournament metas shift and people get comfortable enough with the rules where they can really take advantage and also have enough opportunities to play different armies and different builds and different players. I am impressed that you are so ahead of the curve.
Fafnir wrote:
At least Vaktathi seems to be playing the game and making rational examples, though I think he is greatly exaggerating the affect of certain new elements in the rules; mostly because in the games I've played or 'sat in' I've experienced something else.
I'd say that his examples are without any hyperbole. For example, Warlord Traits. If the Dark Eldar player gets the trait that allows them to force night fight, that's a huge boon that can win the game right there.
Or giving the warlord the ability to be scoring. With some characters being as survivable as Draigo or Lysander, that's huge.
If you've read the warlord traits, and can't see how some of them can be entirely game changing with the right army, then your grasp of the game must be extremely limited.
If this and if that... what has been your experience so far? I would LOVE if you wasted Draigo or Lysander on a single objective. Please do that, because my 'limited' gameplay skill has never allowed me to go after more than one objective or find other ways to win, I just give up if some rule, like basically every rule in every codex, seems to offer my opponent some advantage when I let him play HIS game.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Gunzhard wrote:
Funny I was distinctly replying to a guy in this thread that doesn't play... just reads rules and gets upset. Are you telling me that is not just silly?
That depends. For some of the smaller nuances, perhaps. But there are many glaring issues in 6th edition (and, let's face it, previous editions as well) that one can tell just by reading the rules.
Fafnir wrote:
The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released.
And now we have the rules. So those calls of BS are completely pointless.
And you have it all figured out already? I've been playing 6th edition and I've still yet to play through a game where I didn't get at least one rule, if not several, wrong - because the book is so new. It will certainly be some time before the local or region or tournament metas shift and people get comfortable enough with the rules where they can really take advantage and also have enough opportunities to play different armies and different builds and different players. I am impressed that you are so ahead of the curve.
Sure, there are still the transitory pains from moving to the new edition, but I'd like to think that I, and the people I play against, have the core rules down pretty well. I know that for the rules that I exploit the hell out of, I know very well.
If this and if that... what has been your experience so far? I would LOVE if you wasted Draigo or Lysander on a single objective.
I've done it before. Granted, not only did I waste Draigo on a single objective. I had him waste 400 points of Marines on the way there. It wins games. I already would do that in 5th edition just to contest objectives, but the ability to turn such a tactic from denial to scoring is obscenely powerful.
Please do that, because my 'limited' gameplay skill has never allowed me to go after more than one objective or find other ways to win,
Draigo being scoring may not seem like a big deal. But when my army only has 3 scoring units normally, getting a 4th for free, and in the form of the nigh-unkillable combat monster that is Draigo, that's incredibly huge. As a Paladin/Nobstar player, map control and maneuverability are huge issues for me. The opportunity to turn Draigo into a scoring unit (At no cost! Can you believe that?) is something I'd kill for.
I just give up if some rule, like basically every rule in every codex, seems to offer my opponent some advantage when I let him play HIS game.
Words. Mouth. Forcing of. You do lots of that.
12893
Post by: evilsponge
Haven't played. No real specific issues with 6th, just a lot of little annoyances and lack of enthusiasm over War hammer in general. Happened with 4th edition as well
19370
Post by: daedalus
6th edition? feth this game sideways!
Er... I'm still getting used to it. Ask this question in about 3 more months or so.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
As for houseruling, I'm thinking about it. For the start, I'm going to fix random charges to 6" and fleet as well ( btw anyone can tell me the average of 2d6 with reroll to any of the dice or both? I'm not sure), rule out nightfighting, warlord traits, mysterious anything, challenges, look out sir (maybe one attempt for one shooting or cc) with possible point cost cut further down the road. Oh wait... I'm as good staying with 5th or making a whole new ruleset.
In the end, I'm probably not going to buy a single codex and a single model outside of an used one, and most importantly not going to play 6th - the book is good for its art but that's it imo. Doesn't change the fact that the suggestion for dissatisfied players to get together and play own rules is quite a bad one as that alienates me from a solid number of players, playing in the shops etc. It is even worse because it would take only a little efort from the company to please their whole consumer base - a tourney rules and scenarios in BRB.
Gunzhard wrote: Fafnir wrote: Gunzhard wrote: Fafnir wrote:I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.
I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.
My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.
But clearly, most of us HAVE tried 6th edition.
Funny I was distinctly replying to a guy in this thread that doesn't play... just reads rules and gets upset. Are you telling me that is not just silly?
Of course it isn't silly. If I didn't play, I still would have reports like this one:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/08/40k-editorial-lessons-from-1st-gt-of.html
not to mention I hated d6 run in 5th, how could I like 2d6 charge out of the sudden?
And if it was silly, it would be equaly silly then to claiming this is the best edition or a great one after only a few games.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
 daedalus wrote:6th edition? feth this game sideways!
Er... I'm still getting used to it. Ask this question in about 3 more months or so.
I totally will .
BTW, the Hate crowd is slowly loosing ground, and the votes keep piling up.
I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it. Thats great and i fully encourage actual discussion, but this was not the point of the poll. I merely wanted to determine if the lovers outweighed the haters. It looks like they do by a large margin.
There is a vocal group within Dakka that is very critical of GW. There is nothing wrong with being critical, and many within this group site very legitimate reasons why they dont like the new rules. However most people appear to like them just fine. You dont have to believe the polls accuracy. Yet the growing numbers of votes and the fact that there is an 8:1 ratio in favor of loving the game is pretty substantial evidence to support the claim that more people love the game than don't. If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.
62560
Post by: Makumba
I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it.
because people that dont like 6th just drop from the game or put w40k on hold till their army gets a new codex . which more offten then not means they dont check and recheck w40k subforums to vote on 6th like/dislike ?
If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.
you would need to groups for testing . then cross reference it with polls done for different sub groups of players , lets say doing 2 polls on a forum , 2 on groups playing in shops/clubs and 2 groups polled on a tournament . you need 200-300 people polled in each group and then you have viable data . If both the main and the control group give simiular resoults then you can say that the situation for one country looks like this . But the problem would still be the error margin . For most studies like this its 2,5-5% [I doubt we could do it like medics do it who have a 0,0001% or lower margin of error] , it can be a big difference in data resoults even for larger groups like local communities , but for small communities it can be a huge difference [specialy when we dont have a way to get good resoults for polls from people who just play against friends at home and people that stoped playing in 6th] .
And you have it all figured out already? I've been playing 6th edition and I've still yet to play through a game where I didn't get at least one rule, if not several, wrong - because the book is so new. It will certainly be some time before the local or region or tournament metas shift and people get comfortable enough with the rules where they can really take advantage and also have enough opportunities to play different armies and different builds and different players. I am impressed that you are so ahead of the curve.
do you need months of testing to see that first blood/getting first turn is rather unbalanced , that it forced to play with units [or at least start with them on the table] that cant be easily killed turn 1 . when shoting is a lot less random then assault is it hard to notice that assault armies will be weaker ? I mean imagine that the range of weapons was 12"[point blank range] and 2d6/3d5/ 4d6/5d6/ depanding on weapon type , would shoting/gunline armies have it better then assault ones if assault ones got 5th ed rules only buffed[to represent the 6th ed overwatch,focus firing etc] ? with the amount of AA stuff in the game is it hard to notice that flyers maybe good and armies that can spam them for cheap have an upper hand over others.
This is stuff one can know without ever playing w40k , just by reading the rule book .
34258
Post by: Pilau Rice
I have only played a single game thus far and found it mostly enjoyable with the rules being an improvement for the majority and the additions of Snap fire, challenges etc being welcome and adding a new dimension to the game. Also the clarification involving walkers and pivoting when immobilised pleased me greatly.
Things I am not sure of yet are the rules regarding infiltration and outflank, although I can see the logic in this, Look out sir seems a bit over the top, maybe a restriction of 1 attempt should have been applied err and I think that's it actually. So not bad, only 2 gripes.
I think I would have liked to have seen a comment made earlier in this thread made reality, regarding Jump Packs and Bikes, having Hit and Run, as it would make sense. Also units with Move through Cover not being affected by terrain when assaulting, but that's neither here nor there and wishing listing.
I haven't voted yet as I don't believe a single game is enough to judge, but overall I am happy with it.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:
BTW, the Hate crowd is slowly loosing ground, and the votes keep piling up.
I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it. Thats great and i fully encourage actual discussion, but this was not the point of the poll. I merely wanted to determine if the lovers outweighed the haters. It looks like they do by a large margin.
You are still doing it... "hate crowd", "love vs hate responders", "substantial evidence"... how ffs can you ever hate the game...
sennacherib wrote:There is a vocal group within Dakka that is very critical of GW. There is nothing wrong with being critical, and many within this group site very legitimate reasons why they dont like the new rules. However most people appear to like them just fine. You dont have to believe the polls accuracy. Yet the growing numbers of votes and the fact that there is an 8:1 ratio in favor of loving the game is pretty substantial evidence to support the claim that more people love the game than don't. If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.
The poll of this nature, Internet forum poll will not work. I'm quality manager, we have like 10 - 20 clients a year and my feedback poll is 3 A4 pages long and you wanted to do it using one question containing "love" and "hate" as answers. Imagine you're GW and want to properly measure feedback of 6th edition, take into account your entire consumer base and have a valid data (just to say "majority likes it for sure"), how hard would that be? Because I'm quite sure it's a huge task prone to failure even if you do it proffesionaly. Big researches conducted by specialised companies go wrong and are prone to manipulation, the simple polls like "who are you going to vote on?" have history of failures and you think something complex like reaction to and judgment of the new ruleset is doable throuht the forum thread.
So again, in this case Internet forum poll is worthless especialy with answers like yours but if you still want to engage in such a waste of time, start with multiple questions poll, post it on multiple sites, pick responders at random from the given forum populations. Do a research before of how much the Internet reflects the customer base, define positive and negative feedback, find out which sites represent what cathegory of players at what percentage after of course defining those cathegories, make questions to get knowledge of what kind of people consider it better/worse and why, avoid words describing emotional reactions as those are influenced by too many factors, expect multiple tries to confirm, top of my head. You can go wrong at any point of the research - methodology/ defining/ cathegorising/ questions/ sample size/ respondent answers analysis etc... have fun.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
do you need months of testing to see that first blood/getting first turn is rather unbalanced
Seeing as in most cases the only thing that first blood does is at best, stops a stalement, it has never been a complete gamebreaker within most games.
when shoting is a lot less random then assault is it hard to notice that assault armies will be weaker ?
Orks are doing fine in assault thank you, blood angels too, DE is only screwed by proxy of other rules.
This is stuff one can know without ever playing w40k , just by reading the rule book .
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
One can theorize all they want, without the proper gaming on the table to test their various findings theory is useless.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
Actually you'd probably be better having a much simpler poll.
Option one: I am overall more satisfied than unhappy with the 6th edition 40K rules
Option two: I am overall more unhappy than satisfied with the 6th edition 40K rules
And asking people who are unsure or undecided not to vote until they have played enough to form an opinion.
Of course it still wouldn't be terribly accurate as a random sampling of all 40K players (because most aren't on Dakka), but once it had getting on for 1000 votes in all, if the ration was still over 5:1 in favour, that would be fairly telling. Even as it stands I think it's pretty obvious that more people are happy than not, unfortunate as that may be for those that are not.
