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'm looking over the FAQ's, and the more I read the more I feel disheartened to play 40k, because it really is just a mess, moreso than it has ever really been, and it's really sapping my desire to play. Especially with all the other great games out there in the current renaissance in tabletop gaming and the huge number of other, typically vastly more affordable, games out there now compared even with just 5 years ago and certainly compared to 10 years ago. I've never wanted to be "that guy" that's always talking about how much "40k sucks and everyone should play game X instead because GW is the sux", but I feel that's where I'm being herded. (or rather, more likely, I'll play the odd game with my typical gaming companions and no longer pickups, tournaments, or events on a weekly basis) 6th edition just feels like it's more trouble than it's worth given how far the rulebook, codex books and FAQ's differ from each other and how critical these very extensive FAQ's are going to be just to play the game correctly relative to previous editions.

We've had a radical change in the rules, the largest since the 2E-3E reboot, with armies going back two editions and no army released in almost a year now (and none designed for the current edition) and while this has always been an issue it's never been messier or more convoluted than it is now. Instead of a natural progression of the 3E ruleset that 4E and 5E were, despite their flaws, the ruleset basically feels like a book where the designers clamped down on some of their pet peeves, tried to make the game what people *thought* 2nd edition was, and make something where everything GW sells can be thrown onto a table with rules and be used together in almost any instance. The game can't decide if it wants to be a skirmish ruleset, a company level wargame, an RPG, a platoon level wargame, or something else altogether. It can't decide if it wants to be GrimDark or HeroHammer. As a result of these things it comes off as clunky and confused, especially with regards to existing armies. The FAQ's have really highlighted this for me, and highlighted how poorly the core rulebook handled the transition and encompassing of the current set of army books.

We got a ton of new close combat weapon rules, and they're applied rather inconsistently (e.g. Axe of Morkai gets to be a powerfist or a Frost Sword, but Kharn and Dante get punted to Initiative 1, Klaives get to be AP2 but Banshee swords do not, etc), new special rules applied over old special rules in ways that sometimes make sense but often don't really do what they original rule was there for (e.g. Ordnance weapon Leman Russ tanks and the change from Lumbering Behemoth to Heavy). We get some AA units that have Interceptor and others that don't without any particular rhyme or reason, and it's very apparently that GW has never been able to figure out what they want vehicles to be or do however and simply want their impact minimized this edition aside from Flyers. Barrage blast weapons and Biker Nobz are now some of the most effective ways to pick a specific model out of a unit. Stuff like this

While future books may rectify this state of affairs, at the rate GW puts out codex books and releases new editions these issues will plague 6th through it's entire lifespan and begin anew with 7th unless they really radically change their release timetable and do things very differently than they have for the last 20 years.

I've never really felt this way before, there's always been issues with 40k, always things to gripe about, but never quite like this, at least to me. 6th just feels like so much of a mess, so many things they are going out of their way intentionally to make not useful or almost mandatory, or mechanics that feel like they are forced (we need a rule to make people visualize EVERYTHING! IT must be...CINEMATIC!) and/or not suited to the size of 40k games (e.g. challenges with armies larger than most Flames of War 15mm scale armies in terms of model and unit count), to the point where it's apparent and immersion breaking even in friendly narrative games. And as for competitive games, well, 6th edition is not in any way a balanced ruleset that works for competitive play and GW came right out and said exactly as much at their Design Studio Open Day that they never intended it to be.



I'm not writing this to say GW shouldn't do FAQ's and Errata, they should and in fact I think they really need to do more than they have (they still missed several major notable issues and then sat on the FAQ's for a month and a half). It's just that the latest round has really highlighted what a mess 6th edition truly is, and how much I just don't feel like dealing with it.

Is this just a phase I'm going through? Perhaps. Is it just that I'm a whiny grognard afraid of change? Perhaps though I've gone through previous editions and edition changes for other games without anywhere near this much issue and often without issue at all. Is it just an issue of where the game is at at this particular point in time? Perhaps, it may change a few years in when we have some army books designed specifically for 6th in their entirety and a large enough number for the metagame to work. Is it possible however that 6th edition really is just an awful mess of an edition that really is a poor excuse for a ruleset? Perhaps so, perhaps all of these are true to some extent.

Anyone else have similar thoughts?




