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.

I loved reading all of this. Great to hear different opinions on the same points. Keep em coming!

I'm a mostly casual player, with some tournament play.

I like 6th. While I wouldn't say its better or worse than 5th, its definitely different. I like the addition of flyers, however I think their implementation was poor. They are far too powerful. I wish they had given flyers something similar to grounding tests for FMCs. They are just too hard to kill.

I'm not a fan of how power weapons were nerfed, getting AP2 close combat weapons is far too hard now.

I do like the addition of hull points. Vehicles are now killable, and give opponents multiple angles for vehicle destruction. People can now go either lascannon or autocannon spam, both of which have advantages. Vehicles are still survivable but not impenetrable.

I also liked the change to wound allocation, it actually makes sense now. Challenges though are awful. They destroy the idea of having a powerfully armed character. In a fairly matched fight (say terminator verse Nob) it makes sense, and they will cancel each other out and its going to come down to the dice. However, in an unfair fight, it gives the weaker side way too much power. He can declare a challenge; if the opponent refuses, they loose their combat monster. If they accept, the sarge takes a powerfist to the face and saves the rest of the squad. Its just too unbalanced.

I also think their are too many special rules. I'm finding it really hard to remember them all. Things like soul blaze and fear are just a little too complicated.

Overall, I really like 6th. I think for the most part it is more practically set up, so things work how the real world would, as opposed to how it sorta works on paper.

So, I really don't get people who are complaining about things that have been true about 40k for a long time now. 6th ed didn't introduce the Ap system, for example.

Anyways, I both like and dislike 6th edition. On the one hand, I ran a horde CC army in 5th ed, and hordes, and ESPECIALLY close combat got pretty boned by 6th ed. Yes, I understand that they got rid of some of their silly rules, but the silly CC rules were the only way that CC was viable. It feels like they cleaned up the non-intuitive rules and replaced them with clear, intuitive ones, but then they didn't re-design the game so that you could still play a close combat army.

That and now there isn't all that much point to running a horde army if you really want to win. Changes to cover save and wound allocation rules really hurt horde armies, and a slough of other rules including the inability to hide weapons anymore only make things worse. You basically can't attack anymore with a horde army, as any amount of movement out into the open = dead troops, nothing more. Meanwhile, mech got dinged by hull points, but their transports got faster, and nothing can be stun locked anymore. A net gain, really.

So what I don't like is that the push towards elite, mech armies in 5th has gone even further towards elite, mech armies. They could really stand to pull that back a bit in 6th ed.

All that said, there are things that I like about 6th ed. If you ignore some of the really stupid optional rules (like mysterious terrain, for one), the rules set is generally tighter, and does make more intuitive sense. You can only shoot the guys you can see and are in range. You kill the guys in front before you kill the guys in the back. Guys in transports move faster than guys on foot. Heavy tanks are actually more difficult to neutralize than lighter vehicles. Etc.

The fact that, after cleaning up their rules, they forgot to re-balance them doesn't detract from the fact that they still made the rules cleaner.

And I like the new missions better than the old ones.

Im a casual player and am currently tryingto decide which Chaos Legion to build a force of (will most likely be black legion tho tbf). However there are a few things which tick me off with the 6th ed and the chaos codex in general
No legion rules Waaaa da fuqqqqqq
Daemon not granting Eternal Warrior wdf why didnt thye just take the DAEMONIC rule from the Daemons book and put it into the rulebook
Pre measuring I dont really like as it now means your opponent will know exactly how far away you are at a given time.
Hull points this pretty much put the nail in the coffin for a Dark Eldar army I was gonna do. This along with hull points made sure I didnt start them

Pretty poor ruleset. Where 5th had bad balance between codexes, 6th made it even worse. The bad codexes got worse (eldar, nids to an extent, tau) where the good codexes got better (Crons, IG). The inclusion of fliers simply made the haves that much more powerful over the have-nots.
Overwatch made shooty more powerful and nerfing furious charge and adding challenges made assault even worse and unnecessarily complicated. 5th was a shooty edition. 6th is EVEN MORE of a shooty edition. Why? still not sure. Wound allocation is MUCH better, but LOS can really slow combat down. Especially with multiple squads with multiple ICs/characters.
Hull points are great and damage chart changes are a huge plus. However, vehicle assaults are now silly easy, especually on things like turbo skimmers. Should hit on 4s for skimmers and 5s for turbo vehicles. Silly that you can make full attacks on a vehicle moving past you that fast.
Fortifications are OK and are actually a decent addition to the game. However the gun emplacement/emplaced gun rules really needed to be cleaned up.

