Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So after much searching for what I thought would be an easily found, often reposted subject, I couldn't find a recent thread with dakka's opinions on 6th ed. I'm genuinely curious on the opinions folks have for the current edition, specifically from three points of view; as a tournament player (see: competitive players), as a serious player (people who follow the rules, line-by-line), and as a casual player (people who see the rules as guidelines).

Now, first of all, I don't give a damn about your opinion of GW. I'm aware of Dakka's opinion on GW, and it doesn't need to be repeated here; for anyone new, what I've gathered is that Dakka in general believes GW is a failing company, with terrible policies, and an army of lawyers ready to crush anyone who infringes on their IP. Naturally, that's not the whole story, but the general opinion on dakka is such (I agree with it too).

Moving on, I'd like to know the thoughts folks have on the 6th ed rules themselves. You are allowed to draw comparisons to other games, but a detailed explanation on why 'X rule is not good' is required, not simply to say "this game does this rule better;" give me the 'because' as well! The same applies to previous editions. Also, if you have a better idea for a ruling, I'd like to hear it, but back it up with evidence on why your idea is better.

If you identify yourself as more than one type of player, please identify that as well; your opinion is possibly the same on all levels, but if you have differing views on different levels, I'd really like to know.


Hopefully, this thread doesn't get out of hand.

EDIT:
It was very refreshing to read all this; a big thanks to everyone who posted!

I reserve my opinion, only to not seem like I was fishing for a particular opinion. I can tell you that I enjoyed both sides of the argument however, and have learned quite a bit!

Thanks again!

Not for gen discussion. Suggest you get a mod to move it to 40k discussion so it gets the appropriate response.

I thought I was in the 40k section. My bad. Maybe that's also why I didn't find any threads...

could a mod move or close/delete this if in fact there's a hundred threads about it on 40k Discussion?

EDIT: Thanks

I don't like it. I felt it was too similar to fantasy which, I have a few problems with (though I still play here and there). I didn't like the AP thing, I really don't like flyers and how overpowered they are, I never liked premeasuring in either game, random charges really hurt my armies, as did weaker tanks
4th to 5th wasn't that bad as my armies didn't wholly change much (they were all mounted anyways, Orks could do both still and I did, my Dark Eldar always had Raider spam since 3rd).
Now, the armies are incomplete and unplayable, never have I been so shafted by a rule change (exceptions are when they got rid of armies).
So 6th ed was not even an option when I read that rulebook and I sold my 40k stuff.

I'm a competitive/serious player, by your categories, and I like it a lot.

There are a few fiddly bits and remaining imbalances (particularly the flyer disparity), but overall it's been a huge refreshment of excitement about the game. Tons of new things to learn, a totally mixed up and refreshed metagame with old tropes and concepts tossed on their heads, learning new good combinations and ways to use your codex, to use allies, etc.

Hello.

I am mostly a painter, I have a backround from competetive gaming but I do not think 40K is very suited for competetive gaming since the rules are very poorly balanced doe to the nature of the time and co-ordination of a game like this. If I wanted to play competetivly I would be playing magic the gathering or a computergame like league of legends or starcraft since these games are by far more thought through with regards to an internal balance. With that being sead I think GW is a great hobby game as it offers a lot, and as long as you do not play with people who wants to win tournaments I think this game has a lot to offer. Out of the 4 diferent games out there I would very mutch be a soscial players and an explorer, meaning I appreciate the sosial part of the hobby and the option for exploring things in the game.

But enough about me. I think 6th edition is very good. Having played during 2nd and 5th edition, 2nd edition was just to wacky and poorly balanced and mutch mutch to complex. 5th edition really pointed you in the direction of one particular playstyle as it became more and more apparent that transports with shooting options just gave mutch more milage one how mutch damadge they could put out and survive coming in.

