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.

Hi all, you will need to forgive my rant here, but I need to get a few things off my chest and some clarification if at all possible. Thanks in advance.

So, what I am hoping to get is some opinion on why people get so fired up over the following things, now of course it is only my opinion whilst reading forums or feedback from Gaming Clubs, but does anyone want to shed some light on the following 'issues' I have read/heard often complained about?

Allies? Now I really despise some of the truly stupid combinations of allies that are capable due to the matrix and I admit early on I thought how stupid is this. But on reflection I think the game missed the combined arms of the Imperium being around. Maybe it has gone a little far, but we needed to see Guard being bailed out by Marines again.

Close Combat Weapons getting profiles? I mean really I found it a little silly that it was either a CCW, Power Weapon or Power Fist/Klaw as opposed to having hundreds of ranged weapons, I like the added profiles.

Power Swords being ONLY AP3? Really? Only 3? Come on, how many 2+ Models do you really face on a regular basis that makes Power Swords not ignore most armor?

The Codex Supplements? Now I admit it, I am much more into the story than the competition (although I really like a good doubles/team tournament), so I don't mind a supplement ONLY having a page or two of rules. What do you want an entirely different book with all new entries so you can complain about GW gouging you for more new models instead of just the book?

The alleged massed amount of Cover Ignoring shooting? Look I know I haven't managed a lot of games in 6th [spending a lot of time teaching some friends to play] but I have not come across heaps of weapons ignoring cover on a regular basis.

Heaps of AP2 or 3 Weapons? Honestly, how many Troops [yep I mean the grunts of the army] can carry this sort of hardware in numbers to make a massive difference? Oh and I always find it amusing when I read someone complaining about AP3 weapons and how many of them exist but still complain Power Swords are only AP3....

Vehicles and Hull Points? Now this seems to be the most contentious that I have seen a lot, I really don't get it, in 5th I had a chance to get rid of a Land Raider with a Glancing Hit, therefore I could DESTROY a Land Raider with a strength 8 Weapon in one shot (Only 1 in 6 chance mind you but that was better than nothing, am I remembering this right?) where as now it simply loses a hull point. On top of that, glancing hits don't reduce the effectiveness of the said vehicle due to not having to roll on a chart, meaning they are free to try and get the hell out of the way.

Oh and finally (this one is a personal gripe), the W/D/L that people put in there signatures (yes maybe I am jealous I have only managed a handful of games in 6th) but I protest that the results people put up are bending the truth just a little much, I mean from most people I see, they claim that they win 85% or more of their games, if that is true where are all of the people with 85% losses to counter act these über Generals?

Ok thanks for reading (and I hope you get some enjoyment out of the post). Don't take it too seriously and remember that the sun always comes up in the morning. (Except over on the YMDC forum, those guys just plain scare me, I am way too laid back to get fired up over where someone decided to put a square bracket instead of a round one ~ sorry couldn't resist the cheap shot, keep up the good work arguing the rules I find it often an interesting read).

Well for one thing, power swords becoming ap3, and all good ap2 weapons getting unweildley, really realy destroyed a few good cc characters. cover ignoring fire is all over the tau dex, and look no further than the 'dar for units people will spam muchly. also the 15% winners are just the ones that don't put up a wld tag. (MEEEE[probs cuz i run 20 terminators])

So that is 2 Codexes (Codicies?) out of all of them. Where I play there is at least one person flying the flag from each Codex, maybe I am blessed, but we have a lot of variety where I am from, means there is potential to meet anything and yes I have seen Serpent Spam and the like, but the collections are quite large and varied and people (maybe fortunately) mix things up a fair bit.

Come on, there have got to be more people with an opinion out there.....

Well the only thing I can really reply to is the W/D/L part, and that is because I am one of those people. Take my word for what it is (this is the internet) but my listed record is my actual record with my Grey Knights. I am one of the better players at my FLGS but the actual reason is I found this the easiest place to record my stats, I challenged a number of my friends when 6th came out to record the results of all of our games (not just against each other) just as a fun thing.

For the people with the 85% losses to counter this, they are most likely either not on these forums or don't list it, it isn't a required thing for these forums to post that info.