Strangely, everyone I've played or seen play so far likes 6th overall (though they may dislike some aspects to a degree). this was not the case with 5th where a substantial number hankered for 4th edition and complained longer and harder about near-universal 4+ and wound allocation than any of them have grumbled about flyers, random charges or LOS! The only beef I'd say that was generally held is Warlord Powers being sometimes worthless for a given mission. Of course a small group of about three dozen people of whom perhaps twelve might be described as 'competitive players' is hardly a huge sample and I'd make no claims that being gebnerally true. I was just surprised how several different 'sets' of players have all been positive about 6th.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
Gunzhard wrote:
Irrelevant? ...that is the only question that matters. How can you claim to be 'open-minded' when you are not even TRYING the rules? That's like saying you don't like Broccoli because a magazine said it tastes bad... imo it does taste bad, but at least I've TRIED it - and numerous times. How do you expect to have a credible opinion of the game when you are not out playing the game? I mean seriously how do you envision that you even have a leg to stand on? At least for the sake of proving me wrong - go out and play 30 games, give it a few months at least, then tell us you hate it.
Yes, irrelevant. I don't need to try playing by rules that require large additional $$$ expenditure for units I think belong in other game systems rather than 40K, nor play with rules that come from other game systems (which I don't like even in those systems, but at least they make more sense there than in 40K). To counter one lame food analogy with another, I don't need to bite into a Snickers bar to know I'll react badly if I have a peanut allergy, I just have to read the label. That's how I "have a leg to stand on."
And I never claimed to be "open-minded". You imputed that to me.
You like 6th. I get it. I don't share your enthusiasm. I'm going to play previous editions and/or house-rules if I play at all. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. And that's my last post on the matter.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Fafnir wrote: Vaktathi wrote: And it's not *JUST* the Warlord rules, they're just an example. Mysterious Terrain and Mysterious Objectives have similar issues.
Oh boy, I do not look forward to rolling the psyker rape terrain on my Paladins... Playing a pretty good game. All of a sudden, player lands on mysterious terrain. My Paladin Squad gets nuked for no reason. Game over. Fun!
Hahaha the Psychneuein Hive. As a person who's already had to deal with it, let me tell you that's it's not nearly as bad as it seems. With the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, the D3 Str3 AP2 attacks are only resolved against 1 random model in your Paladin squad. You're T4, so you are wounded on 5's. Then you get a 5+ invulnerable save, and FNP for a 5+ since of course it's a Paladin squad. Then, you also have 2 wounds. When it was used against me, I had an Inquisitor with psychic powers and a GK Terminator squad as allies for my guard. My inquisitor unfortunately took a wound but she still had 2 left so I didn't really care. Honestly it's not that great. Yeah it sucks if you're the only one with psychic powers though, I do agree. But you're not gonna get "nuked" unless your opponent is rolling super well, and in that case you're screwed anyway.
6186
Post by: Lady_Canoness
Gunzhard wrote:e3cad0a9e40230b3240c685d3062a3bb.jpg]
Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is. You are choosing to over-emphasize the affect of these specific, and mostly narrowly applicable, rules because they are new. But I'd be REALLY surprised if your Warlord Trait scenario was the first time you've seen a shooty unit with buffed cover or an Assaulty unit with Counter-attack in a situation where it didn't help. If 'win-button' lists are not your bag, which is good to hear, then how does it make sense continue the same "actions and decisions" if you know it will cost you the game because of a rule that is as drastically impacting as you say? I just don't get why THESE rules, these very narrow rules, amongst all of the rules on the table at one time, are so unnerving and game changing?
Excuse me, but do you play any games other than GW games?
Because if you do, then you'll know that "Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is." just isn't true. Player's are only good by knowing how to control their armies through any given situation. Take Warmachine, for example, as a game where the players displaying the most control of their army on the field is the winner. Naturally, randomness at best limits and, at worst, takes away a player's ability to control their army or the game - so randomness naturally hampers control. A good player is therefor better at controlling their army when there is less randomness than when there is more. Now, considering this game is based around dice, there is already quite a bit of randomness players have to adapt to, though sixth edition has clearly added more randomness than 5th.
Randomness is essentially luck, and now that more things are random in 6th than in 5th, more luck is needed than in 5th. Good players now need to bank on even more luck than they had to in 5th (and we all know what bad days felt like in that regard) because 6th has removed certain elements of control from a good player's hands.
So instead of your: "Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is."
It should read: "Unlike EVERY rule in this game, a player who is lucky can make good use of them, given a degree of skill and the right circumstances, as a lucky player defending can accommodate his opponent's rules. That is exactly what this game is."
6th Edition has made luck an integral part of the game (and made list building even more important, but that is a topic for another time) but before you say 'This game is about dice - duh! It is going to revolve around luck!' consider this: in what other games are your tactical decisions not based on your own strategy, but instead based on luck? Ask yourself that. There are plenty of good games where the only thing that is random are rolls that affect the enemy. Should 40k not be one of them? Is it before off not being one of them? As a now 'former' player who feels slighted that the rules for the armies I lovingly collected no longer reflect how I want to play, my answer would be 'No'.
31941
Post by: avedominusnox
Its nice except from a few things mentioned in this thread..
But to be honest i enjoy it more than 5th. It has more flavor.
Its more fluffy and it has depth. 5th didnt had.
Oh and btw rules making game for fun and "realistic" in some ways
overcome the rest rules.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
There are plenty of good games where the only thing that is random are rolls that affect the enemy
And there are plenty of good games where random rolls (for instance to 'activate' a commander or unit) affect one's own army. To imply such games are less tactical than those that offer greater control over one's units is strange to me as many of those games have been excellent simulations as well as entertaining and well balanced (please note I do not mean to imply by that that 40K is an excellent simulation nor well balanced, though in the former case it's hard to see what it's supposed to be simulating beyond 40K stories/background material and in the latter because achieving balance, and what constitutes balance, in a game that has as many units with peculiar special rules as 40K does is very hard to say -- Malifaux, for instance, is manifestly unbalanced, though it seems to do a good job of simulating the background).
19370
Post by: daedalus
sennacherib wrote:
I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it. Thats great and i fully encourage actual discussion, but this was not the point of the poll. I merely wanted to determine if the lovers outweighed the haters. It looks like they do by a large margin.
Which is legit, so long as you keep in mind the issues with accuracy. Internet polls should never be used to validate anything. It wouldn't be hard to misrepresent this poll into any result a person was looking for, let alone polling bias, etc. Internet polls have a whole new layer of suspect on them even beyond conventional pollsters.
There is a vocal group within Dakka that is very critical of GW. There is nothing wrong with being critical, and many within this group site very legitimate reasons why they dont like the new rules. However most people appear to like them just fine. You dont have to believe the polls accuracy. Yet the growing numbers of votes and the fact that there is an 8:1 ratio in favor of loving the game is pretty substantial evidence to support the claim that more people love the game than don't. If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.
The amount of time it takes to play even a 'simple' version of the game is frustrating to me. A lot of that is admittedly my own awkwardness with the rules, but a lot of it is still the added complexity of the new system. I'm kind of a little butthurt about my entire Nid army needing to be rebuilt, but who would have guessed they'd have hobbled Genestealers? I also feel there is an active war against competitive mindsets as well. It's, in places, almost like they tried to thumb their noses at tournaments as much as possible. I'm very curious to see how on earth the Adepticon guys will rationalize this ruleset into something cohesive enough to be functional.
Don't get me wrong though, they've done some very interesting things as well. "What do you mean the missile launcher can't fire, he stood still while everyone else moved" was a longstanding complaint of mine. Never made sense. They also did a lot of other stuff that 'made sense', but it doesn't feel like Warhammer. It's like they gave up on providing a streamlined abstraction and now want us to have the full D&D level of roleplaying experience, with nothing inbetween.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
the full D&D level of roleplaying experience,
I honestly can't see any roleplaying aspects that have been added to the game beyond (perhaps) Warlord Traits (which are weak roleplaying as they're not chosen). There is no character progression, no character interaction (beyond combat), no customisable character ability set (beyond as I say one random Warlord trait). These three things are staples of rpgs, in fact so well established as to be essentially intrinsic to an rpg.
I can understand a dislike of 6th edition rules, that's fair enough. But I don't think comparison to any rpg is really valid.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
 Chapter Master Prascus wrote:I feel that 6th edition is good,but vehicles having structure points kinda nerfs one of my army lists witch is based around rhinos, stormravens,ect
How so? Three glancing killed a Rhino in 5th. Three glancing kill it in 6th.
Structure points and other vehicle rules changed alot of things. Some got better (flyers like the Stormraven), others got worse (Chimera?), but the Rhino seems to be the "pivot" vehicle GW used to tinker the rules around. It is literally the vehicle that has not changed in the transition (at least as far as damage goes).
10143
Post by: Slipstream
The question I would like answered is this;
Do you think that the latest edition is a true progression of the rules or is it a minor step from the previous? I don't mean 'is it good or bad', has it leapt forward or is it playing it safe?
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
 Zweischneid wrote:
How so? Three glancing could kill a Rhino in 5th. Three glancing kill it in 6th.
Fixd'. See the difference?
Also, I like 6th ed. It is silly, but in a good way, and in the ~20 battles I had with it were all funny and all had some sort of EPIK moment.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
The question I would like answered is this;
Do you think that the latest edition is a true progression of the rules or is it a minor step from the previous? I don't mean 'is it good or bad', has it leapt forward or is it playing it safe?
Personally I think it's 'fixed' the two most common gripes I heard about 5th (which were near univeral 4+ cover and wound allocation). In that sense I think it's just a step on. Also it's reintroduced overwatch in a manner that is slightly unpleaing to me 'aesthetically' but that actually works very well gameplay-wise, unlike the previous version as I recall it.
On the other hand I think all (rather than the vast bulk of) charges being random, flyers, warlord traits and mysterious terrain have thrown enough popel into a spin to warrant it as being a leap (forward or back according to taste).
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
Clearly I like the new rules and throughout the history of this game I truly believe it has only continued to get better and more fun. I see a lot of gripes and dislikes and some people that just simply hate entirely the new game and that is of course fine... but to have NOT EVEN TRIED something (6th edition) and declare that you hate it - is literally the definition of ignorance. That is not an insult, that is fact.
If you think your ignorance is the same as others' experience well then I would agree on one thing - nothing will ever come of this discussion.
And if you have been playing the game and still dislike it - why would you bother defending this (above)? It only weakens your argument. I feel like I'm dealing with the Tea Party in here. C'mon this is getting ridiculous. Play the game... use your own experience and data to draw your own conclusions, at least before you announce them publicly. If you still hate 6th edition after giving it a fair chance, which I don't believe is the case for MOST people, at least you will have a credible opinion. At which point you can follow some of the very reasonable advice on here and make house rules etc or just play other editions that for some reason you believe are more acceptable.
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
Gunzhard wrote:Clearly I like the new rules and throughout the history of this game I truly believe it has only continued to get better and more fun. I see a lot of gripes and dislikes and some people that just simply hate entirely the new game and that is of course fine... but to have NOT EVEN TRIED something (6th edition) and declare that you hate it - is literally the definition of ignorance. That is not an insult, that is fact.
If you think your ignorance is the same as others' experience well then I would agree on one thing - nothing will ever come of this discussion.
And if you have been playing the game and still dislike it - why would you bother defending this (above)? It only weakens your argument. I feel like I'm dealing with the Tea Party in here. C'mon this is getting ridiculous. Play the game... use your own experience and data to draw your own conclusions, at least before you announce them publicly. If you still hate 6th edition after giving it a fair chance, which I don't believe is the case for MOST people, at least you will have a credible opinion. At which point you can follow some of the very reasonable advice on here and make house rules etc or just play other editions that for some reason you believe are more acceptable.
