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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill, because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.

Please, has anyone ever played a truly skill based variant of 40k? First you had Rogue Trader which really was narrative based with an actual GM, 2nd pretty much was the fun edition, because there sure was alotta crappy combo's that could screw everyone, third edition had some iffy rules for transports and vehicle strength, fourth had skimmerspam, fifth had far to powerful mech...

To put it lightly, there's never been true medium of skill involved, because each edition has changed where the skill level is at.

Ever ruined your enemy with smart deployment or perfect movement? That's skill I guess (I'm not saying list building only because this is one of those rare games when going efficient by the rules has pejorative acronyms attached), not saying that it can't happen in 6th but you have to roll a few more unreliable rolls in the process. I didn't say btw that they succeded at making the game like this

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day."

or this

"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck."

but at least it seemed they had a right direction. Now the direction is cinematic narrative laid back fun swirling craziness or other similar insults.

As for Rogue Trader, doesn't count imo, that was a different game made mostly to fit every miniature around, not really a coherent universe or a serious wargame (as indicated by GM) .

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

QFT! An Enema is still an Enema and the rule set stinks just as bad.

Some people are just into that, okay?

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill

Player skill is just as important as ever.

because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.

2000AD is boring. 40K is not.

Look, you don't like the background, you don't like the rules... why are you even here?

 RedAngel wrote:
Adaptation and thinking can not account for random variables because of the very nature of RANDOM

Don't be so disingenuous. If you fail to get into assault, so what?

Oh, I'm sorry, was it a game-winning assault? Well you know what? If it was a game winning assault and you didn't make it, you got outplayed. Pure and simple.

Because you have options. You can wait a turn: start your turn within 8" of the enemy and it's a guaranteed charge. Spend an extra turn inside your transport. Move multiple units into assault range, doubling your chance of succeeding. Use dedicated assault troops who can re-roll their charge distance dice. Or any combination of those things. If you can't do any of those things, your opponent has out-played you and forced you to make a gamble.

Gosh, it's almost like you have to anticipate the likelihood of failure, the cost of failing, and allocate your resources accordingly. What madness is that!

 AngryMarine wrote:
I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.

This man speaks the truth!

For the record, Infinity is tops!

 Lady_Canoness wrote:

 AngryMarine wrote:
I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.

This man speaks the truth!

For the record, Infinity is tops!

 Kaldor wrote:


Don't be so disingenuous. If you fail to get into assault, so what?

Oh, I'm sorry, was it a game-winning assault? Well you know what? If it was a game winning assault and you didn't make it, you got outplayed. Pure and simple.

Because you have options. You can wait a turn: start your turn within 8" of the enemy and it's a guaranteed charge. Spend an extra turn inside your transport. Move multiple units into assault range, doubling your chance of succeeding. Use dedicated assault troops who can re-roll their charge distance dice. Or any combination of those things. If you can't do any of those things, your opponent has out-played you and forced you to make a gamble.

Gosh, it's almost like you have to anticipate the likelihood of failure, the cost of failing, and allocate your resources accordingly. What madness is that!

If you really stand by those words... then you clearly haven't seen a squad of howling banshees minced by a failed charge, clearly haven't seen a dread eat a melta-gun from point blank, clearly haven't had an entire genestealer squad wiped off the table with flamers, and clearly been in command when a wave of Khorne Berzerkers hits hits home and murders 20+ guys. If you had, you wouldn't say you were outplayed - because getting those units into the 6" range last editions already took more skill than lining up your marines in your deployment zone and shooting every turn. And dare we forget the gamble of shooting??... Oh wait... there isn't one! Good thing game winning shooting phases can't screw up that badly: "Esteemed Fire Dragon squad, slayers of titans and melters of faces, this turn your melta guns actually shoot water. Have fun getting killed next round, sincerely - the Farseer who got even better in this edition. p.s. I spent my two psychic charges trying to get the rock out of my shoe instead of on Guide."

 Kaldor wrote:


Oh, I'm sorry, was it a game-winning assault? Well you know what? If it was a game winning assault and you didn't make it, you got outplayed. Pure and simple.

