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.

Interesting that there is no majority cover save for units.

2+ armor is pretty solid.

GK halberds kinda suck. They wind up swinging before they get to pile in and are only ap3.

Vehicles die. Period. Not much can be done to save them.

CC rules are quite fubar and need to be faq'ed as far as when you pile in, fight and what counts as your 'init step'.

I like the new shooting rules.

Aegis defense lines are golden.

Plasma is back. Melta is out.

Vehicle transport rules need to be faq'ed as far as everything that involves 'passengers'.

GW, as expected, have pretty much well done their very poor job as far as faq's go.

GW's marketing scheme for making vehicles golden in 5th and fairly useless in 6th is going to be reflected in flyers and the whole flakk missile (soon to be) debacle.

Logan wing is absolutely amazing in 6th ed and will probably shake down as being one of the top tier lists for 6th ed.

I wouldn't by any stretch say vehicles are useless. They're just not as tough as they were in 5th. Let's face it: If your Rhino or Leman Russ took three glances before, it was probably going to lose its main gun and get immobilized once or twice. The addition of Hull Points means you don't have those games where you glance a Land Raider 18 times just to scratch the paint and mess up their TV antenna. I played against Orks yesterday and I still had a tough time taking out their Battlewagon; after four glances it went down in the third turn. Seemed durable enough to me! The only consistent complaint I have heard on this front is that Killa Kans have only 2 Hull Points and get cut down pretty readily. This is unfortunate, but if they had 3 each they'd completely eclipse Deff Dreads, which they frankly pretty much do already.

Brother SRM wrote:I wouldn't by any stretch say vehicles are useless. They're just not as tough as they were in 5th. Let's face it: If your Rhino or Leman Russ took three glances before, it was probably going to lose its main gun and get immobilized once or twice. The addition of Hull Points means you don't have those games where you glance a Land Raider 18 times just to scratch the paint and mess up their TV antenna. I played against Orks yesterday and I still had a tough time taking out their Battlewagon; after four glances it went down in the third turn. Seemed durable enough to me! The only consistent complaint I have heard on this front is that Killa Kans have only 2 Hull Points and get cut down pretty readily. This is unfortunate, but if they had 3 each they'd completely eclipse Deff Dreads, which they frankly pretty much do already.

Glad to know that the fix to something being unreliably good is to make it completly worthless. Have you even sitted and considered 3 marines can shake of 3 s7 than their armored transport can? and s7 is by no means stellar. There was no need to brake vehicles to sell flyers, i have been playing whf and 40k for close to 2 decades and this is the most blant and WORST EXECUTED sales move GW has ever pulled, there is little difference betwin 40k and Magic the gathering, the only one might be that MTG cheaper.

So what you're saying is three Marines with strength 7 weapons can kill an armored transport? If that's the case they already could, and if not your English is difficult to understand. I also don't see how this is the (capslock) WORST EXECUTED thing ever or whatever.

Brother SRM wrote:So what you're saying is three Marines with strength 7 weapons can kill an armored transport? If that's the case they already could, and if not your English is difficult to understand. I also don't see how this is the (capslock) WORST EXECUTED thing ever or whatever.

No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

Skimmers always having cover when moved (4+ flat out, 5+ normal) has made skimmers a lot better since half the time for me my skimmers didn't get cover 75" of the time due to GW terrain (only thing that really gave them cover was ruins and forests if you count them as providing cover for things behind them)

The requiring only 25% of the vehicle being obscured for cover in 6th compared to 50% in 5th makes cover saves on vehicles, especially the larger ones like a monolith that much easier.

Glances no longer hurt the vehicle's effectiveness, so now a single glance can't destroy or hinter a vehicle by denying it the ability to shoot / move. In 5th a vehicle could even explode / wreck thanks to a glance (ap1 + open top) so a vehicle is still effective if it is only glanced once or twice.

Sadly though ap1 and ap- attacks are a lot better vs vehicles and vehicles are easier to hit in close combat, but still they did get a nice offset.

imweasel wrote:
No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

Which 3 Marines could do before anyway. I don't see the issue. Also, something can't be "more useless" as that's pretty absolute. It either is or it isn't useless. I will agree with the general statement that vehicles aren't as obvious or durable as they were in 5th ed, but they're far better than the rolling coffins from 4th or the Rhino rushing madness from 3rd. As someone who plays as and against mechanized armies frequently, I like the changes.

xxvaderxx wrote:there is little difference betwin 40k and Magic the gathering, the only one might be that MTG cheaper.