Overall, id rather play 5th again. 5th was bad, but 6th causes a whole lot more problems that didnt need to be there. GW really needs to re-examine where they want the game to be going. Id rather see a more assaulty edition than a shooty one. Makes lists more varied generally and less of gunline shooting, which just is boring. Id rather see a massive 100+ model brawl between a dozen units than two gunlines poking each other from behind aegis lines.

There are things I like about 6th edition and things I don't like:

Likes:
Random charge distance
Mysterious terrain, relics, and objectives
Hull points
Deny the witch
Dawn of War(how I hated the old one)
Big Guns never tire
Allies
Double force org in 2k+ games
Carnivorous forests with an explosive objective inside(and enemy models on it)
Challenges
No more taking extra wounds if you lose CC and are fearless

Dislikes:
psychic hoods
Vanguard strike
The Relic

I've been playing since 1st ed.
This one is my favourite one yet.
I like the flyers.
I think some codecies need to play catch up, and it'll be more balanced once we get some of the old 4th ed codecies updated.
My Orks were hit quite hard, but my Necrons took a buff.
It balances out for me.

I only started in 6th Edition, so my knowledge of older editions is very limited.

But as for 6th, some things that I indeed dislike.

Very much gimped close combat armies. While overwatch sort of makes sense, when you combine it with the very limited assault amount vehicles playing a CC army becomes a pain in the rear. Doubly so with the random assault range.

Vehicles end up being a tad too weak in my opinion, especially the likes of the Land Raider. They just don't feel worth 250+ points anymore when they seem to die so fast. From what I've heard they were too powerful in 5th, but some sort of middle ground would've been nice.

Some folks have brought up the turn system. Yeah, I'm not that big of a fan of the 40k system in that sense, though it's not a new thing in 6th Ed to my knowledge. But something like what BattleTech had was just so much fairer, you didn't have one guy decimating the other before he even had a chance to shoot back!

Flyers. They would be fine if everyone got updated at the same time as the new edition came, but now it was handled so poorly. Introducing a unit type that not everyone has and thus have no defense against was a bad idea.

Warlord traits are so random, you can get something ok-ish, something great or something utterly useless, which is no fun in the end.

A big thing that I like over what I know of 5th is pre-measuring. I SUCK at guessing ranges. Allies are a nice addition too, and adds variety. The wound allocation is also more sensible, although multi-wound models in close combat still present a bit of a problem because technically now you'd have to roll a lot of models separately when facing such a unit, because the opposing player will say that that guy over there can't hit this guy because he's closer to that guy, and so forth. Bleh!

I'm sure there are more things in both categories, but can't think of 'em rightn ow.

Made vehicles unplayable, nerfed psychic powers to be a spin the wheel gimmick, made assaults useless, added unneeded complexity to the wound system, added a rampantly overpowered unit to the game with no solutions, and basically showed that they don't care about any armies but imperial ones. Theres nothing to like here.

I think most people like the idea of the 'intended game play ' of 6th ed.(Looks and sounds cool)

But the 6th ed 40k rules get in the way of the game , rather than let players get on with it .

Good rule sets say 'this is how you play the game..(Well defined instructions on how to play.)
This is how players interact.
This is how units move.
This is how units shoot.
This is how units fight close combat .
This is how morale and leadership work.

40k says...
This is how players interact using standard infantry units.
This is how standard infantry units move.
This is how standard infantry units shoot.(And move if you want to run.)
This is how standard infantry units fight close combat.(move again and fight a round of close combat.)

And here are pages and pages of complicated exceptions of how all the other units move shoot and fight close combat , as they are not covered by the core rules because they were written for a different game...
So we have not got any room for decent morale and leadership system ....

I like it. What I like.