If it was a game winning assault and he DID make it, would your argue that his opponent got outplayed?

If you wouldn't, then you're not being objective. If you would, then 40k only becomes a real game the moment the last dice roll that matters is rolled.

I've seen the latter of the two conditions occur far too often.

 Lady_Canoness wrote:
If you really stand by those words... then you clearly haven't seen a squad of howling banshees minced by a failed charge, clearly haven't seen a dread eat a melta-gun from point blank, clearly haven't had an entire genestealer squad wiped off the table with flamers, and clearly been in command when a wave of Khorne Berzerkers hits hits home and murders 20+ guys. If you had, you wouldn't say you were outplayed - because getting those units into the 6" range last editions already took more skill than lining up your marines in your deployment zone and shooting every turn. And dare we forget the gamble of shooting??... Oh wait... there isn't one! Good thing game winning shooting phases can't screw up that badly: "Esteemed Fire Dragon squad, slayers of titans and melters of faces, this turn your melta guns actually shoot water. Have fun getting killed next round, sincerely - the Farseer who got even better in this edition. p.s. I spent my two psychic charges trying to get the rock out of my shoe instead of on Guide."

No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.

You know what, I had a good time anyways.

I have to point out the obvious which has been pointed out before by many other posters.
All this grumbling about random charge distance. Many charges in 5th ed occured through terrain, therefore you were only charging up to 6" to your target and often less because you had to roll for difficult terrain. AND it was not an assured 6". Now you charge 2d6 inches and if you happen to have a USR that modifies charge, you have a much greater likelyhood of making a charge at a distance of over 6". I also think that this adds an element of tension to the game. Because you are not sure if you are going to make the charge each charge roll (same as charging into cover) is something that you sort of hold your breath for.



Just saying.

 daedalus wrote:
If it was a game winning assault and he DID make it, would your argue that his opponent got outplayed?

If you wouldn't, then you're not being objective. If you would, then 40k only becomes a real game the moment the last dice roll that matters is rolled.

I've seen the latter of the two conditions occur far too often.

It all depends on the way the game has panned out, but generally if you've forced your opponent to make a gamble, it's been a pretty even game.

A game I had a couple of weeks ago, I made a mistake and my Paladins with Librarian get left out in the open, slowly getting gunned down. It was only a matter of time before they were destroyed.

But it didn't matter, because I'd already crippled the enemies ability to win the scenario. If a game comes down to that single, final roll it generally means that both players have been evenly matched throughout the game. If you can't guarantee that game winning charge, it's either because you suck, or your opponent hasn't let you. He's outplayed you.

 RedAngel wrote:
"You'll never know if your in range" - you mean like in 5th Ed when you could not pre-measure range and you had to guess........

Ive been playing 40k since it was a colated stack of photocopied articles cut out of white dwarf issues. Guessing range doesnt bother me. I was there when people cheated by laying there forearms across the table was invented, for puposes of guessing range on Guess weapons. If you cant figure out if your in rapid fire range or not, youve got bigger problems. My statement was hyperbole.

Random charge movement?" As above.

Now the crux of it. I dont NEED to measure. I DO NOT fail charges because I cant figure out what 6" is. The failure to charge is based on a random, nonsense roll that determines whether or not I can even get into combat.

I have been playing about the same amount of time.............all editions etc etc -

Guessing range is a pain and completely unneccasary - some people just cheat as you say - which is not something thats really a part of the game we want to promote I think?

Wow for you you don;t need to measure - some poor mortals do and now they can at least base thier tactics around this............I had several charges last night with my DE - the first was at 2" so auto got it - my Incubi having polished off his assault squad risked a 8" charge and failed and got promptely hosed down - fair enough - no issues for me and it all seemed like fun. Previous editions failures to charge we based on a NONSENSE " can you guess the distance" between two figures........

There are def issues with some aspects of 6th Ed - but so far for me there are no more than there was with previous editions and it has a good reception at our club......