6th editions night fighting is very fun as it will punish ranged armies at one point during the game. A lot of the codexes became more balanced with the introducing of hullpoints. Flyers are fun and not to umbalanced, you counter them with skill rather then net lists. I do wish getting into close combat could be easier as it is very difficult at the moment. I like the overwatch rules etc and all that, but this is mainly a shooty edition. We will see if assault based codexes will try to solve this. (Mind you some assault armies can work and they got a huge break with the ease of killing them damn razorbacks/chimeras.)

40K problem is that you are very passive whenever you are not having your turn. You are mostly reduced to waiting and rolling coversaves. If 40K had more close combat then people playing it would have a mutch more enteratining opponent rounds.

Still in my first year, have to be casual because there are no clubs or anything near me. It's just me and my wife that play right now.

I started right before 6th came out. With my limited experience I have to say my negative points for 6th edition have to be:
Warlords > Think its just silly.
Random charge range.
Hull Points > Not so much that vehicles die faster, I just think they took too much of a flip flop from 5th.
Challenges > Also think its silly.

I am sure there are others, but I can't think of any of the top of my head. I still enjoy playing and don't mind it too much. We decided to stick with 6th edition since upon finding a community to play with they will likely be on 6th edition and we would have to relearn if we stuck with 5th. That and we were not even familiar with 5th yet.

i like sixth eddition, im a shooty ork fluff wise and sixth eddition favours shooty armies anyways, People complaining about flyers all the time i dont get it, there are easy ways to counter it.

I like it. More playable than previous editions, more fun, cheese can be countered with cheese a la 2nd edition

I am a war gamer and play lots of different types of table top minature games.

In general I think the 40k rules are a prime example of great concepts with poor implementation.

My main gripe is with the lack of interaction in the game turn.
If interleaved phases were used .(LoTR, Firefly,Bodycount , etc.) it would add more interaction between the players and boost tactical play.

EG
A moves,
B Moves.
A shoots,
B Shoots,
A Assaults,
B Assaults.

This is the simplest way to increase player interaction without a massive re-write of the current rules.As you have to consider you opponents likely actions that are DIRECTLY after your own.

Remaining gripes are mainly down to-
A)Exclusive rules writing..
The current core rules ONLY cover standard infantry ! Every other unit type has its own (universal) special rules .(Annoying oxymoron.)

The units in 40k map closest onto modern units. Modern warfare is a balance of mobility , firepower, and assault.
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to slow enemy movement, and assault to contest the objectives.

What stats does 40k give units?
None for mobility, 1 for ranged attacks , and 4 for assault...hardly the most appropriate.
Just adding a Movement stat would allow lots more variety in mobility in a simpler resolution.(Like it used to be in 2nd ed.2 pages of rules for movement, ALL done in the movement phase, as opposed to the current dozen pages...vehicle rules and USRs ect.)

B) Good idea , bad implementation.
The AP system.
There used to be armour save modifiers , Str 4-1,Str5-2 Str6 -3 etc.
The studio wanted to move away from save mods , as it was 'very WHFB'.Fair enough lots of other ways to do this...

BUT instead of simply saying the AP value negates the saving roll of the same or higher value.
AP5 ignores saving rolls of 5 or 6.(Dice are not counted.)So a SM with 3+ save only saves on 3,and 4 against an AP 5 weapon .(Any rolls of 5 or 6 are ignored.)

This gives simple proportional results, with being simpler than armour save mods, and without the efficiency cliff the AP system they used.

My 3 points to improve 40k rules for war gamers.
Make the game turn more interactive.
Make the stats reflect the units on the table directly.
Make the resolution methods unified.

Special rules should be for special units, not every unit because the core rules do not cover enough of the game play.. .
If the game play of 40k was expressed by rules written with clarity brevity and elegance, 40 pages would be plenty...(40k in 40 pages... )

I hope this is clear enough?I can try to clarify if needed...

When I first read the 6th ed rulebook I thought it was a poorly conceived attempt to shoehorn a bunch of random fantasy rules into 40k for no good reason, and that it did considerable harm to close combat armies (presumably to buff space marines and necrons). When I saw Ward credited prominently in the credits, those two things sort of explained themselves.