Hold on. I like 6th a lot and I disagree with most of the major complaints (flyers, random charges, etc). But there are lots of games (in fact lots of things, that I've never tried that I know, without having direct experience of them, would not be to my liking.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
As someone who primarily watches BatReps instead of actually playing the game, I can safely say that I enjoy 6th Ed immensely.
5thEd was incredibly dull. The god-damned metal bawxes gameplay that was prevalent in every single game.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Blood and Slaughter wrote: the full D&D level of roleplaying experience,
I honestly can't see any roleplaying aspects that have been added to the game beyond (perhaps) Warlord Traits (which are weak roleplaying as they're not chosen). There is no character progression, no character interaction (beyond combat), no customisable character ability set (beyond as I say one random Warlord trait). These three things are staples of rpgs, in fact so well established as to be essentially intrinsic to an rpg.
I can understand a dislike of 6th edition rules, that's fair enough. But I don't think comparison to any rpg is really valid.
...I did say role playing, not roll playing. You don't need progressing statistics for role playing. Your warlord could well have a customizable character beyond your trait. I can select all manner of options for my Inquisitor after all, including whether he's a 'spellcaster' or not. I can issue mighty challenges to opponent commanders. It's creating a story, and each player is playing a part.
"D&D level of roleplaying" might have been a little misleading, given how most D&D games seem to turn out. Perhaps I should have settled for "relentless pursuit of narrative at the cost of providing a balanced environment". For example, surely you would agree that the section on putting terrain out is very soft. "Here's this great narrative method. Did we mention that the story is the most important thing?" "Oh, right, well, if you CAN'T agree to set up something, then you can use these rules..." I just read this, and I can't help but think there should be a GM somewhere watching over the game. Maybe I'm just a hopelessly competitive player (and I've felt myself polarizing even further that way as I've been typing this up), but when it's not a largely cooperative game (like D&D), I prefer my rules spelled out a little more
12893
Post by: evilsponge
Gunzhard wrote:Clearly I like the new rules and throughout the history of this game I truly believe it has only continued to get better and more fun. I see a lot of gripes and dislikes and some people that just simply hate entirely the new game and that is of course fine... but to have NOT EVEN TRIED something (6th edition) and declare that you hate it - is literally the definition of ignorance. That is not an insult, that is fact.
Saying its not an insult doesn't make it true. You can't respect someones opinion and then follow up with an ad homin attack
45782
Post by: Blood and Slaughter
"D&D level of roleplaying" might have been a little misleading, given how most D&D games seem to turn out. Perhaps I should have settled for "relentless pursuit of narrative at the cost of providing a balanced environment". For example, surely you would agree that the section on putting terrain out is very soft. "Here's this great narrative method. Did we mention that the story is the most important thing?" "Oh, right, well, if you CAN'T agree to set up something, then you can use these rules..." I just read this, and I can't help but think there should be a GM somewhere watching over the game. Maybe I'm just a hopelessly competitive player (and I've felt myself polarizing even further that way as I've been typing this up), but when it's not a largely cooperative game (like D&D), I prefer my rules spelled out a little more
Again. most role playing games are unlike 6th ed. 40K. What tends to happen in most roleplaying is that players combine to try and 'beat' the GM, which is kind of stupid but seems almost to be a default setting (game = competition, therefore there must be someone to beat). In the best roleplaying games, the players play their characters fearlessly (not hideously conservatively) and the GM reward heroic or in character play (rather than penalising it as 'foolish').
In 40K cooperation is limited to perhaps setting up terrain or creating a scenario. thereafter one seeks to crush the other guy's ego (or maybe just his army), quite unlike roleplaying.
I'm pretty competitive myself (except when roleplaying where I managed to grow out of the fear of my character dying by that age of about 35. . . and had much more fun thereafter) and I honestly can't see how 6th edition is a step back from 5th in terms of competitiveness. in fact we now have (thank god) terrain placement rules that allow both players input as well as some 'objective' ruling rather than the old (and seldommadhered to) 25% of the board.
that's not to say I wouldn't welcome the current rules about terrain placement to be tightened (how big is 'substantial'?), but 5th didn't even have vage guidelines about set up beyond mutually agreeable and the 25% guideline. 6th is miles better (and gives the option for 'competitive' or 'narrative')
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I made my opinions known earlier and actually have been following it because of the Poll Numbers, which if find fascinating. The numbers don’t seem to be moving around munch to me that tells me something. That this “Worthless Internet Poll” has a constant, I’m don’t know what than means in polling terms, but I intemperate that the numbers voting seem to think in the same percentage.
As far as the Terrain Placement, we are having a small issue because 80% of our terrain does not fit there mold and we keep ending up with 5 heavy sections surrounding a mostly empty section of the board.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
BlaxicanX wrote:As someone who primarily watches BatReps instead of actually playing the game, I can safely say that I enjoy 6th Ed immensely.
5thEd was incredibly dull. The god-damned metal bawxes gameplay that was prevalent in every single game.
Don't get too excited. Once players settle down and get over the shock of how vehicles take damage, metal bawxes and their close cousins, flying metal bawxes, will be just as prevalent and powerful as before, if not, even moreso than in fifth.
Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.
Oh, and don't forget stationary metal bawxes. Those will be pretty damn popular too. Really, anyone who thinks that 6th was the end to mechhammer was dead wrong.
62921
Post by: RedAngel
Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"
Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Fafnir wrote:Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.
I don’t know about “Ruthless Hit”, in my local Meta we are still using “Assault Armies” and have only noticed that most Close Combats are ending quicker. Now if that is due to Overwatch or just way things work now I am not sure, we are having to much fun to pay attention.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
 Anpu42 wrote: Fafnir wrote:Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.
I don’t know about “Ruthless Hit”, in my local Meta we are still using “Assault Armies” and have only noticed that most Close Combats are ending quicker.
I never said assault armies. I said assault based transport armies. Key word their is "transport." And they certainly have. Unless they're open topped, they're entirely unplayable now.
Assault armies in general didn't really gain much, and random charge distance doesn't give or take away much from a mathematical point of view, although I do dislike it.
As for combats ending faster, that really depends on what you're playing, and how dirty you are about it. I can force some fights to go on for a dreadfully long time, thanks to challenges.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Fafnir wrote: Anpu42 wrote: Fafnir wrote:Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.
I don’t know about “Ruthless Hit”, in my local Meta we are still using “Assault Armies” and have only noticed that most Close Combats are ending quicker.
I never said assault armies. I said assault based transport armies. Key word their is "transport." And they certainly have. Unless they're open topped, they're entirely unplayable now.
Assault armies in general didn't really gain much, and random charge distance doesn't give or take away much from a mathematical point of view, although I do dislike it.
As for combats ending faster, that really depends on what you're playing, and how dirty you are about it. I can force some fights to go on for a dreadfully long time, thanks to challenges.
I am afraid we have noticed that other than that would explain why the Khorne Berserkers got mauled the last time they tried to rhino rush.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
By the end of 6th edition, unless there's some wildly powerful assault options introduced, I can see the entire game breaking down into a much more extreme version of 5th edition's late metagame.
Shooting armies will be extremely dominant, especially mechanized and flyer based armies. Gunlines in terrain and emplacements will also be quite powerful.
Expect metal bawxes to make a comeback like you would have never imagined. What's more, don't expect it too be too exciting.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I think Orks can still do good as just about everything is opened toped. The Genestealers have those yingmauls or what ever they are called; they are still doing ok at least with us.
Now this from a mostly dedicated Marine Player:
Space Wolves: I have not notice myself because I tend to run Gunlines, or Land Raiders with my Space Wolves. I will probably still run my Gunline Wolves [the only real vehicles I use any ways is an LRC, Pods and Land Speeders] with out Rhinos. I might add a few Razorbacks to give my Long Fangs some extra Fire Support, but that’s about it.
Blood Angels: I really have not played Blood Angels in 6th yet, but it’s mostly Jump Troops and Podding Sternguard anyways.
Grey Knights: My Grey Knights have not changed much either as far as I can tell. I only recently put together my Grey Knights so I am still figuring them out.
Imperial Guard: I think they got a real boost, but I have not got to try them yet. My only Assault Units I use are Rough Riders and like I said, I have not got to try them yes.
I see the Rhino Rush coming back into favor after a while for those marine players run their Marines like Orks or they will start using more specialized Assault Troops, like Assault Squads, Assault Terminators out of LRCs and Vanguard Vets.
I could not tell you about the other armies, nobody around here plays them.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
LordOfTheSloths wrote:Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.
I don't think 'fanboy' means what you think it means. I also think, if you don't like what 40K is and want to play something else, you should go and play something else. Write your own rules, find a likeminded group, and leave the rest of us alone.
Please.
45838
Post by: TechMarine1
AWESOME!! I like the direction they went with the game...assaulting with your assault squad isnot always a given.
Isuppos the easy way to put it would be to say that it just seem more realistic.
15874
Post by: bubbinski
6th has done some nice things. I like the variety in missions. I like the speed of vehicles. Flyers will be cool once every army gets its toys and ways to fight them, and it's nice to be able to use toys like grenades in ways that they would be used.
I love allies, but I wish that your ally choices weren't so limited. (Probably because my two main armies are Dark Angels and Dark Eldar). I can envision almost anybody teaming up with anybody if someone worse comes along.
I hate, hate, hate random stuff. Warlord traits contain too much randomness. Many are completely useless based on the scenario, and some can break the game. Random charge distances blow. Seriously - failing 4 and 5 inch charges through open terrain? No. That's just wrong.
In the grand scheme of things, it's a mix for me. My wyches got nerfed, my Deathwing got buffed - and I need to figure out how to play again.
25420
Post by: Ursa
Like it thus far but i HATE challenges. HATE THEM to the point of distraction. There is absolutly no need for them in 40K.
6186
Post by: Lady_Canoness
RedAngel wrote:Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"
Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.
I like this man. He understands.
Those of us who hate 6th hate it for a reason, and that reason is betrayal. Everytime GW pulls a dick move they lose more players. For some, this is the last straw.
Why am I still hanging around the 40k section of this site? Because I'm hurt that my lovingly painted armies are never going to see the table top again because I so loathe watching them get bent over the table and reemed by this crappy excuse for a rule set that screams "BUY MORE STUFF!!" like an ADD five year old. Because I'm hurt that the local gaming shop can put on a 70% off sale on GW minis and I can't be bothered to buy a single one. Because the 40k period of life that followed me from high school to university to a career is now done and burried.
...bad enough that my first games of sixth were using a neglected 4th edition book...
Seriously GW, I look forward to the day when you actually need to make sound marketting decisions instead of assuming cart-blanche over every scenario and flipping us all the bird.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Blood and Slaughter wrote:I'm pretty competitive myself (except when roleplaying where I managed to grow out of the fear of my character dying by that age of about 35. . . and had much more fun thereafter) and I honestly can't see how 6th edition is a step back from 5th in terms of competitiveness.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/07/40k-editorial-6th-ed-and-directional.html , article about 6th directional combat, very positive btw with words like fantastic, promising etc:
...Out of all the years that I've been playing 40K, I must say that 6th Ed. looks to be the most promising.
There's no doubt by now that 6th Ed. is a very cinematic edition. There's a lot of stuff out there that captures the narrative of 40K and it's clear to me that GW does not want 40K to be a competitive game. You can tell because there's zero consideration for game balance. This is the first thing most competitive gamers such as myself notice when they browse through the rules.