 Anpu42 wrote:

No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.

You know what, I had a good time anyways.

It sounds as if you are one of those lucky people who rolls with changes no matter how different they are, because hey, why not?

Me, not so much. Its like when I expect to eat a steak and end up getting steak flavoured tofu. I'm not cool with that, nor would I be cool with a game like yours being won or lost based on a single roll on a rule that is already a head-scratcher.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill

Player skill is just as important as ever.

It's impact is more prone to being negated by bad rolls than earlier imo. Sky has not fallen but bad direction.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.

2000AD is boring. 40K is not.

Look, you don't like the background, you don't like the rules... why are you even here?

People provided historical arguments trying to prove 40k was not meant to be competitive, I just posted a historical argument why the background/ narrative side is imo overrated a lot, great but not enough to excuse a lazy ruleset.

Really, I love the background, I can only play 40k and historical/ modern realistic wargames, if 40k fails me on rules or fluff I'll switch to realistic wargames and forget about sf tabletops instantly. I grew on 40k and WHFB and reject everything else, you can even call me a kind of twisted fanboy. I prefer 40k over 2000AD as well, although wouldn't say the latter is boring. What I meant was that for a deep story there are books movies etc, if you go as deep with 40k tabletop story - wise then you should rather play an rpg session imo. 40k is beautifuly simple only war world and a perfect background for a wargame, in the end though it's the game itself that matters most. Fire warrior took place in 40k universe but a game was mediocore at best and failed, we're talking about certain medium (wargame) where the background is very very important but it is still the system and gameplay that decides the game quality. I for example don't need to forge a narrative over a table of 40k to be strongly immersed in the game mood-wise when I'm having a good game, on the other hand no ammount of made up stories can hinder the fact that, let's say, we created a table favorising one side almost to the point of an auto win. I need good fluff and good rules to play and 6th edition was close to fail me on rules departent. A few more steps in that direction and I'm out.

As far as rules go, there's that problem, some of them are imo great. I like less abstract wound alocation, hull points, 3+ reserves, terrain rules, top of my head. Some of those are controversial but I like the fact that for example destroying the vehicle is now more predictable, or that wound allocation makes formations matter, or that reserves are less wild. There is potential for greatness in 6th, and then you see warlord traits, night fighting, mysterious everything and the icing on the fish cake, random charge. Seeing how much it's a wasted opportunity for a good ruleset is sad,iIt's like few people with different ideas for the game wrote it.

The 5th edition, flawed as it was, had sparks of brilliance on the table. I'm certain that 6th will have some of those as well and I'm going to play one edition or another. Doesn't change the fact that 6th edition is dissapointment for me epecialy compared to what they are capable of with their resources, assuming the right mindset. Also, I hate the fact that choosing between 5th and 6th is so hard not because that good but because of their heavy flaws. So, what I'm doing here is writing what I think, why, because it's 40k discussion forum and I have a strong opinion about and kind of a bond with it.

I like 6th, it's something new and falls right in line with GW's changing things up to sell more miniatures kinda thing. This time it's flyers I think.

I like what's been done with Psionics.

There is certainly a whiff of Fantasy 8th here, but the similarity stops well short.

I play Nillarines so I'm happy.

Only thing that is bollocks is the random charge range. I had a friend roll a 1,2 when he needed a 4 to get into combat...

1 in 100 users of dakka has voted on this thread. That may not sound like a lot but to someone familiar with statistics that number is pretty impressive. The more votes we get the greater the accuracy of the poll.

Thanks dakka for voting.

Yes the number is solid, errors do not fix themselves with larger sample though.

 Anpu42 wrote:
No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.

You know what, I had a good time anyways.

Wait till you opponent gets "Psychaksdjbaksjdbaksj Hive" at first turn, before you manage to cast a Fortune and most of your Warlocks/Shadowseers are gone. Fun times.
I know I got "outplayed" because I have an Eldar army. Next time I'll fix my tactical mistake and buy some other miniatures.

So far not thrilled about 6th like I hoped I would be.