1. Hull points on vehicles.
2. Allies
3. Wounds from the front
4. Change to FnP

What I dislike

1. Look out sir
2. Fortifications
3. Fliers being insane dominant.
4. FAQ each month

 martin74 wrote:

4. FAQ each month

Love hate relationship right here. I like that GW are giving some minuscule form of support for 6th, that's good, but it's sad because they really should have gotten a lot of this right the first time around (after 6 tries, you think they would have cleared up a lot of the basic rules. But of course they have to keep changing it...) When I pay $75 for a rule-book, I want it to feel like it was well written. Just having 2/3's of the book being fluff and hobby stuff doesn't cut it. I can pay $30 and get a better written rule-set, and quite frankly a better written story, from a different rule-set. Heh, a lot of better rules are FREE. Not to say that a lot of GW rules are absolutely terrible, a lot of the basic systems (like moving and shooting) are pretty nailed down, but they change a lot of stuff each edition. I understand if this was like, 3rd or 2nd edition where they might still be trying to get something that works well, but this is 6th.

Anyway, ranting over. I agree with the points above, although I think the dominant fliers will blow over once armies start getting more Anti-Flier abilities. I also don't really like the nerfs to Assault based armies, but that's whatever to me since I play a shooty heavy army

Also, Look out sir makes a bit of sense but not to all armies. Armies like the IG, Orks, and SM's I can see it happening but I don't feel like Necrons or even Tau would be able to dive in front of/get thrown in front of their leaders to save the leaders life. Not saying they couldn't, but I can't seem to understand how a Necron is fast enough to dive in front of an IC or how the IC would just freely throw the warrior in front of him (like an Ork would)

I have yet to play a game of 6th and haven't played since the 2nd or 3rd - yes it's been that long - but reading the rulebook and posts and seeing the battle reports there's a couple of items I can already tell will be the bane of gameplay:

1) Fliers, orbital nukes, massive air anything. (Skimmers, hovers, jump wings are all fine) but everything else reeks of extreme cheese. The only reason I don't think they've included any type of major bombardment is because even GW realizes making off board mandatory models is a hard sell.

2) Fortresses/fortifications that can be bought. If the scenario is random along with the scenery so should any emplacements be random.

Alas tho we know that GW just wants to do one thing foremost....sell sell sell. It's almost turning into a he/she with the largest bank account/budget shall win........

If they would just realize that a larger audience could be had with more players, if it was affordable enough for everyone to have 2 or 3 armies. Not to mention it may limit the resell market, as more folks would hang onto more items.

washout77 wrote:Love hate relationship right here.

Hmm... I've got to agree.

As annoying as constant patching is, I'd rather have GW at least attempting to fix things and provide clarification rather than letting things sit unresolved for years as has been their traditional way of doing business.

Likes:

New psy power options
Fortifications
Play flows better
It is the future assault should be a little harder
Missions

Dislikes:

Tryanids don't get allies and can't man guns. Why all the hate?
Fliers - Either give them to everyone or no one or give everyone an anti fly option
Going 1st still a huge advantage. Give the 2nd turn player re-rolls or something

 Shadelkan wrote:
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).

*snip*

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

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/505518.page
Maybe check in the proposed rule forum on your next search.

Now seriously, doubt things will get outta hand.

As to my thoughts. 6th ed gets an overall failing grade from me. And I had high hopes for it. Seems like this is going to be the edition that really favors my Tau yet I am mostly dropping this edition.
My reasons:

Fliers- an obvious ploy to wring more money out of the playerbase with little care for what it did to the game. Not talking about faction balance, I'm talking about something intrduced with such a poor base concept and execution that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. For a game that is "cinematic" this is the worst possible sin. Whenever A flier hits the board, I immediately become aware that that I'm playing a game. I know that I'm playing a game all along but once your into a game, you should be able to have fun without having an, "oh yeah, I'm playing a game that has this stupidity in it".

Fliers should be allowed only one full turn on the board. At the end of the 2nd turn the fliers should have to:
a)Leave the board
or
b)enter hover mode if it has that abililty
or
c)suffer a stall result and roll to see if it recovers. Think the fliers should recover from stall on a 4+


Movement and Random charge length- A units movement & assault is supposed to be the total possible distance an infantry unit can move and then have things that modify it downwards. Its should not be a crapshoot of chance. I feel that 3" or 6" plus d6 assault would have been better.
What would have been best is being closer to the run rule but more like vehicles. Move 6"-12"(Any movement over 6" means no shooting. Assault 6" but with new modifiers. Defensive grenades reduce assault by d3" and difficult terrain becomes d6" assault. Pinning weapons should become some type of a movement modifier that reduces movement by 1" for each unsaved wound instead of just a flat pinned result.

Kill Points- Bring back Victory points. 'Nuff said

War Lord Traits were unnecessary and has not been well recieved by a large part of the community.

