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,
I'm new to 40K and I'm just wondering about the changes between 5th edition and 6th edition. I heard that shooty armies are now much more powerful (thus the Tau hate) and also something about glances, but is there anything else?

Here's a pdf with all of the changes brought in 6th Edition. Hopefully that helps out a bit!

 SlyStalker wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new to 40K and I'm just wondering about the changes between 5th edition and 6th edition. I heard that shooty armies are now much more powerful (thus the Tau hate) and also something about glances, but is there anything else?

Hotrod's link covers it well.

For some major generalities:

Completely CC focused armies are more difficult to run, assault moves are a straight 2d6" instead of flat 6" (so a random 2-12"), Nightfight is now in *every* game, Flyers are now part of the core rules instead of Forgeworld rules, with vehicles there's been a major swing back to the 4E status of "skimmers work great, if it's got treads or legs it stays on the shelf", Objectives are much more what games are about and less about destroying the opponent's force, Deathstar units are those with speed and "other than armor" saves as opposed to 5E's multi-wound shennanigans, casualties are always closest model instead of the weird looping allocation from 5E, psychic powers play more of a role in games, no more assaulting from reserves, no more Dawn of War mission type.

5th edition walks like this , 6th edition walks like that.

Basically 5th ed was good, 6th ed is a bloated piece of crap that doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

OK, thanks! I noticed that skimmers can jink and can move flat out and still fire two weapons at full BS. Seriously? ;n;

No. Flat out is instead of shooting.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Basically 5th ed was good, 6th ed is a bloated piece of crap that doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

Ah yes, the box edition. Where spammed razorbacks/chimera's won the day, where GK was top dog with it's S8 firing dreadnoughts, and Necrons with their tesla shooting.

Mech-hammer was boring as can be, what won was massed mech and that's pretty much it.

I guess the difference being that we actually knew how rules worked, had faq's and errata's for codex's and on top of that even had great stuff like the inat faq to ensure tournaments ran smoothly.

That and getting a game in didn't require a degree in political science.

Talking to people is a political science now? I thought it was just standard communication.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Talking to people is a political science now? I thought it was just standard communication.

Rounds and rounds of negotiation just to get a game between individuals or groups as has been my experience of 6th goes far past the usual communication. 6th ed has turned the local community into a divisive mindfield.

5th ed: "How many points you wanna do? Cool."

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?" Can we maybe just do like one army againsts another? No? I don't think we really feel like playing apocalypse. It's not apocalypse you say? It seems a lot like apocalypse."

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Talking to people is a political science now? I thought it was just standard communication.

Rounds and rounds of negotiation just to get a game between individuals or groups as has been my experience of 6th goes far past the usual communication. 6th ed has turned the local community into a divisive mindfield.

5th ed: "How many points you wanna do? Cool."

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?" Can we maybe just do like one army againsts another? No? I don't think we really feel like playing apocalypse. It's not apocalypse you say? It seems a lot like apocalypse."

Still seems like communication, hostile communication that's likely going to get you ostracized considering how much of a dick you sound, but it's still typical communication.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Basically 5th ed was good, 6th ed is a bloated piece of crap that doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

This.

So much this.

Here's my list of changes. Don't know if they're different.

Anyways 6th edition made the game MUCH more shooty, and made missions less important, and ruined horde armies.

In very brief, the biggest change from 5th ed to 6th ed was that they changed from a game of units running around the table represented by certain models into a game of models running around with coherency rules lightly draped on top. It's no longer the unit that's upgraded with a meltagun, it's that model, and the moment your opponent can target him, he's going down. Likewise, it's no longer the unit that gets cover saves, but it's by each individual model, and shooting restrictions are by-model as well.

What this did was to greatly improve armies based around small numbers of better models at the cost of hordes. The improved rules for vehicles (especially transports) and the emphasis on shooting passed out huge benefits to running mech lists and running monstrous creatures. These were, of course, dovetailed with a bunch of new vehicle and monstrous creature models being made available for sale.

There has also been a continuation of points deflation, and a massive increase in the amount of content GW is putting out (dataslates, formations, supplements to rules/codices, faster turnaround time, etc.). All of this means that in order to play a game like you played in 5th ed, you have to be a lot more active in controlling the content you allow into your games and to play at lower points levels.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Basically 5th ed was good, 6th ed is a bloated piece of crap that doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

Dude, I nearly spewed on my monitor!

 Wildstorm wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Basically 5th ed was good, 6th ed is a bloated piece of crap that doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

Dude, I nearly spewed on my monitor!

lol ,In a good way or a bad way?

Another vote here for 5th edition. Sure it had its problems, but you didn't have nearly the chaotic mess of a game you have now in 6th.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Talking to people is a political science now? I thought it was just standard communication.

Rounds and rounds of negotiation just to get a game between individuals or groups as has been my experience of 6th goes far past the usual communication. 6th ed has turned the local community into a divisive mindfield.

5th ed: "How many points you wanna do? Cool."

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?" Can we maybe just do like one army againsts another? No? I don't think we really feel like playing apocalypse. It's not apocalypse you say? It seems a lot like apocalypse."

Still seems like communication, hostile communication that's likely going to get you ostracized considering how much of a dick you sound, but it's still typical communication.

See that's what I'm talking about, just having the conversation leads to being considered a dick and likely one or both or more individuals tend to start labelling other players or groups and the reason it's ugly is there is no format anymore.