 Macok wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
No, but I lost a game to a failed 3" Assualt by My Assualt Marines and his Orks Pulling off a 10" Assualt vs my Sternguard.

You know what, I had a good time anyways.

Wait till you opponent gets "Psychaksdjbaksjdbaksj Hive" at first turn, before you manage to cast a Fortune and most of your Warlocks/Shadowseers are gone. Fun times.
I know I got "outplayed" because I have an Eldar army. Next time I'll fix my tactical mistake and buy some other miniatures.

So far not thrilled about 6th like I hoped I would be.

I've always viewed Archeotech Lands as more "fun" lands, not exactly a common army, but at the same time it's not a "Required" Terrain. You'd need just hills, rivers, and forests normally.

Of course if for some reason you two place that Archeotech right in the enemies deployment zone rather than somewhere other then the middle, both of you deserve whatever it rolls.

I have played 3 games so far and am currently doing league play at my FLGS with 6th edition rules and it is actually pretty fun as compared to 5th thus far. I think Games Workshop said they wanted to make the game more cinematic and epic and therefore fun and in my opinion they hit the nail on the head. But I do agree that pre measuring is a bit lame because it takes the guessing out of the game.

I think overall the game has taken a radical new direction, a good direction for the game to go in too, however for me it's not a very challenging game any more, simply put its most and biggest guns tends to win, with battles becoming slightly more static than previous editions. The exceptions are of course assault focused armies which do a lot of moving and little shooting (and a lot of model removal as well), this lead me to quit the game as its looks, imo, like it's heading towards static battlefields with flyers being the only movers...

EDIT: In a vacuum... 10 assault marines 48'' away from 10 Tactical marines with 30pts to spend on wargear, who would you put your money on?

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:
I think overall the game has taken a radical new direction, a good direction for the game to go in too, however for me it's not a very challenging game any more, simply put its most and biggest guns tends to win, with battles becoming slightly more static than previous editions. The exceptions are of course assault focused armies which do a lot of moving and little shooting (and a lot of model removal as well), this lead me to quit the game as its looks, imo, like it's heading towards static battlefields with flyers being the only movers...

EDIT: In a vacuum... 10 assault marines 48'' away from 10 Tactical marines with 30pts to spend on wargear, who would you put your money on?

Well the couple of games we have and there has been a lot of maneuvering going on. I had a Dreadknight, Assault his way across the table one game. Even when I pulled out my Gunline Space Wolves we did a lot of maneuvering.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Depends on the Terrain

Well as you say its largely based on terrain, and as people can take terrain as options now its going to lean in the direction of defensible terrain, objectives also have a rather large effect on movement as well, in the games I played it was pretty clear that rather than running up to midfield to grab an objective it was far easier to just shoot the enemy off their objectives in their deployment zone whilst sitting on your own and just dropping a tank in front of it to become a wreck and block LOS to it...

Fafnir 46 wrote: Don't get too excited. Once players settle down and get over the shock of how vehicles take damage, metal bawxes and their close cousins, flying metal bawxes, will be just as prevalent and powerful as before, if not, even moreso than in fifth.

Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.

Oh, and don't forget stationary metal bawxes. Those will be pretty damn popular too. Really, anyone who thinks that 6th was the end to mechhammer was dead wrong.

Oh, I have no problem with MechHammer. I love tanks and flyers and artillery. They're cool and have a great anesthetic.

What I don't like are the endless amount of troop transports. In 5th edition every list was like 50% troop transports. Your units were hiding in troop transports for half the freakin game. Extremely boring and dull.

I've got mixed feelings about 6th ed. Normally during big game changing releases that affect everyone I don't see it as a buff or a nerf instead just look at it as something different that must be adapted to. Having said that my Orks that I love to death have been shelved since 6th ed released and don't look like they're coming out any time soon.

Removing casulties from the front, challenges, changes to fleet, overwatch, cover saves, random charges, everything that changed just seemed to negatively impact orks. I'm also really glad that I didn't buy that Snikrot kommando squad that I was really liking the look of.

