I'm no veteran, but I played in 5th for years. I don't see what is broken, but i play Blood Angels and Tau. I admit my angels have been sitting out a lot, but its a completed army. I wanted to start a new army and it was either new army, or update. So whats up guys? Whats broken? I'm not trolling I honestly want to know. And please guys no long rants its hard to sort through rants for the point, and its easy to blow off a long rant as nerd rage. I would like to see the issue and why it isn't fair, objectively would be preferable.
Before I get yelled at about looking it up myself, I spent an hour trying to find a coherent explanation to no effect.
Really no more broken than before (in many ways better thanks to standardized USRs and somewhat tightened rules wordings).
It's broken in the eyes of players that used to steamroll shooting armies with assault, I guess. Hull Points broke it for armies that relied on vehicles. Fliers when just about no one had AA. Allies gives some armies access to incredibly sick combos for players that don't want friends.
In my opinion its not broken as much as some things arent well thought out. Its only broken if you purposefully make "good use" of the flaws. If you dont do that you can play 6th edition swimmingly.
In part it's the rule changes (random charge ranges, overwatch, casualties taken from the front) which makes assault even worse than it was in 5th edition (and even then few people were relying on it) and makes shooting based armies even stronger (they ruled 5th edition already). Removing the ability to assault out of a transport, even stationary, unless it's open topped or an assault transport, made things even harder for armies with an assault bias.
Hull points did change the "invulnerable tank" syndrome where a tank could take glancing hits all day without any serious damage, but in giving them hull points so they take wounds like monstrous creatures they failed to give them the feature that actually makes monstrous creatures playable, an armour save. What's more not only can they die by losing their hull points, they can die to the first hit if it's a penetrating 6 so vehicles are significantly weaker than monstrous creatures. That's a fact the codex writers have acknowledged indirectly by making the stronger units like Riptides and Wraithknights monstrous creatures, not vehicles.
Fliers were introduced to a game when no armies had the means to deal with them. Then the Codex writers managed to find themselves unable to write in balanced fliers. The Heldrake (post-FAQ) is unnecessarily strong and probably more than any other one unit forced units back into their tin boxes when at the start of 6th we thought that this would be the age of infantry.
Allies weren't a bad idea, in principle, but the relationships that they put into the tables often didn't seem to make any sense at all. It also allowed people to exploit the strengths of two armies to cover the other's limitations. It's not for nothing that for most loyalist armies the correct answer to the question, "what allies should I take?" is "Imperial Guard." It also lead to abominations like a Seer council led by a Dark Eldar Archon with shadow field, so the fortuned unit could be led by a character with a re-rollable 2+ invulnerable save.
In addition to the rules changes the frustration has been with Codex writers who don't seem to be able to build a balanced book. We've always had a situation were one or two armies were clearly better than the others (7th Edition Fantasy Deamons, 5th Edition Grey Knights WARD!) but the impression with the changeover was that GW were trying harder to find some external and internal balance in Codexes.
As it stands one of the best armies in 6th is Necrons, who seem to have been built by a writer who knew what would be going into the 6th edition rulebook (WARD!). In a meta where fliers are king, they have a lot of fliers. In a meta where glancing hits kill vehicles they can generate a lot of glancing hits. In a meta where you need 6s to hit on overwatch they have tesla weapons that give you double hits when you roll a 6 to hit. They can also turn out a lot of shots for dealing with infantry.
Tau went from one of the weakest armies to one of the strongest by giving them sufficient special rules that their supposed weakness (assault) is never in play because they simply shoot to death any unit that looks even remotely threatening. They even get a rule where their buddies can pump shots into an assaulting unit. However as Tau players have noted they no longer play as the "mobile firepower army" that they used to operate as, but as a gunline army to out guard Imperial Guard. Any tactic that an opponent can use to get their units close enough to the Tau player that they pose a threat? The tau have an answer for it.
Eldar are also a top tier army now, with Wave Serpent spam being one of their stronger builds. The biggest shock though is how well Tau and Eldar work together, the Taudar are one of those armies where the sum is greater than the total of the two parts. Any weakness one might have, the other surely compensates for.
To run any of those combinations, Tau, Eldar, Taudar you have to deliberately limit yourself if you want your opponent to enjoy their game.
Balanced against that is the Chaos Codex, a wasted opportunity where Heldrake spam is really the only competitive build and people who want to play Chaos Legions feel shafted, Codex Dark Angels which (although I like it) feels like an army that would have been nice to play in 5th edition, and Codex Space Marines which is a really nice army, but does have poor internal balance (White Scar bikes are clearly better than every other option) and is not a match for the kings of the game.
GW don't even seem able to balance new units within the game they created. Some are impressively strong, others extremely weak, and there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for either situation. Things like Escalation have brought super-heavy tanks into regular games of 40k, without the balancing ability of Apocalypse specific rules.
imo, it is not really broken. It is a very solid game system. The only real problems are that some of the rules are written in a very ambiguous way and the balance in some codices is horrible.
If anyone screams that it is broken, they are clearly overreacting.
Well according to the internet, all sorts of things are broken. I'd been playing Baldur's Gate for 12 years, but it's only when i looked on the forum that I realised that the game was "broken" and "unplayable". Similarly Europa Universalis is, apparently, broken, despite being a hugely successful game.
But no, there is no grandioise logical argument about why 40k is broken or anything. There are flaws yes, but it's up to you whether or not you think that makes it "broken".
Iron_Captain wrote: The only real problems are that some of the rules are written in a very ambiguous way and the balance in some codices is horrible.
So the core rules are bad, and the army rules are bad. How exactly is that not broken?
Haven't you learned by now? You can make your own rules to fill in those gaps. Because we all know a well written ruleset requires 2 hours of pre-game negotiation, and remembering to discuss every possible rules scenario to come to an amicable solution before the game even starts. Who cares how your opponents day went when you have rules to make up.
I think it strongly depends on what scale and how strict rulewise you play.
I play with a buddy of mine small games in the 500-1200 pts range. We agree on some special goal or just plain slaughter just for the fun of it, play the units we find most fun at the given moment with a rather loose reference to the FOC and have tons of fun. 6th ed just means that we have to conduct assaults somewhat different, but really, thats just a question of how long you stay in cover before you charge.
If you want to play large competitive championships - well, good luck.
The game is obviously broken from a harshly competitive perspective. But that's not really unique about 6th edition.
Nonetheless, most players don't want to play with only riptides/heldrakes/vendettas, or exploit allies or double FOC. So in the end for most players, 40K ends up being a fun game anyways It's not unplayable in any way, it's just that if you played only to win, then most of all units and some entire armies would never see action. I think the comments about 40K being unplayable is just an overreaction to the failure of GW to do that little extra balance work in their codices.
Really, I would love to see a community balance project for 40K, with a set of "unofficial canon" codices for all existing armies, being identical to the current ones save for points costs.
40k won't feel too broken if its the only game you know. Once you've played other games, many of the issues start to pop out more. Even without playing other games, certain things must make you scratch your head about the game.
Why is the internal balance of each codex so poor? Even the most casual player will look at Ratlings and Rough Riders wondering what to do with them, while the Vendetta is obviously a superior choice. Every codex has this problem with one or two units in ever slot being infinitely better than the rest. This hurts casual and competitive players alike.
Why is the external balance between codices so poor? Why are Tau and Eldar significantly better than C:CSM or C: DA? Again, even the most casual player will take issue with this, as everyone wants at least a chance at winning or doing something other than remove models.
Why are there so many redundant, overlapping, or useless rules/USRs? Marines basically ignore most of the leadership/morale part of the game and invalidate several other USRs. If marines were a single codex, it wouldn't be an issue, but representing almost half the game is where it becomes problematic. Why are there so many rules for different movement types, or slightly different abilities to wound things better, or slightly different ways to hit something. I mean, why have preferred enemy, furious charge, rage, and hatred? These all functionally fill the same role that could very easily be rolled into a single rule that was a blend of all them.