Might be cheaper? Probably not. If you're playing tournament MTG, staple cards can cost up to $50 each. For a competive Standard (Type 2) deck, $200-$400 is a very realistic price range for cards that rotate out of the format a year after purchasing them, if not sooner. MTG cards also have limited print runs, so once the run is over the only option is second hand retailers.

GW on the other hand releases a new rulebook edition every two years, and revises a race's army book/Codex every 5-10 years. I could use Rogue Trader era Space Marine models in a 6E Space Marine list, bring them to a tournament and be perfectly legal.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I wouldn't by any stretch say vehicles are useless. They're just not as tough as they were in 5th. Let's face it: If your Rhino or Leman Russ took three glances before, it was probably going to lose its main gun and get immobilized once or twice. The addition of Hull Points means you don't have those games where you glance a Land Raider 18 times just to scratch the paint and mess up their TV antenna. I played against Orks yesterday and I still had a tough time taking out their Battlewagon; after four glances it went down in the third turn. Seemed durable enough to me! The only consistent complaint I have heard on this front is that Killa Kans have only 2 Hull Points and get cut down pretty readily. This is unfortunate, but if they had 3 each they'd completely eclipse Deff Dreads, which they frankly pretty much do already.

Glad to know that the fix to something being unreliably good is to make it completly worthless. Have you even sitted and considered 3 marines can shake of 3 s7 than their armored transport can? and s7 is by no means stellar. There was no need to brake vehicles to sell flyers, i have been playing whf and 40k for close to 2 decades and this is the most blant and WORST EXECUTED sales move GW has ever pulled, there is little difference betwin 40k and Magic the gathering, the only one might be that MTG cheaper.

You are missing the point.

40k isn't, and never has been, MTG and shouldn't be approached as if it were.

What has actually happened with regard to vehicles is that they have been properly brought into the scale of the game.

StoneRaizer wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:there is little difference betwin 40k and Magic the gathering, the only one might be that MTG cheaper.

Might be cheaper? Probably not. If you're playing tournament MTG, staple cards can cost up to $50 each. For a competive Standard (Type 2) deck, $200-$400 is a very realistic price range for cards that rotate out of the format a year after purchasing them, if not sooner. MTG cards also have limited print runs, so once the run is over the only option is second hand retailers.

GW on the other hand releases a new rulebook edition every two years, and revises a race's army book/Codex every 5-10 years. I could use Rogue Trader era Space Marine models in a 6E Space Marine list, bring them to a tournament and be perfectly legal.

A GW rules edition lasts about 4-5 years. 40k is infinitely cheeper to play than than things like 'Tragic: The Sadening' or even your monthly/yearly WoW subscription.

Hell, even at $90 up front, if the the 6th edition rules are valid for another 5 years, you've pain a mere $18/year to get the basic rules!
And yes, once you have your models, you don't actually have to ever outright replace them. (of corse, we all do because new stuff looks so much more epic!) But seriously, that $40 rhino will always be a rhino, wether you just bought a shiny MkII or else you're still using your old 2nd edition model.

I've spent money on lots of hobbies over the years. GW has been by far, one of the cheapest over the long haul!

Yup, GW models have a really nice shelf life. Theoretically infinite.

There isn't a single GW model that can't be used. It may not be able to be used as the same thing it used to be(Characters get axed) but you should be able to use it for something.


My Librarian with a PF is illegal, but thats because I modeled him with one and the model just looked absolutly kick ass(pointy PF and Librarian with Staff and Book = win)

GW is cheaper than Magic TG considering you have to update your deck every 3 months to get the new rares. Considering the miniature is a 3d object you assemble, paint and use it as a scale model if you dont want to play.

imweasel wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:So what you're saying is three Marines with strength 7 weapons can kill an armored transport? If that's the case they already could, and if not your English is difficult to understand. I also don't see how this is the (capslock) WORST EXECUTED thing ever or whatever.

No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

A marine in PA can survive untouched from a hit from a T-Fex's S 10 ubercannon, as it's AP 4


A rhino would have issues.

40K is full of these little wierdnesses.

5th Ed was Transporthammer. It was pretty rare to even see an infantry model in some armies until you had cracked half the army open. I'm all for a little more fragility.

Ascalam wrote:

imweasel wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:So what you're saying is three Marines with strength 7 weapons can kill an armored transport? If that's the case they already could, and if not your English is difficult to understand. I also don't see how this is the (capslock) WORST EXECUTED thing ever or whatever.