P.S. don't take any of this *too* seriously, it's a 3:30am rant where I've just finished playing a game of Heavy Gear and a game of 4th edition 40k and am reading up on new FAQ postings in a bleary eyed state and need a rant/release as I watch last week's Futurama season finale. However, please share your thoughts anyway

Your wrong and should be ashamed But then again you are of course entitled to your own opinion. But to keep this on topic, I can understand what you mean and where you are coming from so to speak. But I actually have never enjoyed 40k more than I have with 6th, I found the shift to a be a pleasing one, and it has seemed to bring more balance into the game I think.

I can understand why you'd hate 6th, but not why you'd hate 6th and NOT hate 5th. 6th very much feels like 5th++.

To be fair, there *was* a lot I didn't like about 5th, Kill Points, Defensive Weapons, and Wound Allocation in particular, and the over-reliance on 4+ cover saves as a crutch mechanic as well.

6th however can't decide if it wants to be a reboot or a progression and thus, I feel, tries to do both and ends up doing neither well.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While future books may rectify this state of affairs, at the rate GW puts out codex books and releases new editions these issues will plague 6th through it's entire lifespan and begin anew with 7th unless they really radically change their release timetable and do things very differently than they have for the last 20 years.

They did mention at the developer Q&A that they were taking a different approach to releases for 6th edition. I'm hoping this turns into a faster release schedule (this ties in with the rumours/comments about working on codices 3 at a time, and having 6 ready to go right now) and more things like the fliers released in White Dwarf. For example, the issue with fliers and the lack of Skyfire units, could easily be recitfied over a few White Dwarf amendments to existing units and releases of new units independant of codices.

Really I just think it's a tad early to be complaining about this kind of thing.

The balance between the editions has always been like this to be fairly honest.

3E was fairly different from 4E, 4E cut out most of the stuff and tried to make everything boring and dry, not to mention this is the era where they killed off all the decent and interesting rules from White Dwarf as a result (Alternate lists, I salute you)

I didn't hate 5th as much as I hated Alessio's 4th, it's designs, it's failures, was complete and total trash.

5th was..meh, with 3E coming between them, rhino rush was bad but having lived in an area with massive amounts of skimmers (FISH OF FURY! TRIFALCON!) I'd rather have the return of the rhino rush assault armies than 4th.

This might be a return to an era where we might actually see things outside of the codex's return again, and that's something I'd gladly see, a return to the "Fun rules" at least.

Meh, I started hating 5th last year and gave up on ever playing 6th ed completely at that point. My 40k armies will sit in a cupboard until I get them converted over to Tomorrow's War, whereupon they will see use again. Anything which can't, will be sold off or given away (if I don't want it anymore).

That's why my clubmates and I are playing a 2nd ed campaign.
Necron overpowered-ness? What are necrons?
Dark Eldar? You mean Corsairs, pirates and exodites, right?
Virus outbreak? That card never existed.

.

Necron overpowered-ness? What are necrons?

Necrons came out originally in 2nd edition you know, they came out in WD217 and 218 a year (or a few months) before 3rd hit.

Man I still miss Chapter Approved stuff..

Well, the rule changes from 5E to 6E are drastic if compared with former ed (first two editions aside). And now the massive FAQs for explanation purposes. That's a lot of stuff to digest.

How about new players? Has GW thought about a way to get them into the game? They have to cope with a massive wall of rules. As said, there are easier and cheaper games to get into.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
.

Necron overpowered-ness? What are necrons?

Necrons came out originally in 2nd edition you know, they came out in WD217 and 218 a year (or a few months) before 3rd hit.

Man I still miss Chapter Approved stuff..

This is true.

Though 2nd Edition rules will leave a pretty threadbare Necron army, lol.

It's ok. I find the new mysterious objectives and night-fighting rules to be an unnecessary pain in the arse, and we've been ignoring them completely in our games. I cannot be arsed to remember the effects of five objectives and roll for them every turn etc, it doesn't add anything other than extra dice rolls to the game. I don't like the new 3 plus reserve roll, it makes them almost pointless, your chances of saving anything for late game are too slim. Warlord traits are completely superfluous as far as I can tell. Flyers, with some armies who only have access to the aegis as anti-air, is just annoying and a money-making tactic.

