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.

The first play at 6th ed rules:

I was much afraid about new rules before reading couse of Fantasy 8th ed rules - for ten years I was only playing Fantasy because of the climate and fun (even with f*ck rules of charging unit with LOS before moving !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! awrhhhhhhhhh). After 8 ed shows I just put my two armies to a shelf and all fun was just lost - and than friend started to play 40k 5th ed YEAH - fun returned doubled - than 6th ed shows

and YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


For me it's big positive - game is much more realistic and much more tactical.

Finally no more Genestealers / BA assaults etc. 30" wide on whole table and getting CS from anything - this was very painful for me if I shot at anything and it have 4+ CS - so yes- focus fire - great thing - opportunity of choosing

Wound allocation - YES - another realistic thing - in 5th ed I made fire line and only last models were gone - powerf ists etc. in front line stayed alive but not any more - Now we hate to think how to move models and which one will be in front or side, and models are taken from first line so the oponent will have longer distance to come to us (or us to him , )

Overwatch - assaulting on firing units more dangerous but realistic

Our weapons are useless - so long walkers catching dangerous firing units and making close combat for 5 roungs

Flayers - very good thing but but not balanced at this stage - will see what GW will do

Allies - need to test it but I think it's a good alternative to bring some freshness and combos ( Tyranids alone as usual !!!!!!!!!! )

Fortifications - in my opinions at this stage it's done just to improve sale of GW but if some roles will occur in future for making them by us it will be next good thing

Random charge distance - I was afraid at the beginning that will be looking like in Fantasy but in 40k it's good thing some random happens (average distance is 7" so is even better - but can be )

Warlord rules - in my opinion 50% of that rules ale useless or hard to use but still gave some fun - so ok it's for +

Hull pionts - very good thing - so long GK Land riders with discarding 1's and 2's - glanced by half of army and living to the last round - we will have to be much more careful with vehicles.

Hitting vehicles on 6'th after crushing - so long with that rule - it's better and more machines will fall down (it will hurt me much becouse of Cat command garde but I'm quite good with it)

Blasts hitting vehicles with full strength under whole surface - big blast come back

As a short conclusion

for me it's a big progress in good direction without some weird rules and much much more realistic looking battle and will have to make few battles more for the objective view

so for the first time in my history - big congrats for GW for not crashing very good system and even some good improvements.


Also I've got few questions for you -dakka members and readers about some rules - how they should work:

Hammer of wrath - it's written str 6 and AP- - if the unit has rending rule from it's own do they have rending on impact or not ???

Preferred enemy - re-roll 1's on to hit and to wound but what with vehicles - re -roll on roll to glance/pen ???

Jinx rule and cover save from normal blasts (not ordance) ???

Walkers - crashing move and assault - allowed or not ??



Maybe those explanations are in the book but I can't find them so will be pleased for your answers and impressions on 6th ed

kenderus wrote:

Also I've got few questions for you -dakka members and readers about some rules - how they should work:

Hammer of wrath - it's written str 6 and AP- - if the unit has rending rule from it's own do they have rending on impact or not ???

Preferred enemy - re-roll 1's on to hit and to wound but what with vehicles - re -roll on roll to glance/pen ???

Jinx rule and cover save from normal blasts (not ordance) ???
[b]

1. Hammer of Wrath is at unmodified str value and yes, would benefit from rending if the model had it as well.

2. preferred enemy only works on "to wound" in that instance. when you shoot at a vehicle, you roll to hit (re-roll 1s), then roll armor penetration normally (sorry, hope for it when the make an FAQ for the BRB)

3. yes, you get a jinx save from normal blasts, not from ordinance, unless for some reason they have a rule that specifies otherwise. (just a note, you can only make snap shots at fliers if theyre zooming. you cant even target them with a blast)

I feel seriously bad for the tank players from my flgs, with the stupid hull point rules, psy ammo storm bolters can blow up rhinos/razorbacks

correction - you get cover saves from ordinance, unless for some reason it has a rule that specifies otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:I feel seriously bad for the tank players from my flgs, with the stupid hull point rules, psy ammo storm bolters can blow up rhinos/razorbacks

you... feel bad... for tank players?


how, sir? hull points is great imo. not only is it more realistic, it adds much needed balance to land raider and IG tank spammers. tanks use their ARMOR to stay alive, not 1s and 2s...

