I'm back in the fold building an Eldar ghost army. I have yet to play a game, but looking forward to the first one.
It seems that many people are unhappy with the current edition, but is it really that bad? I look at the basics and seem to like what I see compared to the last time I played (4th I think). Objectives, defensive fire, shooting and maneuver being more important (it's the sci-fi...shouldn't be assault oriented). Granted, codex escalation and bad combos always pop up and I think the whole allies thing needs reworking to cut down on some of the abuse, but the system seems decent at first glance.
From what I typically see, a lot of people's issues with the shooting aspect could be resolved if they put a little thought into the terrain on the table. I never understood how 40K could look so good with the models and just be so horrible with terrain. make a table that actually makes sense, LOS blocking cover to allow assault troops to get closer without being blasted. Difficult terrain to force relevant checks, etc.

So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.

 Marzillius wrote:
As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far.

Seconded.

Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now. I think most of the problems that people have is how the rules could be exploited to allow a very unfair advantage.

Depends on what you want out of the game. If you want to play competitively it's a horrible system with ridiculous balance, bad rules, and no developer feedback. If you want to have some fun with your friends and don't care about your win percentage it can be great fun. If you enjoy painting and modeling it can also be very enjoyable. GW minis are really good (despite some complaints) and easy to assemble with quite nice detail. Plus the backstory is one of my favorites. I love how silly over the top crazy it can get some of the time.

It's still my main game but at this point that's more because it's what all my friends play. Would I get into 40k again? Maybe. It really all depends on what the people around me are playing at this point.

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be the negative guy, but actually learning a few non-GW tabletop games made me realize how much better organized things can be. I'm not one of the "GW haters" though. I still enjoy playing 40k, but I enjoy it because I'm playin it with my friends, and would probably enjoy that time equally much no matter what game we played.

I would just change one thing and that would be that I don't think models should be removed from the front, I think you should be able to choose.

bullyboy wrote:
So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

The usual.

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.
Lack of direction in the game.
Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,
Wound allocations.
Flyers very poorly implemented.
Lack of balance (always an issue)
Sloppy codex design.
Price hikes.
Lack of company support for the community.

Marzillius wrote:As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.

Debateable. I've seen more people drop 40k this edition than in fourth or fifth. I've seen other games like warmachine gut established 40k communities both here in the uk and back in Ireland. Then there are the gw financials - seems fewer and fewer are getting involved. It's a shame really...

By the way, Do you have any evidence for that claim that 'most people' think it's the best edition so far?

As for the rules being good, look at ymdc. debatable, at best...

SkavenLord wrote:Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now. I think most of the problems that people have is how the rules could be exploited to allow a very unfair advantage.

The fact the game can be exploited so readily and easily for such huge advantages is part of the problem for a lot of people, myself included.

bullyboy wrote:

So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

The core of the rule set is pretty good. There is perhaps some unnecessary fiddliness with too many random charts, but YMMV (and your group may kick them out!).

40k is not Magic, or a board game, or even like previous editions of 40k. You can't just pick up and play a game by the "basic rules." They don't exist anymore. You need to own your game.

It's not that bad. I mean, we spend months painting an army, we can spend 10 minutes setting up a game so we know what rules we ant to play and how we want to play them.

I really, really hate 6th edition. Not enough to stop playing, but yeah I'm not a fan. Hull points I hate, 6th ed wound allocation I hate, flyers and flying monstrous creatures should have stayed in the realm of Forge World, allies create all sorts of problems, all the supplements and mini-codices are just worthless chaff with a $50 price tag, random psyker powers, and the intention of the design studio to make everything ever made legal has just created a horrible mess of a game. I actually really miss the simplicity of 5th edition, but I'll acknowledge that it had its issues too.

The 6th edition rulebook is mostly good (hull points, pull from the front, 2d6 charges, etc, are all good). Psychic powers are a little too random with a d6, maybe subdivide into offense and defense powers and roll a d3 would be better.

It seems like the codices are where the problems show up, because they often retcon basic rules out of the army.

As an example, rough terrain was always the best way to protect your infantry against flanking forces of bikers and jet bikers, forcing them to take dangerous terrain tests. Now, they can take armor saves against those tests, which is fine, but in codex Space Marines, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and probably others, every one of their bikers can just ignore difficult terrain (no test, no armor save). And instead of limiting armies to a few core anti-cover weapons (usually close quarters flamers) most armies have lots of ignore cover weapons.

Every problem I've had comes from players.

It's the best edition so far. It has huge balance problems, but they are limited to certain lists you usually won't run into.

It depends on who you play with more than other editions. If you know the people and have good communication, you can pull all kinds of fun games.
But unlike the other editions, if you don't have an understanding with the other player, the chance of having a really crappy game is even greater. You might bring your ork army and find yourself up against a wryven heavy IG army that tables you in two turns. No chance of winning =/= fun.

The core ruleset is the best out of all editions. There are still a lot of rules debate but just comparing previous editions this is the best so far.

The problem is in 6th, GW has also introduced a lot of additions like dataslates, FAQ, formations, lord of war, fortifications. So unless you communicate with your opponent what type of game you are expecting your enjoyment can go from an exciting game to worst game ever!

I would compared to a car race. In most races, such as NASCAR, formula 1, even street races there are some type of rule and regulations. You can't bring a NASCAR to a formula 1 event and vice versa.

Currently GW's model to sell more minitures has altered the rules so that you can basically bring anything you want to a game. Given the game has a win/lose model some players will take advantage and bring WAAC/unfun lists. If you like this rules model where basicly anything goes you will enjoy 40K.

Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

It is 50-50 for me compared to 5th edition. Many things are better, some things were simplified, however they added lots of small stuff which starts to annoy after a while: minor special rules which you tend to forget like Soul Blaze, Hammer of Wrath, Precision shots etc, too many rolls when you start a game (Warlord traits, Psychic powers, Mysterious terrain & objectives etc). It just feels like it's a draft of a ruleset which was not streamlined enough in a playtest. Probably because it was not properly playtested...

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

What about my poor underpowered Tyrannofex?

He's got 6 wounds and a 2+, he can even get superior versions of IWND.

But nobody loves him.

Because his guns all suck and he's terrible in assault.

And costs too much.

And my old armor shell Tyrants and Carnifexes weren't that bad.

:(

 Kain wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

What about my poor underpowered Tyrannofex?

He's got 6 wounds and a 2+, he can even get superior versions of IWND.

But nobody loves him.

Because his guns all suck and he's terrible in assault.

And costs too much.

:(

That's a problem with his killing power effectiveness, though, isn't it? I miss the days when taking high strength AP3 guns wasn't list suicide.

Yes, 6th edition as it stands now really is as bad as the internet makes it out to be. It suffers from poor written and bloated rules, gak poor internal/external balancing, blatant money grabs and badly executed concepts. Escalation could have been alright if they had nerfed or removed ranged D-strength weaponry. It unfairly punishes people who enjoy playing vehicles while giving Eldar another broken unit.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

What about my poor underpowered Tyrannofex?

He's got 6 wounds and a 2+, he can even get superior versions of IWND.

But nobody loves him.

Because his guns all suck and he's terrible in assault.

And costs too much.

:(

That's a problem with his killing power effectiveness, though, isn't it? I miss the days when taking high strength AP3 guns wasn't list suicide.

You'd think the T-fex would make for a great bullet sponge, but most people realize he's essentially overpaying for what a guard player can do better and more cheaply on more mobile platforms. So his durability rarely comes into play because he's just flat out ignored. He's a sad little thing.

The Tyranid MCs compared to everyone else's are just so...underwhelming.

I mean our 500 point heirodule biotitan can get punched out by a Wraithknight for half the points or get his brains splattered by Darnath Lysander in assault.

The problem is that a lot of these fixes end up punishing the likes of Bloodthirsters and Carnifexes for the excesses of the Riptide and Dreadknight.

Deadnight wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

The usual.

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.
Lack of direction in the game.
Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,
Wound allocations.
Flyers very poorly implemented.
Lack of balance (always an issue)
Sloppy codex design.
Price hikes.
Lack of company support for the community.

Marzillius wrote:As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.

Debateable. I've seen more people drop 40k this edition than in fourth or fifth. I've seen other games like warmachine gut established 40k communities both here in the uk and back in Ireland. Then there are the gw financials - seems fewer and fewer are getting involved. It's a shame really...

By the way, Do you have any evidence for that claim that 'most people' think it's the best edition so far?

As for the rules being good, look at ymdc. debatable, at best...

SkavenLord wrote:Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now. I think most of the problems that people have is how the rules could be exploited to allow a very unfair advantage.

The fact the game can be exploited so readily and easily for such huge advantages is part of the problem for a lot of people, myself included.