 Archer wrote:
Allies? Now I really despise some of the truly stupid combinations of allies that are capable due to the matrix and I admit early on I thought how stupid is this. But on reflection I think the game missed the combined arms of the Imperium being around. Maybe it has gone a little far, but we needed to see Guard being bailed out by Marines again.

The complaints about allies come from both the availabilitiy of broken combinations, and the fluff-bending nature of the current allies matrix.

Being fluffy to have Guard and Marines in the same army doesn't really make up for either of those things.

Close Combat Weapons getting profiles? I mean really I found it a little silly that it was either a CCW, Power Weapon or Power Fist/Klaw as opposed to having hundreds of ranged weapons, I like the added profiles.

I don't recall hearing anyone complain about that. It's sensible change that results in all weapons having the same type of profile, which is one of the good things about 6th, IMO.

Power Swords being ONLY AP3? Really? Only 3? Come on, how many 2+ Models do you really face on a regular basis that makes Power Swords not ignore most armor?

It's mostly people who regularly face Terminators who dislike this one... but regardless of how often it happens, it's still a downgrade in power from last edition, so people dislike it for that reason.

The Codex Supplements? Now I admit it, I am much more into the story than the competition (although I really like a good doubles/team tournament), so I don't mind a supplement ONLY having a page or two of rules. What do you want an entirely different book with all new entries so you can complain about GW gouging you for more new models instead of just the book?

Personally, I want a complete codex, rather than being charged the same price as the codex for an additional few pages of rules that could have been either rolled into the codex or published in White Dwarf.

We've been down the supplemental codex road before. It resulted in people getting cranky about having to carry multiple books around to games, and meant that the moment, for example, the Marine codex was redone, all of the variant Marine codexes also suddenly became obsolete.

It's a dodgy maney grab, in line with the current 'micro-transaction' trend in video games... but with the 'micro' removed.

The alleged massed amount of Cover Ignoring shooting? Look I know I haven't managed a lot of games in 6th [spending a lot of time teaching some friends to play] but I have not come across heaps of weapons ignoring cover on a regular basis.

That just comes down to who you are playing against...

Heaps of AP2 or 3 Weapons? Honestly, how many Troops [yep I mean the grunts of the army] can carry this sort of hardware in numbers to make a massive difference? Oh and I always find it amusing when I read someone complaining about AP3 weapons and how many of them exist but still complain Power Swords are only AP3...

It's really easy to read apparently conflicting complaints online and just assume that they are coming from the same people. .

Vehicles and Hull Points? Now this seems to be the most contentious that I have seen a lot, I really don't get it, in 5th I had a chance to get rid of a Land Raider with a Glancing Hit, therefore I could DESTROY a Land Raider with a strength 8 Weapon in one shot (Only 1 in 6 chance mind you but that was better than nothing, am I remembering this right?) where as now it simply loses a hull point. On top of that, glancing hits don't reduce the effectiveness of the said vehicle due to not having to roll on a chart, meaning they are free to try and get the hell out of the way.

On the other hand, 3 glancing hits in 5th edition were most likely to be an inconvenience, whereas in 6th edition they're instant death for most vehicles in the game.

Hull points are a good idea, but the way they were implented resulted in vehicles becoming drastically more vulnerable than last edition. So all of those players who stocked up on vehicles last edition are unhappy that those vehicles are next to useless now.

I would have rather seen a slightly amped up damage table, but you don't start rolling on it until you run out of hull points...

Oh and finally (this one is a personal gripe), the W/D/L that people put in there signatures (yes maybe I am jealous I have only managed a handful of games in 6th) but I protest that the results people put up are bending the truth just a little much, I mean from most people I see, they claim that they win 85% or more of their games, if that is true where are all of the people with 85% losses to counter act these über Generals?

SO... the people with the better records are more likely to be proud enough of their record to show it off to others? And you find that surprising...?

Can't find myself agreeing on any of those points, OP. Sorry. Insaniak got it down pat.

Insaniak, thanks for the input, gives me some food for thought.

Always good to have some outside input to help pull your head out of your own arse. It can get dark in there you know.....

