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.

So I am rather negative towards 6th, I despise the whole cinematic direction and consider an idea of forging a narrative out of place and more for rpgs than wargames, players might do it themselves if they want to but why put an emphasis on it in rules instead of what's really imoprtant like balance tactical possibilities etc. Btw my games I'd say reek in mood despite me not writing stories in my mind about them or justifying the battles narratively. Also obviously there's too much randomness added to the system, needless assault nerf, changes for the sake of sales etc.

But:

Have to say flyers are incredible. It was always like after you deploy there's not much left to do just target prioritising, obvious movement etc (not that I agree but movement was limited, hard to argue that). Flyers with their range change this, add a lot it's like queen in chess, love it really. There's the trouble of counters obviously but will be sorted out hopefuly (at worst with next edition )

Hull points for vehicles, that's a positive one imo. It's harder to meet a car park now that you auto loose with, it should work that you can always destroy a vehicle like assaulting it or shooting bolters to the back of it, no can't touch this bs thing (which happens now with flyers to some point but let's just count on some skyfire in faq/naive fool)

Directional combat, I like it. I don't like too much abstract in a game with 28mm expensive miniatures not to mention formations that matter more is good.

Allies is great, it obviously boost sales but I'm happy, it makes sense now to make that small Necrons, Vostroyans or Sister detachments. No really this is great, opens up a world of possibilities.


Still hate GW but still have to admit some things appear to me as a huge step forward. Will try to update my thoughts after I sober up and drugs will wear off.

The only real problem with Fliers is that the counters are either too soft (occasional flakk missiles) or too hard (quad guns, icarus lascannons, etc). You either have enough Skyfire to make flyers a complete non-issue, or you don't have enough and they cause massive havoc.

What I like about 6th isn't the whole cinematic direction (though that's cool) so much as how much faster it made the game. 5e lists tended towards throwing everybody in transports deploying close to the enemy, zooming forward, and pounding on the other guy for six turns; there wasn't a lot of maneuvering or subtlety, just rush forward and smash the other guy with meltaguns. 6e's nerf to vehicles is a marvelous direction to take the game; exchanging long-ranged fire and building bike/jump infantry lists are cool again, and with flyers and flyer transports we've created a game where a broader mixture of tactical elements, more maneuvering, and a broader selection of army choices are viable.

This may also be my excitement at getting to experiment with units that nobody used seriously in 5e but could be really, really awesome in 6e talking.

The fact I can play with 5 flying monstrous creatures that are insanely hard to shoot. Than get to take a test to see if they fall is great.

not quite balanced I don't think but fun nonetheless

If anything, rolling combat resolutions based on preset stat tables is more RPG than a cinematic style presentation is.

The aspects of 40k that distinguish it from RPGs are model placement, line of sight measurements, cover saves, etc. Those things could easily be replaced by an RPG-friendly "combat skill" catch-all value.

The only thing I really cannot stand about 6th are Overwatch and challenges, mostly because both of them are a little dubious to me from the realism angle and they have extremely agonizing gameplay implications. Overwatch means you can shoot out of order - and its gameplay purpose is just straight up to punish people for assaulting. I don't like that in a turn-based game. I think turns should be more or less rigid. With regards to challenges, I think challenges just muck up this entire wargear model of making most squads only able to take things on their champs, and then making things like Monstrous Creatures and these insane Independent Characters like Draigo and Abaddass. It's just kinda funked with the model and so thoroughly disrupted game balance that I don't like where it's put the game. Character ICs were already nuts, they need nerfs, not buffs.

With regards to Hull Points; I actually don't like it -because- it's unrealistic. But for what it did to Fortitude, I do like it.

The old 40k damage model was just more like reality - randomized damage is more or less the way things go down when a projectile penetrates vehicle armor - the shell may decap the loader and disable the turret ring, or it may ignite the ammunition dump and cause an explosion, or go straight thru the tank and cause little to no internal damage. The old 40k vehicle damage model just made more sense in that way. They could have nerfed vehicles without Hull Points.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Directional combat, I like it. I don't like too much abstract in a game with 28mm expensive miniatures not to mention formations that matter more is good.