Hull Points-Just change the rule to when vehicle reaches 0 HP then glances are treated as AP6 penetrating hit and any penetrating hit is resolved with an additional +1 on the damage table.

Deployment- While better than before, There needs to be a points cap that forces units into reserve. This is because 40K is being played at a points level beyond the scale at which it was designed.


There is more but that is enough for now.

Later,
ff

Kill Points- Bring back Victory points. 'Nuff said

Victory points were even worse then Kill Points. I'm surprised you actually want that back.

Kinda curious why though, if you don't mind my asking.

Overall, not impressed.

The good:
* Flyers in standard games. Finally I can use my expensive aircraft models without having to convince people to use the really powerful Apocalypse rules.
* Vehicle HP. Finally things are a bit more predictable, no more constantly rolling 1s and never killing a vehicle, but at the same time no more "glance it once, move on to the next" turning gun tanks into paperweights all game.
* Dawn of War is gone. Finally I don't have to try to convince people to re-roll DoW results.
* Decent FAQs. Finally GW is taking things at least somewhat seriously instead of letting issues go for years at a time. They still need to improve a lot, but at least it's better than 5th.

The bad:
* "Forging a narrative" and "cinematic" as an excuse for bad game design. Sorry GW, it's not "cinematic", it's just stupid.
* Challenges. Everything about this is stupid. I don't care about "honor" or any of that nonsense, if you're stupid enough to try to fight a duel with my units I'm just going to stab you in the back. Except I can't because GW thinks everyone is a space marine hero.
* Wound allocation. Stupid, time consuming, and makes no sense at all (yes, of course we're all going to shoot the tank character up front instead of the melta gunner next to him). 5th addition had its exploits, but 6th is just so much worse.
* Random everything. Mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, mysterious psykers, mysterious warlords, etc. Too many random tables as a substitute for having interesting and balanced choices.
* Completely uneven flyer releases. Play IG/marines? Great, have some flyers and AA. Play Tau? Too bad.
* No more scoring or contesting with vehicles. I play a mech list. It's very fluffy. Now why the hell does a single grot on an objective claim it despite a Leman Russ sitting there aiming a demolisher cannon at it?
* Allies. It's bad for fluff, it's bad for game balance. It might have been a semi-decent idea in theory, but the execution is just awful.

Overall, I like the direction 6th edition seems to be headed in. I genuinely like the Dark Angels and Chaos codex and hope that the other armies follow the same format. With that said, I find myself liking and disliking a lot of the same things.

Likes:
+Fortifications; I love the idea of being able to purchase and use them, it adds a new dimension to list creation.
+Allies; Loads of stellar opportunities here that, much like the aforementioned fortifications add a new dimension to consider (both playing with, and against).
+Fliers; No longer Skimmers, they now enjoy their own unique rule set and bring a potent new force to games.

Dislikes:
-Fortifications; Not a lot of options here (4) and they are all emblazoned with Imperial icons. Hopefully we'll see more made available in wider ranges. I don't want filthy Xenos getting their grubby hands on my Imperial stuff, and I suspect they would much rather not have to use it either!
-Allies; Some combinations make perfect sense (Guard + Marines) while others raise an eyebrow, and still others just shouldn't exist (Grey Knights + ...anyone, really). Of course, this all just my personal opinion and while certain combinations vex me greatly, to someone else they might make perfect sense.
-Fliers; Horrid implementation that has caused several imbalances that will hopefully be corrected in time, but that could mean a matter of years as some fliers enjoy being far too strong while other remain unused by everyone.

Loathe:
Challenges, get this nonsense out of here. So as soon as Chaos Lord McBadcrush yells at Colonel Cardboardarmor, everyone around them involved in the scrum stops fighting and waits to see what the outcome is before deciding to fight or retreat? Yeah, I know, we shouldn't be talking about what does and does not make sense in a game filled with magic and space elves, but give me a break. Leave cinematic moments to the cinema.
Random charge distance, again, it's nonsense (yes, yes, magic and space elves). Overwatch is frankly enough to give defending armies a chance at doing something in return instead of standing around waiting patiently for the opponent to behead them. Failed charges are often crippling to the player trying to make an assault, while adding insult to injury if Overwatch was successful and for no apparent reason.