@hubbsey Oh I am not looking for agreement, I am looking for outside opinion. So feel free to disagree that was what I am looking for, I am not trying to defend the position, just get some of the questions out of my head.

For the ignore cover shooting, it's only an issue when you are playing Tau using markerlights, Eldar using Wave Serpents, and Heldrakes.

For the AP2/3 thing, AP3 melee is far different from AP3 shooting. It's easier to not allow AP3 or better to charge you. It's much harder to stop them from shooting at you.

And it's not the troops you have to worry about. It's the rest of the army that's filled with troop-killing firepower. And if you play against good armies, their troops or units that don't carry good AP weapons tend to shoot enough shots to make you fail armor saves anyway. Think Imperial Guard with FRFSRF with 100+ guardsmen, Tau pulse fire, or Wave Serpent shield shots. And if you play against certain armies like Farsight Enclaves, they can have plasma suits as troops, so there goes that argument.

I agree most of those general complaints are ridiculous but most of them seem to have died down. Nowadays we're getting more specific arguments like whether or not Tau are OP, whether or not Eldar are OP, whether or not C:SM sucks or not, etc. Still some old blowhards insisting ATSKNF is OP and stuff like that but whatever.

 Archer wrote:
Allies? Now I really despise some of the truly stupid combinations of allies that are capable due to the matrix and I admit early on I thought how stupid is this. But on reflection I think the game missed the combined arms of the Imperium being around. Maybe it has gone a little far, but we needed to see Guard being bailed out by Marines again.

Allies was a stupid idea because the game is supposed to be balanced around each army having its strengths and weaknesses. For example, Tau are great at shooting but weak at melee, but now they can fix that melee weakness by taking assault terminators or a horde of boyz. Or they can take an Eldar psyker HQ with divination and hand out shooting buffs to make their shooting even better. And now of course supplements let the most powerful armies ally with themselves and effectively gain +1 FOC slot in every category. The final insult to injury was how awful and unfluffy the allies matrix is, where Tau and Black Templars are now better allies than some marine chapters.

And really it was just pointless. Want a fluffy scenario where the IG come and bail out the marines? Ask your opponent to let you bring two armies and come up with some scenario rules. There was no need to introduce allies as a default option in random pick up games.

Close Combat Weapons getting profiles? I mean really I found it a little silly that it was either a CCW, Power Weapon or Power Fist/Klaw as opposed to having hundreds of ranged weapons, I like the added profiles.

I don't think I've seen anyone complaining about this. It was a sensible change to standardize the format of melee weapons just like shooting weapons. The stupid thing was adding different types of power weapons based entirely on whether the model is holding an axe or sword, which was a pointless level of detail for a game with so many models on the table.

Power Swords being ONLY AP3? Really? Only 3? Come on, how many 2+ Models do you really face on a regular basis that makes Power Swords not ignore most armor?

It's a minor annoyance, but it still nerfed a lot of units for no apparent reason besides GW's obsessive need to add extra complexity to the rules and have different types of power weapons. You might not always be fighting against terminators but when you do it's stupid that your power sword is no better against them than a wooden club.

(Yes, the shooting AP system is also bad, but melee units really didn't need the extra nerf.)

The Codex Supplements? Now I admit it, I am much more into the story than the competition (although I really like a good doubles/team tournament), so I don't mind a supplement ONLY having a page or two of rules. What do you want an entirely different book with all new entries so you can complain about GW gouging you for more new models instead of just the book?

No, I want codex supplements to be books of fluff and pretty pictures aimed at dedicated collectors. The rules should have been printed in the codex, not saved for a separate $50 book.

The alleged massed amount of Cover Ignoring shooting? Look I know I haven't managed a lot of games in 6th [spending a lot of time teaching some friends to play] but I have not come across heaps of weapons ignoring cover on a regular basis.

It's not the total number of weapons, it's the fact that those weapons are powerful options in the newest and most powerful armies. Tau can ignore cover with everything in their codex, CSM ignore it with a cheap AV 12 flyer with an AP 3 super-flamer (with an incredibly stupid FAQ to give it a 360* turret), and Eldar get to ignore cover with the powerful transports they're spamming. And since those Tau and Eldar are extremely popular the result is that units that depend on cover to survive are effectively removed from the game. You can't put things like 2+ cover scouts in your list as objective campers when you could be playing against Tau and have them die with no save at all.