When I read it again, I still feel the same way, only now there's a sort of bitter resignation punctuated with "well, it could have been worse," along with a general feeling of "should I even bother?" If I had internet access on my home computer (I'm posting from a phone), I'd try playing on vassal40k (if that's even still around).


I was actually thinking of starting a thread asking this same question, albeit from a 5th edition to 6th comparison, specifically, to see if things really are as bad as they appear, or if I'm just being biased by the foul taste reading the 6th ed rules leaves in my mouth (Ward seems to have an almost magical power to imbue text with that quality, somehow).

Although I don't like the terrain deployment rules, I like 6th edition much more than 5th edition.

I love it and almost all aspects of it. There are some minor things I don't care for but those are easily overlooked in the grand scheme of things.

I'm a little harder to categorize because the group of friends I play with used to slug it out with ultra competitive net list builds in 5th edition, took a break around 6th edition's release and have recently started playing again with a VERY casual attiude and fluffier armies. I personally love 6th edition, with a few headscratchers. I'm a big fan of the change to wound allocation, it makes a lot more sense to me. I really like that cover saves are now figured out model by model so you don't have blanket cover saves like in 5th edition.

Things I don't like: 2D6 assault move is just... weird. I also loathe challenges, but don't find myself in assault as often in this edition so I haven't been as frustrated with it as I probably would be otherwise. The most egregious thing about 6th edition to me was dropping flyers on people and not giving anyone enough anti-air defense, but since my play group has opened up to Forge World a lot of our AA problems have been solved by the toys in Aeronautica. On the whole, I'm pretty happy with the new edition.

I love the fact that this is no longer paint by numbers 40k, 5th was alot more tourny friendly and this edition is a massive swing in the right direction, I have seen more variation in forces this edition than I did in almost the entire 5th edition, there are still cookie cutter lists out there, but it's not as prevalent as 5th

Best edition of 40k yet. Seriously. Most people I meet in RL while playing agree. People with pet armies always love/hate a new edition, but as I'm fairly well invested in 7 of them, it's easier to see it for what it is. Best edition ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I started playing in the RT days.

I like 6th in general, but I get the sense they felt the need to throw out a few babies with the 5th edition bathwater, just to avoid griping that 6th edition didn't warrant a whole new edition update.

In particular, I think the assault and vehicle rules would work better using a modified 5th edition set incorporating a few of 6th editions ideas.

I am definitely enjoying 6th more the 5th. There are still a number of glaring flaws with 6th, foremost the rather sloppy implementation of fliers, but overall a think it is better. Better rules for things like wound allocation, vehicles, cover saves and reserves results in a stronger game. If it were up to me, my ideal version of 40k would probably be some combination of 4th and 6th edition.

5th edition will also always carry the stigma of being the Imperium edition. In my opinion it was a edition that for the majority of its run, was dominated by power creeped Imperium codices (see IG, SW, BA, GK) curb stomping other codices. I for one will not be sorry to see the 5th edition meta go.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I'm a competitive/serious player, by your categories, and I like it a lot.

There are a few fiddly bits and remaining imbalances (particularly the flyer disparity), but overall it's been a huge refreshment of excitement about the game. Tons of new things to learn, a totally mixed up and refreshed metagame with old tropes and concepts tossed on their heads, learning new good combinations and ways to use your codex, to use allies, etc.

This is pretty much how I feel. It's really refreshing, seeing such a wide spread of armies, and army builds. The game is a lot more enjoyable, and I like most of the new missions.

Overall, 6th is a wonderful step in the right direction.

 kronk wrote:
Although I don't like the terrain deployment rules, I like 6th edition much more than 5th edition.

I'm with Kronk. House rules solved this however and in tourneys terrain is preset.

However, after sixty 6th edition games and even after taking the last month off playing I can add I like 6th better than 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th.