The evidence would be all the polls on Dakkadakka and other warhammer related sites about which edition was best. 6th was always the most chosen answer, and if I remember correctly the Dakkadakka poll had almost 3000 answers.

I've been playing since 3rd, and this is my favorite edition.

nice replies so far. I won't address each poster individually but just make comments on certain aspects I found interesting..

Rules are clunky....yeah, I can see that. Simplicity is a wonderful thing in rulesets. I like FOW for that reason, keep the mechanics simple as long as the end result represents what you were trying to achieve.

Special Rules...way over the top. Everything has a special rule so now, it's no longer special, it's just more rules. One thing I don't like about certain rules is that a fundamental rule is developed, then a plethora of troop types come out with a special rule that negates the fundamental...that's bad rules design.

2++ reroll saves....yeah, should never exist, period.

Wound allocation...I find this unnecessary. Allocate hits throughout unit and take saves from there. Let owning player allocate who gets hit first (with some exceptions for mixed saves etc).

Flyers..our group doesn't use them, so no problem.

Random psyker rules...I have no issue with this otherwise the same one would be used over and over.


One thing that I'm not impressed with (but I understand it's part of GW's marketing strategy..always has been), is the constant inclusion of new units, that were never mentioned in fluff before. And IMHO, some of them are just plain ridiculous. The Ravenwing were always appealing to me with the bikes/Attack bikes/land speeders. Now I see several Rw flyers, land speeders on steroids and other silliness, it never ends. And guess what? They all come with special rules.

Luckily for me, our group comes from FOW where we have always discussed certain elements before games, so this will carry over into 40K. Realistic terrain (not random blobs), mission objectives, "sensible" allies (if we use them at all)

Yes it is.

This is the single worst edition of 40k. The wheels have come off the wagon with DLC all over the play and zero FAQ support.

The core rules are a mess and contradictory. 40k, what do you want to be? Necromunda or Apocalypse? We have rules for flyers side by side with rules for challenges and individual power weapons whilst wanting to have huge battles. The latter parts would be fine were 40k still on the scale it was in 2nd ed. But it isn't.

Balance has been thrown out the window and has gone up to levels other editions never even dared to go (even the tail end of 3rd was not as bad as this) with allies just crapping over all the background and are just there to get the best combo possible.
GW might as well have taken a piss over every page in the rulebook so the stick of their contempt runs foetid quite literally through every page.

5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative". They made far too many changes to the game that are simply unilateral. Change for the sake of change.
The development of the game moves sideways, not forward as a result. My biggest bugbear being wound allocation. Yes, it needed tweaking (but only then only a handful of units could abuse it, for the most part it was fine) not completely overhauling into a system that is more appropriate for a game the scale of Warmachine and not 40k where some factions can run armies into the triple figures.

So, all in all 6th IMO is an unplayable hippy dippy mess of a cash grab masquerading as a wargame.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Psychic powers, warlord traits, assault ranges, the whole bastard daemon codex.

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Random psychic powers...

Random charge distance...

Random warlord traits (so my commander has a different set of abilities today than the dud yesterday... Yeah, there's forging the narrative)

Mysterious terrain...

Basically, 'choice' replaced with 'roll on table x' because gw aren't interested in balance, viable options across the board or playtesting to fix things.

Is Warhammer 40k really that bad?

This question determines where you play. If your local scene has completely dissolved and is playing other skirmish games, or nothing at all, then yes. If you still have a dedicated group of either complete lackadaisical players or complete competitive players, both enforcing a type of meta game through spoken (or unspoken) army composition, then you're probably still having some fun.

However, you have asked the wrong question. I still enjoy the concept of 40k; of Eldar and Space Marines and Battle Nuns and Orks all in space! The real question is:

Is Games Workshop really that bad?

Yes.

You have a company that has flat declared any of it's customers as walking wallets. We have documented records of them saying, during the Chapterhouse court case, that the favorite hobby activity is buying Games Workshop product.

You have a publicly traded international company retreating to it's Ivory Tower, closing off all public communication and support channels, cutting corporate staff left and right, marginalizing any form of game support, all while charging the highest prices in the industry for gaming material, hobby supplies, and models.

This is a company that stated the move from metal to resin was a cost-savings generating position that resulted in a higher cost per model to the end consumer. This is without discussing the huge loss of quality that opened many eyes to the concept: "Games Workshop does not make the best models in the industry." The resin line is proof if this.

They have the largest competition ever to date. They have a declining market share. They have reduced sales volumes with profits held up through cost cutting and price increases. They have reported one bad financial report and we are waiting for the end of fiscal year report within the next month or so. The company has all but dropped diversity putting all their eggs in the Warhammer 40k basket. As a business, they are doing everything wrong in operating a sustainable publicly traded company.

If you want some actual discussion from someone more accredited than my research, start here:

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

It's a 13 part series on how Games Workshop is not looking good. Who this gentleman is and what his credentials are can be found on the first page. Plus, he sells a great product in the minis scene too. I recommend it.

Until Games Workshop shows that I am more than a walking wallet, I will be forgoing purchases. I have been since the December to Remember event. The same expenditures for one 40k army have given me a three armies in three different skirmish games. Two of which I've been supported by company supported volunteers who aid in the growth and development of their communities.

Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

Deadnight wrote:

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Random psychic powers...

Random charge distance...

Random warlord traits (so my commander has a different set of abilities today than the dud yesterday... Yeah, there's forging the narrative)

Mysterious terrain...

Basically, 'choice' replaced with 'roll on table x' because gw aren't interested in balance, viable options across the board or playtesting to fix things.

I don't see random psyker powers as a bad thing. Charge distances is probably problematic, will have to see. Warlord Traits didn't exist when i played so adding something in, even if random, is not that big of a deal. A commander would not be a good commander if he didn't have a wide range of tactical prowess.

Overall, 'm not buying that randomness is rampant in this ruleset, and isn't the reason for the hostility of many players.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

 TheKbob wrote:
Is Warhammer 40k really that bad?

charging the highest prices in the industry for gaming material, hobby supplies, and models.

I actually find "some" of their line competitive. The starter set is very good value. Some of the plastic boxsets are decent (wraithguard which I bought for example, a lot of options, that are built very easily indeed). The $10 per model for this size is quite normal (FOW tanks are now $11 each for similar, or smaller size). Finecast is another story and is a joke IMHO, I will be looking for metal characters or converting my own.

besides, I purchased my Ghostwarrior box for $270 and have both codexes for free so I shouldn't complain.

Meh, we never needed flyers except as for something for GW to put out that everyone didn't have already just to get new revenue streams. Half of the flyer rules are similar to the old VDR rules for flyers, and lots of people didn't even like those.

But I agree with you. It's crazy that I can "wax nostalgic" about mono-lists.

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

All this.

Back when I actually gave 6th a try I refuse (and still do) to be forced to buy fething scenery as part of my army. Aside from it being a transparent cash grab (note how all the 40k scenery got a price bump when 6h came out) it makes zero sense to me that a mobile strike force like Space Marines bring along bunkers and barricades with them.

Come again?

Tell me where it says the army brought the scenery with them

bullyboy wrote:

I don't see random psyker powers as a bad thing.

Random psychic powers, from a game design, wouldn't be a bad thing if they were all created relatively equal. However, we know that not every power and not every table is as good as each other. The Telekinesis and Pyromancy tables are generally ignored. Biomancy and Telepathy are main stays of Chaos based armies and Divination runs rampant in Eldar and the Imperium.

Not all psychic powers are created equal within said tables. We know that divination is chock full of good ones. However, granting a 4++ invulnerable save to 50 fearless conscripts has a HUGE game changing element. Misfortune can take heavily resilient units and crush them. The efficiency increase from Prescience is astounding for many, already good units.

Previously, psychic powers would cost points to balance their uneven levels of power. By being able to select powers, you'd also have better ability to control army strategies. Most armies that need a specific power stack psykers to increase their odds of landing the required power. Otherwise, we can see a Mastery Level 1 Psyker with Prescience and know what's generally going to happen. Personally, I would love to be able to take Scrier's Gaze more often if I could develop a reserve base list developed on the concept of complete reserves control. Since I cannot rely on getting this power, building an entire army on the concept would not work.

So, as implemented, random psychic powers are bad when they are not created equal in power; with such hard swings as being back breaking (Fortune/Misfortune) to nigh worthless depending on what you're playing (Scrier's Gaze for an army with zero reserves or zero strategy of reserves).

bullyboy wrote:

A commander would not be a good commander if he didn't have a wide range of tactical prowess.

Aye, fair enough in theory. In practice though he gets the ability to infiltrate even though he's arriving by drop pod, or some other stupidity that completely disconnects you from the game.

A wide range of tactical prowess makes sense, having it randomly assigned isn't...