Heaps of AP2 or 3 Weapons? Honestly, how many Troops [yep I mean the grunts of the army] can carry this sort of hardware in numbers to make a massive difference? Oh and I always find it amusing when I read someone complaining about AP3 weapons and how many of them exist but still complain Power Swords are only AP3....

Who cares about troops? Yes, you need them to score objectives, but most lists aren't taking tons of troops with very few bigger guns to support them. You can't dismiss concerns about the power level of certain weapons just because one FOC slot often happens to have trouble spamming them.

And no, the power sword complaint doesn't necessarily contradict this. AP 3 melee weapons and AP 3 shooting weapons are two very different parts of the game, and many people feel that 6th edition has pushed the metagame too far in favor of shooting (IMO they're wrong, but it's a consistent complaint).

Vehicles and Hull Points? Now this seems to be the most contentious that I have seen a lot, I really don't get it, in 5th I had a chance to get rid of a Land Raider with a Glancing Hit, therefore I could DESTROY a Land Raider with a strength 8 Weapon in one shot (Only 1 in 6 chance mind you but that was better than nothing, am I remembering this right?) where as now it simply loses a hull point. On top of that, glancing hits don't reduce the effectiveness of the said vehicle due to not having to roll on a chart, meaning they are free to try and get the hell out of the way.

Hull points are a solution to a problem (shake/stun locking vehicles but never killing them), but they're a bad solution. The result was that vehicles, especially medium-AV transport vehicles, die too quickly against even fairly weak weapons. Add the ban on claiming/contesting objectives without disembarking and shaken/stunned results still applying to passengers when they disembark and you have a lot of unhappy mech players whose expensive armies don't really work anymore.

Allies was a stupid idea because the game is supposed to be balanced around each army having its strengths and weaknesses. For example, Tau are great at shooting but weak at melee, but now they can fix that melee weakness by taking assault terminators or a horde of boyz.

What game of 40k are you playing where that actually happened? Strengths and weaknesses HA! In most cases things are balanced around the edition and what codex they have, along with what writer they have at the moment. If you see an Eldar book with Kelly, expect a happy run as you know you have strong tools because kelly seems to pump up their strength each time he writes them. (Till the next edition nerfs them anyways )

The 360 turret on the Helldrake makes perfect sense. It not onyl represents the fact that the gun is on the end of what basically amounts to a tentacle, it also represents the fact that the Helldrake could well be flaming the thing it just flew over as it flew.

The baleflamer is located inside the Heldrake's mouth, for one.

For two, there is a special rule in the BRB for shooting a target as you fly over it. It's called "strafing run".

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The baleflamer is located inside the Heldrake's mouth, for one.

For two, there is a special rule in the BRB for shooting a target as you fly over it. It's called "strafing run".

Not really, that's more designed to show a Ground-Attack craft as it specifically says in it's description.

Otherwise nobody would be able to shoot as they go over a unit.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It not onyl represents the fact that the gun is on the end of what basically amounts to a tentacle

That still doesn't justify turning 180* backwards. It should have been a hull-mounted gun just like every other unit with a front-facing gun with a limited firing arc. And it's an awful decision for balance purposes because it negates the one drawback of the unit, the limited movement rules flyers have to obey.

it also represents the fact that the Helldrake could well be flaming the thing it just flew over as it flew.

By that standard every unit should be able to shoot in all directions because it could have shot and then turned around to finish its move. The Helldrake doesn't deserve a special exception.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The baleflamer is located inside the Heldrake's mouth, for one.

For two, there is a special rule in the BRB for shooting a target as you fly over it. It's called "strafing run".

Not really, that's more designed to show a Ground-Attack craft as it specifically says in it's description.

Otherwise nobody would be able to shoot as they go over a unit.

So what is a Heldrake if not a "ground attack craft?"

A flamethrower is a terrible weapon for air superiority.