Hull points this pretty much put the nail in the coffin for a Dark Eldar army I was gonna do. This along with hull points made sure I didnt start them

oh really... did you play 5th ed? where in effect one glancing hit could screw you over... at least now hull points mean that DE can actually take a few shots once in a while and still hit back... [no offence intended]

on topic

regular casual/competitve player/been to a few tourneys (a mish mash of all of them how suprising... )

overall 6th improved things over 5th in several ways, which in my opinion made things go rather strange, but not all for the better:

1) hull points nerfed tanks etc in such a way as to not make them "auto takes" but didn't outright kill mech lists off either...

2) pre-measuring... come on lets face it it speeds the game up and stops petty arguments...

3) fliers, shoehorned into the game and rather messy- balancing needed here, lest we die of heldrake/vendetta spams from here till doomsday

4) assault, ok overwatch did nerf it, random charge distance as well... not that in my area assault actually takes place that often. Overall highly "iffy" if you ask me..

5) challenges- totally bonkers, yet awesomely broke/funny when one necron lord holds up 900 points of chaos for 4 turns!

6) still inconsistencies all over the darn place after all these years, invunerable save for vehicles etc

just my humble opinion...

I do not really see a point to having two force orgs at 2000 points,,,,sure you might get some extra cheese but at what cost,,,,both points wise and in tactical flexibllity.

Likes

New Vehicle Rules - Does a good job of putting an end of to the power of light vehicle spam without making vehicles completely worthless. The HP system ensures vehicles that get severely pummeled will be destroyed, while reducing the likelyhood a vehicle will succumb to a single lucky hit, making AT weapons perform more consistently. I also like the fast vehicles can now fire two weapons at full BS when moving at cruising speed.

New Wound Allocation Rules - No more complex wound allocation abuses! Its still strikes me as needlessly complicated and I think 4th edition wound allocation would be better, but its far preferable to the stupidity that was wound allocation in 5th edition, and the closest model removal rule creates a new set of positioning related tactics.

More Missions - More variety in games, and now only 1 in 6 missions use the awful Kill Point rules.

Better Deployment

Reduced Cover Saves - This was needed, universal 4+ saves got really old in 5th, and their was almost no point in bothering with AP values other than 1 and 2, because the best you were doing with AP 3 was reducing 3+ saves to 4+ saves. Focus fire is also nice option.

Terrain Deployment Rules - An interesting new addition to the games.

No Assaults out of Outflank/Opposite Table Edge - Good riddance to Boss Snikrot! I can't tell you how much I hated every Ork player taking Snikrot, and just resigning myself to the fact I was going to lose a unit because their was no way to keep all my models 12" (or 13-18" away if the Orkz use Waagh) from every table and from the rest of the approaching Ork army. I know assault has become unnecessarily difficult in this addition, but I still think moving units directly from reserves into assault had to go.

Pre-Measuring - Just makes everyone's life that much easier.


Dislikes

Flier Implementation - While an interesting option, fliers were implemented badly, with many armies lacking any kind of options to deal with them other than fortifications/allies/forgeworld, while other armies possess undercosted and overpowered fliers.

Random Charge Distance - Just seems to add unnecessary randomness to the game.

Needles Minutia - Their are a glut of needless and pointless rules that seem to waste time and don't really add much of anything to the game. Things like challenges, mysterious terrain and warlord traits really didn't need to be included a don't seem to add much to the game.


Ambivalent

Allies - Interesting idea, I have yet to find this either particularly game breaking or helpful.

Fortifications - Same as above.

 martin74 wrote:
I like it. What I like.

1. Hull points on vehicles.
2. Allies
3. Wounds from the front
4. Change to FnP

What I dislike

1. Look out sir
2. Fortifications
3. Fliers being insane dominant.
4. FAQ each month

This.

Although I'd add:

Dislikes: Random Assualt Range
Likes: Overwatch

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 really liking this edition. They have made significant,game changing FAQs 3 times now in less than one year of release. After playing a fearless IG blob squad with Prescience cast during the assault phase proved to be so clumsy, I refuse to play it again and cringe if my opponent brings one. I can't fathom GW possibly anticipated this as the mechanics slow the game down to a crawl.

Challenge rules are simply horrid and players quickly figured out how to game them.

Barrage sniping is silly and makes little sense.

Skyshield landing pad lack of rules makes it nearly unplayable in a pick up game.

Mysterious terrain is generally discarded locally as many players simply forget it during games.

Warlord traits randomness makes little sense.