Too bad the execution of the concept was awful. It's nice to have direction matter, but that's more than offset by the extra complexity, constant arguing about which model is slightly closer, barrage sniping, having to roll saves one at a time, tank characters soaking up endless firepower, etc. 5th edition's wound allocation was abstracted but it worked. 6th edition's wound allocation is a broken mess.

Allies is great, it obviously boost sales but I'm happy, it makes sense now to make that small Necrons, Vostroyans or Sister detachments. No really this is great, opens up a world of possibilities.

Too bad the execution of the concept was awful. Sure, you have the cool fluff combinations, or new reason to buy a small force and maybe start a second army, but then you also have the bad things. Tyranids with no allies, Farsight Tau allied with Orks, Black Templars allied with xenos witches, endless arguing about which loopholes in the rules still work and allow broken combinations, etc. The whole thing is just stupid and should have been left for casual games where both players specifically agree to include allies for fluff reasons.

I'm not terribly familiar with 5th, But I thought I'd add my thoughts on Hull Points

Personally, I like them, I like the idea of being able to wear down a vehicle the way you could IRL. But I think they went two far. I just had a game today, where I got lucky, and on my first turn caused a lemen russ to explode with a penetrating shot. Hull points weren't an issue at all, as one by one, my las cannon devestator squad took out all his armor. I think it would balance things more, if they just had MORE hull points, give a Rhino 4 hull points instead of 3, I think that would change things a bit.

TedNugent wrote:
If anything, rolling combat resolutions based on preset stat tables is more RPG than a cinematic style presentation is.

The aspects of 40k that distinguish it from RPGs are model placement, line of sight measurements, cover saves, etc. Those things could easily be replaced by an RPG-friendly "combat skill" catch-all value.

I'm kind of puzzled here, particularly of what rpg are we talking about. FoC, point values, standarised movement, 40k is clearly a wargame for me with unnecessary (imo) narrative accent. I mean you can play some Euro black and white boardgame about building a farm and imagine 1000 stories during the game, there's just no need to put into the rules like all those forge the narrative boxes etc. There's a place for deep narrative and it's an rpg session.

TedNugent wrote:
The only thing I really cannot stand about 6th are Overwatch and challenges, mostly because both of them are a little dubious to me from the realism angle and they have extremely agonizing gameplay implications.

I hate challenges too those are artificial for me. Overwatch hurts my nids but I don't mind tbh. Would prefer a real overwatch like interupts, maybe how it was in 2nd or sth, that would require a huge changes though so hardly possible with GW bussiness model.

TedNugent wrote:
The old 40k damage model was just more like reality - randomized damage is more or less the way things go down when a projectile penetrates vehicle armor - the shell may decap the loader and disable the turret ring, or it may ignite the ammunition dump and cause an explosion, or go straight thru the tank and cause little to no internal damage. The old 40k vehicle damage model just made more sense in that way. They could have nerfed vehicles without Hull Points.

Obviously they could do it better but at least it's done, the less can't kill it because my list situations the better imo.

Hull Points really are one of the worst mechanics of 6E.

It's basically an admittance that the design studio has no idea what the hell they are doing with vehicles.


What HP's have done is to turn vehicles into MC's that lack armor/invul saves that are crippled or suffer Instant Death on any to-wound roll that exceeds the minumum required to kill them, that are unable to interact/affect mission objectives except in very special circumstances. All that on top of being at best WS1 in assaults for 90% of vehicles with 0 threat to opponents attempting to clamp on grenades to vehicles moving at highway speeds.

What we end up with is vehicles that are easier to kill than they've ever been with less utility in terms of achieving mission objectives than they've ever had. In exchange they've become a little faster and a little harder to keep from shooting *if* they survive.

Having two overlapping kill mechanics is silly, especially as they're the only ones that suffer that without some sort of special rule being applied, on top of being the only unit type unable to interact with mission objectives for no reason.


GW can't decide what they want vehicles to be or how they want them to work, and it really shows with 6th ed where they're just really easy to kill MC's.