Not really sure why there's all the hate for the supplemental rules being put out there. It's pretty simple, if you don't want to pay the money, don't. It's not like these supplements are pumping out groundbreaking rules that are must haves and game breakers. They're really just 95% fluff followed by a few rule tweaks here or there. Again, if you don't want to pay the money, you as a consumer have a choice.

riburn3 wrote:
It's not like these supplements are pumping out groundbreaking rules that are must haves and game breakers.

Have you even read the Farsight supplement?

 Peregrine wrote:

riburn3 wrote:
It's not like these supplements are pumping out groundbreaking rules that are must haves and game breakers.

Have you even read the Farsight supplement?

I own it. Don't think it's really broken in retrospect to what the Tau Codex is doing to the meta right now.

Pretty miffed at Ignores Cover, really hate barrage / barrage sniping and especially 2++ rerollable saves myself (the last one really should be in the OP)

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The baleflamer is located inside the Heldrake's mouth, for one.

For two, there is a special rule in the BRB for shooting a target as you fly over it. It's called "strafing run".

Not really, that's more designed to show a Ground-Attack craft as it specifically says in it's description.

Otherwise nobody would be able to shoot as they go over a unit.

So what is a Heldrake if not a "ground attack craft?"

A flamethrower is a terrible weapon for air superiority.

It's a Daemon Engine that flies.

It also has the Hades Autocannon as an option you know, Daemon Weaponry.

Plus I kinda figure that if this was an actual thing, it would bite down on flyer vehicles, spit superheated flame inside the craft and kill the entire crew before tossing off the flyer.

I think the Heldrake got 360 arc because it can bend its neck underneath its body or over its back like a swan or other long-necked bird.

I like to imagine Heldrakes as spinning shuriken though.

 BlaxicanX wrote:


A flamethrower is a terrible weapon for air superiority.

http://gyazo.com/cc0489b59b6e04e6066f32891d3bede5

Even better.

 Archer wrote:
Hi all, you will need to forgive my rant here, but I need to get a few things off my chest and some clarification if at all possible. Thanks in advance.

So, what I am hoping to get is some opinion on why people get so fired up over the following things, now of course it is only my opinion whilst reading forums or feedback from Gaming Clubs, but does anyone want to shed some light on the following 'issues' I have read/heard often complained about?

Ok. Keep in mind that every player has a different opinion, and those who whine the hardest are not always the majority.

Allies? Now I really despise some of the truly stupid combinations of allies that are capable due to the matrix and I admit early on I thought how stupid is this. But on reflection I think the game missed the combined arms of the Imperium being around. Maybe it has gone a little far, but we needed to see Guard being bailed out by Marines again.

The main problem with me is the allied matrix. Tau and Space Marines are battle brothers? Chaos Space Marines are not batlle brothers with Imperial Guard? Black Templar and Eldar? It makes absolutely no sense. I would love to see a Genestealer Cult or a Lost and the Damned army, but instead we have Necrons allied with Grey Knights and Tau + SM. It hurts the background.

Close Combat Weapons getting profiles? I mean really I found it a little silly that it was either a CCW, Power Weapon or Power Fist/Klaw as opposed to having hundreds of ranged weapons, I like the added profiles.

Power Swords being ONLY AP3? Really? Only 3? Come on, how many 2+ Models do you really face on a regular basis that makes Power Swords not ignore most armor?

I am ok with CCW getting profiles, but some configurations have become useless. For instance, I like power mauls, and they are now useless against most of my regular enemies.

The Codex Supplements? Now I admit it, I am much more into the story than the competition (although I really like a good doubles/team tournament), so I don't mind a supplement ONLY having a page or two of rules. What do you want an entirely different book with all new entries so you can complain about GW gouging you for more new models instead of just the book?