Basically, the rules are bloated, the balance is off, and they charge you a fortune on top of it. Go play other games to truly see the difference between a smooth, complex, and tactical game, and then come back to see what a complicated, messy, and untactical a game 40k is.
Its not broken. Ignore these a-holes on the interwebs who cry everytime GW does anything. What release a codex? It either sucks or its OP! What flyers? OMG the game is ruined!! Assault is nerfed? OMG the game is ruined!!
3 things are broken that's it....
1. D Weapons
2. JetSeer/star/council whatever
3. Screamerstar
This game is so far from freaking broken. I played a lot of 2nd. Now holy smokes wanna talk about WTF all day everyday. Its a good game it really is. That's why its more popular then it has been in years. Sadly the 5% of jackwagons cry incessantly online make the rest of the 40k world think something is wrong. F THOSE PEOPLE. I have a spine so if something is broken I got no problem saying "Hey I ain't playing against that its crap". I just find another game. For those who cry non stop please sell your army to me at a highly discounted rate and go play Warma/Hordes. The grass is always greener right.
The core rules and dexes dont really work and have some holes that break the game (like the relic and some warriors hopping in a NS) which really has made me stop buying 40k, now I've moved onto buying things for other games (voting with my wallet I guess) but I will still play the occasional games at a tourney or something
It's broken in the eyes of players that used to steamroll shooting armies with assault, I guess.
It's nothing to do with steamrollering, it's about it being a valid tactic at all.
Given that the setting of the game and the fluff all indicate that in the far future, melee weapons still have a place in wars (let's be fair, this is a bit odd, but in sci-fi, not unheard of. The most iconic weapon in any sci-fi series ever is a hand-to-hand weapon), it should be expected that such units have a place in the game.
That said, you have to envision how these melee weapons that everyone is hauling around would get into combat in the far future... And we can do that by looking at prior editions.
1) Herd mentality. If there are more of you than the opponent has bullets, then you'll get into combat! This is the approach taken by orks, and tyranids (and Zulus, who pioneered the tactic in the 1890s).
Why 6th ed is broken: Taking casualties from the front means that your guys have to take many more turns of shooting than they did in prior editions. Last weekend, I was playing a for-fun game against a necron opponent. We used a table with a lot of terrain, so I usually had a cover save. His army wasn't really focused, some warriors, some immortals, one ann. barge, some deathmarks. I was running mostly green tide. I never made it to combat (I did get to declare a charge, at 9" away, on my waaagh turn, so my guys were fleet, but overwatched killed the lead guys, so I needed an 11 and didn't get it.)
That's an unfocused, non-tournament necron list, not an optimized Tau-dar list, by the way.
Cover saves are worse, random charges make failed charges more likely, and overwatch may not kill a lot of models, but it increases the distance needed. Plus, the most common infantry weapons in the game can now shoot at full effect even as their wielders fall back away from the skirmish, further increasing the effective distance you need to travel to get into a fight.
So, herd mentality assualt armies are broken.
2) Spaceships! So, you're an alien and you're not all that tough, but you have shiny energy swords and a desire to use them. And you also have the fastest spaceships in the galaxy. Seems like you should be able to make this work. In 3rd, you could zoom up and assault out, and that was probably too good. In 4th/5th, you had to get out of the ship before it moved and then charge, and so there was some risk that your spaceship would get shot, but it was doable.
Now... your guys have to get out of the spaceship and sit in the open (close enough to charge the following turn), and let them shoot you for a turn. This really works well for the not-so-tough aliens, and it's no surprise that these models sit on the shelf.
So spaceship assault armies are broken.
3) Bein' sneaky...
So, you can't run across the field screaming like a bunch of lunatics, and you can't zoom across the field in your luxury hovercraft, so maybe the answer is to sneak up on your enemy. In 5th (and prior) versions, there were a bunch of units that could make sneak attacks, whether these were models that had outflanked the opponent, arrived by special deployment, scouted ahead of the main force, or infiltrated into advanced positions, they all had an opportunity to launch an attack without being shot to bits.
None of these methods were without risk. Outflanking could put you on the wrong side of the table, scouting and infiltration were subject to initiative stealing, or even just not going first. But you had the chance.
But now, in 6th, it's considered sporting to give your opponent two opportunities to shoot you before you engage in hand-to-hand combat (one shooting phase, and one overwatch phase). Doesn't matter how your guys got into position, they have to sit there for a turn and get shot. You cannot assault going first if you infiltrate or scout, and overwatch and specially-deployed models can't assault arriving from reserve.
So, being a sneaky ninja isn't an option either.
...
That pretty much leaves one avenue to assault - being so tough that your opponent cannot shoot you to death. And so we see armies with FMC spam (especially with Iron Arm), and re-rollable 2++ saves. Hey, assault is still viable (if you happen to play one of the armies that can do that). Well, that's great if you play... chaos daemons or eldars.
Otherwise, the game is broken because the background and the fluff establish a universe setting where CC is not only possible, it's prevalent, and the game doesn't reflect that universe.
lobbywatson wrote: Its not broken. Ignore these a-holes on the interwebs who cry everytime GW does anything. What release a codex? It either sucks or its OP! What flyers? OMG the game is ruined!! Assault is nerfed? OMG the game is ruined!!
3 things are broken that's it....
1. D Weapons
2. JetSeer/star/council whatever
3. Screamerstar
This game is so far from freaking broken. I played a lot of 2nd. Now holy smokes wanna talk about WTF all day everyday. Its a good game it really is. That's why its more popular then it has been in years. Sadly the 5% of jackwagons cry incessantly online make the rest of the 40k world think something is wrong. F THOSE PEOPLE. I have a spine so if something is broken I got no problem saying "Hey I ain't playing against that its crap". I just find another game. For those who cry non stop please sell your army to me at a highly discounted rate and go play Warma/Hordes. The grass is always greener right.
F
Wave Serpents aren't broken? Okay, then. You just lost all credibility. What limited credibility you had the way your post started.
The main thing that added instability was the allies matrix. It adds plenty of fluffy options, but at the end of the day too many players simply take the most powerful combinations.
The biggest problem with 6th ed here was that many people played in 5th , because it was possible to get an army relativly cheap and most of those armies became unplayable in 6th. And a lot of those new people don't understand why GW made their good and cheap armies bad and that they now have to spend anywhere from 2 or 3 times more cash to play in 6th and even then the faction they picked will be bottom tier.
Only people that were happy in 6th were demon WFB players , old eldar vets that had to buy only the WK and old tau vets . We had 0 new eldar players and only 1 new tau player , since the codex came out.
lobbywatson wrote: Its not broken. Ignore these a-holes on the interwebs who cry everytime GW does anything. What release a codex? It either sucks or its OP! What flyers? OMG the game is ruined!! Assault is nerfed? OMG the game is ruined!!
3 things are broken that's it....
1. D Weapons
2. JetSeer/star/council whatever
3. Screamerstar
This game is so far from freaking broken. I played a lot of 2nd. Now holy smokes wanna talk about WTF all day everyday. Its a good game it really is. That's why its more popular then it has been in years. Sadly the 5% of jackwagons cry incessantly online make the rest of the 40k world think something is wrong. F THOSE PEOPLE. I have a spine so if something is broken I got no problem saying "Hey I ain't playing against that its crap". I just find another game. For those who cry non stop please sell your army to me at a highly discounted rate and go play Warma/Hordes. The grass is always greener right.
So, you come into a thread and call everyone who disagrees with you an donkey-cave? Good start. I like the way you stuck to your guns and continued to throw around insults everywhere to anyone who might possibly think opposite to you.
Anyways, do you have something intelligent to add about how the game is either broken or not? Insulting people isn't making a point, and you haven't actually made one in your post.
So maybe you could write a post not filled with generalizations, insults, and hyperbole.
xruslanx wrote:Well according to the internet, all sorts of things are broken. I'd been playing Baldur's Gate for 12 years, but it's only when i looked on the forum that I realised that the game was "broken" and "unplayable". Similarly Europa Universalis is, apparently, broken, despite being a hugely successful game.