Tell me where it says the army brought the scenery with them

Uh....the terrain placement phase?

It's convenient when a patrol can strike deep into the enemy lines, but still within a stones throw of their own defense lines and bastions.

Lots of times my entire Epic army does not have AA ability where aircraft can be a large part of the game, yet it's pretty much a given that you should take an Aegis line in 40K, in which the action represents 1/10 of an Epic battlefield (or more accurately, one single phase of a turn between two formations).

This thread is quite the cry-fest.

The game is the best it has ever been in a lot of ways but people don't want to acknowledge or objectively discuss any of the mechanics because they want it back how it was when they started because 2nd/3rd/4th/5th edition was CLEARLY superior.

Yawn.

If you note the history edition to edition you will see why a lot of these things make sense:

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.

Any mechanic that has been changed from a previous edition has either been changed to add depth or streamline it, or changed for purposes of dealing with an outstanding issue from before. I'd like to see a list of these, because frankly wound allocation, when psychic powers happen, infiltrating and scouting with attached characters, how to place terrain, how cover works, and

Lack of direction in the game.

Actually that whole "Forging the Narrative" is a pretty clear direction in the game. There is not only "Competitive" or "Non Competitive" games.

Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,

This happens to deal with things people min-max, and it is a good way of including mechanics that do not need to be balanced against each other as tightly. Psychic powers are wildly different from each other and to balance them, they would have to be "equal"...making what we've had for two editions now, some powers way too good and other ones too crappy. The psychic powers are able to be a lot more spread out in terms of power level if you don't have the choice of which to have all the time (incidentally, kiss your Prescience goodbye come 7th, netlisters ). Generally this is a sensible design decision -- otherwise the definite best powers are all that ever get used and the Psyker HQs become way better than their counterparts because they always get an awesome ability that outclasses the other HQ's. I know, I know "they should make them equally valuable" well I'm sorry we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a guy shouting out an order or holding a banner is going to need to be less useful than a guy warping reality so he can move faster than time and space is.

Wound allocations.

You bring this, the single most strategic aspect of gameplay in 6th edition, up right after saying the game has no genuine strategy? Point taken... Also in virtually every shooting situation and most assault situations, wound allocation is fast and easy now, compared to a min-maxing nightmare of weirdness last edition. This is a HUGE step forward, probably the best change of the edition as it makes so much more of gameplay fast and intuitive, AND adds strategic depth. Stop putting your HQ on the edge of your squads.

Flyers very poorly implemented.

Compared to what? They've never been in the game before, and I think they are pretty effectively implemented other than one oversight (the fact that they shoot at the ground easily while in the sky, and thus have no real reason to ever slow down and become vulnerable).

Lack of balance (always an issue)

This is a vague term everyone gets all excited about throwing around, the point values book to book are relative only to what else is in that book as GW has said many many times since 5th edition, So saying a thing from one book is imbalanced against another is patently ridiculous, and is further rendered moot by the fact that the allies system grants several armies the option of the game's best units and formations.

Sloppy codex design.

These are the most beautiful books they have ever produced, in full color. But I assume you are talking about the actual lists and such. I just don't see it. When was the last serious need for an FAQ? Things like "are grenades weapons I can swap out?" Come on. The page in each codex with the wargear lists are explicit of what you can and can't take, and only very rarely is there ever more than momentary confusion (i.e. Space Marine codex and the having-more-than-one-artifact thing). Go look at YMDC, man. People aren't asking questions becomes of codex confusion, they are asking question because of corner-case scenarios (a lot of which probably don't even happen, but are theoretical and ultra-rare).

Price hikes.

The only legitimate complaint so far.

Lack of company support for the community.

This cesspool? If I were them I wouldn't spend money on this venomous, arrogant fanbase getting support either. 40k players are among the most disdainful I've ever encountered in tabletop gaming, so much so that I started my own club almost entirely as a refuge against people who play this game but hate it, and have been successful because of that. That shouldn't be a thing that happens.

5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative". They made far too many changes to the game that are simply unilateral. Change for the sake of change.
The development of the game moves sideways, not forward as a result. My biggest bugbear being wound allocation. Yes, it needed tweaking (but only then only a handful of units could abuse it, for the most part it was fine) not completely overhauling into a system that is more appropriate for a game the scale of Warmachine and not 40k where some factions can run armies into the triple figures.

This bit is mind-boggling to me. 6th Edition wound allocation is fast and easy in the majority of cases, almost intuitively so. I teach new players a lot and have seen people learn literally by saying only the words "It's the closest guy first" and being done with it. Actling like 5E needed a minor tweak is ridiculous, and the guys saying we should just pick who dies is even more ridiculous because it doesn't acknowledge the fact that there needs to be a way for us to intuitively and quickly threaten a unit's best models with strategic approaches and tactical skill. It makes it EASIER to remove casualties for a large unit, not harder. It was also revolutionary in that it made the positioning of important models matter more than ever before. How was this "change for the sake of change" when it is probably the source of almost all the on-the-table strategy? It's made model placement second in important only to list building, IMO.

Practically everything is random? The terrain, psychic powers, and the charge range is random. Most of which were good changes as I've already described (the terrain changed because the same reason the psychic powers were, because we as players always min-max and you can't (really) min-max random things.

And all these vague complaints, as usual, result in the game being declared an unplayable mess. I wish some of you guys would encounter an actually broken ruined game and get some perspective, man -- this hyperbole is off the charts.

6th is the version with the least stupid immersion breaking meta-gamey crap going on and for that reason I consider it the best so far. I could go on all day about the previous two iterations and their myriad more serious issues this edition addressed.

bullyboy wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Is Warhammer 40k really that bad?

charging the highest prices in the industry for gaming material, hobby supplies, and models.

I actually find "some" of their line competitive. The starter set is very good value. Some of the plastic boxsets are decent (wraithguard which I bought for example, a lot of options, that are built very easily indeed). The $10 per model for this size is quite normal (FOW tanks are now $11 each for similar, or smaller size). Finecast is another story and is a joke IMHO, I will be looking for metal characters or converting my own.

besides, I purchased my Ghostwarrior box for $270 and have both codexes for free so I shouldn't complain.

Some is competitive, I agree. But not their special characters in cheap plastic or finecast, or the realization, such as Fantasy, that even if appropriately priced, you'd need 80 models to make an effective unit for some armies, thus multiplying the box price by 4-8 times. Yes, a unit of Bane Knights is $85 for Warmachine, but those are larger scale models in metal and $8/metal mini isn't that bad of a price. When Privateer Press moved the Bane Thralls from metal to resin, they dropped $20, as they should.

The price per model is the more subjective comment of the three, however within their own little realm, their costs are mostly ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This thread is quite the cry-fest.

I have not "cried" a single bit, nor posted something so inflammatory. So you should probably first look at yourself and why you're posting. Next, look at what someone like myself has posted and dispute facts of the matter. And that fact is Games Workshop sees you as a walking wallet and has gone so far as saying such in a court of law, where lying is crime.

So defend that.

bullyboy wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Random psychic powers...

Random charge distance...

Random warlord traits (so my commander has a different set of abilities today than the dud yesterday... Yeah, there's forging the narrative)

Mysterious terrain...

Basically, 'choice' replaced with 'roll on table x' because gw aren't interested in balance, viable options across the board or playtesting to fix things.

I don't see random psyker powers as a bad thing. Charge distances is probably problematic, will have to see. Warlord Traits didn't exist when i played so adding something in, even if random, is not that big of a deal. A commander would not be a good commander if he didn't have a wide range of tactical prowess.

Overall, 'm not buying that randomness is rampant in this ruleset, and isn't the reason for the hostility of many players.

Allow me to firstly address random psychic powers.

From a fluff perspective, it makes no sense, especially when we have models that represent races or individuals that are supposed to be superlative at manipulating their powers to achieve their ends.

Secondly, from a gameplay perspective, the utility of the powers is uneven, with some bordering on broken, some near useless in any situation, some whose utility is connected to who is using them.

This prevents a player from making any sort of advance planning in his list,unless he is willing to take huge gambles with what he will roll.

Warlord Traits one can level similar criticisms at, except that, in general, they aren't hugely influential, so less critical. For instance, the previous two games in a row, I've rolled the "+1 to reserves roll for your Warlord and his unit" trait for my Bloodthirster. The issue with this is a) he can't be attached to a unit, so it only applies to him, and b) reserving anything in an assault based army like daemons needs a very good reason, otherwise you're simply diluting your threat saturation and preventing a unit from inflicting any real damage for an extra turn. The last game I roll the one that confers armour and fleshbane - much more useful. Now, if I wanted to "forge a narrative" that really disrupts the consistency of my Bloodthrister as a persistent character, and as a player, the wide variation in utility again, like psychic powers, is just irritating.