Multiple issues here. I am adding Digital-only codexes because they share most of the problems.
The quality of some supplements is (in my opinion) abysmal. It takes the Black Legion thousand of years to attack a single fortress or a single world, and they are always defeated, sometimes by a single company of Space Marines. It is pitiful. It was written from the point of view of a Space Marine fanboy, depicting Abbadon as a failure. Iyanden was slightly better, but only Farsight was worth a reading.
Very little effort has been put into the making of the supplements. They are full of empty space, copy-pasted sentences that repeat themselves over and over, and mistakes.
They are English-only. This is a pain for a lot of players who doesn´t speak/read English. This issue also breaks many gaming clubs. Also encourages the fan-made translating -> free downloading of the book. Tell a Sisters of Battle player that he is not allowed to play the army he has been played for ten years because he doesn´t speak English. And Inquisition is next, which is far more popular.
They are incredibly expensive.
There is also a feeling that they should be free. This is the sort of thing the White Dwarf or the Codexes used to include some time ago. There was a time when GW was not about money-grabbing, or at least not all the time, not so hard, not in such an agressive way.

The alleged massed amount of Cover Ignoring shooting? Look I know I haven't managed a lot of games in 6th [spending a lot of time teaching some friends to play] but I have not come across heaps of weapons ignoring cover on a regular basis.

Heaps of AP2 or 3 Weapons? Honestly, how many Troops [yep I mean the grunts of the army] can carry this sort of hardware in numbers to make a massive difference? Oh and I always find it amusing when I read someone complaining about AP3 weapons and how many of them exist but still complain Power Swords are only AP3....

Vehicles and Hull Points? Now this seems to be the most contentious that I have seen a lot, I really don't get it, in 5th I had a chance to get rid of a Land Raider with a Glancing Hit, therefore I could DESTROY a Land Raider with a strength 8 Weapon in one shot (Only 1 in 6 chance mind you but that was better than nothing, am I remembering this right?) where as now it simply loses a hull point. On top of that, glancing hits don't reduce the effectiveness of the said vehicle due to not having to roll on a chart, meaning they are free to try and get the hell out of the way.

I am ok with all these things. The hull points are a brilliant way to fix a 5th edition balance problem. I would like to see grenades needing a six to hit a walker, but that´s all.

Oh and finally (this one is a personal gripe), the W/D/L that people put in there signatures (yes maybe I am jealous I have only managed a handful of games in 6th) but I protest that the results people put up are bending the truth just a little much, I mean from most people I see, they claim that they win 85% or more of their games, if that is true where are all of the people with 85% losses to counter act these über Generals?

yeah I noticed that too. Everyone wins most of their games. I completely ignore that

Ok thanks for reading (and I hope you get some enjoyment out of the post). Don't take it too seriously and remember that the sun always comes up in the morning. (Except over on the YMDC forum, those guys just plain scare me, I am way too laid back to get fired up over where someone decided to put a square bracket instead of a round one ~ sorry couldn't resist the cheap shot, keep up the good work arguing the rules I find it often an interesting read).

Agree here. YMDC is really disturbing.


Regarding the Heldrake, I have always house-ruled it this way: a template weapon can only be used by a flyer while hovering. Makes sense.

Archer wrote:Allies?

The main problem here is that GW has a hard time making a single codex internally balanced. It has an impossibly hard time making codices balanced between each other. Now you're going to add allies to the mix?

Is GW really writing codices while carefully considering the benefits that they will give to armies that can ally with them? No. Allies make a complete mockery of a game that was already poorly balanced.

Then, as mentioned, the fluff thing is atrocious.

Plus, in a way, it was already unnecessary. I played 2 vs 2 player games wherein my guard army was allied with marines. There was nothing saying you couldn't house rule allies in for those combinations that made sense either.

But instead, they decided to force greycrons and taudar on all of us...

Archer wrote:The Codex Supplements?

My problem isn't this so much as they way that codices are laid out nowadays. The army list section says you can buy X upgrade for 10 points. Then you have to go back to the wargear section to find out what X does, but it winds up being unique to that unit in your codex, so then you have to flip back over the pictures and find the unit description. There it says that what X does is give the unit special rule Y. Now you have to go to the main rulebook and figure out what Y does.

It's so badly organized that, in the case of the CSM codex, you have 4 pages of index for only 20 pages of actual rules. It's almost... almost to the point where, given the trend, the index is long enough to require an index...

If they can't get their codices right, it's annoying that they're spending more time on mass-producing more of them.

Archer wrote:The alleged massed amount of Cover Ignoring shooting?