Please do not use realistic to describe 40k- it is anything but. Glancing hits, by definition, do not destroy armor. And there wasn't a problem with "land raider and IG tank spammers"- the prevalence of melta makes short work of those. The bigger issue was massed AV 11/12 gun platforms (chimeras/razorbacks, etc.). The rule doesn't do much to slow down the problem which was saturation- penetrating hits tended to renedr these vehicles useless anyway. In some ways, not being able to stunlock makes them better (it's why GKs vehicles were so good). Hull points also makes GKs vehicles special rules and extra armor pretty worthless.

The rules just substitute new problems for old. Didn't like mechanized forces? Well, you probably really won't like flying circuses. Not really better or worse, just a lateral shift. Overall, it seems like a bunch of tacked on rules without alot of thought addressing some of 40ks key problems. But given that GW is in it for miniature sales , not balanced rules, it is exactly what one should expect.

Whenever I see "GW is just trying to sell stuff" I always get this impresion of a greedy, slimy, oil baron shaking me upside down to get all my loose change.

I really REALLY like the fortification part. When planet strike came out I thought the bastion was one of the coolest things. Sadly planet strike isn't played often and there is no reason for me to ever buy terrain. Before 6th why would I ever buy a bastion? To gather dust on my cabinet? To needlessly lend it to the store I play at? Seems like a waste of money and a poor investment. but now every one of my armies can 'field' a bastion. Now I can finally buy myself a bastion or two and get creative! Yes GW gets a bit more of my money but I get more selection and actually want to buy terrain pieces for once. If everyone at ym store follows the same train of thought then we have a whole bunch of new, customized terrain to play with and could have some really epic planet strike games that we dreamed about when the add-on first came out.

jmurph wrote:The rules just substitute new problems for old. Didn't like mechanized forces? Well, you probably really won't like flying circuses. Not really better or worse, just a lateral shift. Overall, it seems like a bunch of tacked on rules without alot of thought addressing some of 40ks key problems. But given that GW is in it for miniature sales , not balanced rules, it is exactly what one should expect.

Of course this is standard GW rule versioning. Instead of improving/fixing the rules they change them. Existing problems go away to be replaced with new and different problems instead. All part of the joy that is the GW hobby.

Skriker

jmurph wrote:Please do not use realistic to describe 40k- it is anything but. Glancing hits, by definition, do not destroy armor.

That depends on what the rule is meant to represent - a tank slipping a track, a lucky hit on the driver/fuel line, the crew panicking when coming under gunfire and bailing out. mechanical failure, an ied controlled by the firing squad etc. Perhaps a better solution would have been to roll on the penetration table each time the hull points were used up.

It's quite dificoult to make perfect balance - in ma opinion - hull point rule is made for showing that if vechicle is hit by glance /pen something bad will happen and armour is already damaged - in past rules tank was able to be alive after 100 glances - and that was sick

kenderus wrote:It's quite dificoult to make perfect balance - in ma opinion - hull point rule is made for showing that if vechicle is hit by glance /pen something bad will happen and armour is already damaged - in past rules tank was able to be alive after 100 glances - and that was sick

Glances aren't supposed to inflict real harm to the vehicle aside from damaging external components. The definition of glancing "Oblique in direction; slanting or deflected". The way Hull points are in there, it's ridiculously easy to kill vehicles, the only vehicles I've seen killed in 5E by something other than hull points, so far, have been grossly overkill shots (e.g. Trukk getting penetrated three times by autocannon fire, 3 broadside railguns into the side of a Chimera) whereas everything else is dying to hull points *very* quickly, making the damage table superfluous, with vehicles basically auto-dying when anything makes it to CC that has something more than bare fists to engage it with.

Vaktathi wrote:Glances aren't supposed to inflict real harm to the vehicle aside from damaging external components. The definition of glancing "Oblique in direction; slanting or deflected". The way Hull points are in there, it's ridiculously easy to kill vehicles, the only vehicles I've seen killed in 5E by something other than hull points, so far, have been grossly overkill shots (e.g. Trukk getting penetrated three times by autocannon fire, 3 broadside railguns into the side of a Chimera) whereas everything else is dying to hull points *very* quickly, making the damage table superfluous, with vehicles basically auto-dying when anything makes it to CC that has something more than bare fists to engage it with.

Don't worry Vak, this is GW. In 7th edition vehicles will be crazy powerful again. It is the way of the 40k.

Skriker