Meanwhile my SoB which are certainly not the greatest army in 40k have only lost 2 games out of the dozen or so that I've played in in 6th ed so far. To be honest though, I'm not exactly complaing about my SoB getting stronger.

Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:more cinematic and epic and therefore fun.

Okay, I need to step in and address something. regardless of whether GW is actually pulling "cinematic" off with 6th edition or not, cinematic does not automaticaly equate to "fun."

For example, and I'll make use of something that is actually "cinematic," my absolute favourite film, Control, by Directed by Anton Corbijn, is a cinematic masterpiece. That said, it's not a fun movie in any respect.

BlaxicanX wrote:

Fafnir 46 wrote: Don't get too excited. Once players settle down and get over the shock of how vehicles take damage, metal bawxes and their close cousins, flying metal bawxes, will be just as prevalent and powerful as before, if not, even moreso than in fifth.

Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.

Oh, and don't forget stationary metal bawxes. Those will be pretty damn popular too. Really, anyone who thinks that 6th was the end to mechhammer was dead wrong.

Oh, I have no problem with MechHammer. I love tanks and flyers and artillery. They're cool and have a great anesthetic.

What I don't like are the endless amount of troop transports. In 5th edition every list was like 50% troop transports. Your units were hiding in troop transports for half the freakin game. Extremely boring and dull.

Which is exactly what 6th edition will be like. Shooty troop units hiding in transports/buildings/fliers and plinking away at one another all game.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes the number is solid, errors do not fix themselves with larger sample though.

I realize that nothing i write or site will change your opinion and that you would likely argue yourself blue in the face that the poll numbers are wrong, even if the poll reached 60,000 people (unless of course the results reflect the way you feel about the game). So how about you use your superior knowledge of statistics to construct another poll that lacks the errors and flaws that you feel this one has.

Dont waste your time sennacherib.

In truth Plumbob is right about one thing. The accuracy of internet polls is not perfect. But if he thinks a larger sample size does not matter with statistics, then he cant know much about how stats works. Dont ask for his help either. ITs way easier to complain and grumble than it is to do something constructive.

 Madcat87 wrote:
I've got mixed feelings about 6th ed. Normally during big game changing releases that affect everyone I don't see it as a buff or a nerf instead just look at it as something different that must be adapted to. Having said that my Orks that I love to death have been shelved since 6th ed released and don't look like they're coming out any time soon.

Removing casulties from the front, challenges, changes to fleet, overwatch, cover saves, random charges, everything that changed just seemed to negatively impact orks. I'm also really glad that I didn't buy that Snikrot kommando squad that I was really liking the look of.
.

I didn't think that Orks did that badly - Lootas being able to both shoot and move and overwatch? Ork mobs being able to overwatch? Dakka jets etc - its not all good but some things seem helpful to Da Boyz? FNP also not too bad for Mad Doc and his mates?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Madcat87 wrote:
I've got mixed feelings about 6th ed. Normally during big game changing releases that affect everyone I don't see it as a buff or a nerf instead just look at it as something different that must be adapted to. Having said that my Orks that I love to death have been shelved since 6th ed released and don't look like they're coming out any time soon.

Removing casulties from the front, challenges, changes to fleet, overwatch, cover saves, random charges, everything that changed just seemed to negatively impact orks. I'm also really glad that I didn't buy that Snikrot kommando squad that I was really liking the look of.
.

I didn't think that Orks did that badly - Lootas being able to both shoot and move and overwatch? Ork mobs being able to overwatch? Dakka jets etc - its not all good but some things seem helpful to Da Boyz? FNP also not too bad for Mad Doc and his mates?

Ork bikers are good again as well, considering that orks do well in challenges, overwatch as well, and cover saves are the same as they were in 4th and orks did well there (As well as when vehicles were squishier too). The major thing that hurt is the gimmick kommado lists. Orks also gained the ability to hit vehicles reliably in melee (This was horrible in 5th!) , tankbusters are now more useful, flash gitz have an actual improvement (still one of the bad things, but hey it's usable now at least)