6th edition as a whole suffers from this symptom. It doesn't know if it wants to be a skirmish game with Challenges and the like, an RPG-ish system, a company level wargame, a strategic battle sim, or a battallion level wargame. We've got mechanics more suited to Infinity in a game with a model count greater than Flames of War.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hull Points really are one of the worst mechanics of 6E.

It's basically an admittance that the design studio has no idea what the hell they are doing with vehicles.


What HP's have done is to turn vehicles into MC's that lack armor/invul saves that are crippled or suffer Instant Death on any to-wound roll that exceeds the minumum required to kill them, that are unable to interact/affect mission objectives except in very special circumstances. All that on top of being at best WS1 in assaults for 90% of vehicles with 0 threat to opponents attempting to clamp on grenades to vehicles moving at highway speeds.

What we end up with is vehicles that are easier to kill than they've ever been with less utility in terms of achieving mission objectives than they've ever had. In exchange they've become a little faster and a little harder to keep from shooting *if* they survive.

Having two overlapping kill mechanics is silly, especially as they're the only ones that suffer that without some sort of special rule being applied, on top of being the only unit type unable to interact with mission objectives for no reason.


GW can't decide what they want vehicles to be or how they want them to work, and it really shows with 6th ed where they're just really easy to kill MC's.

6th edition as a whole suffers from this symptom. It doesn't know if it wants to be a skirmish game with Challenges and the like, an RPG-ish system, a company level wargame, a strategic battle sim, or a battallion level wargame. We've got mechanics more suited to Infinity in a game with a model count greater than Flames of War.

Honestly, I think hull points indicate that the design studio knew exactly what they were doing with vehicles. 5e was a horribly obnoxious game of Rhino Rush armies with no effective counter since it was pretty difficult to actually destroy them with most of the weapons in your list, which made entire selections completely and utterly useless and set the metagame to a contest of who could do the dominant strategy better than everyone else. With Hull Points, glancing hits are no longer afterthoughts, things like autocannons and scatter lasers that were being shunted aside in favor of more and more meltaguns are actually becoming competitive, and if there's a dominant strategy now we haven't found it yet.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Directional combat, I like it. I don't like too much abstract in a game with 28mm expensive miniatures not to mention formations that matter more is good.

Too bad the execution of the concept was awful. It's nice to have direction matter, but that's more than offset by the extra complexity, constant arguing about which model is slightly closer, barrage sniping, having to roll saves one at a time, tank characters soaking up endless firepower, etc. 5th edition's wound allocation was abstracted but it worked. 6th edition's wound allocation is a broken mess.

I agree it was mechanicaly better but with abstraction level of one hormagant visible = the other 19 from the same unit behind a hill are visible too and can die (because of ricochets as put in BRB ) I can as well drop the one model = one guy assumption. It's not something I want from a tactical wargame, I want a clear the guy is here so really is here gameplay.

The 19 gants behind a steel wall, you want to shoot them, flank them. Much better for me and worth the hassle bar look out sir maybe which kind of gets on my nerves.

 Peregrine wrote:

Allies is great, it obviously boost sales but I'm happy, it makes sense now to make that small Necrons, Vostroyans or Sister detachments. No really this is great, opens up a world of possibilities.

Too bad the execution of the concept was awful. Sure, you have the cool fluff combinations, or new reason to buy a small force and maybe start a second army, but then you also have the bad things. Tyranids with no allies, Farsight Tau allied with Orks, Black Templars allied with xenos witches, endless arguing about which loopholes in the rules still work and allow broken combinations, etc. The whole thing is just stupid and should have been left for casual games where both players specifically agree to include allies for fluff reasons.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Honestly, I think hull points indicate that the design studio knew exactly what they were doing with vehicles.

Hrm, I'd beg to differ, as I'll explain below.

