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.

Sencho wrote:I'm surprised to see that the majority of folks on Dakka like 6th (I'm a fan). It looks like the initial release woes are over.

In most cases people overwhelmingly vote that they like the newest thing, usually just because it's different. Many of the people complaining about how bad 5th was were saying how much of a breath of fresh air it was after 4th and so on and so forth. 7th will be no different with people decrying the staleness of 6th and it's awful repetitive metagame and then once again for 7th as we transition to 8th and we'll likely still have the same core problems we've had for the last decade in that GW never knows what they want vehicles to be, what scale they want this game to be intended for, etc ad nauseum.

I had to stop going to my local GW store because I got tired of the initial release moans.

Things I like:

New vehicle rules - I get more shots out of my vehicles and it forces me to be a bit more strategic with their placing.
Rapid Fire is a plus! It makes more sense when you consider that these are high tech weapons and not muskets
New Measuring rules - I'm also Optically Geometric challenged and even though I've been playing since 1992 with 2nd edition I've never gotten any better at it.
Overwatch - Give my poor Fire Warriors a chance
Random Charge - I like it for my Tau as some times I get lucky I like it for my Space Wolves because of the same reason (but on the other spectrum)
Snap fire is a plus
Jetpack and Jump pack rules really does set them apart and shows that they each have their own strategic purpose other than moving about quickly
Stealth Suits are actually usable now
I like Character Rules
Wound Allocation: Keeps people from taking off units from the rear of their squad (which I always hated). Stops people from just exposing their Heavy Weapon while the rest of the squad remains out of sight yet keep dying from what I assume are ricocheting bullets?

Things I don't like:

Space Wolf Frost Axe is useless.
New vehicle rule "Jink" lessen the ability to have Disruption Pods for Tau Vehicles
Removal of yet more Tau Wargear
Psychic Rules
Challenges - Although it is cool for Space Wolves I just don't see why a Tau Unit would really care.
Wound Allocation: Now I'm seeing shielding Units such as Demon Princes, Terminators with Storm Shields, etc.
(this is a long standing complaint of mine) Bikes, Jet Packs/Jump troops still locked in assault. They should always have a chance to break away.


Granted I have not played that many games of 6th yet so I'm still confused on some of the new rules.

Vaktathi wrote:what scale they want this game to be intended for

And this specific issue ends up becoming more problematic with each edition, as the game becomes more and more upscaled, regardless of whether the rules do a good job of supporting such upscaling or not. And it's not like GW will ever scale it down either.

Indeed, already we've got more models on the table at a scale much much larger than most company or even battallion level miniatures games on the same boards, with rules actions as minute as challenges in games where there may be 300 models on the board and weapons ranging from small arms to orbital ordnance, aircraft bombs and heavy artillery, with army sizes constantly increasing even when points levels do not.

Highland_Piper wrote:I had to stop going to my local GW store because I got tired of the initial release moans.

Things I don't like:

Space Wolf Frost Axe is useless.
(this is a long standing complaint of mine) Bikes, Jet Packs/Jump troops still locked in assault. They should always have a chance to break away.

Actually the Frost Axe has a purpose, killing Vehicles and MCs
A Wolf Lord on a Thunderwolf can get 6 S7 AP2 Attacks with will mess up most Vehicles. I have thought about giving one a Frost Axe and Power Maul just for that ability. Even on foot S6 Attacks can handle most things.

And yes I hate getting locked in combat in general.

You don't need a ridiculously kitted Wolf Lord to kill tanks in this edition, that's beyond unnecessary overkill, a squad of bloodclaws will do the job with their krak grenades when you just need 3's at worst to hit and 4's to take off an HP and you only need to take off 3 HP's.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain.

Just imagine that the battle takes place on Catachan

gaovinni wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain.

Just imagine that the battle takes place on Catachan

Or that Tyranid infested world

Anpu42 wrote:

gaovinni wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:Only thing I'm not a huge fan of is Mysterious Terrain.

Just imagine that the battle takes place on Catachan

Or that Tyranid infested world

Or inside Matt Wards head!

Fafnir wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:what scale they want this game to be intended for

And this specific issue ends up becoming more problematic with each edition, as the game becomes more and more upscaled, regardless of whether the rules do a good job of supporting such upscaling or not. And it's not like GW will ever scale it down either.