This is a poor argument. A game’s success is irrelevant. Successful games can be broken. I loved the original Morrowind (Eldar Scrolls3) and Oblivion, and have played the original Starcraft (single player only) since I was a kid in the 90s. all hugely successful games. All utterly broken.
xruslanx wrote:
But no, there is no grandioise logical argument about why 40k is broken or anything. There are flaws yes, but it's up to you whether or not you think that makes it "broken".
The fact that flaws exist indicate the potential for broken areas, as a matter of principle.
There are plenty logical arguments as to why 40k is a broken game. I’ll trust you not to listen to any of them though. Just waiting for the “sex with animals” and “fun cant be defined” “arguments”.
The fact remains 40k is hugely imbalanced internally and externally, and suffers from a huge amount of dead weight, as well as bloated, ungainly, counter-intuitive, non-sensical and clunky rules design. That right there is “broken”.
As such, 40k is broken in the sense that (a) the balance of the game is all over the place, and (b) it’s loaded with frequently faulty, excessive, and/or easy to abuse rules mechanicms.
Add to this GWs attitude with poor, ill-fitting, vague, implied and loosely worded rules, with limited FAQ support, and negligible community support, and you’ve got a broken game.
lobbywatson wrote:Its not broken. Ignore these a-holes on the interwebs who cry everytime GW does anything. What release a codex? It either sucks or its OP! What flyers? OMG the game is ruined!! Assault is nerfed? OMG the game is ruined!!.
PP release new stuff and the sky doesn’t fall down. GW release new stuff, and you can use it, for sure. But its crude and clunky and could have been done better.
And thanks for the compliments. Real mature of you.
lobbywatson wrote:
This game is so far from freaking broken. I played a lot of 2nd. Now holy smokes wanna talk about WTF all day everyday. Its a good game it really is. That's why its more popular then it has been in years.
Compared to the mess that was 2nd ed 40k? That’s comparing bad to a bad mess. Of course things will look rosy in comparison.
Is it “more popular”? Every financial report suggests fairly flatlining profits married to price increases. Indicates fewer people are spending more. Matches what I’ve seen personally too. So yeah, I don’t see the game as being “more” popular. If anything, from my experience, it’s the opposite. Its games like warmachine, flames of war and, here in Scotland, dystopian wars that are picking up steam.
lobbywatson wrote:Sadly the 5% of jackwagons cry incessantly online make the rest of the 40k world think something is wrong. F THOSE PEOPLE. I have a spine so if something is broken I got no problem saying "Hey I ain't playing against that its crap". I just find another game. For those who cry non stop please sell your army to me at a highly discounted rate and go play Warma/Hordes. The grass is always greener right.
In other words “the game is not broken because I choose not to play against the broken stuff”. Yeah man, that really doesn’t work for me as an argument that 40k is not broken.
I've played since 3rd edition and I find the the core 6th edition rules to be the best so far.
The problem is just codex balance which varies so wildly. However, people have to remember it is all just part of the history. The unkillable flacons in 4th edition, the GK codex and IG leafblower lists in 5th, and now the Eldar/Tau lists in 6th. I'm sure 7th will have similar complaints.
I think, what really has changed, is how much the competitive environment encompasses the game now. Look at Torrent of Fire, arguably one of the coolest features of 40k gaming right now is that you can actually track who are top players in the world! That is a fundamental shift in a competitive environment. Just for the record I enjoy playing in tournaments and like that feel. However, when one codex or even unit overpowers everything else "balance" gets thrown out of wack and it seems like the sky is falling and GW has failed.
Well, they did, but like anything else it's just riding waves out patiently. I've played 40k for the better part of my adult life and each wave is just dealt with. Sometimes my armies are up, other times they are down.
lobbywatson wrote: Its not broken. Ignore these a-holes on the interwebs who cry everytime GW does anything. What release a codex? It either sucks or its OP! What flyers? OMG the game is ruined!! Assault is nerfed? OMG the game is ruined!!
3 things are broken that's it....
1. D Weapons
2. JetSeer/star/council whatever
3. Screamerstar
This game is so far from freaking broken. I played a lot of 2nd. Now holy smokes wanna talk about WTF all day everyday. Its a good game it really is. That's why its more popular then it has been in years. Sadly the 5% of jackwagons cry incessantly online make the rest of the 40k world think something is wrong. F THOSE PEOPLE. I have a spine so if something is broken I got no problem saying "Hey I ain't playing against that its crap". I just find another game. For those who cry non stop please sell your army to me at a highly discounted rate and go play Warma/Hordes. The grass is always greener right.
F
Wave Serpents aren't broken? Okay, then. You just lost all credibility. What limited credibility you had the way your post started.
No they aren't broken. Neither are Riptides or Heldrakes. Strong models? For sure. Broken? That's silliness. Every version of this game has had strong units. Its a fact of life. Get over it.
lobbywatson wrote: Its not broken. Ignore these a-holes on the interwebs who cry everytime GW does anything. What release a codex? It either sucks or its OP! What flyers? OMG the game is ruined!! Assault is nerfed? OMG the game is ruined!!
3 things are broken that's it....
1. D Weapons
2. JetSeer/star/council whatever
3. Screamerstar
This game is so far from freaking broken. I played a lot of 2nd. Now holy smokes wanna talk about WTF all day everyday. Its a good game it really is. That's why its more popular then it has been in years. Sadly the 5% of jackwagons cry incessantly online make the rest of the 40k world think something is wrong. F THOSE PEOPLE. I have a spine so if something is broken I got no problem saying "Hey I ain't playing against that its crap". I just find another game. For those who cry non stop please sell your army to me at a highly discounted rate and go play Warma/Hordes. The grass is always greener right.
So, you come into a thread and call everyone who disagrees with you an donkey-cave? Good start. I like the way you stuck to your guns and continued to throw around insults everywhere to anyone who might possibly think opposite to you.
Anyways, do you have something intelligent to add about how the game is either broken or not? Insulting people isn't making a point, and you haven't actually made one in your post.
So maybe you could write a post not filled with generalizations, insults, and hyperbole.
No I called the 5% who attempt to ruin the community. See my above statement.
I think that the core rules are fine (if a bit clunky), the real issue comes from the codecies...things like wave serpents and 2++ rerollable saves. The internet just enables the issues that do exist to be broadcast louder.
No I called the 5% who attempt to ruin the community. See my above statement.
Such a nice, clean number. Is it really 5%? What if its more? Less? We don't know, so lets not pretend otherwise beyond some anecdotal evidence.
Ruin the community? Again with the hyperbole. Who's ruining it? How? People ask a question, and get answers. You may not like the answers, but that doesn't mean they're 'ruining the community'. Furthermore, what community? The 40k/GW one, or the greater wargaming community? If the latter, I'd say discussing the flaws of 40k is positive, as it would get people to consider other games and invest in companies that care about their customers.
Its fine that you like the game. But don't ever assume yours is the correct opinion and insult others for thinking differently. I can discuss objectively the flaws of 40k, but I will never tell someone their enjoyment of the game is wrong or that they are ruining the community.
To reference your statement above, "get over yourself". As far as I'm concerned, your attitude, demeanor and posting style are what ruins communities.
You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.
And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.
Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote: I'm no veteran, but I played in 5th for years. I don't see what is broken, but i play Blood Angels and Tau. I admit my angels have been sitting out a lot, but its a completed army. I wanted to start a new army and it was either new army, or update. So whats up guys? Whats broken? I'm not trolling I honestly want to know. And please guys no long rants its hard to sort through rants for the point, and its easy to blow off a long rant as nerd rage. I would like to see the issue and why it isn't fair, objectively would be preferable.
Before I get yelled at about looking it up myself, I spent an hour trying to find a coherent explanation to no effect.
Thanks for your time.
6E is a very confused ruleset. It has trouble deciding what it wants to be. It has rules appropriate to 10 model skirmish games in a game where it's entirely possible to see over 300 models on a board. It tries to hamfist strategic bombers, superheavy tanks, air superiority fighters, long range artillery, etc into close range battles with assault infantry and duels between irrelevant squad leaders, resulting in situations where point-blank use weapons can be brought to bear against units that should be flying several miles above the battlefield. We have tanks that are hilariously easy to kill and don't know what unit type they want to be.