Cover saves have been taking a nose-dive in utility since the end of 5th, but especially since 6th ed came out, and ESPECIALLY as new codices have come out with said ignores cover stuff.

The problem that this creates is that it makes it so that a gunline treats everywhere on the board (in LOS) equally. It's like you're playing on a board with no terrain. What this does is drastically reduce the importance of the movement phase, and, if you were a gunline, you're already ignoring the assault phase (which 6th basically ripped out of the rules unless you're a demon player).

This means that mass ignores-cover have helped enable 40k to reduce itself to a game of yahtzee with miniatures.

And to add insult to injury, unless you're playing a terrain-ignoring gunline, you still have to worry about getting slowed down and messed up by terrain, which makes you yet again a bit weaker, which means eventually you're going to gravitate towards running a gunline yourself...

Archer wrote:Vehicles and Hull Points?

This was long, LONG overdue.

If veteran players don't immediately agree, if they reach down into their soul, they will find the ultimate agony of a necron player phasing out turn 2 in 4th edition because a single missile launcher blew up their monolith with one shot with a glancing hit. Or their land raider.

On the other side, you'll still get the emotion of pure rage and frustration as dozens of meltaguns fire into that land raider, and the end result is absolutely nothing. 5 penetrating results just yield a bunch of shaken and stunned results, which the raider just ignores. Or the same for any long-range shooty vehicle that you literally just couldn't destroy.

And we remember stun-locking, which nobody liked because on the one hand, your vehicles didn't do much of anything, while on the other hand, they were never actually killed off.

40k's vehicle rules have been very bad up until 6th edition. Way to streaky, way to luck-dependent, way to unpredictable.

Hull points have finally more or less solved the problem. Tanks fall apart in the same smooth, consistent way as monstrous creatures, except with the added chance of suffering instant death.

A lot of people wrongly think that this means their vehicles do less and just fall apart. In reality, without stunlocking, your vehicles get to do their job the same amount (or more, even if they die faster), and buffs to vehicles (they move faster, kinder damage tables, etc.) means that they are definitely more effective.

It's a case of a tank doing three times as much per turn, but only living half the turns. You still come out ahead, in the end.

Most complainers only look at the one tiny facet of the hull-points system that they hate the most, and then fly into an obsessive compulsive nerdrage about it.

Plus, even if mech lists did get worse in 6th, it's still absolutely nothing compared to how 6th ed nerfed foot lists, so relatively, if not absolutely, mech lists were benefited by the total changes to vehicles in 6th ed immensely.

Archer wrote: the W/D/L that people put in there signatures

Player skill in 40k is learning how to play the odds, while it's the die rolls themselves that actually determine how a game plays out. There is a steep learning curve, but it's pretty shallow once you get over the hump. Put another way, it's a game that's difficult to learn, but easy to master.

Some people, though, can be playing a game, and look at the dice in their hand, and still think that it's a skill-game like chess or tennis. For those people who think this, then the point of every game is to show off how skilled they are. The way you do this is by winning.

Strangely enough, the way to win games most is to play the easiest lists to play. The ones that require the least amount of skill to win games with (cf. gunlines). As such, they desire to prove their skill in ways that use the least amount of skill. They show how tough they are by playing the game on easy mode.

If you manage to make it past this strange hypocrisy, you start seeing a good WLD record for what it is - players passing off luck as skill, and players who are playing against terrible opponents, and are unwilling to make the game more challenging for themselves. Because, you know, that would require REAL skill.

In the end, though, I actually think that WLDs in signatures are actually a good thing. They tell me that someone doesn't understand what's going on, and that what they say can probably safely be ignored out of hand.

I object to that.

Back when the Sisters codex first came out, I kept a W/L/D list in my sig (actually, it might still be there, although I haven't updated it in months).

This was to indicate that yet, new Sisters are a viable, even powerful army.

It's got nothing to do with passing off luck as skill, although I will admit I have sufficient of both. Nor should you take it to mean that I don't understand the nature of the game. Saying that anyone with a W/L/D in their sig doesn't understand the game is arrogant in the extreme.

Edit: Nope, I took it out at some point, lol.