This. Reaction fire, sniping, look out sir!, and other elements of individual-level (rather than squad-level) micromanagement belong in a skirmish game of 10 - 20 models a side, not (as 40k has become) a mass battle game. The same goes for chrome like subplots and active terrain; in a campaign-drive skirmish game both things are excellent design choices to add colour and depth, whereas in an already-unwieldy mass battle game, they're just unnecessary and unbalancing details. Conversely, fliers don't even suit games of 40k's increasingly bloated scale; even Epic 40k didn't try to represent them on the tabletop in a conventional fashion (rather they launched from off the table to wherever they were wanted, then disappeared to refuel/rearm at the end of a turn).

I have only played a few gaqes so far and think it is in general an improvement - still some issues but all in all mostly a good thing.

Good
Pe-measuring - about time too
snapfire - nice rule, makes sense along with if you don't move a hvy wepaon you get to fire as normal.
Falling back from things you can't hurt
Fortifcations being able to be bought
lots of optional Fun rules for scenarios and such
new Close combat weapon rules

Not good
The weapon skill chart is still awful - Bloodthirsters and Leilith hit Gretchin on a 3+ really???- totally stupid should be 2+ once double and re-roll if more
Allies table - great idea - poor execution - would have been nice for the writters to take more than a passing interesting in the fluff when drawing this up..
Lots of IC's not being able to hurt each other due to having swords and 2+ saves
Power Lances

Just hope that the psychic rules are not too powerful

Welsh_Furey wrote:Rage quit on the first day i will play but it will take some time before i do im so dissilusioned by how badly this book has been writen there is so many loop holes just so gw can turn to players and say look how many pages this book is its worth more than the last its wound me up

Explain some of these "loopholes"
I like the way 6th panned out. The flyers are pretty cool, and i like the changes to the melee rules.

I've enjoyed my 6th editions games so far but I don't think the game works as well as 5th. I have a love hate relationship with snap fire and vehicle HP. Premeasuring doesn't bother me. I've not dealt with the random terrain much in 40k but it has screwed quite a few folks in tournaments for fantasy locally. I'm not a fan of random charge distances and close combat weapons having an ap makes combats more complicated. I also don't like the fact that each modeled weapon has different rules eg axes and swords. The game feels more fun but less competitive.

Likes:
Pre-measuring - finally in the grim darkness of the far future they found a technology allowing them to measure distances
Snapfire - encouraging movement is a good thing
Overwatch - As a Flames of War player, I like this rule a lot more than how 5th just had the counter-attack move
Hull points - I feel like this is a nice balance between vehicles being too soft and too strong
Scoring rules - in 5th it really was annoying that some empty transports could make you lose/draw on the last turn, despite your enemy being almost wiped out
Grenade rules - handy for them to be more than a glorified melee attack
Cover being a 5+ - A 4+ for everything was simply too generous

Dislikes:
Random charge - maybe if they had movement values like in WHFB where you can add your movement, otherwise it does not add anything to the game besides extremely lucky assaults or extremely unlucky ones (Overwatch serves to make this even worse)
Mysterious terrain/objectives - maybe if these were just suggested rules or something, but as a core mechanic are far too random and can have way too much of an impact on the game by just a few die rolls
Flyers - I feel this is outside the scale of 40k (obviously GW gets to decide what scale 40k is, but I think they are just silly). They are also way too powerful at the moment with so few counters available. I'm not against playing strong lists like the Necron air force...but I want to have a fun game not just get plastered while I hope to roll 6s.
Warlord Traits - not a bad idea, but the system is way too random. For instance I play Orks...yay for rolling furious charge as my bonus? It really needs more flexibility.
Allies - I think the only thought put into this addition was "sell more models." I don't want to have to always include Eldrad or a Farseer simply because I have no psychic defense. I want to play my Orks as Orks, muckin about with allies is just plain unorky. IMO this really cheapens each army book as now instead of having a weakness you need to build around, you simply include allies to fill the role. I think most of us can agree that there is very little internal balance to a lot of the codices, now that balance is even more skewed because ability and unit combinations that were never intended to happen are suddenly on the field.
Psychic powers - I don't mind the system of rolling for powers and having lores (I play fantasy and I really love 8th, particularly the magic). My problem is fantasy was designed to where everyone had access to at least some sort of magic user, 40k has no such equivalent for many armies or at least not a very potent one. If in fantasy you don't focus heavily on casting magic, you can at least build around denying your opponent's magic. 40k not so much unless you use allies.
Challenges - As an Ork player I feel this was a huge kick in the nuts to the bread and butter of every Ork army: mobs of boyz with a PK nob. Maybe if it was an IC only rule or something, I don't know...
Double force org chart - Sort of a nitpick, as I have no intention of playing anything over 1850, but I think this along with flyers and allies belongs in Apocalypse where "anything goes."