There's a lot of "throw the kitchen sink in" with the current edition of 40k, where there's obvious indecision on the part of the writers and they just decided to throw everything in.
Blacksails wrote: Such a nice, clean number. Is it really 5%? What if its more? Less? We don't know, so lets not pretend otherwise beyond some anecdotal evidence.
Ruin the community? Again with the hyperbole. Who's ruining it? How? People ask a question, and get answers. You may not like the answers, but that doesn't mean they're 'ruining the community'. Furthermore, what community? The 40k/GW one, or the greater wargaming community? If the latter, I'd say discussing the flaws of 40k is positive, as it would get people to consider other games and invest in companies that care about their customers.
How'd I get to 5% you ask. Well that's easy. The world is 10% a-holes. Based off my experience in the 40k community I think its only 5%. I've meet so many awesome dudes and like 3 chicks. I think 5% is about spot on.
Wow you like hyperbole huh? That's the most I've seen that used in a conversation in a while partner. The 5% "ruining the community" and it is a community. The people I play with are my friends and we are a loose "group" of people. We share a similar love for a silly game. Sadly whiney babies on the internet have the loudest voices. I'm done with that nonsense. The hateful pricks I see all over the net aren't "asking questions" they are spewing hate. Go look at the other threads on nids it'll prove my point. This GW doesn't care about me crap makes me insane. Of course they don't. They have stockholders hence they cannot. Honda doesn't care about me. Nokia doesn't care about me. AT&T doesn't care about me. Guess what. I'm a grown man and I'm ok with it. I "got over it". Anybody that thinks companies "care" about them needs to leave their bubble. Life is hard get over it.
My parting shot will be as follows. As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps we have 2 sayings.
1. Improvise, adapt and overcome.
2. Here's a straw. Now how bout you go suck it up.
You are such a nice person to have on these boards. I like that you threw in the whole "I'm a US vet" as if it meant something in this conversation.
Clearly you aren't worth talking to any longer as you refuse to discuss anything in a reasonable manner.
However, if you're done with the 'internet cry babies' and all the complaining, why are you here, on the internet, complaining?
*Edit* Your quote block is messed. You might be missing the /quote after my part. Please fix it as I'd rather not have my name attached to your posting.
if we use the term 'Broken' to mean , unable to perform the function the product is sold for.
Then 40k has a broken rule set.
As a rule set is defined as the instructions to play the game.
That means ANYONE should be able the read the rule set and FULLY comprehend how ALL elements of the game interact with each other.AND ALL agree on their understanding of the game rules.
YMDS forum sort of proves 40k has failed at the basic requirement of a rule set.
It has been stated by Jervis Johnson GW the function of PV and FoC in 40k to allow '...fun pick up and play games in a GW hobby store...'
This means ANY force that can be chosen from ANY Codex book should have a reasonable EQUAL chance of winning a game vs ANY other force chosen in the same way up to the same PV.
In this respect the Codex books are 'Broken'.
This clearly shows by objective comparison between what GW are telling you their products SHOULD deliver.And what you actually get, the 40k rules and codex books are broken!
All in all, it is the LEAST "broken" edition to have ever been published. You see a lot of people complaining butif you look and see who the ones complaining are, you will notice that they are the ones who relied on broken aspects of earlier editions. Their previous ways of winning are still perfectly viable and valid, they just aren't the 100% guaranteed wins they were before and they now have to actually play and think.
That doesnt mean that there isnt a broken aspect to this game.
1. psychics, an opponent SHOULD be able to deny the witch to ALL psychics and not just those that are directly offensive.
2. Allies allow a lot of unintended broken combos. Battle brothers being removed would fix most of this.
1) random charge range ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE WITH IN 6" !!!!! ( my honour guard were 6" away from the enemy I declared a charge got shot the Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n out off via marker light over watch then rolled snake eyes and got obliterated next turn naturally. The laughs still ring in my ears)
2) vehicles need armour saves its too easy to kill tanks these days especially dreads
3) challenges- being unable to fight if you decline straight sucks
4) flyers- if you have no AA they are damn near impossible to kill
5) allies that make sense I mean seriously space marines and any xenos should pretty much be a straight no unless in dire need
Hey guys, thank you all. Even Watson, as I tend to agree with you and you kept your rage short. But my greatest thanks go to Redbeard, he best pointed out exactly what he finds wrong, assault. Also those of you that mentioned the allies system, which I find interesting but I don't believed should be a part of the game. I think it's a great fluffy recommendation, but does not belong in core mechanics.
Thanks again everyone, I'm off to start a much more inflammatory thread about why I think assault is fine the way it is. Redbeard, I'll see you there.
You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.
And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.
They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.
Iron_Captain wrote: imo, it is not really broken. It is a very solid game system. The only real problems are that some of the rules are written in a very ambiguous way and the balance in some codices is horrible.
If anyone screams that it is broken, they are clearly overreacting.
Yet it happens all the time, almost like clockwork when anything GW puts out is released.
These types of threads, along with anything related to something new from GW, always rapidly deteriorate as jaded disgruntled wargamers voice their resounding judgement upon the content they have been given.
Repeat forever until the sun implodes upon itself, or they realize their cries will continue to go unheard.
Meanwhile, the rest of us continue to enjoy the hobby and embrace it for what it is/we get out of it, and what we make of it (like any hobby).
Internet view means nothing to me: I find it broken because of casualties from the front (characters make sense, special weapons do not), no assaults from a stationary vehicle, random charges. I have no issue with hull points. I LIKE the concept of hull points. That isn't even on the list of my complaints. Challenges are also fine.
I agree, they seem to deteriorate quickly. Mods feel free to close this thread when that happens, as it was not my intent. Lets keep it alive guys, and feel free to pop over to my assault phase thread and tell me how wrong I am.
EVIL INC wrote: All in all, it is the LEAST "broken" edition to have ever been published. You see a lot of people complaining butif you look and see who the ones complaining are, you will notice that they are the ones who relied on broken aspects of earlier editions. Their previous ways of winning are still perfectly viable and valid, they just aren't the 100% guaranteed wins they were before and they now have to actually play and think.
That doesnt mean that there isnt a broken aspect to this game.
1. psychics, an opponent SHOULD be able to deny the witch to ALL psychics and not just those that are directly offensive.
2. Allies allow a lot of unintended broken combos. Battle brothers being removed would fix most of this.
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...
What would fix the 2 glaring issues with the game right now:
1. Psychic Phase needs to come back, not the half-arsed turd we've got right now where Blessings are the end-all-be-all since only SW's can actively stop them. Screamer & JetSeerstars are only problematic for example because there's 0 effective way to stop them from casting spells like Forewarning or Fortune.
Go all-in with the system like it is in Fantasy with Casting vs. Dispel dice and you make psychic abilities a helluva lot more tactical instead of the no-brainer system of "spam Divination/Runes of Battle/Fate as much as possible"
2. Disallow 'Battle Brothers' allies from joining eachother's units & benefiting from eachother's psychic potential. (the latter is needed until Blessings are counterable by all!)
And while every single Codex has it's under-costed gems, they are only a problem when a player maxes out on just those specific unit(s) in order to simply groin-punch their opponent.
This edition has Riptides, Wave Serpents, Hellturkeys & Nightscythes as being counted amongst the more obnoxious units to field 4-6+ of.
Last edition it was Grey Hunters + Misslefangs, Henchmen spam, min/maxed Purifyers in Las/plasbacks, min/maxed BA Assault Squad in cheaper Razorbacks, etc...
You can tell a lot about a player simply by their list and their attitude when they're setting up. If they put a min/maxed, hyper-optimised list on the table and then smugly grin at you when you're playing a 'nothing-on-the-line' friendly game, they're an obvious donkey-cave.
timetowaste85 wrote: Internet view means nothing to me: I find it broken because of casualties from the front (characters make sense, special weapons do not), no assaults from a stationary vehicle, random charges. I have no issue with hull points. I LIKE the concept of hull points. That isn't even on the list of my complaints. Challenges are also fine.