No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

A marine in PA can survive untouched from a hit from a T-Fex's S 10 ubercannon, as it's AP 4

If it's AP 4 then there's a 1 in 6 chance of it blowing up that rhino, whereas there's a 1 in 3 chance of it getting through the marine's power armour.
6th Edition


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:So what you're saying is three Marines with strength 7 weapons can kill an armored transport? If that's the case they already could, and if not your English is difficult to understand. I also don't see how this is the (capslock) WORST EXECUTED thing ever or whatever.

No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

Presumably your troops gak laser beams then. An IG mech list at 2000 points will have 3 AV14s and 10 AV12s, you telling me you can safelty and reliably take them out with autocannons simply because glancing hits stack?
And with night fighting some of those shots will be getting gak hot cover saves.
Yeah, no.

Brother SRM wrote:

imweasel wrote:
No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

Which 3 Marines could do before anyway. I don't see the issue. Also, something can't be "more useless" as that's pretty absolute. It either is or it isn't useless. I will agree with the general statement that vehicles aren't as obvious or durable as they were in 5th ed, but they're far better than the rolling coffins from 4th or the Rhino rushing madness from 3rd. As someone who plays as and against mechanized armies frequently, I like the changes.

3 marines didnt survive those shots better before.

Its the quadruple whammy on the transports that makes them useless. You might want to delude yourself otherwise, but thats your choice.

imweasel wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

imweasel wrote:
No. What he is saying is that 3 marines can survive those shots better than a rhino hull.

When you combine the ease of killing vehicles with the large number of penalties incurred on disembarking passengers, I think its safe to say that vehicles are more useless than 5th ed.

Which 3 Marines could do before anyway. I don't see the issue. Also, something can't be "more useless" as that's pretty absolute. It either is or it isn't useless. I will agree with the general statement that vehicles aren't as obvious or durable as they were in 5th ed, but they're far better than the rolling coffins from 4th or the Rhino rushing madness from 3rd. As someone who plays as and against mechanized armies frequently, I like the changes.

3 marines didnt survive those shots better before.

Its the quadruple whammy on the transports that makes them useless. You might want to delude yourself otherwise, but thats your choice.

In 5th your marines got 4+ cover against plasma, melta, battle cannons, anything AP3 or better. Now they get 5+. And you're telling us that you DON'T want them in transports now?
My Russes would love to meet your Sternguard

In 5th I was able to assault GK with 12 trukk boyz, now in 6th I cannot.

In 5th your marines got 4+ cover against plasma, melta, battle cannons, anything AP3 or better. Now they get 5+. And you're telling us that you DON'T want them in transports now? My Russes would love to meet your Sternguard.

5+? Your joking. I get a plethora of 4+ saves from ruins and aegis defense lines while firing back with my hi 20's low 30's ml count at 2k.

I have never killed armor this easy or this quickly, ever.

Maybe its just my choice of army and list.

edit
I do think that leman russ squadrons will wind up doing fine in 6th.

I'm all for vehicles being alot more fragile in 6th.

5th was boring as after the first 5 games... 'Oh looky there, yet another army of transports! Gee, like I haven't played this exact same game for the past 3 fg years!'
It was utter BS. Over half my army was useless because they didn't have guns to crack open tanks. Then you get those games where even 20 or more missiles amount to nothing more than a string of 1's & 2's on the damage chart, meaning you're lucky if you killed say 2 or 3 of the 10+ vehicles on the table...
5th edition for me was nothing more than sheer, dumb luck. If your opponent rolled like crap to damage your vehicles, it was pretty much an auto-win. Add in all the BS shinanigans from wound allocation abuses to scoring/contesting in your metal bawkes, and I found 5th edition to be the worst edition of the game I've ever played!

I love how 6th edition so far has encouraged people to get out of their transports and actually fight it out! It's refreshing to see actual infantry models back on the tables again, instead of a dozen or more boring- tanks.

Played my last 5th Ed tournament yesterday. 21 Genestealers (3 units) assaulted a single wave serpent. I shook it 4 times and it flew off to go do something else.

That kind of stupidity always annoyed me.

Vehicles in 5th were on the upswing, now they're more towards the center. They're still very, very usable but a bit more fragile. I'm not going to run lists with any more or any less tanks than before, and I will probably do just fine. A Rhino is still plenty useful since it can move even faster now than it used to. 12" in the movement phase then an extra 6" in shooting? Sign me up! So what if it can only take three glances before it's wrecked? When I wreck I can disembark 6" towards my enemy if I want to get closer, or 6" back if I want to get out of the way. Even so, three glances would probably immobilize me anyway, so it's completely moot. Yeah, 6th made vehicles more fragile. They frankly needed it, since in 5th ed you could hit a vehicle a dozen times and do nothing more than scratch the paint.