BTW I voted that I preferred 5th...never thought I'd say that!

I remain hopeful that 6th ed will be like 8th ed for fantasy in that there is a huge initial imbalance, but as codices are released the game becomes quite well balanced. Only time will tell I suppose.

I like it fine, but I think that challenges are a bit silly and not needed

Challenges does fit in perfectly with the 40k fluff so I like it especially we usually tried to engineer the two enemy warlords meeting face to face on the battlefield.

Im definetly enjoying it to date but much too early for an objective and comprehensive comparison to be made. Still much to be released or rereleased and definite holes in places.
Really enjoying the new terrain angles though, missions and certain random aspects it has.

Modeling: One of the things I’m like is that it’s stepping up us making objective markers. We are planning on making a whole bunch based on the missions. We are also planning on making a bunch of Mysterious Terrain pieces in the next few months.

List Building: It is also reducing the SPAM list. Now that two of the Missions make either Fast Attack or Heavy Support Scoring units most of the list are now starting to have units not used before included.

Warlord Traits: I like them, about the only thing we have done it that if you roll something that is useless [like Acute Senses for Space Wolves] we are allowing Re-Rolls. Though I like the idea of not allowing Special Characters to Roll on them. We will have to see what the group comes up with on that one.

Psychic Powers: I like them; I hope that as each Codex comes out they will define them for each army though.

Power Weapons: I LOVE THEM; this allows/forces you to consider how your model is built. Is also lets you define what each model is doing. The only one I am not sure about it the Power Lance/Spear, but I am going to give it a try oddly enough on a Thunder Lord [I built one using a Grey Knight Halberd and I don’t want to change it or use it as an Power Axe].

Hit Points, sorry Hull Point: These and the change to Glancing Hits have made Vehicle Squadrons even more viable. Is has caused an issue with Björn, but I hope they fix that with an FAQ.

Other than that I am in the still Love 6th Edition Camp.

Love it. 6E rules have completely changed how I play my Wolves. I dropped the Rhinos for a pure footslogging list and it's much more competitive than my 5E list.

Rapid Fire - IMO, this is the one rule that turned my army on its head. Move and still shoot Bolters and Plasma Guns, then switch to pistols and assault. (yes I'm aware I can't Rapid Fire within 12" and still assault) Sure! Or I can get within 12", Rapid Fire and try to bait my opponent into assaulting into a counter-charge.

Vehicles - Easier to glance to death. Makes Krak missiles (S8) and plasma (S7) more effective. I also dislike the look of Rhinos so now I don't have to use or paint them any more.

Psykers - My Rune Priest has switched from a shooter/sniper role (LL, Jaws) into a pack buffer by using the Divination table.

Cavalry - TWC are even scarier than before since they ignore difficult terrain and always move 12". Their 24" assault threat range is now easier thanks to the rewritten Fleet rules.

Thanks for all of the feedback. The more votes the better.

Love change to rapid fire.
Hate random assault distance.
Love mysterious terrain/objective.
Hate random warlord trait/psychic power.
Love flyer's zooming defense(hit on 6).
Hate flyer's zooming movement(90 degrees turn before movement, must move 18").
Love hull points(DE, Haywire).
Hate hull points(more squishy DE vehicles, didn't thought that was possible).
Love shooting phase grenades.
Hate overwatch.

So I'm "neutral" really. But I wouldn't just dismiss any negative comments or criticism as "vocal neck-beard brigade members" shooting their mouth off, some of them do make a good point, just as the others who're singing praises. People're entitled to their opinion, especially if their 5th ed special list has just been destroyed by the changes this ed, they should be allowed to voice their displeasure, they paid money for that list, and will need to pay more to rebuild it. DE, for example, has the gap widened between the boring WAAC venom spam list and the lists most DE players enjoyed playing(WWP, wych cult, etc)... Even if you're not playing competitively, you should still be allowed to win, no one should literally be playing to lose.