I agree with the Character comment- this would solve a lot of the 'tanking' shenanigans that occur, while simultaneously allowing you to actually place your special weapons in useful places without fear of them dying (a good example is meltaguns).
Assaults out of stationary should be allowed, along with streamlined assault distances. Also, assaulting from Reserve needs to be a thing once again.
Hull Points, I feel, were a necessary evil. Even if all vehicles had +1 it would probably solve a lot of the issues people have with perceived vehicle vulnerability.
Challenges I have to disagree with. Not only is this often a complete joke from a fluff perspective depending on the confrontation, it's very easy to abuse, and obsoletes a lot of wargear options for characters.
Really, though, my biggest gripe with 40k (which has never been fixed) is the archaic turn system. The game is not dynamic or strategic enough when a player can choose to do everything with their entire army, and then let the opponent do the same (after the smoke clears/with what remains). Alternating turns, or unit by unit activation, really does improve the experience.
You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.
And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.
They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.
Wave serpents are just overpowered.
The line between OP and broken is fuzzy. When does OP reach "broken" then? I think a dedicated transport that has the firepower of a battle tank and even more durability is broken.
@Experiment 626.
So a NEW player with NO idea about how effective units are in game , happens to pick lots of the same unit because they look COOL to him/her.
Then spend AGES assembling and painting them up the VERY best they can.
They have spent A LOT of time effort and money , building their army.
They head down to the local game store .
And because they have maxed out on a UNDER COSTED UNIT , BY ACCIDENT!
No ONE will play them !
OR they have maxed out on an OVER COSTED UNIT By ACCIDENT !
And they get kerb stomped every game!
So because GW can not be bothered to play test 40k rules/codex books, the unfortunate new players either have the option to spend MORE time and money, in the hope of eventually getting it 'right'.
OR QUIT the hobby entirely,due to not getting anything like a fun experience after spending so much time and money on 40k.
So in the short term GW get lots of cash, but loose customers long term.
Because 40k rule and codex books actually ARE broken.(Not fit for the perpouse they were sold for.)
Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...
To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.
You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.
And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.
They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.
Wave serpents are just overpowered.
The line between OP and broken is fuzzy. When does OP reach "broken" then? I think a dedicated transport that has the firepower of a battle tank and even more durability is broken.
Wave Serpents did not need the introduction of Titan Killers to be "fixed"
Besides, they are still susceptible to gauss and haywire, and their absurd attack removes their shield.
Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...
To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.
You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.
And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.
They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.
Wave serpents are just overpowered.
The line between OP and broken is fuzzy. When does OP reach "broken" then? I think a dedicated transport that has the firepower of a battle tank and even more durability is broken.
Wave Serpents did not need the introduction of Titan Killers to be "fixed"
Besides, they are still susceptible to gauss and haywire, and their absurd attack removes their shield.
Since hull pointing out AV 12 is usually the way to go, the holofield and fast skimmer rules are what make them durable, the shield is there for marine alpha strikes and to be used a crazy weapon.
Lanrak wrote: @Experiment 626.
So a NEW player with NO idea about how effective units are in game , happens to pick lots of the same unit because they look COOL to him/her.
Then spend AGES assembling and painting them up the VERY best they can.
They have spent A LOT of time effort and money , building their army.
They head down to the local game store .
And because they have maxed out on a UNDER COSTED UNIT , BY ACCIDENT!
No ONE will play them !
OR they have maxed out on an OVER COSTED UNIT By ACCIDENT !
And they get kerb stomped every game!
So because GW can not be bothered to play test 40k rules/codex books, the unfortunate new players either have the option to spend MORE time and money, in the hope of eventually getting it 'right'.
OR QUIT the hobby entirely,due to not getting anything like a fun experience after spending so much time and money on 40k.
So in the short term GW get lots of cash, but loose customers long term.
Because 40k rule and codex books actually ARE broken.(Not fit for the perpouse they were sold for.)
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
What GW doesn't do well is balance. This I will not argue with. Despite the balance issues, though, playing the game as intended (throwing a bunch of interesting/your favorite models on the board to blow eachother up) works flawlessly.
Meh, people whined about all the editions being "broken", and to an extent they were. Sixth isn't really any more broken than normal from my judgement of the activeness of whining about it.
I dont mind casualties from the front. It actually makes sense and adds a touch of realism. It also adds in an extra dimension of tactics as you now have to plan more carefully where you place your models. I does kinda screw over flamers though, A slight point reduction for them would fix that though.
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
EVIL INC wrote: I dont mind casualties from the front. It actually makes sense and adds a touch of realism. It also adds in an extra dimension of tactics as you now have to plan more carefully where you place your models. I does kinda screw over flamers though, A slight point reduction for them would fix that though.
While more realistic, it's also a hit to assault (especially coupled with random charge lengths, and overwatch).
I think the 5th edition variation, where you could remove from anywhere in LOS, worked fine (and was subjective). Since the models firing at you aren't precision shooting, it can be argued the casualty removal simulates troops dying, but more moving up to restore ranks (as well as pick up weapons). What works about that (other than the multi-wound stuff that was a mess) is it doesn't harm assault or unique wargear positioning.
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
Horrible example. This requires the use of common sense, and not being a complete tool because a simple sentence doesn't spell out every single possible scenario.
'That unit doesn't have eyes so it can't measure TLOS!'
I would immediately pack up my miniatures and completely forget I ever interacted with someone who tries that.
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.
The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.
And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.
The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.
And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.
Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.
And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.
The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.
And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.
Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.
And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.
And none of that shows a rule set that "largely works" where "rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game".
Do you want more examples?
XenosTerminus wrote: I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.
The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.
And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.
Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.
And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.
Agreed. This is more of an issue with individual player mindsets and attitudes more so than the ruleset.
Nobody is arguing GW couldn't use more proofreading/clearer rules. It's largely a non-issue for the average game, and as stated, easily remedied by using common sense, reading comprehension, or a gentleman's agreement.
You will literally never be happy with this game if you nitpick every fault it has. Fortunately these issues are easy to work around if you play with sensible adults that don't throw tantrums over ultimately what boils down to something that is meaningless and meant for fun.
Move on to a different game if this does not suit your tastes.
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).
Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"
That's simply one of the issues with the rules.
No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.
The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.
And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.
Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.
And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.
Agreed. This is more of an issue with individual player mindsets and attitudes more so than the ruleset.
Nobody is arguing GW couldn't use more proofreading/clearer rules. It's largely a non-issue for the average game, and as stated, easily remedied by using common sense, reading comprehension, or a gentleman's agreement.
You will literally never be happy with this game if you nitpick every fault it has. Fortunately these issues are easy to work around if you play with sensible adults that don't throw tantrums over ultimately what boils down to something that is meaningless and meant for fun.
Move on to a different game if this does not suit your tastes.
It's not about nitpicking every fault. I don't expect perfection (I am still an avid BattleTech playet).
It's about ignoring (literally) the fact that the same issues have cropped up edition after edition and rather than fixing it they just copy/paste the same damn rules.
They're selling a game. Playtest the damn game. That's all I expect. I guarantee they're not playtesting (or at least - not playtesting well).
rigeld2 wrote: It's not about nitpicking every fault. I don't expect perfection (I am still an avid BattleTech playet).
It's about ignoring (literally) the fact that the same issues have cropped up edition after edition and rather than fixing it they just copy/paste the same damn rules.
They're selling a game. Playtest the damn game. That's all I expect. I guarantee they're not playtesting (or at least - not playtesting well).
They playtest.
The problem with their method is that they internally playtest, likely with the same people each round. The same issues crop up every edition (more or less) because to GW a lot of these things really aren't issues.
You could argue that it is lazy, or they use the 'roll off' or 'forge the narrative' clauses as a scapegoat for their shortcomings, but that is irrelevant.