With the inclusion of Allies, the goal is to sell models and demote the aspects of competitive gaming. There's obvious and broken combinations that are overwhelmingly powerful, but for fluff reasons they make perfect sense. Some combinations don't really make sense and that's perfectly fine too. It allows players to experiment and most importantly, it gives them the option to buy models from different armies. Who knows, if they play with them enough, maybe they'll start another army. It always starts like that guys, you know this by now. First you buy a box of marines, promising yourself that you won't buy another thing, then it's a box of Terminators and soon you're on your way to building a full company. I've been there, you've been there, and it's clear that's what GW wants us to do.
Aside from Allies, let's talk about point ranges. It's quite clear to me that 2K+ points is viewed as "no one cares". You can take another FOC chart and you can expand your army to take 12 Troops, 6 FA, 6 Elites and 6 Heavies. If this doesn't scream mini-apoc I don't know what does. It's crystal clear to me that the point range that GW wants us to play at is sub 2K points for standardized games. The most played meta around here hovers at the 2K point range and I'm pretty sure that's going to change to 1999. I don't mind playing smaller sized games, I actually love it. A lot of people might disagree with me saying that higher points games allows you to take more "toys" or "answer more problems", but everyone that I've spoken to agrees that 6 Heavies is simply outrageous.
There are some rather questionable things in 6th Ed. that might raise some eyebrows. Night Fighting being everywhere is one of them, the randomness of terrain and the randomness of relics. Even charges are random, how fast you can get in grips with the enemy is now based on a 2d6 system. Psyker abilities and what powers they know are also random, and this is obviously something that ticks a lot of players off. The more I see this, the more I understand that GW is breaking away from the competitive scene. Warhammer was never meant to be a competitive game and it took me over 10 years to realize this. Just play the game, enjoy the rules and take it for what it is.
Now that I've got that off my chest, I want to talk about why 6th Ed. is a fantastic edition with all things considered...
Now, I very much agree with the guy about directional combat but why oh why no balanced, competitive ruleset with directional combat? It's crap that (and this is where he's clearly wrong in the article) the company stated that the game is competitive one since 2nd edition (so since it became a wargame) to out of the sudden decide it's a 100+ pages of rules vehicle for stories, just after people have spent thousands of dollars for their merchandise. Cheap lazy writing and rules meant to sell miniatures, I love you GW and your edition.
Blood and Slaughter wrote: that's not to say I wouldn't welcome the current rules about terrain placement to be tightened (how big is 'substantial'?), but 5th didn't even have vage guidelines about set up beyond mutually agreeable and the 25% guideline. 6th is miles better (and gives the option for 'competitive' or 'narrative')
We did 25% in 5th with random placement and following guidelines about mixing different kind of terrain, worked great.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
RedAngel wrote:Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"
Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.
Why, you're quite right. In fact, why should we roll dice to hit or wound? Why not just remove enemy models when we come into contact with them, or declare a shooting attack? Why take LD checks? Think of how much more dependable things would be if you could just force the enemy to automatically fail their morale check. The raw skill of players will be revealed if we remove any need to adapt or think. And let's not forget the SNAFU that is the codexes! Think about how we could eliminate the imbalances of the army lists by simply having a proscribed 1500 point list for each race, with no variation! Then pure skill would be the only deciding factor in the game!
Ursa wrote:Like it thus far but i HATE challenges. HATE THEM to the point of distraction. There is absolutly no need for them in 40K.
Challenges are awesome, and should never have taken this long to become a part of 40K.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Challanges are something that we mostly tried to engineer in our games so that the the Ork Warboss would fight the Sace Marine Commander etc etc - its very 40k
"You'll never know if your in range" - you mean like in 5th Ed when you could not pre-measure range and you had to guess........
"Random charge movement?" As above.
"Random movement" - er like in 5th Ed running - so no change then
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
RedAngel wrote:Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"
Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.
 Kaldor wrote:Why, you're quite right. In fact, why should we roll dice to hit or wound? Why not just remove enemy models when we come into contact with them, or declare a shooting attack? Why take LD checks? Think of how much more dependable things would be if you could just force the enemy to automatically fail their morale check. The raw skill of players will be revealed if we remove any need to adapt or think. And let's not forget the SNAFU that is the codexes! Think about how we could eliminate the imbalances of the army lists by simply having a proscribed 1500 point list for each race, with no variation! Then pure skill would be the only deciding factor in the game!
In this two quotes we have 2 unwanted ends of the spectrum. To which one are we closer with 6th, with only gun ranges and basic movement left fixed? 6th edition is too close to the random side, good compromise is imo movement including run and charges distance fixed, and maybe making leadership and some important single d6 throws more reliable, by rerolls or sth. Both 40k chess and mindless dicefest would be a bad option but the former sounds like games you buy for 3 years old kid, you roll a dice, move a figure and something awesome happens. Chesslike 40k with open board and all the map posibilities, that could turn out suprisingly playable and even if not, for sure would be better than senslessly throwing dice all day.
49693
Post by: Godless-Mimicry
evilsponge wrote: Gunzhard wrote:Clearly I like the new rules and throughout the history of this game I truly believe it has only continued to get better and more fun. I see a lot of gripes and dislikes and some people that just simply hate entirely the new game and that is of course fine... but to have NOT EVEN TRIED something (6th edition) and declare that you hate it - is literally the definition of ignorance. That is not an insult, that is fact.
Saying its not an insult doesn't make it true. You can't respect someones opinion and then follow up with an ad homin attack
No but the fact that it actually isn't an insult makes it not an insult. It's not an attack either; he is just stating the facts of things, and I agree with him. The internet is terrible for people claiming games are crap before ever playing them, and sometimes before even seeing the rules.
And to the people complaining about randomness, are ye really surprised? It is a dice game, and always has been. I think people are upset on this front mostly because they were naive enough to believe 40k to be a game predominently of skill and wits, and to some people tournament play was an important thing in life. But at the end of the day guys, it is and was always just a game, and one that the designers stated over and over (and still do) was never meant to be competitive.
25420
Post by: Ursa
all challenges do is give power gamers and mathhammers somethimg more to cheese. they are a fantasy aspect that should stay there.
62560
Post by: Makumba
And to the people complaining about randomness, are ye really surprised? It is a dice game, and always has been.
the difference in randomnes of shoting and assault is too big . With the changes to transport and addition of flyers making shoting armies ultra powerful it makes playing assault armies non viable . only thing a shoting army has to worry , and even that not always, is when is night fight going to happen an assault army player has to worry about each single dice rolled. It is unbalanced .
Same with warlord templates , it promotes meq HQs over other armies HQs.
Challanges are something that we mostly tried to engineer in our games so that the the Ork Warboss would fight the Sace Marine Commander etc etc - its very 40k
and what you realy are getting is tank HQs , SW WG tanks , sacrificial sgts/asp champions and character units HQ switch outs.
Shooting armies will be extremely dominant, especially mechanized and flyer based armies. Gunlines in terrain and emplacements will also be quite powerful.
couldnt say it any better . Imagine any gunline list getting own psychic power which either buffs shoting[for example unit X shots twice this turn , but doesnt shot next turn] or gives a unit/model flyer USR for a turn .
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 Godless-Mimicry wrote:And to the people complaining about randomness, are ye really surprised? It is a dice game, and always has been. I think people are upset on this front mostly because they were naive enough to believe 40k to be a game predominently of skill and wits, and to some people tournament play was an important thing in life. But at the end of the day guys, it is and was always just a game, and one that the designers stated over and over (and still do) was never meant to be competitive.
You're wrong. Let me dig up a quote for you:
 English Assassin wrote:
"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4
"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix
It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill, because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.
I see a lot of people providing excuses why GW don't have to make a proper, balanced ruleset that require some thinking from a player instead of throwing dice and going "Wow! The hit! Imagine that!" 20 times a game,among them I like this one a most "it's not a game of skill, it never was, accept that". What is it then? A castrated rpg combined with luck based wargame where you have to memorise 100+ pages of rules and multiple codieces? I think I've just described one of the worst games known to man.
Funny thing is, I've never been less immersed in the game mood-wise because it was competitive. It's about a player character not a ruleset, just wait for a players appearing with 6th edition power lists and you will see.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill, because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.
Please, has anyone ever played a truly skill based variant of 40k? First you had Rogue Trader which really was narrative based with an actual GM, 2nd pretty much was the fun edition, because there sure was alotta crappy combo's that could screw everyone, third edition had some iffy rules for transports and vehicle strength, fourth had skimmerspam, fifth had far to powerful mech...
To put it lightly, there's never been true medium of skill involved, because each edition has changed where the skill level is at.
62921
Post by: RedAngel
"You'll never know if your in range" - you mean like in 5th Ed when you could not pre-measure range and you had to guess........
Ive been playing 40k since it was a colated stack of photocopied articles cut out of white dwarf issues. Guessing range doesnt bother me. I was there when people cheated by laying there forearms across the table was invented, for puposes of guessing range on Guess weapons. If you cant figure out if your in rapid fire range or not, youve got bigger problems. My statement was hyperbole.
Random charge movement?" As above.
Now the crux of it. I dont NEED to measure. I DO NOT fail charges because I cant figure out what 6" is. The failure to charge is based on a random, nonsense roll that determines whether or not I can even get into combat.
Random movement" - er like in 5th Ed running - so no change then
Other people have answered this further on down the post, but for my 2 cents thats RUNNING. I was suggesting a random Movement.
Why, you're quite right. In fact, why should we roll dice to hit or wound? Why not just remove enemy models when we come into contact with them, or declare a shooting attack? Why take LD checks? Think of how much more dependable things would be if you could just force the enemy to automatically fail their morale check. The raw skill of players will be revealed if we remove any need to adapt or think. And let's not forget the SNAFU that is the codexes! Think about how we could eliminate the imbalances of the army lists by simply having a proscribed 1500 point list for each race, with no variation! Then pure skill would be the only deciding factor in the game!
Adaptation and thinking can not account for random variables because of the very nature of RANDOM. Now some people will make the MtG analogy here, and I think thats very appropriate. I can build my deck like I build my army list. Certain preperations can be made within the limitations of my codex/color. For my BAs its infernus and plasma pistols for tanks and MCs. Thereby increasing my chances of suceeding in the to wound roll, effictivly effecting a random factor. That kind of 3 dimensional problem solving is what RPGs and battle games were made for. Its why we lovingly poor through our codicies to get ready for the next fight, and the new opponent. Theres no fix for not moving. "Get a jump pack." you say? "Go faster." you say? I did. Geting right in your opponents face and then just sitting there cant be fixed. Its not fun to fail, to lose without having made a poor decision. It sucks to lose, to see your whole battle plan thrashed by some baloney rule that you cant anticipate. If you think thats fun then advocate for non stop random rules that make each game, each turn something where any kind of prep is pointless. Create random army making lists that take all decisions out of your hands. In fact dont take the time to paint models or make terrain. Dont crack a book or place minis just roll a single die to see who wins, scratch that. Save the money and just flip a coin.
I love overwatch. I think its a great Stand and Fire kind of similarity, entirely appropriate for a sci fi game where guns should be the king. Random charge however does nothing with balance in terms of shoot VS assault. It just makes it unpredictable. This so called update didnt fix a problem, overwatch did. Overwatch is a solid rule with definable qualities slanting power in favor of shooting. That in my opinion is good.
40843
Post by: AngryMarine
I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
AngryMarine wrote:I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.
QFT! An Enema is still an Enema and the rule set stinks just as bad.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill, because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.
Please, has anyone ever played a truly skill based variant of 40k? First you had Rogue Trader which really was narrative based with an actual GM, 2nd pretty much was the fun edition, because there sure was alotta crappy combo's that could screw everyone, third edition had some iffy rules for transports and vehicle strength, fourth had skimmerspam, fifth had far to powerful mech...