Tbh, I'm getting a bit fed up of how unbalanced the armies are in this game. They really need to work on that asap. They can all be competitive, but the reality is 75% of most armies codex(eseses) are completely pointless and that is down to poor unit design. Some armies you may as well leave at home atm, whilst others are over-powered. The recent codices to come out have been quite silly in terms of 'WOW LOOK AT HOW COOL THIS RULE IS' type stuff. They've gone from striving for balance to striving for ridiculously strong characters and powers/rules that usually make a mockery of nuance and tactical game play.

I kind of accept that most of the problems I can see are down to GW being a company, with all that entails. They're not hobbyists, or table-top gaming lovers. They're in it for the money, which inevitably has knock on effects regarding their products. The sale they seem most interested in is the 'kid gets parents to spend 500 quid over a year, then never plays again' type. It can come across as really shallow too, the initial impression is 'COOL!', but actually ten years later I'm frikking bored of the horus bloody heresy, I don't care, think of some new stuff already. I can't say I blame them though.

Vak, I agree with much of what you said. I am tired of the mish-mash of rules and poorly handled ideas in a game that could easily be so much better. Since nids are my main army and I don't use tervigons (can't stand the unit and GWs execution of it in the game) my army has been a problem to play since the dex dropped in 5th (and that is with buying many new models, changing tactics etc). The game has just been on a downward spiral in the fun department, IMO. Sure, it might be fun if you have armies that have strong dexes with many choices and have allies (that you want to take with your army - I cringe at the thought of seeing lots of combos like necrons/GK or Eldar/Dark Eldar on a regular basis - how cinematic and fluffy) to do the things you want

The current errata/FAQs were disappointing because of the mess and for me because GW failed again to make any attempt to fix/balance the nid dex (and others) so that MOST units/biomorphs/wargear are decent options. I am tired of their BS - super slow dex updates, mediocre errata, even failures in models, touted as their main area. Where are all the nid models and biomorphs for example? Why does the new winged tyrant not even have one set of devourers? I just read on another forum some complaining about wraithguard being released in finecast with 5 models in a box but for an obscene price, at least in Canada. After the grumbling, many players will buy them anyways.

It seems to me that GW survives with making such a poor game (and yes IMO a good game should be reasonably balanced internally and externally) because many players are trapped. Sure there are those that don't care that GW makes them spend lots of extra dough to play a decent army or don't care what they are playing, but IMO many players have invested so much time and money in the game, and love a lot of aspects of the universe, that they are unwilling or feel unable to walk away. And this 'trapped player' situation allows GW to continue its BS.

Are players really expecting that new dexes will help things like the mish-mash of flyers and anti-flyer abilities in the game? At the rate GW releases dexes? There is always talk of GW changing their practices but the last 6-7 years has shown me otherwise.

For those that love 6th edition and don't care if they have to replace most of their army for no real reason because of a new ruleset and/or errata (or lack of decent errata), or wait years for a new dex to fix their broken army only to find that it is a poorly written dex or that the army has a small window where it works well before new rules or errata come out to screw it up, I say enjoy. I'm shelving my armies for now and walking away from a game I think could be great fun (for all players).

You've got every right to feel that way OP, and I get that way at times too.

Only thing that's stopped me from just up and quitting is that I have a lot of money already into this, and it's pretty much one of the only games people play around here. I could get into Flames of War, but I don't have the painting ability for 15mm so it's kind of out.

I'm mainly just playing friendly games and hoping GW is serious about the faster release schedule. I'm sick of codexes that are from 2 editions ago

I'm struggling to get excited about 40k right now. Part of it is simply that I'm not buying/building/painting anything unless it's from a 6th edition codex. Part of it is that I'm busier than I've ever been in the decade I've been in the hobby, so I have less time. Part of it is that 6th edition is far more complicated and messy, rules wise, while not really (that I've seen) adding tactical depth. Part of it is playing right out of the book turns games into a god forsaken dice fest (random mission! random terrain! random objective values! random objective effects! random psychic powers! random warlord traits!)

It doesn't help that warmachine took off locally this summer, and I'm loving painting and playing that. Or that, deep down, I've been drifiting away from 40k for over a year (due to other commitments).

I hope to enjoy 6th enough to play locally with the armies I have, and learn it well enough to play here and there. I doubt I'll travel to play competitively much anymore.