What it all boils down to though, is every thing, in army creation or during the game, which is randomly determined, divorces the player from influencing the result by one more notch. Now, in the context of if shots hit, wound etc, this is somewhat appropriate, and the probability of that can be influenced by good target choices etc., to produce the best possible outcome.

Arbitrary rolls on arbitrary tables contribute very little to the player experience (except maybe Orks, as that's the army's character, and anyone attracted to them is likely going to enjoy it) and are probably more likely to generate a negative (rolling something useless) for the player, or negative for his opponent (rolling a broken/borderline broken combo or power/effect that is extra effective against their list) than it is a positive.

EDIT
The design studio also seem to be using random in lieu of balance too, at least in some cases, and that is poor game design.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

All this.

Back when I actually gave 6th a try I refuse (and still do) to be forced to buy fething scenery as part of my army. Aside from it being a transparent cash grab (note how all the 40k scenery got a price bump when 6h came out) it makes zero sense to me that a mobile strike force like Space Marines bring along bunkers and barricades with them.

Come again?

since our group doesn't use fliers, all these fortifications probably won;t be used. If they are, it will probably be with a defensive themed list with a mission that creates a "siege" like mentality. At least both players would know ahead of time.

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

All this.

Back when I actually gave 6th a try I refuse (and still do) to be forced to buy fething scenery as part of my army. Aside from it being a transparent cash grab (note how all the 40k scenery got a price bump when 6h came out) it makes zero sense to me that a mobile strike force like Space Marines bring along bunkers and barricades with them.

Come again?

since our group doesn't use fliers, all these fortifications probably won;t be used. If they are, it will probably be with a defensive themed list with a mission that creates a "siege" like mentality. At least both players would know ahead of time.

Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

 TheKbob wrote:
[b]

If you want some actual discussion from someone more accredited than my research, start here:

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

It's a 13 part series on how Games Workshop is not looking good. Who this gentleman is and what his credentials are can be found on the first page. Plus, he sells a great product in the minis scene too. I recommend it.

Until Games Workshop shows that I am more than a walking wallet, I will be forgoing purchases. I have been since the December to Remember event. The same expenditures for one 40k army have given me a three armies in three different skirmish games. Two of which I've been supported by company supported volunteers who aid in the growth and development of their communities.

That was a very well written series by someone that's obviously educated in the field. Thanks for sharing.

As an aside, I am of a similar mindset, although perhaps more aggressive in my shift to other games. I've actually liquidated all of my 40K at this point and that marks the first time I've done that since I've started gaming (mabe 15+ years now?). I have good gaming buddies and we had done our best at shoring up wonky rules, limiting power builds, etc.--but at some point, between work, children and life--you just want a clean game you can crack a beer and play, without having discussions on how to interpret rules (or finding one particular army you've collected is the rock to your friends scissors).

I've been playing Warmahordes for some time and haven't looked back. They spend some capital on developing a more nuanced background and long term, I can see PP moving in an even greater portion of disgruntled 40K players.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:


As an aside, I am of a similar mindset, although perhaps more aggressive in my shift to other games. I've actually liquidated all of my 40K at this point and that marks the first time I've done that since I've started gaming (mabe 15+ years now?). I have good gaming buddies and we had done our best at shoring up wonky rules, limiting power builds, etc.--but at some point, between work, children and life--you just want a clean game you can crack a beer and play, without having discussions on how to interpret rules (or finding one particular army you've collected is the rock to your friends scissors).

I've been playing Warmahordes for some time and haven't looked back. They spend some capital on developing a more nuanced background and long term, I can see PP moving in an even greater portion of disgruntled 40K players.

Two of my armies are collections; the Paladins being a six month long labor of love and my Sisters being the army I have always wanted. They may very well soon get "Tupperware'd" by removing the foam from my bags, putting them in tupperware, and storing under my bed.

The Eldar army sitting in boxes on my shelf is my "anti-GW" drug right now. It stops me from buying new stuff because I can't justify another army with a really good one on the shelf. I don't have a wife and kids (cat doesn't count...), so I have the disposable income and time to not really care. I have been playing more skirmish games lately, though.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This thread is quite the cry-fest.

The game is the best it has ever been in a lot of ways but people don't want to acknowledge or objectively discuss any of the mechanics because they want it back how it was when they started because 2nd/3rd/4th/5th edition was CLEARLY superior.

Yawn.

If you note the history edition to edition you will see why a lot of these things make sense:

ha. cute. Im quite happy to objectively discuss things, and funnily enough, i dont see the need to have things back at 4th ed when i started. 40k doesnt get better, it merely changes. ten years ago, folks moaned about all sorts of things. they still do now.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.

Any mechanic that has been changed from a previous edition has either been changed to add depth or streamline it, or changed for purposes of dealing with an outstanding issue from before. I'd like to see a list of these, because frankly wound allocation, when psychic powers happen, infiltrating and scouting with attached characters, how to place terrain, how cover works, and

Indeed. why, for example do i use a different system for damaging vehicles than infantry? games like infinity, starship troopers, and warmachine use a universal resolution mechanism. 40k? two, because why? bloat. why do i use strength to beat through vehicle armour, with AP being meaningless, but againsy infantry, i use AP to determine if i get through armour? really? bloat. its an excessive second layer of mechanics that really add nothing. How about the three-roll system? roll to hit/wound/save and then you've got FNP and whatever rolls. Compared to the sublime and beautiful system in infinity where you roll to hit (mods from distance/cover) and then roll to save against the power of the weapon that hit you. beautiful. 40k. lots of extra rolls that add nothing. Why the disctinction between walkers and MCs? its arbitrary, and kinda pointless.

also fenris, GW has a habit of changing mechanics to fix previous problems that just add a whole new layer of problems. take for example how they "fixed" third editions rhino rush in fourth. they turned transports into coffins and utterly ruined a whole playstyle for people.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
T

Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,

This happens to deal with things people min-max, and it is a good way of including mechanics that do not need to be balanced against each other as tightly. Psychic powers are wildly different from each other and to balance them, they would have to be "equal"...making what we've had for two editions now, some powers way too good and other ones too crappy. The psychic powers are able to be a lot more spread out in terms of power level if you don't have the choice of which to have all the time (incidentally, kiss your Prescience goodbye come 7th, netlisters ). Generally this is a sensible design decision -- otherwise the definite best powers are all that ever get used and the Psyker HQs become way better than their counterparts because they always get an awesome ability that outclasses the other HQ's. I know, I know "they should make them equally valuable" well I'm sorry we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a guy shouting out an order or holding a banner is going to need to be less useful than a guy warping reality so he can move faster than time and space is.

and yet some psychic disiplines are better than others. sensible? yeah, fair enough, but it comes at the expense of choice. random is not a substitute.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Lack of direction in the game.

Actually that whole "Forging the Narrative" is a pretty clear direction in the game. There is not only "Competitive" or "Non Competitive" games.

Indeed. lack of direction. what is 40k supposed to represent? Is it a platoon scale skirmish game? yet its got elements in it more appropriate to an army engagement (fliers, artillery, titans etc etc) whilst simultaneously micro managing each individual soldier to a level that is more appropriate in a skirmish game of twenty models a side. So yeah, lack of direction. 40k tries to be everything. but in trying to be everything, it fails because it doesnt have a clear direction, or design goal.

"forge the narrative". yeah, thats all well and good, but it cant fix the mess that it doesnt know what its supposed to be.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Wound allocations.

You bring this, the single most strategic aspect of gameplay in 6th edition, up right after saying the game has no genuine strategy? Point taken... Also in virtually every shooting situation and most assault situations, wound allocation is fast and easy now, compared to a min-maxing nightmare of weirdness last edition. This is a HUGE step forward, probably the best change of the edition as it makes so much more of gameplay fast and intuitive, AND adds strategic depth. Stop putting your HQ on the edge of your squads.

So why is it my highly skilled sniper team can only shoot the guy closest to them instead of being able to pick out officers and the guy with the meltagun? hmm? Its hardly "strategic" as you claim Fenris - its just a bloated mechanic. plus the constant measuring to "whats closest" gets tiring. there are far easier ways of implementing "which guy dies".

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Flyers very poorly implemented.

Compared to what? They've never been in the game before, and I think they are pretty effectively implemented other than one oversight (the fact that they shoot at the ground easily while in the sky, and thus have no real reason to ever slow down and become vulnerable).

compared to other games for a start?