The point here is that you, as a player, have been given a basic/core ruleset. Some responsibility has to be placed on the players to ensure that, despite the games faults, the experience remains enjoyable. Your outlook and attitude towards extremely minor rules issues is anything but enjoyable.
XenosTerminus wrote: The point here is that you, as a player, have been given a basic/core ruleset. Some responsibility has to be placed on the players to ensure that, despite the games faults, the experience remains enjoyable. Your outlook and attitude towards extremely minor rules issues is anything but enjoyable.
Extremely minor? Basic line of sight issues are extremely minor?
And it's awesome how you assume you know how I play at the table. I have fun. I rarely engage in rules arguments - because it's about fun. Even in tournaments, I go to play new people.
Take your assumptions elsewhere please.
XenosTerminus wrote: The point here is that you, as a player, have been given a basic/core ruleset. Some responsibility has to be placed on the players to ensure that, despite the games faults, the experience remains enjoyable. Your outlook and attitude towards extremely minor rules issues is anything but enjoyable.
Extremely minor? Basic line of sight issues are extremely minor?
And it's awesome how you assume you know how I play at the table. I have fun. I rarely engage in rules arguments - because it's about fun. Even in tournaments, I go to play new people.
Take your assumptions elsewhere please.
I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.
You are right, though. I don't know you or how you play. I just find that generally the people that are the most outspoken about the things they dislike about this game are the ones that are the least engaged in the game simply for 'fun'.
Coming from 3rd some of the things that are iffy to me is the new assault rules (random range??), the seeming removal of taking your special/heavy weapons troopers away last, the allies matrix (especially since people seem to abuse the hell out of this, instead of using them for good themed armies), Escalation/allowing to use superheavies and titans in normal games, and for me at least the idea that you can purchase terrain (i.e. fortifications) to use in your army.
This is all anecdotal evidence though as I've only seen a single game (using Kill Team rules) done as a quick demo so I haven't played 6th edition yet.
Let's say I buy a car, an expensive new car, and find myself under the car every weekend tweaking it so it keeps running.
Would I not be entitled, as a paying customer, to be mildly miffed that the car I paid money for is requiring my constant attention just to be used?
I would be, hence the warranty the car comes with that means that if there's a problem it's the car company's responsibility to fix it.
GW sells a product, which they describe as a premium product, and yet provide rules with deficiencies that they seem unwilling or unable to correct.
I can understand a model producing company that makes its newest toys just that little bit better than the old toys in order to sell them to previous customers, but as I've already noted GW don't even seem able to do that.
It's almost as if the game designers and Codex writers have no idea about how their respective rules interact over the course of a game.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Let's say I buy a car, an expensive new car, and find myself under the car every weekend tweaking it so it keeps running.
Would I not be entitled, as a paying customer, to be mildly miffed that the car I paid money for is requiring my constant attention just to be used?
I would be, hence the warranty the car comes with that means that if there's a problem it's the car company's responsibility to fix it.
GW sells a product, which they describe as a premium product, and yet provide rules with deficiencies that they seem unwilling or unable to correct.
I can understand a model producing company that makes its newest toys just that little bit better than the old toys in order to sell them to previous customers, but as I've already noted GW don't even seem able to do that.
It's almost as if the game designers and Codex writers have no idea about how their respective rules interact over the course of a game.
Yes but you wouldnt buy a car knwing it was gonna need constant attention, so why buy a GW rule book? Gotta research what you buy, dont buy something knowing it aint great then complain.
I know what you are saying but most people knew what they where getting into when they updated their rule books. Its hard not to with the internet. Same with cars
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Let's say I buy a car, an expensive new car, and find myself under the car every weekend tweaking it so it keeps running.
Would I not be entitled, as a paying customer, to be mildly miffed that the car I paid money for is requiring my constant attention just to be used?
I would be, hence the warranty the car comes with that means that if there's a problem it's the car company's responsibility to fix it.
GW sells a product, which they describe as a premium product, and yet provide rules with deficiencies that they seem unwilling or unable to correct.
I can understand a model producing company that makes its newest toys just that little bit better than the old toys in order to sell them to previous customers, but as I've already noted GW don't even seem able to do that.
It's almost as if the game designers and Codex writers have no idea about how their respective rules interact over the course of a game.
I'll state another commonly repeated mantra that GW has regularly mentioned- they are first and foremost/primarily a model company.
They just happen to release rules to use with said models.
I would still consider GW models (at least plastics) to be premium- the majority of the kits are very high quality and well done. Worth the price? Debatable.
Again- I think everyone is in agreement that the game could use a tighter ruleset. The primary argument in this thread is the idea that 6e, or any edition preceding it, is 'broken', to which I would say a 'no'. Broken suggests it does not work, but that the game isn't 100% how you would like it, or is flawless is not the issue.
Martel732 wrote: In my view, the brokenness comes in the form of the gap between tier 1 codices and tier 2 and below codices.
Only if abused (or played competitively).
I am not excusing GW for these balance oversights, but these issues are only evident when abused as such. If you were to take a random smattering of units from any of the top tier codexes and played a similar list from another, I am sure the game would be a lot closer.
And yes, I am aware these types of lists are 'unfocused and bad'- but at least the game would be more fun for both players.
It's not abuse to make legal choices and field said legal choices. There should not be units that are able to be "abused".
To compare to Starcraft, the Zergling rush is very potent against new player who don't know how to defend it. But once they learn, the Zerg player has to learn something new. Because Zerglings aren't actually broken.
There is nothing I can do to defend against Wave Serpents. I am at a drastic mathematical disadvantage against them. I could learn and adapt, but the Eldar player can learn how to use Wave Serpents better as well. Then it boils back to mathematical advantage he enjoys.
Martel732 wrote: It's not abuse to make legal choices and field said legal choices. There should not be units that are able to be "abused".
To compare to Starcraft, the Zergling rush is very potent against new player who don't know how to defend it. But once they learn, the Zerg player has to learn something new. Because Zerglings aren't actually broken.
There is nothing I can do to defend against Wave Serpents. I am at a drastic mathematical disadvantage against them. I could learn and adapt, but the Eldar player can learn how to use Wave Serpents better as well. Then it boils back to mathematical advantage he enjoys.
I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.
So really, the issue is with the player. In a perfect world all GW codexes would be balanced.
That unfortunately is not the case, so it is on the player to choose what they do with their book (including abuse). It is a conscious effort to decide to bring these sort of things to a game, and if you willingly do this and then turn around and complain about the problems with this game.. I don't even know what to say to people like that.
XenosTerminus wrote: [I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.
How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XenosTerminus wrote: I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.
The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.
The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?
XenosTerminus wrote: [I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.
How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XenosTerminus wrote: I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.
The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.
The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?
Because the rules are here, they will probably always have this problem and i dont think it will change anytime soon. So instead of playing it in a way which causes the attitude you have towards the game, we try play it so we can squeeze as much fun as possible out of it. Clearly we are happy and fine with that so we must be doing something right.
XenosTerminus wrote: [I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.
How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XenosTerminus wrote: I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.
The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.
The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?
Nobody is saying they don't want a tighter ruleset. The 'Timmy' example demonstrates a difference between someone concentrating on the hobby aspect (models they enjoy), and someone who jumps codexes, or purchases what the best units in a codex are and spams them/breaks the game.
While the ruleset allows for both, it's far more likely that the prevalence of these overpowered units on the table are the result of win-more powergaming than timmy the fluff player. Neither would be fun to play against, but at least Timmy didn't know. A lot of people do.
I find that there is enough gray zones in the game that it seems to attract the WAAC and TFG people who are bent and determined to use it as a medium to abuse someone and expect them to take it and smile. Even worse, they think it is a "competitive" game and feel all powerful when winning (yay! you won the equivalent of rock/paper/scissors!).
I like for the same reason that it has just enough flexibility that pretty much any scenario I want to create is doable and can be fun.