To put it lightly, there's never been true medium of skill involved, because each edition has changed where the skill level is at.
Ever ruined your enemy with smart deployment or perfect movement? That's skill I guess (I'm not saying list building only because this is one of those rare games when going efficient by the rules has pejorative acronyms attached), not saying that it can't happen in 6th but you have to roll a few more unreliable rolls in the process. I didn't say btw that they succeded at making the game like this
"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day."
or this
"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck."
but at least it seemed they had a right direction. Now the direction is cinematic narrative laid back fun swirling craziness or other similar insults.
As for Rogue Trader, doesn't count imo, that was a different game made mostly to fit every miniature around, not really a coherent universe or a serious wargame (as indicated by GM) .
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Some people are just into that, okay?
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Plumbumbarum wrote:It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill
Player skill is just as important as ever.
because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.
2000AD is boring. 40K is not.
Look, you don't like the background, you don't like the rules... why are you even here?
 RedAngel wrote:Adaptation and thinking can not account for random variables because of the very nature of RANDOM
Don't be so disingenuous. If you fail to get into assault, so what?
Oh, I'm sorry, was it a game-winning assault? Well you know what? If it was a game winning assault and you didn't make it, you got outplayed. Pure and simple.
Because you have options. You can wait a turn: start your turn within 8" of the enemy and it's a guaranteed charge. Spend an extra turn inside your transport. Move multiple units into assault range, doubling your chance of succeeding. Use dedicated assault troops who can re-roll their charge distance dice. Or any combination of those things. If you can't do any of those things, your opponent has out-played you and forced you to make a gamble.
Gosh, it's almost like you have to anticipate the likelihood of failure, the cost of failing, and allocate your resources accordingly. What madness is that!
6186
Post by: Lady_Canoness
 AngryMarine wrote:I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.
This man speaks the truth!
For the record, Infinity is tops!
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Lady_Canoness wrote: AngryMarine wrote:I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.
This man speaks the truth!
For the record, Infinity is tops!
6186
Post by: Lady_Canoness
Kaldor wrote:
Don't be so disingenuous. If you fail to get into assault, so what?
Oh, I'm sorry, was it a game-winning assault? Well you know what? If it was a game winning assault and you didn't make it, you got outplayed. Pure and simple.
Because you have options. You can wait a turn: start your turn within 8" of the enemy and it's a guaranteed charge. Spend an extra turn inside your transport. Move multiple units into assault range, doubling your chance of succeeding. Use dedicated assault troops who can re-roll their charge distance dice. Or any combination of those things. If you can't do any of those things, your opponent has out-played you and forced you to make a gamble.
Gosh, it's almost like you have to anticipate the likelihood of failure, the cost of failing, and allocate your resources accordingly. What madness is that!
If you really stand by those words... then you clearly haven't seen a squad of howling banshees minced by a failed charge, clearly haven't seen a dread eat a melta-gun from point blank, clearly haven't had an entire genestealer squad wiped off the table with flamers, and clearly been in command when a wave of Khorne Berzerkers hits hits home and murders 20+ guys. If you had, you wouldn't say you were outplayed - because getting those units into the 6" range last editions already took more skill than lining up your marines in your deployment zone and shooting every turn. And dare we forget the gamble of shooting??... Oh wait... there isn't one! Good thing game winning shooting phases can't screw up that badly: "Esteemed Fire Dragon squad, slayers of titans and melters of faces, this turn your melta guns actually shoot water. Have fun getting killed next round, sincerely - the Farseer who got even better in this edition. p.s. I spent my two psychic charges trying to get the rock out of my shoe instead of on Guide."
19370
Post by: daedalus
Kaldor wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, was it a game-winning assault? Well you know what? If it was a game winning assault and you didn't make it, you got outplayed. Pure and simple.
If it was a game winning assault and he DID make it, would your argue that his opponent got outplayed?
If you wouldn't, then you're not being objective. If you would, then 40k only becomes a real game the moment the last dice roll that matters is rolled.
I've seen the latter of the two conditions occur far too often.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Lady_Canoness wrote:If you really stand by those words... then you clearly haven't seen a squad of howling banshees minced by a failed charge, clearly haven't seen a dread eat a melta-gun from point blank, clearly haven't had an entire genestealer squad wiped off the table with flamers, and clearly been in command when a wave of Khorne Berzerkers hits hits home and murders 20+ guys. If you had, you wouldn't say you were outplayed - because getting those units into the 6" range last editions already took more skill than lining up your marines in your deployment zone and shooting every turn. And dare we forget the gamble of shooting??... Oh wait... there isn't one! Good thing game winning shooting phases can't screw up that badly: "Esteemed Fire Dragon squad, slayers of titans and melters of faces, this turn your melta guns actually shoot water. Have fun getting killed next round, sincerely - the Farseer who got even better in this edition. p.s. I spent my two psychic charges trying to get the rock out of my shoe instead of on Guide."
No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.
You know what, I had a good time anyways.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
I have to point out the obvious which has been pointed out before by many other posters.
All this grumbling about random charge distance. Many charges in 5th ed occured through terrain, therefore you were only charging up to 6" to your target and often less because you had to roll for difficult terrain. AND it was not an assured 6". Now you charge 2d6 inches and if you happen to have a USR that modifies charge, you have a much greater likelyhood of making a charge at a distance of over 6". I also think that this adds an element of tension to the game. Because you are not sure if you are going to make the charge each charge roll (same as charging into cover) is something that you sort of hold your breath for.
Just saying.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
daedalus wrote:If it was a game winning assault and he DID make it, would your argue that his opponent got outplayed?
If you wouldn't, then you're not being objective. If you would, then 40k only becomes a real game the moment the last dice roll that matters is rolled.
I've seen the latter of the two conditions occur far too often.
It all depends on the way the game has panned out, but generally if you've forced your opponent to make a gamble, it's been a pretty even game.
A game I had a couple of weeks ago, I made a mistake and my Paladins with Librarian get left out in the open, slowly getting gunned down. It was only a matter of time before they were destroyed.
But it didn't matter, because I'd already crippled the enemies ability to win the scenario. If a game comes down to that single, final roll it generally means that both players have been evenly matched throughout the game. If you can't guarantee that game winning charge, it's either because you suck, or your opponent hasn't let you. He's outplayed you.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
RedAngel wrote:"You'll never know if your in range" - you mean like in 5th Ed when you could not pre-measure range and you had to guess........
Ive been playing 40k since it was a colated stack of photocopied articles cut out of white dwarf issues. Guessing range doesnt bother me. I was there when people cheated by laying there forearms across the table was invented, for puposes of guessing range on Guess weapons. If you cant figure out if your in rapid fire range or not, youve got bigger problems. My statement was hyperbole.
Random charge movement?" As above.
Now the crux of it. I dont NEED to measure. I DO NOT fail charges because I cant figure out what 6" is. The failure to charge is based on a random, nonsense roll that determines whether or not I can even get into combat.
I have been playing about the same amount of time.............all editions etc etc -
Guessing range is a pain and completely unneccasary - some people just cheat as you say - which is not something thats really a part of the game we want to promote I think?
Wow for you you don;t need to measure - some poor mortals do and now they can at least base thier tactics around this............I had several charges last night with my DE - the first was at 2" so auto got it - my Incubi having polished off his assault squad risked a 8" charge and failed and got promptely hosed down - fair enough - no issues for me and it all seemed like fun. Previous editions failures to charge we based on a NONSENSE " can you guess the distance" between two figures........
There are def issues with some aspects of 6th Ed - but so far for me there are no more than there was with previous editions and it has a good reception at our club......
6186
Post by: Lady_Canoness
Anpu42 wrote:
No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.
You know what, I had a good time anyways.
It sounds as if you are one of those lucky people who rolls with changes no matter how different they are, because hey, why not?
Me, not so much. Its like when I expect to eat a steak and end up getting steak flavoured tofu. I'm not cool with that, nor would I be cool with a game like yours being won or lost based on a single roll on a rule that is already a head-scratcher.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Kaldor wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill
Player skill is just as important as ever.
It's impact is more prone to being negated by bad rolls than earlier imo. Sky has not fallen but bad direction.
Kaldor wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.
2000AD is boring. 40K is not.
Look, you don't like the background, you don't like the rules... why are you even here?
People provided historical arguments trying to prove 40k was not meant to be competitive, I just posted a historical argument why the background/ narrative side is imo overrated a lot, great but not enough to excuse a lazy ruleset.
Really, I love the background, I can only play 40k and historical/ modern realistic wargames, if 40k fails me on rules or fluff I'll switch to realistic wargames and forget about sf tabletops instantly. I grew on 40k and WHFB and reject everything else, you can even call me a kind of twisted fanboy. I prefer 40k over 2000AD as well, although wouldn't say the latter is boring. What I meant was that for a deep story there are books movies etc, if you go as deep with 40k tabletop story - wise then you should rather play an rpg session imo. 40k is beautifuly simple only war world and a perfect background for a wargame, in the end though it's the game itself that matters most. Fire warrior took place in 40k universe but a game was mediocore at best and failed, we're talking about certain medium (wargame) where the background is very very important but it is still the system and gameplay that decides the game quality. I for example don't need to forge a narrative over a table of 40k to be strongly immersed in the game mood-wise when I'm having a good game, on the other hand no ammount of made up stories can hinder the fact that, let's say, we created a table favorising one side almost to the point of an auto win. I need good fluff and good rules to play and 6th edition was close to fail me on rules departent. A few more steps in that direction and I'm out.
As far as rules go, there's that problem, some of them are imo great. I like less abstract wound alocation, hull points, 3+ reserves, terrain rules, top of my head. Some of those are controversial but I like the fact that for example destroying the vehicle is now more predictable, or that wound allocation makes formations matter, or that reserves are less wild. There is potential for greatness in 6th, and then you see warlord traits, night fighting, mysterious everything and the icing on the fish cake, random charge. Seeing how much it's a wasted opportunity for a good ruleset is sad,iIt's like few people with different ideas for the game wrote it.
The 5th edition, flawed as it was, had sparks of brilliance on the table. I'm certain that 6th will have some of those as well and I'm going to play one edition or another. Doesn't change the fact that 6th edition is dissapointment for me epecialy compared to what they are capable of with their resources, assuming the right mindset. Also, I hate the fact that choosing between 5th and 6th is so hard not because that good but because of their heavy flaws. So, what I'm doing here is writing what I think, why, because it's 40k discussion forum and I have a strong opinion about and kind of a bond with it.
28893
Post by: Uhlan
I like 6th, it's something new and falls right in line with GW's changing things up to sell more miniatures kinda thing. This time it's flyers I think.
I like what's been done with Psionics.
There is certainly a whiff of Fantasy 8th here, but the similarity stops well short.
I play Nillarines so I'm happy.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Only thing that is bollocks is the random charge range. I had a friend roll a 1,2 when he needed a 4 to get into combat...
5386
Post by: sennacherib
1 in 100 users of dakka has voted on this thread. That may not sound like a lot but to someone familiar with statistics that number is pretty impressive. The more votes we get the greater the accuracy of the poll.
Thanks dakka for voting.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Yes the number is solid, errors do not fix themselves with larger sample though.
23534
Post by: Macok
Anpu42 wrote:No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.
You know what, I had a good time anyways.
Wait till you opponent gets "Psychaksdjbaksjdbaksj Hive" at first turn, before you manage to cast a Fortune and most of your Warlocks/Shadowseers are gone. Fun times.
I know I got "outplayed" because I have an Eldar army. Next time I'll fix my tactical mistake and buy some other miniatures.