40k games are the wrong scale for flyers. epic is where they belong.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Lack of balance (always an issue)

This is a vague term everyone gets all excited about throwing around, the point values book to book are relative only to what else is in that book as GW has said many many times since 5th edition, So saying a thing from one book is imbalanced against another is patently ridiculous, and is further rendered moot by the fact that the allies system grants several armies the option of the game's best units and formations.

indeed. allies are the saving grace for tyranids. oh, wait....

to be fair, i'll agree with you that you can't simply compare 100pts of X to 100pts of Y. the rest of the army comes into play. but its still the case that some units are vastly more powerful than others, and some codices are vastly more powerful than others.

not that i care. im quite enjoying the state of play with Privateer Press games.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Sloppy codex design.

These are the most beautiful books they have ever produced, in full color. But I assume you are talking about the actual lists and such. I just don't see it. When was the last serious need for an FAQ? Things like "are grenades weapons I can swap out?" Come on. The page in each codex with the wargear lists are explicit of what you can and can't take, and only very rarely is there ever more than momentary confusion (i.e. Space Marine codex and the having-more-than-one-artifact thing). Go look at YMDC, man. People aren't asking questions becomes of codex confusion, they are asking question because of corner-case scenarios (a lot of which probably don't even happen, but are theoretical and ultra-rare).
.

Lists? no sir, please ask me what i mean before assuming. it just makes you look bad. because as it stands, you've gotten it completely wrong, and just walked right into it...

what do i mean by "sloppy"? simply put, whats in it. I found everything i've read in sixth, bar farsight enclaves simply to be poor quality. I loved the fifth edition codices - i consider them to be the high water mark. space wolves? BA? Dark eldar? Orks? especially orks. Imperial Guard? brilliant reads - each and every one. then i had codex grey knights which was absurd, followed by codex:comedy robots (necrons). It just felt the fluff was written for twelve year olds. it was all so... kiddy. they were lacking soul. to me, they were simply not enjoyable on any level. And sadly, most of what i've come across in sixth hasnt done anything for me. i actually sold the chaos codex to a friend, i was so disapointed with it - and im one of those silly people that never sells books! sloppy? yeah, i genuinely mean that, and i say it with great sadness.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Lack of company support for the community.

This cesspool? If I were them I wouldn't spend money on this venomous, arrogant fanbase getting support either. 40k players are among the most disdainful I've ever encountered in tabletop gaming, so much so that I started my own club almost entirely as a refuge against people who play this game but hate it, and have been successful because of that. That shouldn't be a thing that happens.

compared to what we get from Privateer Press in terms of endorsed and fully supported tournaments, prizes, contests, company feedback etc. yeah, its a big deal. and believe me, the PP community is very much on board and appreciative.

but i'll agree with you - 40k communities are on the whole, extremely toxix. an amusing term i heard for a group of 40k players is a "whine" of 40k players. holds true...

 Fenris Frost wrote:

6th is the version with the least stupid immersion breaking meta-gamey crap going on and for that reason I consider it the best so far. I could go on all day about the previous two iterations and their myriad more serious issues this edition addressed.

its better compared to third, fourth and fifth is hardly indicative of quality.

compared to games like Infinity and Warmachine, 40k simply doesnt rate at all for me.

but fair play, each to their own

Indeed. why, for example do i use a different system for damaging vehicles than infantry? games like infinity, starship troopers, and warmachine use a universal resolution mechanism. 40k? two, because why? bloat. why do i use strength to beat through vehicle armour, with AP being meaningless, but againsy infantry, i use AP to determine if i get through armour? really? bloat. its an excessive second layer of mechanics that really add nothing. How about the three-roll system? roll to hit/wound/save and then you've got FNP and whatever rolls. Compared to the sublime and beautiful system in infinity where you roll to hit (mods from distance/cover) and then roll to save against the power of the weapon that hit you. beautiful. 40k. lots of extra rolls that add nothing. Why the disctinction between walkers and MCs? its arbitrary, and kinda pointless.

The Universal table of resolution was one of the absolutely great things about Rackham's games called AT-43, and Confrontation: Age of Ragnorok.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Indeed. why, for example do i use a different system for damaging vehicles than infantry? games like infinity, starship troopers, and warmachine use a universal resolution mechanism. 40k? two, because why? bloat. why do i use strength to beat through vehicle armour, with AP being meaningless, but againsy infantry, i use AP to determine if i get through armour? really? bloat. its an excessive second layer of mechanics that really add nothing. How about the three-roll system? roll to hit/wound/save and then you've got FNP and whatever rolls. Compared to the sublime and beautiful system in infinity where you roll to hit (mods from distance/cover) and then roll to save against the power of the weapon that hit you. beautiful. 40k. lots of extra rolls that add nothing. Why the disctinction between walkers and MCs? its arbitrary, and kinda pointless.

The Universal table of resolution was one of the absolutely great things about Rackham's games called AT-43, and Confrontation: Age of Ragnorok.

That's a major problem of 40k. The AV system should be entirely eliminated as it's horribly balanced and makes Monstrous Creatures far more powerful than any similar vehicle just for the simple reason it has almost no chance of being removed from play by one shot.

MCs aren't as bad as they were in 4th edition, when they were hideously undercosted and vehicles were even more nerfed.

The Wounds/AV problem as been discussed a lot, and while I see a lot of merit in breaking it down into one single factor, I don't think that's practical without either making vehiciles highly suseptical to small arms or nearly immune to even mid range weapons.

the problem is that, say, T6 is wounded half the time by a scatter laser/multi laser/assault cannon, but is still wounded on 6's by a lasgun! You can argue that's not a bad thing, as lasguns should hurt very light vehicles, but it would take some balancing.

(compare and contrast Landspeeders, which hate S6 but shrug off small arms, to Attack Bikes, which hate both but die quicker to voluem of fire).

Could always make vehicles into creatures again, like in Rogue Trader?

Then everything in the game is affected similarly by attacks.


Or make weapons like 2nd edition, where high strength of a Lascannon meant it was good at penetrating vehicles, while the number of wounds it inflicted made it equally deadly to multi-wound large creatures. Made perfect sense to me back then, as either kind of target could be one-shotted if lucky.

The rules are pretty gash. Then again GW have always been pants at writing rules. However the lore/setting/models are great, so it really depends what you want out of the game. I enjoy it, but then I'm not a competitive player.

 Polonius wrote:
MCs aren't as bad as they were in 4th edition, when they were hideously undercosted and vehicles were even more nerfed.

The Wounds/AV problem as been discussed a lot, and while I see a lot of merit in breaking it down into one single factor, I don't think that's practical without either making vehiciles highly suseptical to small arms or nearly immune to even mid range weapons.

the problem is that, say, T6 is wounded half the time by a scatter laser/multi laser/assault cannon, but is still wounded on 6's by a lasgun! You can argue that's not a bad thing, as lasguns should hurt very light vehicles, but it would take some balancing.

(compare and contrast Landspeeders, which hate S6 but shrug off small arms, to Attack Bikes, which hate both but die quicker to voluem of fire).

You wouldn't make a vehicle T6. A DE aircraft might be T6 as it's a risk vs. reward device, but a Rhino would be T8; Av 12 = T9, Av 13, 14 = T10. Then you can add variety with amount of wounds and armor saves. An Av14 Monolith should be T10, W6, Sv2+, 5++ suggesting that it's sheer weight and density makes it an unstoppable field presence (as it is in the fluff, not just one melta gun away from debris).

You can balance it out by giving certain weapons "Vehicle Hunter" special rule so that anything still identified as vehicles would be easily injured by them, or unsaved wounds are doubled. Make them immune to poison, to boot.

I love how people always paint PP as this example of a perfect company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a great company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

Oh go on, you can't leave us hanging here. At least back up your statement with a story.

I too have to agree that the 6th Edition BRB is probably the best GW has ever put out. They have streamlined, clarified and explained many things that were unclear and hotly contested before. Sadly their Codex writing hasn't been kept as tight.

But all the random crap really gets my goat (and I feel like getting my coat). Random terrain features? Random warlord traits? Random psychic powers? Random harassment of the enemy as in CD Warp Storm table? Throw it out, all of it! Especially since many armies still are stuck with random, often bad, warlord traits when those with new books have traits tailored to be useful for their special characters.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a perfect company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

I'm curious what's behind that assertion.

PP is stupidly expensive (aside from the basic box games and a few of the larger restic infantry units), but they put out a really polished game. I'm not willing to annoint them as always great, any more than I'd consider GW to always be bad. I think PP serves its fan base with a superior gaming product, though.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a perfect company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

While I was doing other digging, I found this:



When's the last time we saw Jervis Johson post on his companies forums directly to a lowly customer?

I, too, would like to know how they sold out. As it stands, they are offering a well priced product for what you get with plenty of customer support. And wouldn't selling out imply they've gone public and/or sold the company for profit in some fashion that why wash their hands; in it for the bucks?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a great company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

Oh go on, you can't leave us hanging here. At least back up your statement with a story.