So is it "broken"? It is more open to "abuse" (however you want to define that). Is it better than 5th? I would say so. As a hobbyist I can combine my armies in all kinds of cool ways and field MOAHR models. If I had TFG tendencies, combining advantages of multiple armies would be a huge boon (let's see how fast I can table you now!!!).
I would say the game is much like the codexs that went out: a mixed bag of advantages and disadvantages depending on your style of play you would have a differing opinion.
Either way, I will continue to find fun players to play with and reserve my "power gaming" for games with tighter rules.
I'll state another commonly repeated mantra that GW has regularly mentioned- they are first and foremost/primarily a model company.
They just happen to release rules to use with said models.
I would still consider GW models (at least plastics) to be premium- the majority of the kits are very high quality and well done. Worth the price? Debatable.
Again- I think everyone is in agreement that the game could use a tighter ruleset. The primary argument in this thread is the idea that 6e, or any edition preceding it, is 'broken', to which I would say a 'no'. Broken suggests it does not work, but that the game isn't 100% how you would like it, or is flawless is not the issue.
I've said the same thing myself, but as long as they release rules, and charge (quite a lot) for those rules, they are also a rule selling company.
Also, as I noted, GW are not particularly good at selling models. Certainly they make very nice models but then they create rules for them that basically relegate those nice models to a shelf either at the player's house or (if they were more perceptive and didn't buy them in the first place) the shop.
Let us, just for the sake of argument, say that one, terminators were actually worth taking, and two, you wanted to sell a box of mutilators. You would look at what a squad of terminators does, and what it costs to do that job, and then, for the same cost you would make the mutilators slightly better than the terminators at one of the jobs the terminators does, but slightly worse at another job. Voilà, people who already have the terminators but want a slightly better unit at the particular job they're using those terminators for would buy a box of mutilators, but people who didn't necessarily want the mutilators (they might not like how they look) would keep playing their terminators and they wouldn't be that unhappy that terminators are slightly worse than mutilators at that job. Instead we have a game where terminators are not worth taking, and however bad terminators are compared to other units, the mutilators are worse.
Of course you can mitigate that effect by combining the rather poor unit with a moderately decent one in one box, mutilators with obliterators for example, or warp talons with raptors, but then you run the risk of people asking why they have to pay for a bunch of extra parts that they're not going to use.
Martel732 wrote: It's not abuse to make legal choices and field said legal choices. There should not be units that are able to be "abused".
To compare to Starcraft, the Zergling rush is very potent against new player who don't know how to defend it. But once they learn, the Zerg player has to learn something new. Because Zerglings aren't actually broken.
There is nothing I can do to defend against Wave Serpents. I am at a drastic mathematical disadvantage against them. I could learn and adapt, but the Eldar player can learn how to use Wave Serpents better as well. Then it boils back to mathematical advantage he enjoys.
I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.
So really, the issue is with the player. In a perfect world all GW codexes would be balanced.
That unfortunately is not the case, so it is on the player to choose what they do with their book (including abuse). It is a conscious effort to decide to bring these sort of things to a game, and if you willingly do this and then turn around and complain about the problems with this game.. I don't even know what to say to people like that.
I do willingly do this: with BA. Am I not spamming because my codex sucks out loud? I just don't see how you can fault players for making legal selections. GW needs to make these kinds of choices not possible.
XenosTerminus wrote: [I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.
How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XenosTerminus wrote: I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.
The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.
The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?
Because the rules are here, they will probably always have this problem and i dont think it will change anytime soon. So instead of playing it in a way which causes the attitude you have towards the game, we try play it so we can squeeze as much fun as possible out of it. Clearly we are happy and fine with that so we must be doing something right.
That requires opponents that think likewise. The players in my area play to win.
If 6th edition is broken, then the previous editions were beyond repair because this really is the best edition so far. I've been playing since RT and this is by far my favorite edition. If a rule vaguery comes up, we just figure out what would be the funnest fix and keep going. Is the game perfect? Of course not.
My problem isn't with the rules but some codexs. You have chaos Marines which has half the codex being useless and then Tau and Eldar which you'll have a hard time losing against certain armies. But the issue isn't with the edition. The edition is fine as long as you use some sportsmanship and common sense.
I agree that the 6th CRB is my favorite. They just needed to go retcon all the point values from 5th edition books. And release balanced 6th edition books. Neither happened.
6th edition is not broken, at least not any more broken than 4th and 5th edition were: but at times it can be bit chore to play, since there is some stuff which just wasn't thought out properly: not so much of rules clarity (although there are those too) but more akin to how scenario and game rules work together. There are lot of little things which alone are not a problem, but tend to get annoying when you experience whole shebang.
There are only a few spots that stand out as bad to me in the core rules:
-random assault range + overwatch + furious charge nerf + cover save nerf combo pack. Too much assault nerfing all at once here.
-lolrandom psychic powers. At least they recognize that random powers suck and librarians' point costs have been shaved significantly. (Mine still haven't. >:|)
-Hull points were set too low in half the vehicles.
-shooting at flyers and snap shots in general should've been -1 or -2 to BS, not auto BS1. Makes no sense that a vindicaire assassin is just as bad at shooting at a storm raven as a rank and file ork.
The only other thing wrong with 40k at the moment is the recent rash of OP xeno codices.
Hi all.
I think we are having a difference of opinion , over terminology.
We can make this work with a bit of effort.(Broken but fixable by the customer.)
IS NOT
This works as intended without any extra work from us.(Perfect working order.)
This poorly defined over complicated rule set, is not much worse than the previous 5 poorly defined over complicated rule sets in the series.
IS NOT
This IS a poorly defined over complicated rule set when compared to other rule sets from other companies.
I am sure if you are heavily invested in 40k , you WILL be more inclined to put more effort in to make it work.And while you PAY GW AND do their job for them , they are not going to change anything , are they?
Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...
To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.
Rogue Trader: No one
2E: Eldar, Eldar, Eldar
3E: CSM, Eldar
4E: Eldar, Tau
5E: SW, GK 6E: Eldar, Tau
..with Necrons there somewhere..
Yes, I can see why xenos players have been very unhappy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One thing more, not 6E related. You would think GW knew their own rules, but no.
Exhibit A: Burning Chariot of Tzeentch
I will be surprised if they ever fix that. Seeing how happy they were about its performance in WD, I doubt they even realize they were breaking the rules.
Should not take a year to get that one sorted out.
Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...
To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.
Rogue Trader: No one
2E: Eldar, Eldar, Eldar
3E: CSM, Eldar
4E: Eldar, Tau
5E: SW, GK 6E: Eldar, Tau
..with Necrons there somewhere..
Yes, I can see why xenos players have been very unhappy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One thing more, not 6E related. You would think GW knew their own rules, but no.
Exhibit A: Burning Chariot of Tzeentch
I will be surprised if they ever fix that. Seeing how happy they were about its performance in WD, I doubt they even realize they were breaking the rules.
Should not take a year to get that one sorted out.
My local group has given up on 6th because for us it is broken. No one has rage quit, we have just stopped playing 40k for now and are playing more fantasy. Zero people showed up for the last 40k tournament but the fantasy tournaments have been picking up new people.
The local consensus is that the game is a mess and we just cant be bothered to play it until things get straightened out.
I have never seen a fanbase blame the players for faults in a product in the same way the 40k fan base does.
The responsibility to ensure the rule book you paid decent sum for is not on the players it is on the company selling the rule book. Don't go blaming players for not coming up with rules to fix something that "obviously is not broken."
I quite like 6th edition, apart from a few minor niggles I find that it works very well.
I think it is an improvement on previous editions, and too be honest I can't wait to see what 7th edition is like. (although my wallet will not be so keen.)
niv-mizzet wrote: There are only a few spots that stand out as bad to me in the core rules:
-random assault range + overwatch + furious charge nerf + cover save nerf combo pack. Too much assault nerfing all at once here.
-lolrandom psychic powers. At least they recognize that random powers suck and librarians' point costs have been shaved significantly. (Mine still haven't. >:|)
-Hull points were set too low in half the vehicles.