I like it more then 4th/5th to be certain, there's some things I find wonky and believe should be changed, but overall I'm quite enjoying it. (Aside from gripes with individual codex aside)

I have only ever played 40k against my girlfriend and we're both completely new at it so still getting to grips. 6th is the only edition I've ever known!

I love playing though but I have to say... the random charge distance thing makes zero sense...

I can see rolling for charge success/fail after overwatch is resolved making sense but once you either succeed or fail then the move distance should be set.

From a fluff perspective its like one army stands up and yells their battle cries. The enemy freaks out and lets loose and either does enough damage to stop the charge or not. Once that happens though, it doesn't make sense for the chargers not to be able to reach them.... otherwise why bother charging in the first place? O.o

From my experiences it takes me (on the average) 15 more minutes to play a 1500 point game in 6th ED so when I do game it is in that range or lower. Time is a precious commodity. Games over 1500 points take longer to play. I don't have time to deal with that aspect anymore.

It's good enough to bring me back after the abortion that has been 40k since 2nd Ed.

for the most part i like it.

the main thing i dislike is armies like orks need 5s and 6s or they do NOTHING, while pretty much every other army thats been even remotely updated (all MEQs, Necrons, or Nids) do moderate with any dice (even rules to prevent that 1 always fail rule such as preferred enemy etc) and have a MASSIVE impact if they actually roll a 6.

Its 6s to win right now. Yea, technically its always been that way if you look at it, but now theres oodles of special events on a 6 that just make you do stupid amounts of damage or cause some debuff that screw your target over.

I also would like to see all nightfighting specific rules be a set tactic not a given. No idea how pissed off i was when i was going against an IG tank line and nightfighting hit - oh btw all guard tanks have Headlights for 1 pt which negates nightfighting. Really....?

Barring those things, though, i still have fun playing and look forward to it often. Im a board game fanatic and this is basically a glorified board game. They do need to update ALL the rules a bit more often though.....

Lanrak wrote:


B) Good idea , bad implementation.
The AP system.
There used to be armour save modifiers , Str 4-1,Str5-2 Str6 -3 etc.
The studio wanted to move away from save mods , as it was 'very WHFB'.Fair enough lots of other ways to do this...

BUT instead of simply saying the AP value negates the saving roll of the same or higher value.
AP5 ignores saving rolls of 5 or 6.(Dice are not counted.)So a SM with 3+ save only saves on 3,and 4 against an AP 5 weapon .(Any rolls of 5 or 6 are ignored.)

This gives simple proportional results, with being simpler than armour save mods, and without the efficiency cliff the AP system they used.

I actually don't mind the AP system for the following reasons...

AP makes sense in this context - a projectile either pierces armor or it is stopped dead and all of its energy is expended on the surface wherein you basically get a nasty bruise. That's also the way that tank armor works - you either get embedded in the armor plate and nothing happens to the interior, or you pierce the armor plate completely and detonate a small HE tip inside the vehicle or bounce around inside, causing havoc.

In infantry combat, this system is represented by the S-AP values. Strength is the damage a projectile causes - for instance a bolter round, or an exploding bolt, causes massive damage to the soft guts of a target. However it isn't penetrating power armor because it's probably low velocity. Hence S4 (e.g. equal to SM Toughness), AP5.

The system actually breaks down against vehicles where the strength is required in order to damage the vehicle - that doesn't really make sense. Penetration is all about raw kinetic energy and damage caused is about tissue deformation. Perfect example of this is the AP and HE shells that all tanks typically carry. HE causes massive damage to soft targets, e.g. high strength, but can't penetrate tank armor, e.g. high strength high AP. AP shells cause limited damage to soft targets (like the interior of a tank), but go straight through anything, including tank armor, e.g. low strength low AP. I would like to see this mentality guide the 40k system, but the way they've designed it is actually a pretty smart way of barricading heavy armor and the high vs low strength ranges in the way the wargear is designed sort of approx this result anyway.

I also think hull points are dumb for that reason. If something is glancing, it's doing nothing to the interior of the tank - go ask the German panzer commanders with their "door knocker" 37mm AP rounds.