5e was a horribly obnoxious game of Rhino Rush armies with no effective counter since it was pretty difficult to actually destroy them with most of the weapons in your list

I'd argue that. As someone with IG, Eldar, CSM, and Tau armies, and played with and against mech versions of all, there was more than enough firepower on 5E boards. Most typical tournament lists could easily de-mech 3-4 units in rhinos in one round of shooting fairly routinely, or at least turn them into boxes that needed to be disembarked from, and were entirely capable of inflicting double digits of vehicle casualties over the course of a 6 turn game. Between armies sporting 20+ krak missiles and lascannons, or 25 melta weapons, 30+ autocannons/lascannons, etc wasn't uncommon at all to see lots of dead vehicles very quickly. The same sorts of firepower that could accomplish that are now capable of doing it turn 2 or 3 instead of 6, which is an issue...

5E was also the first and only edition where vehicles were universally useful, where every faction took vehicles relatively routinely, unlike previous editions where certain factions *really* like them (eldar vehicles for 2E, rhinos and skimmers for 3E, skimmers for 4E) and nobody else bothered.

One will notice that nobody really complained about gun-tanks, it was really the transports. That, in and of itself, reveals that the issue wasn't really with vehicle survivability.

The problem wasn't with vehicles, it was the fact that, unlike just about every other tabletop game, there wasn't a reason *not* to take transports. The only difference in previous versions is that for the armies that couldn't make effective use of transports, it's because they were deathtraps that had a very short lifespan and ruined the utility of the unit being transported. Other games have infantry actions other than move/shoot/assault. They can spot for artillery weapons, they can fortify positions, they can prepare to repel assault units, they can overwatch, etc. In 40k, none of that depth exists, and transports only enhance those actions, and unless they're made deathtraps or paper tigers, of course they'll be taken all the time. GW's response wasn't to expand infantry actions, but to reduce vehicle survivability and utility as a whole, on top of transport utility.

which made entire selections completely and utterly useless and set the metagame to a contest of who could do the dominant strategy better than everyone else. With Hull Points, glancing hits are no longer afterthoughts, things like autocannons and scatter lasers that were being shunted aside in favor of more and more meltaguns are actually becoming competitive, and if there's a dominant strategy now we haven't found it yet.

Autocannons were one of the big winners of 5E, they were taken in numbers not seen since 2E. They got a lot more popular in 5E and were often seen amongst the better anti-transport weapons when available. Scatterlasers on the other hand really are anti-infantry weapons, they shouldn't be effective anti-tank guns.

Now we have glancing hits that are far too easy to lead to vehicle destruction. Autocannons, which already gained great prominence amongst IG and SM armies in 5th (after being nonexistent in 3rd and 4th) now need less than half the average shots to kill most tanks than they did in 5E, and when it comes to CC, vehicles are almost assuredly auto-killed by most basic troops units with krak grenades whether they were stationary or moved 30". Hell, a tac squad has an easier time killing a moving Leman Russ tank or a Flat-Out moving Wave Serpent than it does killing 2 other basic space marines.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I like the idea of more WWII ish aproach of vehicles only supporting infantry if any serious terrain is present (and it should be going by the BRB). I'm not saying that they didn't go too far but it's much better than last melta dies so goodbye syndrome.

The issue to me is just the fact that anything you throw at vehicles is effective as long as it isn't just an infantry rifle for the most part, it's too easy to glance things to death and too reliable, and all the benefits of being harder to stun/blow of guns/etc are lost as you're often dead before any of that matters, and vehicles just don't have any way of interacting with objectives outside of a couple exceptions.

And melta is still just as effective and reliable as it was before, moreso because even if you have bad luck on damage rolls, HP's will do the job for you.

HP's are an enforced average, like if a Space Marine just died if forced to take 3 armor saves, on a unit type never really intended to work that way.

Access to some serious AT grenades for infantry could be better though, don't know, how would you do it?

Personally I find AT grenade access is already highly plentiful. Toss a tac squad at a flat out moving skimmer and it'll have an easier time killing it with krak grenades (clamping magnetic mines to a flying thingy moving at highway speeds) than they will trying to kill 2 enemy marines.

The vehicles are cheaper though, or AV14 4 hull points. Any sensible fex or basic Trygon costs twice the Predator price, and as far as Instant Death on Landraiders go you have to get close or get really lucky. Not to mention my MCs can still go down because of bolter fire which can't happen to all around AV12 and to do that to Predator I'd have to sneak behind it.