Thanks Baronyu
The overly vocal neck beards that i refer to are the group of about 5 people who pop up in every single discussion thread that concerns game play in 6th and then write vitriolic negative rebuttals to everyones posts that have a differing opinion. Essentially the equivillent of a written shouting down of opposing opinions. Sure, express how you feel, but if you look at the over arching opinion of the game, and the vast number of favorable posters who may make only one positive post vrs the vast number of negative posts made by the vitriolic handful of dakkaites , it starts to go beyond just voicing a opinion and enters the realm of whining.

Based just on what is written in those discussion threads, the way the really negative crowd makes it sound, the game is horrible, and the sky is falling, all is lost. Thats why i posted this poll. agreeably, polls like this one will likely attract only those that feel very strongly on the matter (not just positive but negative reactions as well). However, if there really were that many people who thought the game had totally fallen apart, the sky was falling, blah blah blah, then their responce would show in the poll numbers. As it seems just looking at this data set, I would suggest that it strongly supports the case that i made. The majority of gamers are really enjoying the new rules and a small minority are really upset.

Whats really nice, is that the majority of posters here on this thread have stated what they like, didnt like and for the most part have remained on topic. Perhaps because no one has tried to shout down another posters opinion. And i do admit that referring to the minority of vocal complainers as the neck beard brigade does not necessarily further the discussion in a favorable fashion. This is due to my own shortcomings as a disscussion columnist, and the fact that i love the term neckbeard brigade.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
In what ways do you think that walkers were nerfed to much(not disagreeing just curious) as well as how could snapfire have been implemented better?

For walkers its the combination of the change to Hull Points (with walkers generally having very few) and the fact that units in close combat against walkers can now use grenades at weapon skill, meaning that even if they make it into combat, they won't last very long. They were already weaker considering that most walkers had to slug across the field to get into combat, opening them up to all that close range AT fire (especially since the meta forced people to spam meltaguns). Lets admit it, walkers weren't exactly dominating in 5th (the problem wasn't even vehicles in general, but dedicated transports), but now they are significantly less effective than they were.

With Snap Fire, I like how snap fire works when firing at fliers, and I like how it works when firing out of a transport, but I'm not a fan of letting models snap fire non-blast heavy weapons when moving. It seems odd that a lot of armies would waste precious ammo firing a heavy weapon when they have very little chance of hitting the target, and that might even hit their allies since they can't aim the thing when firing. It also ignores that a lot of the reason that you can't move and fire heavy weapons is that you have to brace yourself against the recoil, or else you would knock yourself down. The thought of a guardsman heavy weapon team moving forward at full pace and being able to fire an autocannon unsupported without tipping over and killing one of your buddies seems... unusual. Then again, I'm the only person I know who has made this complaint, so make of it what you will. But in short, I like how snap fire works with some things, but not with others

sennacherib wrote:Thanks Baronyu
The overly vocal neck beards that i refer to are the group of about 5 people who pop up in every single discussion thread that concerns game play in 6th and then write vitriolic negative rebuttals to everyones posts that have a differing opinion. Essentially the equivillent of a written shouting down of opposing opinions. Sure, express how you feel, but if you look at the over arching opinion of the game, and the vast number of favorable posters who may make only one positive post vrs the vast number of negative posts made by the vitriolic handful of dakkaites , it starts to go beyond just voicing a opinion and enters the realm of whining.

"There are a few posters legitimately pointing out serious mistakes in the ruleset and contratictions of rules vs fluff or the designers claimed purpose but sadly there is majority of overenthusiastic sheeplike consumers writing passive agressive rants about the posters who actualy manage to use critical thinking technique. Essentialy the equivalent of a written blockade built with words for any voice of reason about the expensive product from company with a history of shady actions. Sure, express how you feel, but if you look at the tournament section of the forum and the vast number of people who are too busy fixing a flawed ruleset to waste time on posting opinions or vote in meaningless polls made by people desperatly defending their purchase, it starts to go beyond just ranting and enters the realm of blind fanism"

sennacherib wrote:Based just on what is written in those discussion threads, the way the really negative crowd makes it sound, the game is horrible, and the sky is falling, all is lost.

Hardly imo, I think those opinions are just that the current ruleset is worse than the last one. I admit though there's an obvious conclusion automaticaly hitting your head that this is really bad if you consider the amount of money the whole thing costs.

sennacherib wrote:Thats why i posted this poll. agreeably, polls like this one will likely attract only those that feel very strongly on the matter (not just positive but negative reactions as well). However, if there really were that many people who thought the game had totally fallen apart, the sky was falling, blah blah blah, then their responce would show in the poll numbers. As it seems just looking at this data set, I would suggest that it strongly supports the case that i made. The majority of gamers are really enjoying the new rules and a small minority are really upset.