So far not thrilled about 6th like I hoped I would be.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
 Macok wrote: Anpu42 wrote:No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.
You know what, I had a good time anyways.
Wait till you opponent gets "Psychaksdjbaksjdbaksj Hive" at first turn, before you manage to cast a Fortune and most of your Warlocks/Shadowseers are gone. Fun times.
I know I got "outplayed" because I have an Eldar army. Next time I'll fix my tactical mistake and buy some other miniatures.
So far not thrilled about 6th like I hoped I would be.
I've always viewed Archeotech Lands as more "fun" lands, not exactly a common army, but at the same time it's not a "Required" Terrain. You'd need just hills, rivers, and forests normally.
Of course if for some reason you two place that Archeotech right in the enemies deployment zone rather than somewhere other then the middle, both of you deserve whatever it rolls.
29222
Post by: Bloodfrenzy187
I have played 3 games so far and am currently doing league play at my FLGS with 6th edition rules and it is actually pretty fun as compared to 5th thus far. I think Games Workshop said they wanted to make the game more cinematic and epic and therefore fun and in my opinion they hit the nail on the head. But I do agree that pre measuring is a bit lame because it takes the guessing out of the game.
58842
Post by: JbR of the Endless Spire
I think overall the game has taken a radical new direction, a good direction for the game to go in too, however for me it's not a very challenging game any more, simply put its most and biggest guns tends to win, with battles becoming slightly more static than previous editions. The exceptions are of course assault focused armies which do a lot of moving and little shooting (and a lot of model removal as well), this lead me to quit the game as its looks, imo, like it's heading towards static battlefields with flyers being the only movers...
EDIT: In a vacuum... 10 assault marines 48'' away from 10 Tactical marines with 30pts to spend on wargear, who would you put your money on?
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:I think overall the game has taken a radical new direction, a good direction for the game to go in too, however for me it's not a very challenging game any more, simply put its most and biggest guns tends to win, with battles becoming slightly more static than previous editions. The exceptions are of course assault focused armies which do a lot of moving and little shooting (and a lot of model removal as well), this lead me to quit the game as its looks, imo, like it's heading towards static battlefields with flyers being the only movers...
EDIT: In a vacuum... 10 assault marines 48'' away from 10 Tactical marines with 30pts to spend on wargear, who would you put your money on?
Well the couple of games we have and there has been a lot of maneuvering going on. I had a Dreadknight, Assault his way across the table one game. Even when I pulled out my Gunline Space Wolves we did a lot of maneuvering.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Depends on the Terrain
58842
Post by: JbR of the Endless Spire
Well as you say its largely based on terrain, and as people can take terrain as options now its going to lean in the direction of defensible terrain, objectives also have a rather large effect on movement as well, in the games I played it was pretty clear that rather than running up to midfield to grab an objective it was far easier to just shoot the enemy off their objectives in their deployment zone whilst sitting on your own and just dropping a tank in front of it to become a wreck and block LOS to it...
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Fafnir 46 wrote: Don't get too excited. Once players settle down and get over the shock of how vehicles take damage, metal bawxes and their close cousins, flying metal bawxes, will be just as prevalent and powerful as before, if not, even moreso than in fifth.
Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.
Oh, and don't forget stationary metal bawxes. Those will be pretty damn popular too. Really, anyone who thinks that 6th was the end to mechhammer was dead wrong.
Oh, I have no problem with MechHammer. I love tanks and flyers and artillery. They're cool and have a great anesthetic. What I don't like are the endless amount of troop transports. In 5th edition every list was like 50% troop transports. Your units were hiding in troop transports for half the freakin game. Extremely boring and dull.
61374
Post by: Madcat87
I've got mixed feelings about 6th ed. Normally during big game changing releases that affect everyone I don't see it as a buff or a nerf instead just look at it as something different that must be adapted to. Having said that my Orks that I love to death have been shelved since 6th ed released and don't look like they're coming out any time soon.
Removing casulties from the front, challenges, changes to fleet, overwatch, cover saves, random charges, everything that changed just seemed to negatively impact orks. I'm also really glad that I didn't buy that Snikrot kommando squad that I was really liking the look of.
Meanwhile my SoB which are certainly not the greatest army in 40k have only lost 2 games out of the dozen or so that I've played in in 6th ed so far. To be honest though, I'm not exactly complaing about my SoB getting stronger.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:more cinematic and epic and therefore fun.
Okay, I need to step in and address something. regardless of whether GW is actually pulling "cinematic" off with 6th edition or not, cinematic does not automaticaly equate to "fun."
For example, and I'll make use of something that is actually "cinematic," my absolute favourite film, Control, by Directed by Anton Corbijn, is a cinematic masterpiece. That said, it's not a fun movie in any respect.
BlaxicanX wrote:Fafnir 46 wrote: Don't get too excited. Once players settle down and get over the shock of how vehicles take damage, metal bawxes and their close cousins, flying metal bawxes, will be just as prevalent and powerful as before, if not, even moreso than in fifth.
Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.
Oh, and don't forget stationary metal bawxes. Those will be pretty damn popular too. Really, anyone who thinks that 6th was the end to mechhammer was dead wrong.
Oh, I have no problem with MechHammer. I love tanks and flyers and artillery. They're cool and have a great anesthetic.
What I don't like are the endless amount of troop transports. In 5th edition every list was like 50% troop transports. Your units were hiding in troop transports for half the freakin game. Extremely boring and dull.
Which is exactly what 6th edition will be like. Shooty troop units hiding in transports/buildings/fliers and plinking away at one another all game.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Plumbumbarum wrote:Yes the number is solid, errors do not fix themselves with larger sample though.
I realize that nothing i write or site will change your opinion and that you would likely argue yourself blue in the face that the poll numbers are wrong, even if the poll reached 60,000 people (unless of course the results reflect the way you feel about the game). So how about you use your superior knowledge of statistics to construct another poll that lacks the errors and flaws that you feel this one has.
6394
Post by: orknidious
Dont waste your time sennacherib.
In truth Plumbob is right about one thing. The accuracy of internet polls is not perfect. But if he thinks a larger sample size does not matter with statistics, then he cant know much about how stats works. Dont ask for his help either. ITs way easier to complain and grumble than it is to do something constructive.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
 Madcat87 wrote:I've got mixed feelings about 6th ed. Normally during big game changing releases that affect everyone I don't see it as a buff or a nerf instead just look at it as something different that must be adapted to. Having said that my Orks that I love to death have been shelved since 6th ed released and don't look like they're coming out any time soon.
Removing casulties from the front, challenges, changes to fleet, overwatch, cover saves, random charges, everything that changed just seemed to negatively impact orks. I'm also really glad that I didn't buy that Snikrot kommando squad that I was really liking the look of.
.
I didn't think that Orks did that badly - Lootas being able to both shoot and move and overwatch? Ork mobs being able to overwatch? Dakka jets etc - its not all good but some things seem helpful to Da Boyz? FNP also not too bad for Mad Doc and his mates?
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
 Mr Morden wrote: Madcat87 wrote:I've got mixed feelings about 6th ed. Normally during big game changing releases that affect everyone I don't see it as a buff or a nerf instead just look at it as something different that must be adapted to. Having said that my Orks that I love to death have been shelved since 6th ed released and don't look like they're coming out any time soon.
Removing casulties from the front, challenges, changes to fleet, overwatch, cover saves, random charges, everything that changed just seemed to negatively impact orks. I'm also really glad that I didn't buy that Snikrot kommando squad that I was really liking the look of.
.
I didn't think that Orks did that badly - Lootas being able to both shoot and move and overwatch? Ork mobs being able to overwatch? Dakka jets etc - its not all good but some things seem helpful to Da Boyz? FNP also not too bad for Mad Doc and his mates?
Ork bikers are good again as well, considering that orks do well in challenges, overwatch as well, and cover saves are the same as they were in 4th and orks did well there (As well as when vehicles were squishier too). The major thing that hurt is the gimmick kommado lists. Orks also gained the ability to hit vehicles reliably in melee (This was horrible in 5th!) , tankbusters are now more useful, flash gitz have an actual improvement (still one of the bad things, but hey it's usable now at least)
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Yes the number is solid, errors do not fix themselves with larger sample though.
I realize that nothing i write or site will change your opinion and that you would likely argue yourself blue in the face that the poll numbers are wrong, even if the poll reached 60,000 people (unless of course the results reflect the way you feel about the game).
If the whole 60000 people from DakkaDakka voted in the poll, you would have the opinion of DakkaDakka forum which, without the research of what DakkaDakka forum is, would give you only that - the opinion of DakkaDakka forum. If 60000 people voted but you made a mistake, depending on how big your mistake was your poll could be somehow wrong, ranging from slightly biased to completly worthless.
Also not sure why you accuse me of potentialy "arguing myself blue in the face that the poll numbers were wrong, even if the poll reached 60,000 people", in fact that number would be impressive and an achievement in itself. Now we would know that people on DakkaDakka "love the game" or "prefer it over 5th", would we know why is that? Would that mean the ruleset itself is better, evolved etc? What is enough for those people to love the ruleset? Or maybe people would vote even more enthusiasticly if the rules criticised by the "hate" crowd were changed to the supposed haters liking?
You know a girl loves you, great. Now is it because of the insight of your very soul, your goodness, your intelligence, your looks, your car or your bank account? Quite a difference... love is too much undefined.
Btw reflecting the way I feel about the game, my opinion is "another mediocore ruleset, should be much much better because after 5 editions it was about time for some real quality". If the poll proved that everybody loves 6th that would change nothing for me personaly, I know I have high expectations and on the sidenote, think people should have those too here. You posted a poll and accuse me of attacking it because of my bias, fine, whatever. I can only tell you I'm not even entirely sure if it's worse than 5th, just 3+ reserves make it hard and there are quite a few other positives in 6th. That my stance on both lacking quality and deserving critique (especialy looking at the cost of a whole thing) for you means hatred is a different story and a misunderstanding imo
sennacherib wrote:So how about you use your superior knowledge of statistics to construct another poll that lacks the errors and flaws that you feel this one has.
Superior is kind of a big word, I have some knowledge and experience of creating poll research - I studied it for some time and it's a part of my work. What it did to me is made me see a potential problems when conducting a research and this is what I post. I tried to come up with my own questions but quickly found problems with them as well, either being biased or vague or sth. It's not an easy task, for me impossible with my "scientific" bias and limited time. Don't expect me to build a proper poll because I can't but frankly I think you can't build one as well. Again, my forum poll would be simiarly, maybe slightly less flawed.
Btw I think this one would be better than yours for example
Blood and Slaughter wrote:Actually you'd probably be better having a much simpler poll.
Option one: I am overall more satisfied than unhappy with the 6th edition 40K rules
Option two: I am overall more unhappy than satisfied with the 6th edition 40K rules
And asking people who are unsure or undecided not to vote until they have played enough to form an opinion.
...but in the end would be equally easy to dismiss.
orknidious wrote:
Dont waste your time sennacherib.
In truth Plumbob is right about one thing. The accuracy of internet polls is not perfect. But if he thinks a larger sample size does not matter with statistics, then he cant know much about how stats works.
And now please point me to the post where I claimed such a ridiculous thing. If it's about my last quote about the poll, let's see
Plumbumbarum wrote:Yes the number is solid,...
Translation: the number of voters is substantial and could suffice, assuming no errors...
Plumbumbarum wrote:..errors do not fix themselves with larger sample though.
Translation: ...but some errors don't dissapear when the sample grows, just are repeated on bigger scale (and I'm not talking only about errors in questions). No claim you accuse me of, please read into things next time.
orknidious wrote:Dont ask for his help either. ITs way easier to complain and grumble than it is to do something constructive.