Only *some* vehicles are cheap, like rhinos that are just rolling boxes, stuff like Wave Serpents, Hellhounds, Manticores, Whirlwinds, Devilfish, etc are generally MC cost without MC durability, and not all MC's cost what Trygons or Carnifex's do. Look at Necrons for instance, they get W3 S6 T6 3+sv A2 MC's for 50pts each that can be taken in units of 3.

A Trygon is also going to take a hell of a lot more hits from every type of weapon than a Predator will, and a predator costing half what a Trygon does isn't exactly the scariest thing on the table. Bolter fire *can* kill an MC, but you'd need an average of 162 BS4 bolter shots to do it, or 81 marines within 12".

The problem with 5th edition was that you absolutely needed the high amounts of missiles to accomplish the de-meching, not that it wasn't possible. Meching in 5th edition got to the point where squads that were demeched were essentially dead meat, completely negating a large portion of the game.
What we have here is a balance shift. A double balance shift, really. While I sympathise with both Vehktathi for thinking vehicles are too easy to kill and with AnomanderRake for welcoming the new and (so far) more varied lists, I can not help but think that the real problem lies in how easy it could've been to remove a large part of the mechanization - just change Dedicated Transport mechanic to each transport costing a FOC slot depending on the squad it was purchased for. In 3rd edition transport vehicles were nearly exclusively heavy support and I seem to recall that Fire Dragons were essentially called wasted points (and really, they were only 1 point more expensive).

That said, I don't know what colour tinted glasses you guys are looking at Scatter Lasers through, but those glasses must be opaque. Scatter Lasers weren't uncommon, they were exactly the opposite. I rarely saw anyone ever recommending using any other weapon, except for those very rare cases where you faced AV13+.

 Vaktathi wrote:
6th edition as a whole suffers from this symptom. It doesn't know if it wants to be a skirmish game with Challenges and the like, an RPG-ish system, a company level wargame, a strategic battle sim, or a battallion level wargame. We've got mechanics more suited to Infinity in a game with a model count greater than Flames of War.

I agree but have to admit, I like the final effect of the mixup bar the rpg and herohammer components. If I have to move all those plastic guys, make me those moves actualy matter. 1500 points game is faster than most boardgames I play so I don't have issue with a bit of micromanagment.

 Vaktathi wrote:
HP's are an enforced average, like if a Space Marine just died if forced to take 3 armor saves, on a unit type never really intended to work that way.

This is indeed a blunt way to do it (through HP) but the effect which I consider positive is better chance of an all rounded force to beat a car park. As a shifting weights effect (from list building to the table) it is good imo, shame that it is spoiled by too weak anti air possibilities.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:The vehicles are cheaper though, or AV14 4 hull points. Any sensible fex or basic Trygon costs twice the Predator price, and as far as Instant Death on Landraiders go you have to get close or get really lucky. Not to mention my MCs can still go down because of bolter fire which can't happen to all around AV12 and to do that to Predator I'd have to sneak behind it.

Only *some* vehicles are cheap, like rhinos that are just rolling boxes, stuff like Wave Serpents, Hellhounds, Manticores, Whirlwinds, Devilfish, etc are generally MC cost without MC durability, and not all MC's cost what Trygons or Carnifex's do. Look at Necrons for instance, they get W3 S6 T6 3+sv A2 MC's for 50pts each that can be taken in units of 3.

Ok I need to look at Tau, don't know their units. Also you might be right and maybe comparing point costs with Tyranid MC especialy fexes is not a best way to show balance etc, though doing it further vehicles have the advantage of putting a much more powerful ranged weaponry than Trygons for example.

Anyway I need to put more thought into this and play more battles to really judge the HP, maybe you're right.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A Trygon is also going to take a hell of a lot more hits from every type of weapon than a Predator will, and a predator costing half what a Trygon does isn't exactly the scariest thing on the table. Bolter fire *can* kill an MC, but you'd need an average of 162 BS4 bolter shots to do it, or 81 marines within 12".