Ever hear of Monsterpocalypse? probably not, it was a pre-painted miniature war-game, that was doing quite well with a good community tournaments held in major conventions and nice promos. Then back in 2010 they made a deal with dreamworks to make Monpoc movie, and after 2011 gencon it just stopped. Privateer Press still maintains that they are working on something but they said that 2 or 3 years ago, now the offical forums are nearly dead with only a few dedicated players left. Even the fan based tournament like the ones held be team Covenant are starting to go away.

But that isn't the bad part, I can understand if the game was costing them money to stop making it, but they have never admitted the game was dead. Leaving it in a sort of limbo for the players.There are some rumors, never confirmed though, that dreamworks offered them more money than they would have made off of MonPoc in a reasonable amount of time. Honestly I personally beleive this because I can not think of another reason as to why they did what they did. This is of course a rushed version and I'm sure if you looked into it you would find much better stated and more researched answers online.

Edit- I would like to point out that PP is still a good company, just not the perfect one everyone makes them out to be.

I don't think everyone is making them out to be perfect, just better.

Let's be honest, given the frame of reference, better doesn't even have to be that good!

 azreal13 wrote:
I don't think everyone is making them out to be perfect, just better.

Let's be honest, given the frame of reference, better doesn't even have to be that good!

I agree with you there, I still like PP and play Warmahordes.

 Jaceevoke wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a great company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

Oh go on, you can't leave us hanging here. At least back up your statement with a story.

Ever hear of Monsterpocalypse? probably not, it was a pre-painted miniature war-game, that was doing quite well with a good community tournaments held in major conventions and nice promos. Then back in 2010 they made a deal with dreamworks to make Monpoc movie, and after 2011 gencon it just stopped. Privateer Press still maintains that they are working on something but they said that 2 or 3 years ago, now the offical forums are nearly dead with only a few dedicated players left. Even the fan based tournament like the ones held be team Covenant are starting to go away.

But that isn't the bad part, I can understand if the game was costing them money to stop making it, but they have never admitted the game was dead. Leaving it in a sort of limbo for the players.There are some rumors, never confirmed though, that dreamworks offered them more money than they would have made off of MonPoc in a reasonable amount of time. Honestly I personally beleive this because I can not think of another reason as to why they did what they did. This is of course a rushed version and I'm sure if you looked into it you would find much better stated and more researched answers online.

Edit- I would like to point out that PP is still a good company, just not the perfect one everyone makes them out to be.

Interesting. I know only a small number of people who ever played it and the response was tepid from them. I have no other reference.

If PP started pulling the stunts GW does currently (inflated costs, closing all communication channels, shutting down company sponsored events, etc.) they'd buckle. It's the sheer weight of the IP and it's inertia that keeps GW rolling forward. That and the players are usually highly invested in armies to the sums of thousands of dollars. The psychological attachment to the monetary and time investment to the product also makes it hard to separate or to have the ability to rationally address the problems with the company. I know, I still have problems. I still want to go out and pick up some new GW toys, but then I remember I won't get any special treatment for doing so. That I am not considered a value customer for having already purchase thousands.

If they don't honor my loyalty, I won't honor their brand.

 Jaceevoke wrote:


Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

I don't think so. We are removing one aspect of a very detailed game, it's hardly homebrew. Fliers are a tiny percentage of the game.
I personally don't believe they belong in a game at this scale...transports and skimmers are fine, no reason to go further than that. What's next, making half the table ocean and include naval 40k too? (beach assault does sound fun though! )

bullyboy wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:


Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

I don't think so. We are removing one aspect of a very detailed game, it's hardly homebrew. Fliers are a tiny percentage of the game.
I personally don't believe they belong in a game at this scale...transports and skimmers are fine, no reason to go further than that. What's next, making half the table ocean and include naval 40k too? (beach assault does sound fun though! )

No flyers would be great, but it would also make someone sad if they wanted to play a flyer based army per the fluff (like Elysians).

Do you guys limit flying monstrous creatures, too?

6th edition, I'd agree, is a somewhat different game than before. I feel like GW is taking it in a new direction, and, naturally, hasn't quite hammered out what that direction is.

I feel sort of like 5th edition was Windows 98 and 6th ed is Windows 2000. Like the former was better because it was a hammered out version of what they were already doing, while the latter was worse because it was a different way of doing things that hadn't quite gelled. I guess only time will tell if 7th edition is the proverbial Windows XP. The polished version of its predecessor that, while bloated and imperfect, winds up becoming something of a gold standard.

But maybe it won't be. Who knows.

 Ailaros wrote:
6th edition, I'd agree, is a somewhat different game than before. I feel like GW is taking it in a new direction, and, naturally, hasn't quite hammered out what that direction is.

I feel sort of like 5th edition was Windows 98 and 6th ed is Windows 2000. Like the former was better because it was a hammered out version of what they were already doing, while the latter was worse because it was a different way of doing things that hadn't quite gelled. I guess only time will tell if 7th edition is the proverbial Windows XP. The polished version of its predecessor that, while bloated and imperfect, winds up becoming something of a gold standard.

But maybe it won't be. Who knows.

Not a bad analogy, and I share your hopes for 7th.

Wouldn't mind them figuring out what the feth they were going to do with it before they implemented the changes in both cases mind.

6th gave me the excuse I needed to quit the game. Yes, I do think it's "that bad". Casualties from the front is a good theory, but crappy in practice: "oh, I think THAT model is 1mm closer...you have to remove it." First and last game of 6th I played, that was a common occurrence. Then of course, there's too much stuff now. If you want to play an effective army, you need to get about 4 books and a dataslate. It's become more of a moneypit than it already was. No thanks, it was a fun run through the end of 4th and all of 5th. But this new game? Terrible. That is, of course, all personal opinion. Hull points are fine. Random movement I can learn to live with. But to combine random movement with overwatch AND removing casualties from the front...it's too much. Yes, I prefer to get into combat instead of sitting back and shooting like a pus-I mean, uh, Tau.

 Ailaros wrote:
6th edition, I'd agree, is a somewhat different game than before. I feel like GW is taking it in a new direction, and, naturally, hasn't quite hammered out what that direction is.

I feel sort of like 5th edition was Windows 98 and 6th ed is Windows 2000. Like the former was better because it was a hammered out version of what they were already doing, while the latter was worse because it was a different way of doing things that hadn't quite gelled. I guess only time will tell if 7th edition is the proverbial Windows XP. The polished version of its predecessor that, while bloated and imperfect, winds up becoming something of a gold standard.

But maybe it won't be. Who knows.

Very well said. I am afraid of what Win 8 version of 40K will be like then. *shudders*.

bullyboy wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:


Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

I don't think so. We are removing one aspect of a very detailed game, it's hardly homebrew. Fliers are a tiny percentage of the game.
I personally don't believe they belong in a game at this scale...transports and skimmers are fine, no reason to go further than that. What's next, making half the table ocean and include naval 40k too? (beach assault does sound fun though! )

I always liked how Battletech handled fliers. You basically get to do a "strafing run" every turn. Other than that it's just assumed the flyer goes so high and fast that it doesn't interact whatsoever with the rest of the battle unless you decide to try and shoot it down during the strafing run. If you want to have mixed aircraft and ground engagements the aircraft go on a completely separate map with a much bigger scale.

I do agree that 40k is rather suffering from GW getting rid of specialist games. If we could have 3 games: Necromunda style skirmish rules (only with more options for other 40k armies), 40k proper, and Epic; then we could have rules and models tailored more to each individual scale of combat. I honestly don't know why Games Workshop doesn't do something like that.

The core rules in 6th, in general, are good. The bad apples are crazy random charge range, your cover save being the same whether you can see 75% of a tank, or you can literally only see a speck of hull sticking out, random psychic tables that are supremely unbalanced with each other, battle brother shenanigans, BS1 snap shots even for amazing shooting characters, and the collection of assault nerfs, making the game more 1 dimensional than I'd like.

Aside from that, the only other issues that come up are codex related. The wave of underpriced high volume guns that wound all infantry on 2's and can take out light tanks via hull points, exceptional quality units in some certain armies, overpricing all over the place in some others... Certain troublemaker units that are worth their weight in gold on the table, way beyond what their points would suggest...

It's overall a small part of the game, but it's definitely there, we just need to reach in with a high detail brush and fix it.

 Marzillius wrote:
The evidence would be all the polls on Dakkadakka and other warhammer related sites about which edition was best. 6th was always the most chosen answer, and if I remember correctly the Dakkadakka poll had almost 3000 answers.

The current edition always gets the most votes in those polls. Probably as much because those who can be bothered voting are those who are currently enjoying the game as any other reason.


For me, the big issues are -

- horribly unclear rules with the studio having apparently given up completely on faq support.

- when they were doing faqs, faqs that 'clarified' rules in a way that went completely against the actual rules (Battlements, i'm looking at you!)