I think I offered something constructive:
Plumbumbarum wrote:So again, in this case Internet forum poll is worthless especialy with answers like yours butif you still want to engage in such a waste of time, start with multiple questions poll, post it on multiple sites, pick responders at random from the given forum populations. Do a research before of how much the Internet reflects the customer base, define positive and negative feedback, find out which sites represent what cathegory of players at what percentage after of course defining those cathegories, make questions to get knowledge of what kind of people consider it better/worse and why, avoid words describing emotional reactions as those are influenced by too many factors, expect multiple tries to confirm, top of my head. You can go wrong at any point of the research - methodology/ defining/ cathegorising/ questions/ sample size/ respondent answers analysis etc... have fun.
and you can't expect me, having such a stance, to do all of the mentioned work. Maybe, just maybe I exaggerated and this can be done with a single question poll on a forum thread. Frankly I don't see how, maybe asking mods to use an application to randomly pick respondents (to avoid this http://www.greenbook.org/marketing-research.cfm/non-response-bias for example) could help but really, how can I participate in the task I see as senseless and consider huge? I put myself in GW shoes for a while thinking how would I measure feedback of 6th edition and found immense problems, note that I assumed huge resources, power et.
It's imo too much effort and in the end I don't even care for the result, you know proper quality managment is giving people things they do not know are important or needed. You know you can built PCs with low quality PSU for thousands of people and majority (those whose PC won't fail instantly, kind of rare even with lowly PSUs) of them will be happy.Doesn't change the fact that quality PSUs in their PCs would improve the lifespan of their components, reliablity of the PC and their personal safety. So, mitigate the risk of latter failure, just like a proper rule or good balance mitigate the risk of the flawed game decided by a lucky roll or auto-win list.
You can't negate my critique of Internet poll research only because I don't make my own poll or don't offer instant solutions. In fact that I don't might be a proof of me being right and it's worthless. I can be wrong but that doesn't prove it, imo.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
See the Blue in the face reference dude.
You make a few good points but regardless, you have not convinced me that you are right and the marginal number of voters who have voted that they hate 6th ed actually represents the majority dakka opinion. Instead you actually support the argument that i made earlier. That a small number of vitriolic posters opinions do not represent the opinon that dakka has of 6th ed. I acknowledge that polls on line often have some bias. But the fact that you are so biased that you refuse to believe the poll remains unchanged. I mean really. Do you HONESTLY not believe the poll numbers reflect the general opinon that dakka has of the new rules. As with all statistics there is a margin of error but do you really feel that the overall opinion of Dakka is that 6th is a step down. Really? 
62560
Post by: Makumba
Dude a single study without a second reference group based on a single question when half of them are based on facts[disliked 6th for rules] and other half on emotions[love 6th . what does that even suppose to mean ?] is not valid . It wouldnt even be valid for checking how the Dakka Dakka community views the 6th ed . I mean this is basic testing stuff since Durkheim did his study on suicide .
the best thing we could do with it is to check the reactions to 6th ed . where and why[if any] people see problems with the 6th . For example is first blood too important , how many people think so . is there a correlation between thinking it is too important and the type of anwser give in the poll . If yes then is it strong or is it not and for which group is it more common.
How is the change to assaulted viewed by people linked to what type of army they play [for example . considering meq can easily go gunline , does it change how meq players view the change , when their codex[not armies. army builds could be destroyed by the change] can easily adapt .
And for the lolz . Is playing against necron scyth wing every 1-2 days pushing the poll more in to the I disliked 6th rules or I love 6th .
The poll we have right now says nothing . The posts say more , but this is qualitative sociology which was never my forte.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:See the Blue in the face reference dude.
You make a few good points but regardless, you have not convinced me that you are right and the marginal number of voters who have voted that they hate 6th ed actually represents the majority dakka opinion. Instead you actually support the argument that i made earlier. That a small number of vitriolic posters opinions do not represent the opinon that dakka has of 6th ed. I acknowledge that polls on line often have some bias. But the fact that you are so biased that you refuse to believe the poll remains unchanged. I mean really. Do you HONESTLY not believe the poll numbers reflect the general opinon that dakka has of the new rules. As with all statistics there is a margin of error but do you really feel that the overall opinion of Dakka is that 6th is a step down. Really?
Going down to your level of discusssion, you made a quick forum poll and expect people to accept it as a valid data about feedback of 6th edition and validity of people criticising it, then argue blue in the face when faced with objections that were obious to follow. Took 15 minutes to make a single question poll and knows now, that good.
I never claimed that the marginal number of voters who have voted that they hate 6th ed actually represents the majority dakka opinion. I claimed that it can't be proven with your poll, that it's meaningless to the feedback of the whole consumer base, that it's irrelevant when measuring the quality of the ruleset and that you may be right that majority likes it, numerous times afair.
Yes honestly, the poll can be meaningful and can be worthless, so is worthless. And if it was meaningful in a way that reflected DakkaDakka forum stance, still would be worthless because "I love 6th edition" or "I hate 6th edition"hardly means a lot. But wait, I've posted it already, elaborated few times and in the end all you can come up with is "blue in the face" and accusations of bias without actualy dissmissing the notion that you need a some actual work to gather solid data. Btw it's all kind of an insult to real researchers.
Dude.
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Wouldn't a poll entitled "What do you think of the quality of the 6th ed ruleset" have been more appropriate if i was trying to measure quality. If you look through my posts in this thread, you will see that i was not trying to poll on the quality of the rules. If you think that polling with questions like "do you like this".? is worthless then i would point you to the numerous and well funded corporations whose entire mission is to find out if someone likes or dislikes a product.
As i have stated before i am not interested in finding out what everyone in the world thinks of 40k, nor am i interested in finding out what all 40k gamers think. I was polling dakka because a small vocal group of critics were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules on any thread they could find here on dakka. I wanted to know what the community of dakka thought.
When i made the accusation of bias and "blue in the face", these accusations were made with complete merit based on your statements. Take for example your leangthy post at the top of the page and your most recent statement that polliong someone on wether they love or hate 6th ed is worthless info. surely you know that the difference between loving something and hating something is hardly worthless information.
Once again. I never claimed to be doing some high minded study. I just wanted to take a informal measure of the overall opinion of dakka because a group that i suspect to be small was flooding certain threads that i was reading with their hate of 6th ed. Threads that had nothing to do with the quality of the rules set were inundated with posts from the same vitriolic persons who in some cases seemed to be attempting to "shout down" opposing opinion via the weight and breadth of the posts they made on the matter. I suspect that you fit into the aforementioned group based on you signature and the fact that you have made lengthy arguments based on your possibly erroneous assumption that this poll entitled "How do you like 6th ed" was actually a poll measuring the quality of the ruleset.
I agree that GW could up the quality of their rules. I never disputed this fact nor did i need a poll to quantify this.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote:Wouldn't a poll entitled "What do you think of the quality of the 6th ed ruleset" have been more appropriate if i was trying to measure quality. If you look through my posts in this thread, you will see that i was not trying to poll on the quality of the rules. If you think that polling with questions like "do you like this".? is worthless then i would point you to the numerous and well funded corporations whose entire mission is to find out if someone likes or dislikes a product.
As i have stated before i am not interested in finding out what everyone in the world thinks of 40k, nor am i interested in finding out what all 40k gamers think. I was polling dakka because a small vocal group of critics were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules on any thread they could find here on dakka. I wanted to know what the community of dakka thought.
So you asked for feedback to invalidate "the small vocal group of critics" that "were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules", you're asking about rules then or it doesn't make sense. If asking about rules, "like" "dislike" "love" and "hate" are too vague here, obviously if you wanted to measure emotional reaction to your product those would work. You won't invalidate the supposed haters opinion on rules by showing that the majority of the forum had positive emotional reaction.
On a sidenote, as you asked for constructive, finding a way to randomly choose posters to vote would really give more credit to the results, assuming ofc that you only want to know the stance of the forum. Splitting the answers to for example "I like 6th edition because the rules are less abstract/ I like 6th edition because the rules benefit narrative play/ I like the 6th edition because I was bored with 5th/ I like 6th edition because my army got better/ I like 6th edition because of the craziness" etc could be a good start. See I wrote those answers down and already see numerous issues, it really is some work to get anything viable.
sennacherib wrote:When i made the accusation of bias and "blue in the face", these accusations were made with complete merit based on your statements. Take for example your leangthy post at the top of the page and your most recent statement that polliong someone on wether they love or hate 6th ed is worthless info. surely you know that the difference between loving something and hating something is hardly worthless information.
It is worthless in the context, I'm sure Apple would love such a poll about Iphone because that's they act on emotional response of their consumer base. From what I understand, the question here is does the majority like the things that vitrol spewing band criticise, that would require more specific question and analysis I guess as the hate brigade uses actual examples, at least if we're talking about the same posts.
Why a lenghty post means blue in the face, don't get it. I like throwing one-liners but those are prone to misunderstading and often boorish so in discussions like this I try to elaborate to get my stance across. Bias accusation is cheap as I could say the same about you posting/ defending the poll, what's the point. I can be negative about the 6th edition but still fair, you know.
sennacherib wrote:Once again. I never claimed to be doing some high minded study. I just wanted to take a informal measure of the overall opinion of dakka because a group that i suspect to be small was flooding certain threads that i was reading with their hate of 6th ed. Threads that had nothing to do with the quality of the rules set were inundated with posts from the same vitriolic persons who in some cases seemed to be attempting to "shout down" opposing opinion via the weight and breadth of the posts they made on the matter. I suspect that you fit into the aforementioned group based on you signature and the fact that you have made lengthy arguments based on your possibly erroneous assumption that this poll entitled "How do you like 6th ed" was actually a poll measuring the quality of the ruleset.
So if that was not about the rules, what did you actualy ask about with "love", "like" and "hate" as answers? What were you trying to prove? That people love or like the new edition for reasons outside of the rules quality so hate crowd should stop criticising the ruleset?
And since you pointed to my signature, you see "cinematic" for example in computer games ussualy means "cheap scripted crap" and that translates somehow into 40k tabletop imo. Even in movies it can be used as pejorative term describing overabundance of stuff blowing up in mindless blockbusters. I don't want this game to be like mindless blockbuster, I want this game to be like good dark sf with plot deep enough that I don't need a snake suddenly eating a space marine to get involved. Now, you can convince me that it's not the case here with arguments, examples, logic but I can't see how you could make me stop thinking what I think by showing me results of a poll like this one. I don't know why people love the edition or consider it better so sheer numbers of postive answers without clarification of what that actualy means is, guess what, meaningless for me.
sennacherib wrote:I agree that GW could up the quality of their rules. I never disputed this fact nor did i need a poll to quantify this.
At last we definately agree on something.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
sennacherib wrote:See the Blue in the face reference dude.
You make a few good points but regardless, you have not convinced me that you are right and the marginal number of voters who have voted that they hate 6th ed actually represents the majority dakka opinion
You're relying on an internet poll that does not necessarily have discrete categories (e.g. some people may love 6th but not think it a step up from 5E, or they may hate it and still think it's a step up from 5E, etc), with two options that functionally are the same thing (Too early to tell and No Opinion). Relying on a poll like this to give any sort of meaningful information on any level is a mistake.
660
Post by: LordOfTheSloths
AngryMarine wrote:I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
That is the best statement to date on the subject.
AngryMarine wrote:
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.
I've started looking into Malifaux, my FLGS has a group that meets regularly. Low entry cost + good writing = everything 6th ed 40K is not.