Experiment 626 wrote:I'm all for vehicles being alot more fragile in 6th.

5th was boring as after the first 5 games... 'Oh looky there, yet another army of transports! Gee, like I haven't played this exact same game for the past 3 fg years!'
It was utter BS. Over half my army was useless because they didn't have guns to crack open tanks. Then you get those games where even 20 or more missiles amount to nothing more than a string of 1's & 2's on the damage chart, meaning you're lucky if you killed say 2 or 3 of the 10+ vehicles on the table...
5th edition for me was nothing more than sheer, dumb luck. If your opponent rolled like crap to damage your vehicles, it was pretty much an auto-win. Add in all the BS shinanigans from wound allocation abuses to scoring/contesting in your metal bawkes, and I found 5th edition to be the worst edition of the game I've ever played!

I love how 6th edition so far has encouraged people to get out of their transports and actually fight it out! It's refreshing to see actual infantry models back on the tables again, instead of a dozen or more boring- tanks.

^This.

imweasel wrote:

In 5th your marines got 4+ cover against plasma, melta, battle cannons, anything AP3 or better. Now they get 5+. And you're telling us that you DON'T want them in transports now? My Russes would love to meet your Sternguard.

5+? Your joking. I get a plethora of 4+ saves from ruins and aegis defense lines while firing back with my hi 20's low 30's ml count at 2k.

Then you're probably playing with way too many ruins. Obviously you can play however you like but your opponent shouldn't be cool with you getting a constant 4++.
I also can't see how you can get that many MLs in a list that wasn't horrifically unbalanced.

imweasel wrote:
Vehicles die. Period. Not much can be done to save them.

I am finding the very opposite as a Tau player as my Vehicles are way more survivable at least long range ones are. Due to pre measuring so far I have always managed to ensure I am outside of enemy weapon range yet can fire back. I have yet to lose or even have a Vehicles shot at. Of course that’s only long range tanks, given up on short range Vehicles. That and it is way easier to give vehicles a 4+ or 3+ cover save.

I have gone from rarely useing tanks in 5th to almost always useing tanks in 6th just due to pre measuring. and getting up to a 3+cover on the tank for 25% cover.

imweasel wrote:GK halberds kinda suck. They wind up swinging before they get to pile in and are only ap3.

Huh? Somebody must be rules-lawyering you. I don't care what anybody says, I modifiers apply to piling in AND attack order. And this is coming from an Ork player. Otherwise, I modifiers are worthless. Not saying GW never writes a worthless rule now and then, but this one is a no-brainer.

warpcrafter wrote:

imweasel wrote:GK halberds kinda suck. They wind up swinging before they get to pile in and are only ap3.

Huh? Somebody must be rules-lawyering you. I don't care what anybody says, I modifiers apply to piling in AND attack order. And this is coming from an Ork player. Otherwise, I modifiers are worthless. Not saying GW never writes a worthless rule now and then, but this one is a no-brainer.

I think you're correct. The rulebook doesn't specifiy "unmodified leadership",so you pile in once you get to strike. This means Power Fists pile in last.

xxvaderxx wrote: Have you even sitted and considered 3 marines can shake of 3 s7 than their armored transport can? and s7 is by no means stellar.

Depends on the weapon, I expect plasma will be a lot more common now. 3 plasma hits have a 58% chance of killing all 3 marines, but only about a 36% chance of destroying the Rhino.

warpcrafter wrote:

imweasel wrote:GK halberds kinda suck. They wind up swinging before they get to pile in and are only ap3.

Huh? Somebody must be rules-lawyering you. I don't care what anybody says, I modifiers apply to piling in AND attack order. And this is coming from an Ork player. Otherwise, I modifiers are worthless. Not saying GW never writes a worthless rule now and then, but this one is a no-brainer.

Its not an I modifier. It only modifies what init you swing at.

Just like a power fist or any other unwiedly weapon.

Wow... I'm all for neutering GKs but that's a ridiculous stand to take. I would not enjoy a game against anyone doing such as that.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Wow... I'm all for neutering GKs but that's a ridiculous stand to take. I would not enjoy a game against anyone doing such as that.

I'll just not play against anyone who does that. I think it's against the spirit of the rules in my eyes. Using this same logic a whole unit of Banshees would also have to strike at I10 and then pile in afterwards, which of course is just stupid. Scared on the Banshees? Well just charge them in the side of the unit and then half of them can't hit you because they have to strike before piling it.