Wow this was unexpected, well okay not really. I've been collecting Miniatures for about three years and only just found people in my area to play with just as the sixth was coming out. Technically I've ever read to tried to figure out is the sixth, so that makes me a new player.

That being said, as a new player, I was really excited with the way the game played. All of the different steps that make it seem like a real battle and the choices that you, as a player/general, have to make to see if you can win the game.

I thought that this edition came with a lot of cool choices that would allow you to personalize your army and battle style. If anything this edition looks to try and give people the option to NOT be a cookie cutter army. I'm not going to complain about that.

I found a player that's been around since Rogue Trader and he has told me that it's the best edition SINCE Rogue Trader.

The FAQ I felt really did a good job of trying to close many loop holes that the players had found since the edition came out, both in the BRB and in codexes.

Please don't take offense but if as a player all you can think about was "How cool things were back then" instead of trying to embrace the changes made, then I don't fault the company for that. The company can't dictate how to decide to view the past, the present or the future. It's a game and they try to keep it fresh. Is it a hard game to learn? Kinda...but then again it really always has been. It's not like 40k started with a pamphlet with instructions in Rogue Trader and now is a tome..it's always been a tome.

I will admit, when my opponent and I decided to ignore 90% of the random tables (no warlord traits, no random terrain, no mysterious objectives, narritive terrain placement, etc.) it got a lot more fun. We felt much more in control of the game, and it was a lot more fun that way.

I will agree that in all but the most competitive of enviornments, you can be a lot more creative in the listbuilding phase now.

I got excited for 6th, read the rule book...and haven't played a game yet. My stuff just sits in boxes, unused. Some of the sloppy rulings like multiple grounding tests on FMCs in a single shooting phase, EW not granting FNP against ID attacks, flashlights causing grounding tests on daemons from another dimension, an I1 Kharne, Fateweaver only affecting daemons...the list goes on. I'm really losing interest quickly. All my friends have already quit-I'm holding on, because I do have places I can go meet new 40kers to play...I'm just not sure if I want to bother anymore.

Vaktathi, I feel your pain.

I felt this way when 5th ed. came out. I enjoyed 3rd and 4th and felt with some tweaking the game was steadily improving. To me, 5th ed. was strictly a lateral move, improving some things and making others much worse. It finally dawned on me that GW was no longer interested in making a great rule set, but in driving sales. Many have argued that that is a company's prerogative, and to some degree that is true, but there are other ways to make money and still maintain a quality product without holding its customer base for ransom.

So it came as no surprise at all that 6th ed. is an iron dog. The "leaked" rules were a tease with radical concepts, so even though many changes were drastic they felt intuitive and that somebody really cared about game play. Too bad it wasn't GW. Instead we get more bells and whistles and more confusion and unintuitive play. A mess. The usual suspects think it's the greatest thing since butter...just like they thought the same about 5th edition. A lateral move. Again. Yawn.

I know it's not practical, but I've managed to play with a cadre of gamers willing to use our own house rules. It's a blend of 2nd/4th/5th you might say, but we vote on changes that come along and incorporate them into our rules. We adjust codices as well, expanding some options but tuning them to make sure they aren't too unbalanced. We have a blast. Honestly, we took a page out of GW's book when they said to alter the rules to fit your playing scene. We have done just that (to the extreme, many would say) but I know how limiting it makes it for playing in new environments. I hope you find some like-minded players willing to play by your own rules. It's a satisfying experience.

I don't like the random tables. Codexes should be updated faster, and a number of units (not as many as the net believes) need to be rebalanced in their new codex.

Other than that, I'm happy. The FAQ's were great, I agree with most of their rulings. The new edition is very well done, and I enjoy it more than previous editions. Overall GW is moving in the right direction, and I am looking forward to them continuing down that path. If they keep it up with upcoming codexes, good on them.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Though 2nd Edition rules will leave a pretty threadbare Necron army, lol.

Threadbare, but nasty. Exploding scarabs were fun.


I'm still making my mind up about 6th. A lot of it does seem messy, but I don't know yet how much of that is just because it is so different to what we have been playing for the last 10 years or so. I do with that they had just bitten the bullet and released revised codexes with 6th instead of the massive re-writes via FAQ, which are going to be really difficult to keep track of.

I like a lot of the new system, although going backwards with things like LOS and challenges seems to have dialed back the gradual shift to a unit-based wargame from the model-based game it started as, which is a shame, IMO.