I also love for this reason the "efficiency cliff" (brilliant term btw) that you described. I think it creates opportunity cost which is so so so essential in making interesting lists about counterbalancing different objectives.

Granted, it doesn't need to approximate reality, but for some reason when it does it resonates with me and makes a certain degree greater intuitive sense. Maybe you disagree.

I am not a fan of 6th edition, though I'm undecided if I dislike it more than 5th. Mostly because of the gutting of assault and the fliers. I'm much preferred the Heretic edition

If I was wishlisting a 6.5 edition, I'd allow charging from disembarking as it was in 5th and change charges to 4" +d6. I'd also allow assault vehicles to launch charges when coming in from reserves. Other than that, I'm good.

I alternate between being a serious and casual player, by your definitions, and I've been playing since 3rd.

In general, I enjoy 6th edition 40k more than I enjoyed 4th/5th, but not as much as 3rd. I lean more towards being a casual gamer, at the moment, so that's where I'm coming from.

The things I enjoy:
- Allies: Yeah, there are some ridiculous combinations out there, but it can also be straight up fun. It's perfect for starting up a new army, and I've done so with some IG
- Vehicle Damage: I strongly disliked the vehicle damage charts for both 4th and 5th. I think Hull Points works out great in game play. Note that this is coming from a Space Wolf player who faces very little AV10 2HP vehicles, which I think are the ones that got the short end of the stick on that one.
- Overwatch: Hardly ever does anything, but at least it gets rid of one fluff argument that would occasionally surface about how full auto weapons should be able to shoot at people charging into melee.
- Pre-measuring: Loved it when they introduced it to Fantasy, love it in 6th. Gets rid of some shooting shinenagans that never made any sense.


The things I don't enjoy:
- Challenges: Don't like them. Feels like WHFB thrust into 40k. I love Fantasy (see my sig for how much I love Fantasy) but I prefer the two games to be distinct
- Pyschic: They really made this feel like magic. Like WHFB. Again, not what I want in a grimdark 40k setting.
- Warlord Traits: So, I take a Special Character, and get a DIFFERENT trait every time? What?! Don't like these charts at all.
- Fortifications being all Imperial: Missed opportunity here. Who wouldn't enjoy some Ork fortification rules? or Eldar? or Necron? Going all Imperial with them was a big mistake, and makes it feel "cheap" to take them as the Xenos have to go through a lot of conversion to make it match their army.
- Flyer implementation: Only hitting on 6s makes sense, but it's really rough. It's something that can be dealt with, but I don't enjoy how the rules all work (no suggestions, though)
- Taking casualties from the front: This makes sense, and is world's better than the wound allocation from 5th. I just don't like the fact that oftentimes your HQ, Seargant, or special weapon now has to hide like a coward behind the normal guys. I know it's a sensible rule, but I dislike the visual.

Wow, someone has the same idea as me. I say it should be, I move, you move. I shoot, you shoot and we both assault at the same time.

LotR does an actual great job in this. I can't see why not 40K doing this as well.

I played a few games and when it's my turn, the opponent is either on his cell phone, or talking with other people while I move my Nids. Where is the communication and comadere and the social aspect of this?

Also I HATE the random Assault rules. Also how come you can shoot twice? Once in your shooting phase and then you can shoot in assault with Overwatch AS WELL AS ASSAULT? It just makes shooting armies more stronger and Assaulty armies weaker for nothing except making SM and Necron players stronger.

While I love that Vehicles are weaker in 6th edition. I just HATED in 5th the ALL MIGHTY POWERFULL SPACE MARINES would hide in their vehicles and on the last turn finally come out, or not even come out to claim an objective.

Pretty sad, when I play a Parasit of Mortex and 4 broods of rippers and a few other units, (ones that you are not suppose to use) and almost win the game and loose because of last turn vehicle rush. No fun at all, so 6th makes it more fun to play against vehicles at least now.