- Having to roll 30 saves one at a time due to LOS applying to wounding hits instead of unsaved wounds.

- Random Warlord tables that have equal chance of giving you something powerful, something mediocre, our something your Warlord already has

- The idiocy of rolling off to choose table sides before actually placing terrain...

- The addition of flyers, while having no corresponding ability added to all armies to actually combat flyers, without taking allies or fortifications.

- The addition of hull points making vehicles weaker with no corresponding drop in points.

- Snap Fire not applying to blast or template weapons rendering a large range of vehicle weapon options vastly worse than others

- random psychic power selection for anyone other than orks makes no sense.

- Battle Brothers.

- The apparently random allocation of large Walkers as either vehicles or monstrous creatures, made more frustrating by the huge gulf in effectiveness between the two classes.

- The addition of super heavies to the standard game, for the same problem as is caused by flyers.

- Lack of balance caused by the vastly different power levels between codexes, compounded by the allies rules. It seemed like fully half of the armies in the Adepticon Championships this year were some form of Tau/Eldar mash up, with most of those including Riptides and Wraithknights. That makes for a very boring gaming scene.

- Casualties from the front

- Random charge distance. I don't have a problem with the idea, but the minimum charge distance achieved by it needs to be more than two inches.

- Being able to see through area terrain

- 25 percent coverage for cover. Its a pain... 5th edition's cover rule was much simpler.

I think that's got most of it

6th has no major flaws that 5th, 4th and 3rd didn't have, we'll put it that way. I regard it as basically being 5th edition, but a little bit better. But, there's just more people online now, hence the internet rage machine being that much louder.

It has flaws those editions did not, but those editions had some flaws 6th does not.

 insaniak wrote:
5th edition's cover rule was much simpler.

I think that's got most of it

5th edition in general was much simpler. Let's roll back to that keeping some of the things better in 6E. Having a means to assault out of non-assault transports would be splendid.

Yeah, I forgot about the whole 'no assaulting on the turn you disembark, ever' thing...

Or assault off an outflank... because having your opponent way risk vs. reward of traversing a board edge when an assault unit could spring out from surprise is totally against A) narrative forging or B) stopping those pesky gunlines.

 TheKbob wrote:
Or assault off an outflank... because having your opponent way risk vs. reward of traversing a board edge when an assault unit could spring out from surprise is totally against A) narrative forging or B) stopping those pesky gunlines.

To be fair the potential of this goes to pretty stupid levels, especially since Battle Brothers are a game-changing thing now.

-Striking Scorpions
-Raven Guard Land Raider MEQ squads
-IG blobs
-Kommando guides for something like Ghazghkull/PK Warboss (unfortunately I only ever got to try this once)
-Wolf Scouts on your back board edge, charging into your tanks from behind

I even think Ymlgarl Genestealers in the 5th Ed Codex charging immediately after materialising in terrain or whatever they were rank amongst the single dumbest things I've played against, some of the others in memory being Mindshackle Scarabs, Wave Serpents and Riptides.

Oh, you brought Devastators? Screw you, you automatically lose that unit when my Genestealers appear, or have to put them out of cover, running away every other turn.

And while I detest the play style of Gunlines, adding in a broken alternative is not how you balance it out. That's GW's level of thinking.

I find myself avoiding 40k games where I can I just don't find it fun anymore, I like running assault armies and they've taken that from me in 6th.

Vehicles were too strong in 5th and hull points was a good idea done badly, monoliths and landraiders should have 5 or 6 hull points not 4, rhinos getting poped easy is fine it's a ox on treads but heavier vehicles like dreads and true tanks are not worth taking they die way too easy.

And I hate the whole DLC thing gw is doing now, they are killing the game.

I'm happier playing x-wing and battletech.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, I forgot about the whole 'no assaulting on the turn you disembark, ever' thing...

Because having every single assault army load itself into cheap transports, then drive up, pop smoke, disembark and charge, every single game, was a barrel of fun? Honestly I do think the pendulum has swung too far the other way - assault is way too nerfed in this edition - but this change in particular is one, imo, for the better.

KommissarKarl wrote:
6th has no major flaws that 5th, 4th and 3rd didn't have, we'll put it that way. I regard it as basically being 5th edition, but a thousand times worse. But, there's just more people online now, hence the internet rage machine being that much louder.

Fixed that for you.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This thread is quite the cry-fest.

The game is the best it has ever been in a lot of ways but people don't want to acknowledge or objectively discuss any of the mechanics because they want it back how it was when they started because 2nd/3rd/4th/5th edition was CLEARLY superior.

Yawn.

Thank you, GW employee. Your entire post is full of illogical statements that reek of bias. So codex's are not balanced against each other, only balanced amongst units in their own books, and GW has said so multiple times? OK that does nothing to change the fact that this is a terrible system, and only strengthens any complaints that the game is unbalanced. On top of this, units in their own codexes are often terribly balanced towards each other. Have you read the 6th ed CSM or the Tyranid book bro? Only person who seems to be crying or raging in this thread so far is you, that comment about the 40k customer base... Wow, you have clearly had issues with some players before.




Anyway, on to my opinions on 6th - special rules are great and mean we have more than just unit that takes heavy weapon, unit that took a flames, unit that took CC, etc, it keeps unique and adds more to strategy. I also love AV and thinks its a great mechanic. I also like random chance, it helps counter min maxing among a bunch of other good things, as fenris frost actually quite accurately said IMO.

Things that need to be fixed IMO, is assault. I don't even think the combat table needs to be changed, cc units will still have the upper hand while denying shooting even if the roll differences aren't that pronounced, I think there needs to be better ways to make it to combat, be it vehicles or assaulting from reserves I don't know. Over watch is also stupid and fits the "changes for the sake of changes" category. Losing imitative based on cover is slowed as well.

Also,the amount of ignore cover out there is stupid. Design flaws like the amount of Low AP I could see happening accidently, but is also one of the bad things about 40k. The ignore cover one however is incredibly short sighted and tears holes through the fabric of game design. AP 2-3 should be few and far in between.

I think 6th is good but is critically in need of balancing fixes. It's undeniably and largely skewed towards shooting, a little skewed either way is fine but it's way too off the mark at the moment. Both shooting , armour, and assault needs fixing tho.

KommissarKarl wrote:

Because having every single assault army load itself into cheap transports, then drive up, pop smoke, disembark and charge, every single game, was a barrel of fun?

Where did I say that?

KommissarKarl wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, I forgot about the whole 'no assaulting on the turn you disembark, ever' thing...

Because having every single assault army load itself into cheap transports, then drive up, pop smoke, disembark and charge, every single game, was a barrel of fun? Honestly I do think the pendulum has swung too far the other way - assault is way too nerfed in this edition - but this change in particular is one, imo, for the better.

I'll agree with you on that being horrid in 3rd but I don't really remembering it being all that big during 5th. Maybe it was for a time but vehicles overtook it? Apologies. I could have sworn that last edition you could disembark out of a vehicle if it didn't move that turn and still assault (the removal of scoring whilst in a vehicle I personally think was a good idea)

Yeah, the 3rd Ed rhino rush was a little ridiculous, but being able to assault out of a stationary transport was fine.

I'd just like to see a release that didn't make me imagine GWs board sitting back and saying "let's see if those idiots will swallow THIS!"

I miss enjoying this game. I have hopes that someone else will buy GW and run it like a good business. Slim hopes, but hope nonetheless.

Until then it's Infinity or Firestorm Armada for me!

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This happens to deal with things people min-max, and it is a good way of including mechanics that do not need to be balanced against each other as tightly. Psychic powers are wildly different from each other and to balance them, they would have to be "equal"...making what we've had for two editions now, some powers way too good and other ones too crappy. The psychic powers are able to be a lot more spread out in terms of power level if you don't have the choice of which to have all the time (incidentally, kiss your Prescience goodbye come 7th, netlisters ). Generally this is a sensible design decision -- otherwise the definite best powers are all that ever get used and the Psyker HQs become way better than their counterparts because they always get an awesome ability that outclasses the other HQ's. I know, I know "they should make them equally valuable" well I'm sorry we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a guy shouting out an order or holding a banner is going to need to be less useful than a guy warping reality so he can move faster than time and space is.

The thing is, this isn't a sensible design decision at all, because it means that your psyker varies wildly in power level from game to game with no corresponding variance in points cost. And in an edition that is so heavily focussed on narrative gaming, the idea that your Chief Librarian doesn't know how to use the same powers from one battle to the next is a little... peculiar.

The sensible way to balance it would have been to just have points costs for psychic powers as we do for weapon and wargear upgrades.