I like Overwatch and Snap Fire. I like the simplicity of 'remove the closest model first' (although not the application of it for mixed units), I like that everything gets messier, faster. I like the extra missions, the extra psychic powers, Warlord traits, secondary missions, shifting ranged and close combat weapons to using the same rules... I just wish that, if they weren't going to release 6th edition as a complete game, they had found a cleaner way of updating the codexes.

With my own army, which I spent years collecting and painting, I feel like I just have nothing worth even bringing to the table. IG got screwed this edition, and the hits just keep coming with every FAQ edition they come out with.

A month ago I mothballed the army which had been sitting on a shelf for almost 6 months after I got done reading the new rules. Then I got excited thinking the FAQ would make things better. Two FAQs later and I just want to punch a wall. I don't have another $2000 to drop on an army just so I can dream of winning a game.

Thanks for the thoughts so far, I'm glad I'm not alone in this feeling. I do *like* a lot of what 6E brought in, at least in theory, but so much of it was bungled on execution or just doesn't work well in conjunction with other changes or certain armies that it really doesn't feel like a professionally designed game set, and it looks like I'm not alone in that assessment.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
.

Necron overpowered-ness? What are necrons?

Necrons came out originally in 2nd edition you know, they came out in WD217 and 218 a year (or a few months) before 3rd hit.

Man I still miss Chapter Approved stuff..

Well aware of it. Started playing that game in RT in 1987. Missed about 3 years of 2nd edition due to time constraints (and was having too much fun clubbing and chasing skirt) but I do know what armies came out when.

Necrons weren't overpowered in 2nd ed, though. Just a raiding force.
Besides - with the group I'm playing with - NO-ONE IS PLAYING NECRONS ANYWAY. So no worries about them at all.
Only one Space wolf player - and even he outgrew Munchkinhausen by proxy about 10 years ago.

My eldar are the army to be feared for a change. They are really hating my pop-up attacks. And Symbiote crystalline spiders (repair upgrade card).

 Testify wrote:
I can understand why you'd hate 6th, but not why you'd hate 6th and NOT hate 5th. 6th very much feels like 5th++.

One word: CINEMATIC.

Oh yes, and broken wound allocation (don't take multi-shot barrage weapons unless you really hate yourself), unbalanced random tables for everything, FAQ updates that randomly change stuff out of nowhere and ensure that the printed book is worthless before we even get the first codex, completely inconsistent handling of allies and various abusive combinations (rule X applies to allied units, rule Y doesn't, with no apparent pattern), challenges. I'm not saying that 5th was necessarily better in every way, but 6th did add some major problems to the game.

This article adequately summarises my feelings about the negative aspects of 5th edition:

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_6th_edition

My only gripe is that lots of stuff seems really rushed out, with no much way of proofreading. I mean, whole character thing was apparently totally obvious to designers, yet written in the rulebook completely opposite way? I also really really hope that the FAQ policy doesn't change to other extreme - previously, they would never, ever change anything in erratas or FAQ's, now they are changing a lot.

Rules-wise, I like 6th edition with exception of Mixed saves-rule, which I feel is unintuitive and stupid. All the random tables don't bother me as they are mostly totally optional and I feel that people whining about them are just trying to find an excuse.

I'm surprised people crying about 6th edition being really unbalanced. This is apparently opposed to previous three editions being much more balanced?

My only gripe is that lots of stuff seems really rushed out, with no much way of proofreading. I mean, whole character thing was apparently totally obvious to designers, yet written in the rulebook completely opposite way? I also really really hope that the FAQ policy doesn't change to other extreme - previously, they would never, ever change anything in erratas or FAQ's, now they are changing a lot.

This is probably my favorite part, namely since a lot of things needed some errating within 5th.

Yeah, the FAQ policy now is better than in 5th, that's for sure. My fear is that they're going to other extreme and change armies every FAQ - "Oh, lets give Disruption pod Shrouding - oh no, it was too powerful, lets nerf it to Stealth".

While previous editions were never the epitome of balance by any means, 6th feels like it's taken a massive step backwards, something confirmed by the design staff at their Open Day event when they stated they really didn't care to take balance into account that much when designing the rules.

Sounds just like their attitude when designing 2nd edition - which might be why I'm having as much fun with 6th as I did with 2nd.