Listen I don't want to be rude but Internet forum poll is too much a flawed tool to draw conclusions, I did poll reasearch proffesionaly at some point. Post the poll in tournament section, will it get you the same numbers? If so, what about the flawed questions with too little choice on negative side then? Or maybe the poll "do you care about polls" with personal questions to determine what people vote and why? Proper poll reasearch is 50 pages of methodology, sample analysis, testing of questions again and again, definitions of terms used in questions etc. I posted this about your poll somewhere else but you ignored it, or did not see it, anyway I'd like you to refer to the point that your poll results border on meaningless, and are for sure not representative of 40k players as a whole.

Not to mention, maybe those people loving the ruleset, if they saw what ruleset was possible with GW avilable resources and a legitimate goodwill, would use 6th edition pages containing rules for shoe polishing. Note that I only speculate and over exagerate, the point is though I have a feeling 6th edition could be so much more if there was no changing for the sake of changing, or the sake of model sales or the sake of not having to work too much.

I have a feeling of quality work looking at 6th edition artwork, I don't have that feeling reading the rules.

To add to Plumb's post, I didn't vote in the poll, because I feel that any of the options presented in it do not reflect my opinion.

And I'm sure you are aware of how vocal I tend to be about my opinion.

Hate it.

Finally found an army (Biel-tan Eldar) that I loved in look and feel, and which in 5th I thought I was quite good with. The list was never 'strong', but like Eldar should be it required finess and could really be punishing when used well. Like putting together a puzzle while the other guy shot you. Every game was a blast.

6th comes along and suddenly the exactness, skill, and caution needed to play the army goes right out the window. This is not a game where the player matters more than the list. More than ever, GW is trying to force me to change how I play the game - how I enjoy to play it - by ramming new rules down my throat. 'Did our new edition ruin how you like to play the game? Buy more stuff for ever increasing costs!'

For those of you who are of the opinion that I should buck up and get with the times, no - I like the 40k universe, but I'm out. My money, time, and loyalty has gone over to Corvus Belli and Infinity; a game that lets me play how I enjoy playing and doesn't punish me for using what I want.

6th Edition has dropped me off the 40k bandwagon.

To me it's a step up from 5th edition...but so what.....still not 2nd edition with the glaring problems fixed.

5th edition was a step up from 4th edition...but so what...still not 2nd edition with the glaring problems fixed.

4th edition was a step up from 3rd edition...but so what...still not 2nd edition with the glaring problems fixed.

3rd edition was an entirely re made game...NOT 2nd edition......NOT anywhere near as good as 2nd edition COULD have been if they had just fixed the glaring problems....like, you know, they were supposed to do..not re write the whole game like, you know, they did.

6th edition is giving people who never played 2nd a sort of taste of what 2nd was all about....narrative.

I don't agree with GW when they say "The rules to the game have changed and evolved over the years, always retaining the same distinctive feel and enabling the same battles of wits and exciting tactics introduced all those years ago, but each time presenting fresh, new tactical challenges."

That's a load of gak. 3rd through 5th may have been that way but 2nd to 3rd most certainly did not. Now 6th comes along, still using the same bad game engine that they developed for 3rd edition, and only making a few changes to it, and now they are hocking it as the best edition of the game to date...yeah right....it's a step up from 5th...but that's all it is.

 Lady_Canoness wrote:

6th comes along and suddenly the exactness, skill, and caution needed to play the army goes right out the window. This is not a game where the player matters more than the list.

This, I feel, is something that is of special importance. 6th Edition emphasizes the importance of list building more than ever before. Well thought out tactics will get you places in 6th edition, but a good list will get you much, much further.

70% of respondents still prefer it to 5th edition.
5% hate it and 7% preferred 5th. These ratio have remained the same the entire time that the poll has been up here, beyond a % fluctuation here or there. Clearly the majority like it regardless of the inherent flaws that an internet pole suffers from.

 warpcrafter wrote:
Anybody who says that Tyranids got shafted by 6th is an idiot. Nidzilla is still alive and as cheesy as fething every...

Care to share the secret? I still see them getting slaughtered left and right xD

Generally Im enjoying 6th edition, havnt lost a single game yet @.@

though I feel bad for people that doesnt own fliers though....