 Archer wrote:

Allies? Now I really despise some of the truly stupid combinations of allies that are capable due to the matrix and I admit early on I thought how stupid is this. But on reflection I think the game missed the combined arms of the Imperium being around. Maybe it has gone a little far, but we needed to see Guard being bailed out by Marines again.

Huh? Why?

The alleged massed amount of Cover Ignoring shooting? Look I know I haven't managed a lot of games in 6th [spending a lot of time teaching some friends to play] but I have not come across heaps of weapons ignoring cover on a regular basis.

Did you miss Tau and Eldar and the retyping of several weapons to Barrage (e.g. Thunderfire Cannon) on top of other new things like Heldrake baleflamers and the like? There's a whole lot of new cover ignoring stuff.

Vehicles and Hull Points? Now this seems to be the most contentious that I have seen a lot, I really don't get it, in 5th I had a chance to get rid of a Land Raider with a Glancing Hit, therefore I could DESTROY a Land Raider with a strength 8 Weapon in one shot (Only 1 in 6 chance mind you but that was better than nothing, am I remembering this right?) where as now it simply loses a hull point. On top of that, glancing hits don't reduce the effectiveness of the said vehicle due to not having to roll on a chart, meaning they are free to try and get the hell out of the way.

You are incorrect here. You couldn't kill a vehicle with a glance in 5E unless it was an AP1 weapon or stripped all weapons and immobilized it and then inflicted another such result again.

Hull Points in 6E fundamentally generally cut expected vehicle lifespan dramatically, often in half or more depending on the weapons used, relative to 5E, in terms of the average number of shots required to kill the vehicle. So now instead of having a shaken vehicle, you have a dead one.

This, of course, is on top of the nerfs to smoke launchers and the massive incredible nerf to vehicle CC where now they're hit at worst on 3's, making it easier for a squad of Tac Marines to kill a flat out moving holofield Falcon or a maneuvering Leman Russ with krak grenades than it is for that squad to kill 2 other basic enemy marines on average.

Basically vehicles are now naked MC's without armor saves and that are hilariously easily killed in CC.

There's a reason we've seen tracked tanks disappear from most tables en-masse and why the only vehicle heavy armies you see are generally skimmerspam armies that can sport 3+ cover saves in the open (Tau and Eldar) or get AV13 shields and have reinforced rear armor and an extra HP for their transport (Necrons).

Allies was both a good and awful idea. They were good, because there were some of us that wanted that fluffy Daemons riddled Chaos Marine army, or the Chaos Marines with renegade guard.. or Space Marines with regular Guard. So on one side, the idea was cool and great.

On the OTHER hand, GW put very little thought into the implementation of the allies rules, and what we have is a completely pointless, makes no sense, allies chart. Thanks for not trying hard enough, typical.

I haven't seen much complaint about the other stuff though. I personally love and hate the allies rules, and can't wait for them to come and crush Fantasy as well.... bleh.

I quantify the rage presented in this thread at...

(cogitates)

... six-point-two-eight flipped tables on the Kurosaki Scale.

 Archer wrote:
.

Oh and finally (this one is a personal gripe), the W/D/L that people put in there signatures (yes maybe I am jealous I have only managed a handful of games in 6th) but I protest that the results people put up are bending the truth just a little much, I mean from most people I see, they claim that they win 85% or more of their games, if that is true where are all of the people with 85% losses to counter act these über Generals?

Two thoughts: why on earth would a person lie about their w/l record?! 6 of the regulars in my group (out of 12) post on Dakka Dakka and more that I know in RL. I'd be called out so quick if I even added +2 instead of +1 to a record. I put it out there as a service. I often have people PM me about a list or an army that I run and I gladly share every tactic or trick that I know. Last singles match I lost was Aug of 2011. It just is. Last match of any type I lost, 2 weeks ago in a double tourney.. my team took second, running salamanders and UM against TauDar WS spam with Riptides was our only loss and we took max points in all other matches. If I can help someone else, why wouldn't I? I'd love nothing more than someone I help meeting me in a RTT (all I can play due to work and family restrictions) and tabling me. I've benefitted so much (and still do) from the DakkaDakka community.

Second, why would someone who has won only 15% of their matches post their record?