You bring this, the single most strategic aspect of gameplay in 6th edition, up right after saying the game has no genuine strategy? Point taken... Also in virtually every shooting situation and most assault situations, wound allocation is fast and easy now, compared to a min-maxing nightmare of weirdness last edition. This is a HUGE step forward, probably the best change of the edition as it makes so much more of gameplay fast and intuitive, AND adds strategic depth. Stop putting your HQ on the edge of your squads.

Yup, fast and easy... unless you have a character in the squad, at which point you're rolling saves one at a time because of Look Out Sir.

And again, in a game focussed so heavily on narrative, why can't other squadmembers pick up the melta gun or the standard when the guy carrying it dies (which was one of the reasons given in previous editions for being able to choose casualties yourself)?

When was the last serious need for an FAQ?

When was the last codex released?

This cesspool? If I were them I wouldn't spend money on this venomous, arrogant fanbase getting support either. 40k players are among the most disdainful I've ever encountered in tabletop gaming, so much so that I started my own club almost entirely as a refuge against people who play this game but hate it, and have been successful because of that. That shouldn't be a thing that happens.

It's always interesting that people are so willing to judge the 40K community based on their behaviour towards Games Workshop without ever looking at just why it is that way to begin with. There are all these other companies out there that manage to engage with their communities without anything like the level of complaint that gets thrown at GW... but that has to be something the community is doing wrong? There's no chance in your mind that the attitude of the community towards Games Workshop is a reaction to something GW have done?

This bit is mind-boggling to me. 6th Edition wound allocation is fast and easy in the majority of cases, almost intuitively so. I teach new players a lot and have seen people learn literally by saying only the words "It's the closest guy first" and being done with it. Actling like 5E needed a minor tweak is ridiculous, and the guys saying we should just pick who dies is even more ridiculous because it doesn't acknowledge the fact that there needs to be a way for us to intuitively and quickly threaten a unit's best models with strategic approaches and tactical skill. It makes it EASIER to remove casualties for a large unit, not harder. It was also revolutionary in that it made the positioning of important models matter more than ever before. How was this "change for the sake of change" when it is probably the source of almost all the on-the-table strategy? It's made model placement second in important only to list building, IMO.

It's a focus issue, more than anything. What Allessio largely did right with 5th edition was in realising that for the size the game had become, focussing on individual models just slows the game down. With a few exceptions (like wound allocation in mixed wargear units) 5th edition largely focussed on the unit level, rather than the individual model.

Then 6th ed came along, and rather than continue in that vein, it took a huge step backwards and made infividuals within the unit important again, despite the push once again for bigger and bigger games.

The individual placement of models within the unit shouldn't matter for this size game. You want quick and easy wound allocation? Just allow the owning player to remove models, and leave in the old Torrent of Fire rule and Precision Shots to allow the attacker to choose a casualty in specific situations. Then you avoid the old multi-wound wound allocations by requiring the player to place wounds on already wounded models first. Done. No more rolling 30 saves one at a time.

Practically everything is random? The terrain, psychic powers, and the charge range is random. Most of which were good changes as I've already described (the terrain changed because the same reason the psychic powers were, because we as players always min-max and you can't (really) min-max random things.

The new terrain rules I mostly like, although they can have some fairly significant effects on a game... I 'won' a game at Adepticon this year pretty much entirely as a result of the forests on the board causing my opponent to wipe out half of his own army...

But the combination of random charge range meaning you need to be within 2" of an enemy unit to guarantee an assault, combined with Overwatch and removing casualties from the front is just painful.

6th is the version with the least stupid immersion breaking meta-gamey crap going on...

6th is the version where apparently the narrative is what matters... and yet you can run an army of Eldar allied with Tau with an Inquisitor and an Imperial Knight tagged along for company...

Everything Insaniak said was spot on. 40k operates like a small skirmish game even though the sizes keep getting larger and larger and it's being pushed for large scale battles. For all the cries of "forge the narrative" the rules are as loose as can be and allow for insane combinations that, if some were to be believed, each player is meant to reel in instead of letting the rules do that.

40k really only has the lore going for it, and technically the quality of the figures but IMO there's too much quality for a 28mm figure and most of it gets lost in the shuffle or is just a pain in the behind to paint; there's zero reason an average grunt should have a crazy level of detail, especially not at 28mm. The rules fail from both a casual and competitive standpoint and the less said about GW's absolutely antithetical business practices compared to virtually every other large company now and throughout history the better.

And don't forget your ancient Eldar psykers whom have lived for centuries honing and controlling their powers, along with the Inquisitor that is likely a psyker and has been restricting himself as to not have his mind nommed by chaos all suddenly forget their tactical genius until the game begins along with not remembering what spells they know until they hcarge into the game. So narrative.

To be fair the potential of this goes to pretty stupid levels, especially since Battle Brothers are a game-changing thing now.

-Striking Scorpions
-Raven Guard Land Raider MEQ squads
-IG blobs
-Kommando guides for something like Ghazghkull/PK Warboss (unfortunately I only ever got to try this once)
-Wolf Scouts on your back board edge, charging into your tanks from behind

I even think Ymlgarl Genestealers in the 5th Ed Codex charging immediately after materialising in terrain or whatever they were rank amongst the single dumbest things I've played against, some of the others in memory being Mindshackle Scarabs, Wave Serpents and Riptides.

Oh, you brought Devastators? Screw you, you automatically lose that unit when my Genestealers appear, or have to put them out of cover, running away every other turn.

And while I detest the play style of Gunlines, adding in a broken alternative is not how you balance it out. That's GW's level of thinking.

I am going to second this. Assault is definitely underpowered and needs a boost, but I think the game should steer clear of any rule that takes a unit directly from reserves into assault. That just flips to current situation on its head, currently we have assault units that get shot to death before ever reach assault, reserves to assault would mean shooting units would get assaulting without ever having the chance to shoot back or even evade the assaulting unit (except for overwatch/interceptor, but I would prefer these rules were eliminated and just have ranged units fight assault units in the normal course of play). I think one of the best solutions in to restore LOS denial tactics by changing the LOS rules, that way it is possible to get assault units into assault intact by outmaneuvering the opponent, rather than having the assault unit magically show up out of nowhere to carry out the assault.

I think that very limited cases of "on board to assault" would be ok if over-watch continues to be a thing. Stuff like old school Ymgarls, deep striking death company, and other elite units could get a USR that lets them assault the turn they enter play. I would be perfectly fine with this. You pay a lot of points for an elite melee beatstick with a delivery mechanism. You deserve to have it delete an opposing unit before it gets wiped away.

What I don't want is to go back to the days when my Tau sat terrified in the middle foot of the table because my opponent's all outflanking genestealer army could charge in and eat everything forever and I couldn't do anything about it...and then the Doom came down.

I am currently wondering how this would combo with being able to consolidate into an assault. Maybe quite terrifying, but again I think I would be ok with it if the assault was not fought until the next assault phase (no, 3rd edition will not happen again darn it!). If you put your units within consolidate range then that's your own dang fault.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I think that very limited cases of "on board to assault" would be ok if over-watch continues to be a thing. Stuff like old school Ymgarls, deep striking death company, and other elite units could get a USR that lets them assault the turn they enter play. I would be perfectly fine with this. You pay a lot of points for an elite melee beatstick with a delivery mechanism. You deserve to have it delete an opposing unit before it gets wiped away.

What I don't want is to go back to the days when my Tau sat terrified in the middle foot of the table because my opponent's all outflanking genestealer army could charge in and eat everything forever and I couldn't do anything about it...and then the Doom came down.

I am currently wondering how this would combo with being able to consolidate into an assault. Maybe quite terrifying, but again I think I would be ok with it if the assault was not fought until the next assault phase (no, 3rd edition will not happen again darn it!). If you put your units within consolidate range then that's your own dang fault.

Honestly I sometimes just wish that sweeping advance would become more of a extra slaughter. Basically you either escape or you lose additional units. That way it wouldn't be as dramatically terrible if such things were added in. Perhaps I am thinking wrong on this though. I really can't quite say.

bullyboy wrote:
So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

#1 - Price - too high.
#2 - DLC - this stuff should be 100% absolutely FREE to download. These are basically advertisement tools. Why should I pay for a GW commerical???
#3 - Allies - any Allies...all of it is bad IMO. What's the point in even having separate codices??? I understand Imperial + Imperial, and Chaos + Chaos, but even these are not good for the game IMO. I am kinda tired of playing against the United Nations of Beneton. The game is diverse enough as is with no allies matrix.

As others have said, it depends. I can get by because I can play with people I know fairly well quite frequently, without worrying about Escalation, Dataslates, etc. On that note, It's fine. I imagine playing pick up games with strangers at an FLGS could be a hassle in regards to the norm for both players.

Treat it as a laid back casual game and you'll be fine. Probably. FWIW, I know I am