I'm not innocent clearly, but really I'm the one who feels like not that long ago apocalypse was optional and now it's not and it's the game I play that has suffered for no other reason than a cynical money grab race to the bottom on gw's part.

As far as what 6th has done to the FOC, it's pretty much apoc all the time now, that's not to say I can't find any opponents who prefer to not play apocalypse all the time, but the pool is shrinking.

See that's what I'm talking about, just having the conversation leads to being considered a dick and likely one or both or more individuals tend to start labelling other players or groups and the reason it's ugly is there is no format anymore.

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?"

Or it could be that you started it off by being insulting, simple enough. Not 6th edition's fault right there, already deciding to label a group insultingly while being hypocritical about what you feel entitled to play with.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

See that's what I'm talking about, just having the conversation leads to being considered a dick and likely one or both or more individuals tend to start labelling other players or groups and the reason it's ugly is there is no format anymore.

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?"

Or it could be that you started it off by being insulting, simple enough. Not 6th edition's fault right there, already deciding to label a group insultingly while being hypocritical about what you feel entitled to play with.

But that is the reaction you do get. If someone spend a ton of cash on a 1500list with escalation/stronghold , but without formation and suddenly faces someone who plays with formations , but without escalation/stronghold , you will get the stupid remark or worse. Because if the escalation OP doesn't call the other dude stupid , it would mean that he is the stupid one paying for an army with escalation/stronghold . It is like FW legal or not legal war turned up to 11 . But instead of rare originals and more common recasts , people now get to argue about a ton of stuff. Formations , escalations/stronghold , ally , D or no D etc and each side sees itself as the right one and won't budge , because that would have ment losing face and not less important money.

6th wants to please everyone.

Want fliers? You opponent might forget to bring AA, and the game's easy.
Big stompy robots, bring your own or massive cannons.
Parking lot? Cover your back, as a krak up the tailpipe and you're a hole in the ground.
But, if you want a good punch-up in the middle of the field? Pffftt. Good luck with that. You'll be there all day and it won't end well.

You could play a normal army, or bring up to 8 books and an iPad for all your rules.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

See that's what I'm talking about, just having the conversation leads to being considered a dick and likely one or both or more individuals tend to start labelling other players or groups and the reason it's ugly is there is no format anymore.

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?"

Or it could be that you started it off by being insulting, simple enough. Not 6th edition's fault right there, already deciding to label a group insultingly while being hypocritical about what you feel entitled to play with.

If you actually think obvious hyperbole for comedic effect is how I communicate via telephone or email with potential opponents I worry for you. Whether framed nicely or sardonically, the end result is the same more often than not.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Wildstorm wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Basically 5th ed was good, 6th ed is a bloated piece of crap that doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

Dude, I nearly spewed on my monitor!

lol ,In a good way or a bad way?

I had a good laugh as you summed up my feelings with a hefty dose of quick wit.

5th had it's flaws and I actually like some of the changes in 6th, but overall I'm not that thrilled about the game anymore.

The pace of their releases certainly doesn't help. Codex creep? Creep has never moved so fast!

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

See that's what I'm talking about, just having the conversation leads to being considered a dick and likely one or both or more individuals tend to start labelling other players or groups and the reason it's ugly is there is no format anymore.

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?"

Or it could be that you started it off by being insulting, simple enough. Not 6th edition's fault right there, already deciding to label a group insultingly while being hypocritical about what you feel entitled to play with.

If you actually think obvious hyperbole for comedic effect is how I communicate via telephone or email with potential opponents I worry for you. Whether framed nicely or sardonically, the end result is the same more often than not.

Hard to tell if it was hyperbole for comedic effect, or to affect a hostile intent on it. Not to mention I've met a few 6th haters who have spoken in that sort of tone when trying to play a friendly game, so I suppose I am a bit biased on that.

6th has an extra E.

doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

Not sure that this even makes any sense.

How easily the past is forgotten...

 pretre wrote:
6th has an extra E.

doesn't know if it wants to be apocalypse or dungeons and dragons.

Not sure that this even makes any sense.

I definitely see it. We've got rules for individual squad leaders landing individual blows on opponent squad leaders or army leaders, rules differences between an axe, sword, lance etc, but at the same time include orbital bombardments, strike aircraft, strategic missile launchers, Corps level artillery, superheavy tanks, fortresses, and armies of potentially hundreds of models facing each other.

The game has a level of detail in many places more appropriate to small scale squad or fire team level skirmish games of 4-10 models while actually playing with platoon, company or even battalion sized forces of 50-200+ models, with divisional, corps, and even strategic level units and support.

So, a more appropriate comparison would be 'apocalypse or necromunda'...

perhaps yeah, but I got it at least

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

See that's what I'm talking about, just having the conversation leads to being considered a dick and likely one or both or more individuals tend to start labelling other players or groups and the reason it's ugly is there is no format anymore.

6th ed: "What stupid crap does your group feel entitled to play with?"

Or it could be that you started it off by being insulting, simple enough. Not 6th edition's fault right there, already deciding to label a group insultingly while being hypocritical about what you feel entitled to play with.

If you actually think obvious hyperbole for comedic effect is how I communicate via telephone or email with potential opponents I worry for you. Whether framed nicely or sardonically, the end result is the same more often than not.

Hard to tell if it was hyperbole for comedic effect, or to affect a hostile intent on it. Not to mention I've met a few 6th haters who have spoken in that sort of tone when trying to play a friendly game, so I suppose I am a bit biased on that.

Ya think? It's cetainly possible...