19636
Post by: Alkasyn
sennacherib wrote:Wouldn't a poll entitled "What do you think of the quality of the 6th ed ruleset" have been more appropriate if i was trying to measure quality. If you look through my posts in this thread, you will see that i was not trying to poll on the quality of the rules. If you think that polling with questions like "do you like this".? is worthless then i would point you to the numerous and well funded corporations whose entire mission is to find out if someone likes or dislikes a product.
As i have stated before i am not interested in finding out what everyone in the world thinks of 40k, nor am i interested in finding out what all 40k gamers think. I was polling dakka because a small vocal group of critics were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules on any thread they could find here on dakka. I wanted to know what the community of dakka thought.
When i made the accusation of bias and "blue in the face", these accusations were made with complete merit based on your statements. Take for example your leangthy post at the top of the page and your most recent statement that polliong someone on wether they love or hate 6th ed is worthless info. surely you know that the difference between loving something and hating something is hardly worthless information.
Once again. I never claimed to be doing some high minded study. I just wanted to take a informal measure of the overall opinion of dakka because a group that i suspect to be small was flooding certain threads that i was reading with their hate of 6th ed. Threads that had nothing to do with the quality of the rules set were inundated with posts from the same vitriolic persons who in some cases seemed to be attempting to "shout down" opposing opinion via the weight and breadth of the posts they made on the matter. I suspect that you fit into the aforementioned group based on you signature and the fact that you have made lengthy arguments based on your possibly erroneous assumption that this poll entitled "How do you like 6th ed" was actually a poll measuring the quality of the ruleset.
I agree that GW could up the quality of their rules. I never disputed this fact nor did i need a poll to quantify this.
Most people seem to understand your intent for making the poll. It's that some people like to argue for the sake of arguing.
I agree that Dakka as a whole seems to have received the new edition positively.
46230
Post by: AzureDeath
I have been able to get alot of games in now and here are my thoughts:
Necrons- made them better
Eldar and DE- not so much
Orks-helped a bit
Space Marines- well need I say more.
Nids- major helped, work much better with 6th ed rules.
Sisters- bout the same
These are the armies I play and what I have experienced and are only my opinion.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Kind of surprised to see such overwhelmingly positive reactions. Mine is nominally positive as well. A couple of complaints, but largely the rules are an improvement from 5th edition.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 Alkasyn wrote: sennacherib wrote:Wouldn't a poll entitled "What do you think of the quality of the 6th ed ruleset" have been more appropriate if i was trying to measure quality. If you look through my posts in this thread, you will see that i was not trying to poll on the quality of the rules. If you think that polling with questions like "do you like this".? is worthless then i would point you to the numerous and well funded corporations whose entire mission is to find out if someone likes or dislikes a product.
As i have stated before i am not interested in finding out what everyone in the world thinks of 40k, nor am i interested in finding out what all 40k gamers think. I was polling dakka because a small vocal group of critics were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules on any thread they could find here on dakka. I wanted to know what the community of dakka thought.
When i made the accusation of bias and "blue in the face", these accusations were made with complete merit based on your statements. Take for example your leangthy post at the top of the page and your most recent statement that polliong someone on wether they love or hate 6th ed is worthless info. surely you know that the difference between loving something and hating something is hardly worthless information.
Once again. I never claimed to be doing some high minded study. I just wanted to take a informal measure of the overall opinion of dakka because a group that i suspect to be small was flooding certain threads that i was reading with their hate of 6th ed. Threads that had nothing to do with the quality of the rules set were inundated with posts from the same vitriolic persons who in some cases seemed to be attempting to "shout down" opposing opinion via the weight and breadth of the posts they made on the matter. I suspect that you fit into the aforementioned group based on you signature and the fact that you have made lengthy arguments based on your possibly erroneous assumption that this poll entitled "How do you like 6th ed" was actually a poll measuring the quality of the ruleset.
I agree that GW could up the quality of their rules. I never disputed this fact nor did i need a poll to quantify this.
Most people seem to understand your intent for making the poll. It's that some people like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Now that surely requires a poll.
Alkasyn wrote:I agree that Dakka as a whole seems to have received the new edition positively.
Source?
63360
Post by: th7dude
sennacherib wrote:Lots of people have been posting strong opinions here and in other forums about the changes made by GW when they released 6th edition 40k.
How do you feel dakka.
I've not played 40K since the '90s and my last game was 2nd edition. I tried two quick games with the new 6th edition and have to say I like it. The game moves quickly and it seems to have detail where it counts. I'm liking what I see so far, especially the much simplified vehicle and psyker rules compared to 2nd.
Regards
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Alkasyn wrote: sennacherib wrote:Wouldn't a poll entitled "What do you think of the quality of the 6th ed ruleset" have been more appropriate if i was trying to measure quality. If you look through my posts in this thread, you will see that i was not trying to poll on the quality of the rules. If you think that polling with questions like "do you like this".? is worthless then i would point you to the numerous and well funded corporations whose entire mission is to find out if someone likes or dislikes a product.
As i have stated before i am not interested in finding out what everyone in the world thinks of 40k, nor am i interested in finding out what all 40k gamers think. I was polling dakka because a small vocal group of critics were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules on any thread they could find here on dakka. I wanted to know what the community of dakka thought.
When i made the accusation of bias and "blue in the face", these accusations were made with complete merit based on your statements. Take for example your leangthy post at the top of the page and your most recent statement that polliong someone on wether they love or hate 6th ed is worthless info. surely you know that the difference between loving something and hating something is hardly worthless information.
Once again. I never claimed to be doing some high minded study. I just wanted to take a informal measure of the overall opinion of dakka because a group that i suspect to be small was flooding certain threads that i was reading with their hate of 6th ed. Threads that had nothing to do with the quality of the rules set were inundated with posts from the same vitriolic persons who in some cases seemed to be attempting to "shout down" opposing opinion via the weight and breadth of the posts they made on the matter. I suspect that you fit into the aforementioned group based on you signature and the fact that you have made lengthy arguments based on your possibly erroneous assumption that this poll entitled "How do you like 6th ed" was actually a poll measuring the quality of the ruleset.
I agree that GW could up the quality of their rules. I never disputed this fact nor did i need a poll to quantify this.
Most people seem to understand your intent for making the poll. It's that some people like to argue for the sake of arguing.
I agree that Dakka as a whole seems to have received the new edition positively.
I couldnt agree more. Dakka is filled with those who love to argue and carrying on a discussion with them is impossible. Thus the best course of action is not to respond. I thought about wasting time and involving one of my friends who has a PhD in Mathmatics, and has taught stats for years, but no matter what i say and how much documentation i have, it would be easier, less stressful and less a waste of time to just ignore the comments of those who choose to argue.
There is one useful aspect to the constant arguers. They keep this poll up on the front page where it continues to get more votes. While the ratio's have changed slightly, there is still an overwhelming number of respondents who prefer the new rules to the 5th ed rules. while the number who hate it has remained virtually the same the entire time, at just 5%.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
sennacherib wrote: Alkasyn wrote: sennacherib wrote:Wouldn't a poll entitled "What do you think of the quality of the 6th ed ruleset" have been more appropriate if i was trying to measure quality. If you look through my posts in this thread, you will see that i was not trying to poll on the quality of the rules. If you think that polling with questions like "do you like this".? is worthless then i would point you to the numerous and well funded corporations whose entire mission is to find out if someone likes or dislikes a product.
As i have stated before i am not interested in finding out what everyone in the world thinks of 40k, nor am i interested in finding out what all 40k gamers think. I was polling dakka because a small vocal group of critics were repeatedly posting their dislike of the new rules on any thread they could find here on dakka. I wanted to know what the community of dakka thought.
When i made the accusation of bias and "blue in the face", these accusations were made with complete merit based on your statements. Take for example your leangthy post at the top of the page and your most recent statement that polliong someone on wether they love or hate 6th ed is worthless info. surely you know that the difference between loving something and hating something is hardly worthless information.
Once again. I never claimed to be doing some high minded study. I just wanted to take a informal measure of the overall opinion of dakka because a group that i suspect to be small was flooding certain threads that i was reading with their hate of 6th ed. Threads that had nothing to do with the quality of the rules set were inundated with posts from the same vitriolic persons who in some cases seemed to be attempting to "shout down" opposing opinion via the weight and breadth of the posts they made on the matter. I suspect that you fit into the aforementioned group based on you signature and the fact that you have made lengthy arguments based on your possibly erroneous assumption that this poll entitled "How do you like 6th ed" was actually a poll measuring the quality of the ruleset.
I agree that GW could up the quality of their rules. I never disputed this fact nor did i need a poll to quantify this.
Most people seem to understand your intent for making the poll. It's that some people like to argue for the sake of arguing.
I agree that Dakka as a whole seems to have received the new edition positively.
I couldnt agree more. Dakka is filled with those who love to argue and carrying on a discussion with them is impossible. Thus the best course of action is not to respond. I thought about wasting time and involving one of my friends who has a PhD in Mathmatics, and has taught stats for years, but no matter what i say and how much documentation i have, it would be easier, less stressful and less a waste of time to just ignore the comments of those who choose to argue.
There is one useful aspect to the constant arguers. They keep this poll up on the front page where it continues to get more votes. While the ratio's have changed slightly, there is still an overwhelming number of respondents who prefer the new rules to the 5th ed rules. while the number who hate it has remained virtually the same the entire time, at just 5%.
Yes bring on as many mathematicians as possible so they will define love and hate here /facepalm
Really this has just got strange, either I'm writing in a manner that it is hard to understand or you don't read my posts as you don't even seem to get a grip on what I'm trying to tell you. I question your methodology, the very connection between your stated intent and wording of your questions, last but not least the arrogance you invalidate the critics with having only this flawed poll to back you up. I do not question the number of votes which if isolated would statisticaly be sufficient, assuming your poll had any sense from the start - which is basicaly what I try to discuss.
I'm trying the last time to reason with you, maybe there will be some substance in your post instead of "I'd bring a science council here and prove my point but I won't and in the meantime won't adress any particular points about my forum poll because it's enough to state that I'm right". Oh, and don't forget to mention how I'm new here as the post count and join date surely speak for themselves in any discussion. Anyway I'll just ask you three questions:
- is there a possibility that similar poll but posted in the different section of the forum would give you different percentages positive vs negative?
- is there a possibility that with different wording of questions you would get different percentages positive vs negative?
- would randomisation of the sample give more credit to your results assuming the same number of respondents?
Btw I never stated that your results do not reflect reality, only that I see too many flaws in it to use it as a proof. See, I'd even like to know whether a community like this one is positive about a new edition or not and no result would have an emotional impact on me. Also I "love" (like really love) the artwork in the new book, I "hate" some painting schemes GW uses to present miniatures, I "love" focus fire, I "hate" random charge, I "love" 3+ reserves, I "hate" warlord traits etc, another few things you seem to not understand.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
sennacherib wrote:
I couldnt agree more. Dakka is filled with those who love to argue and carrying on a discussion with them is impossible. Thus the best course of action is not to respond. I thought about wasting time and involving one of my friends who has a PhD in Mathmatics, and has taught stats for years, but no matter what i say and how much documentation i have, it would be easier, less stressful and less a waste of time to just ignore the comments of those who choose to argue.
It's likely your PhD friend would have told you your poll is statistically worthless however as well
31121
Post by: amanita
Unfortunately your poll has an integrated bias which you freely admit, and your posted choices reflect that. Glad you and others enjoy the game, but please don't pretend your poll has any merit beyond reasserting your own opinion.
|
|