It's not that it happens that a Trygon dies to bolters alone but they steal a wound or two from my MCs once in a while.

Demeching is ruination for assault lists...

Double whammy with Overwatch. So little thought given to that.

right......cause overwatch just MOWS down everything >.>

I haven't yet made up my mind about the whole hull point system yet, still need to run a couple more games with my IG.

On the other hand, snap shots and the new rapid fire rules have made the game a lot more fluid. I really loved that change !
Flyers have also given the game a really nice change of pace. People complain that they have to be kept in reserve, but I actually like the way things are run.
As said above the appropriate counters will come with time.

Not a fan of duels. The fight or hide mechanic annoys the hell out of me. If they wanted to introduce the mechanic for dramatic effect, fine. But refusing to duel shouldn't have your guy sulking in a corner for the assault phase.

Love overwatch. I really despised the way in 5th you could loose a whole platoon without them firing a bloody shot
Combined with the no charge after flanking it brought in some balance to the game. I miiight be a tad biased here, playing a shoty army, but I've had similar feedback from my opponents.

Talking about assault, I love the new jump infantry rules, and what they did with power weapons. Its a bit messy now, the current entries in the books being ill adapted to it, but it will clear out with time.

Thats my 2 cents so far.

They could have just made Glancing Hits a -1 Vehicle Damage Table modifier again instead of -2 like 5th ed. Duh. Instead they layer on a whole new HP mechanic.

What a surprise.

Which would have resulted int eh same issue as before - MBTs being glanced so they cannot shoot (their main purpose), and transports would have stayed alive until they delivered their cargo.

Is anyone else enjoying seeing tactical squads move again?
In 5th they were either in a transport ready to leap onto an objective or camping somewhere on an objective in cover.
Now they can snapfire heavy weapons they actually move about the board in a game. Tactical squads seem to be more...tactical.

Although the only thing I hate about 6th is the cries of 'overpowered' when I use Eldar.
I haven't got viable ways to get into cc so I take more guns and with shooting apparently being better in this ed, I've been regularly told my eldar are overpowered.... (Overpriced maybe)

Eldar that are apparently overpowered in 6th...
Any phoenix lord
Wraithguard
Wraithlords
Fire Dragons
Farseers with runes of warding.
Eldrad (although with him, they may have a small point)

Anyone else finding that shooting armies which were pitied in 5th are now subject to cries of cheese?

PredaKhaine wrote:


Although the only thing I hate about 6th is the cries of 'overpowered' when I use Eldar.
I haven't got viable ways to get into cc so I take more guns and with shooting apparently being better in this ed, I've been regularly told my eldar are overpowered.... (Overpriced maybe)

This statement amuses me, particularly because Eldar are probably the second weakest codex in the game (after Black Templar). Eldrad is quite good, but everything is merely fairly priced, and if your opponents are claiming that they are OP, they either need to learn how to build good lists or learn how to get better at the game.

PredaKhaine wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying seeing tactical squads move again?
In 5th they were either in a transport ready to leap onto an objective or camping somewhere on an objective in cover.
Now they can snapfire heavy weapons they actually move about the board in a game. Tactical squads seem to be more...tactical.

Although the only thing I hate about 6th is the cries of 'overpowered' when I use Eldar.
I haven't got viable ways to get into cc so I take more guns and with shooting apparently being better in this ed, I've been regularly told my eldar are overpowered.... (Overpriced maybe)

Eldar that are apparently overpowered in 6th...
Any phoenix lord
Wraithguard
Wraithlords
Fire Dragons
Farseers with runes of warding.
Eldrad (although with him, they may have a small point)

Anyone else finding that shooting armies which were pitied in 5th are now subject to cries of cheese?

People have been grumbling about my Pathfinder/Striking Scorpion advanced infiltration contingent being too hard to kill, but that's not exactly a new thing...

Eldar actually got rather stronger under the 6e rules with better snipers, better psykers, better skimmers, and better jetbikes...They're by no means a hyper-competitive list since we still have a lot of overpriced units, but they're by no means a weak army.