-shooting at flyers and snap shots in general should've been -1 or -2 to BS, not auto BS1. Makes no sense that a vindicaire assassin is just as bad at shooting at a storm raven as a rank and file ork.
The only other thing wrong with 40k at the moment is the recent rash of OP xeno codices.
Assault Nerfs- I don't mind the random assault range, or overwatch. Though furious charge makes not sense. Would be nice if the USR allowed you to add the models str stat to its charge distance (with the +1S when they charge). Mark of Khorne giving a 7"-19" charge would be fun. The loss of sweeping into new assaults hurts too. At the very least, would force shooty armies to disperse more, which would help assault armies, at least a little.
Psychic Powers- BA codex might be okay even if its just a copy paste of the CSM into the BA units. Though it will remove HI... sad.
Hull Points- I'm fine with Hull Points as is. I just don't like how a 35 point rhino bought for a 200 point squad will give First Blood. Not sure what the fix is, wave serpants and night scythes are hard to reconcile removing them from first blood even though though they're DT's.
I agree, snap fire and overwatch as written benefit low BS armies over those that pay for a higher BS stat. Personally, I'd prefer that snap shots not reduce BS, but give the target a +2 to their cover save. Wouldn't help against template weapons. But getting a 5+ save in the open when charging low AP weapons would help buff assault while allowing armies that pay for BS an advantage over those who don't. Flyers may need to work differently, haven't thought too much about it.
There are only a couple other things that I'd add, first is that the game is often played with way too little LOS blocking terrain. If players and TO's rectify this, then a lot of the power of the Tau, Eldar, Taudar is reduced. 60" shots that ignore cover can efffetively turn most tables into a whiteboard. Not too fun.
Let the Grimoire only work on Daemon saves, not forewarning, and the Screamerstar is a lot easier to stomach. Make it so the DE and Eldar aren't such close friends, same with Tau and Eldar, and a lot of other things are fixed. Remove the 2k double FOC, replace it with 2/1/1/1 for every so many points over 1500, and you'd fix a lot more.
Give my Vanguard Vets back Heroic Intervention. Because I love that rule.
6ed isn't broken, it isn't the best rule set out there either.
I don't enjoy some of the more rcent combos/ units
Seer Council and Demons with 2++ re-rollable save - just wrong
Riptides and Wave Serpents are way way to good - especially in multiples. but I guess they sell well. If the Riptide had been 3+ armour might have heped and the wave serpent shield gun is just stupidly good - if it had been one use/short range would have been fairer...........
Badly written Ally Rules and combinations that go against the fluff rather than with it (despite the "narartive" game tag)
New Formations that just ignore the FOC
High WS is still rubbish when compared to high BS. Llyth can miss a Gretchin on a 1 or a 2 in close combat FFS, she should be hitting on 2+ with re-rolls - like high BS does
niv-mizzet wrote: -shooting at flyers and snap shots in general should've been -1 or -2 to BS, not auto BS1. Makes no sense that a vindicaire assassin is just as bad at shooting at a storm raven as a rank and file ork.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. You aren't going to hit a flyer except by blind luck, and the orks put a lot more bullets in the air. The only problem with snap shots at flyers is that you should be limited to snap shots and you should have to re-roll all of your hits, and then re-roll them ten more times. This would accurately represent your chances of hitting an incoming fighter making a strafing run at 500mph a thousand feet above the battlefield.
niv-mizzet wrote: -shooting at flyers and snap shots in general should've been -1 or -2 to BS, not auto BS1. Makes no sense that a vindicaire assassin is just as bad at shooting at a storm raven as a rank and file ork.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. You aren't going to hit a flyer except by blind luck, and the orks put a lot more bullets in the air. The only problem with snap shots at flyers is that you should be limited to snap shots and you should have to re-roll all of your hits, and then re-roll them ten more times. This would accurately represent your chances of hitting an incoming fighter making a strafing run at 500mph a thousand feet above the battlefield.
Except that BS8-10 represent the type of shooters that can do that easily, whether through supernatural means (Avatar?), ungodly amounts of training (Vindicare) or technological assistance.
We're talking about a universe where an imperial guardsman, who by the fluff serve decades, have BS3, and Space Marines, with super-human senses and targetters on their guns linked to their nervous systems are BS4. Then consider the very small handful of models in the game that are BS9 or 10 - more than double our super-human Space Marine - I think that a god of war would be exactly the sort of individual who could hit an incoming fighter jet. Something about that whole godhood thing, you know...
As it stands now, an ork riding a motorcycle has a better chance of hitting an enemy aircraft than the best-trained marksman in the imperium. That just makes no sense to me.
Actually, they fixed a lot of what was broken before. the problem is that far too many WANTED the rules to be broken in order to exploit them and have now gotten mad over it.
EVIL INC wrote: Actually, they fixed a lot of what was broken before. the problem is that far too many WANTED the rules to be broken in order to exploit them and have now gotten mad over it.
Gw tend to change the game, rather than improve it. For every fix they add, they break something else. It's lasts been that way.
And I think you're being more than a but condescending, naive and a bit narrow minded when you imply the only people getting mad are those who wanted to break/exploit the game. Plenty other people have issues with it bud.
Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...
To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.
Rogue Trader: No one
2E: Eldar, Eldar, Eldar
3E: CSM, Eldar
4E: Eldar, Tau
5E: SW, GK 6E: Eldar, Tau
..with Necrons there somewhere..
Yes, I can see why xenos players have been very unhappy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One thing more, not 6E related. You would think GW knew their own rules, but no.
Exhibit A: Burning Chariot of Tzeentch
I will be surprised if they ever fix that. Seeing how happy they were about its performance in WD, I doubt they even realize they were breaking the rules.
Should not take a year to get that one sorted out.
Revisionist history. Or at the very least, not telling the whole truth.
Regarding 3rd edition it should be noted that this is the longest running edition Games Workshop has had, but that Eldar did not really go out of whack until the Craftworld supplement was released in 2001.
4e Eldar codex might have dominated the last year of fourth edition, quite similar to how Necron codex absolutely destroyed the last year of fifth edition, but the first two year and a few months Eldar had to make do with 3rd edition codex - and really the only thing that was actually changed in a major way between those two codexes were the Wave Serpent. (Do you see the pattern here?)
5th edition was dominated by Blood Angels and Space Wolves, not Grey Knights. Grey Knights were a late addition and they only held the throne until people started figuring out how to abuse Necrons. Grey Knights may stand out because it was the, as far as I can tell, worst received and most ridiculed codex Games Workshop has ever released. Mostly due to their fluff on Sisters and the Power Armour For Power Armour monstrous creature.
The biggest insult, however, is that Imperial (marine) codexes are never really in a bad spot - until now that is - since they get all toys, all rules, and constant stream of highly compatible codexes. Playing Space Marines means you never have to experience the complete rock bottom dregs that Eldar had to endure during fifth or that Orks have had to endure some time now. However, it is incredibly satisfying to see the amount of whining from dedicated Space Marine players at the moment. Schadefreude could never have been higher, although it is ultimately a destructive kind of joy.
EVIL INC wrote: Actually, they fixed a lot of what was broken before. the problem is that far too many WANTED the rules to be broken in order to exploit them and have now gotten mad over it.
I think a lot more people are annoyed that the rules are still very easily exploited.
EVIL INC wrote: Actually, they fixed a lot of what was broken before. the problem is that far too many WANTED the rules to be broken in order to exploit them and have now gotten mad over it.
I think a lot more people are annoyed that the rules are still very easily exploited.
Yeah, this would be it.
Me and a friend field models because we "like" them and try to be reasonable on making those choices as competitive as possible to hopefully justify them.
That all falls apart with our other friend that I think fields models for the advantage he gains so zero fluff is considered and the various unholy alliances are made.
Basically with a little effort it is fairly easy to blow an army out of the water especially when you follow their blog of all the stuff they put together and are ready to field.
I am starting to get 3 armies in playable form and with allies figured out so the list tailoring does not work out so much.
It's not unplayable in any way, it's just that if you played only to win, then most of all units and some entire armies would never see action. I think the comments about 