Allies rules seem to be loosely based on fluff rather than game balance.

Ultimately, the game just seems it was not playtested very well and wait for players to voice there concerns to fix problems after the fact.

Don't like it much. It left many of the bad issues of 6th unadressed, while adding a lot of issues and fixes that felt forced or badly done. Many of the things that are bad, though, come froma lack of larger adjustment/consideration for the rest of the game.

The good:
-Allies: Good idea, poorly implemented. Could be fixed with about a half a page worth of patching.
-Wound allocation to the front/attacker determining shot resolution order: This is just plain good and changes the way people move and plan.
-Hull Points: Also makes sense, though it should have come with fixes to, say, Eldar Vehicles whose survivability relied -entirely- on being glanced etternally but rarely quite popped.
-Missions: More objective based and variable.
-Cover saves: Dropping the basic save to 5+ was a good thing, but when you add fortifications, the prevalence of stealth and other new gimmicks, the average cover save in the game may be better than it was in 5th overall.
-Dangeorus terrain allowing saves: Makes sense and made jump infantry and bikes far more fun to field.

The Bad:
-Psyker powers: Making them random encourages spamming, and the brutal gap in usefulness between disciplines adds further imbalance.
-Challenges: This is a dodgy mechanic that forces units to act stupid against your wishes.
-Assault uber-nerf: Not being able to assualt out of vehicles that did not move in the round killed Khorne armies, Banshee armies and even some BA builds. Add random charge length, overwatch, the ban on assaulting out of Outflanking, and melee became a ploy for terminators, orks and gaunt swarms.
- Warlord Table:Good idea, horribly implemented. Way too easy to roll a useless trait while your opponent gets a good one, with no skill or planning involved. Makes me wish they'd gone with something along the lines of the Strategy bidding from the 'leaked' beta.
-Random for its own sake: Warlord Traits, Psyker powers, mysterious objectives, random wound allocation, and then add on whatever other tables ar e in your codex (god help you if you're CSM). Only then will you actually know what you are playing with.
-Flyer implementation: Been brought up here already and it's true. Turned some armies into air-supremacy factions and others into mud-churning putzes unable to send a party baloon up, overnight.
-Random Wound allocation: Small peeve, but I love it how the book just sort of shrugs. "Here, allocate wounds from this attack somehow. Randomly. Rock-paper-scissors, maybe. We're busy."
-Imperial prevalence: It's a thing, but didn't have to be so much of a thing. All buildings are imperials. All imperial factions are best buds on the ally chart. Divination is for imperials (and Eldar, lest they fail too hard).
-Fluff stasis: Small thing, but it would have been fun to try and get some of the brains from BL as consultants to at least move the story a bit.
-Bad USRs: Fear, Furious Charge, Crusader are too weak/situational.

I play IG . I like 6th. I only wish they would roll d6 for charge and it would be perfect.

Makumba wrote:
I play IG . I like 6th. I only wish they would roll d6 for charge and it would be perfect.

Then assaulting armies would be dead.

I play IG , I dont care what happens to assault armies . the fewer the better.

I'm not a huge fan of the 6th edition changes myself.

I didn't understand why GW nerfed Assault so much. There was little to no presence of assault based armies in the tournament scene in 5th edition anyway, shooting was still king back then, which has been magnified by 6th edition. Overwatch, premeasuring, random charge range, reduction of cover, fortifications, gun emplacements, wound allocation and the addition of fliers all hurt them.

I liked the allies system from a painting and modeling perspective. The changes to raipd fire weapons were long overdue and needed. Fliers look like they might be getting toned down a bit now but there is nothing they can do about the Necron stuff ups they made in that area. 100 point Flying dedicated transports with a decent gun for the troops section was a mistake, but thats no more codex specific than a 6th edition rules error.

I would have liked to seen a rule that buffs units as they assault. E.g. If no weapons fired on the turn a unit assaults they can roll 3 D6 and pick the highest two, or something along those lines. Representing them focusing their attentions on making the assault instead of aiming their weapons. It's such a disadvantage to fire the weapons on the they assault that they may as well get a buff for not doing it that turn.

It might be that I'm biased since I play mostly assault based armies but thats just my 2 cents on the matter anyway.

I'm still reserving complete judgement untill I see a dedicated close combat orientated codex released so we can see if they are going to do anything to assist them. I believe they are powerful enough once they get there but its the getting there that needs the help.