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.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
The point here is that you, as a player, have been given a basic/core ruleset. Some responsibility has to be placed on the players to ensure that, despite the games faults, the experience remains enjoyable. Your outlook and attitude towards extremely minor rules issues is anything but enjoyable.

Extremely minor? Basic line of sight issues are extremely minor?

And it's awesome how you assume you know how I play at the table. I have fun. I rarely engage in rules arguments - because it's about fun. Even in tournaments, I go to play new people.
Take your assumptions elsewhere please.

I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.

You are right, though. I don't know you or how you play. I just find that generally the people that are the most outspoken about the things they dislike about this game are the ones that are the least engaged in the game simply for 'fun'.

If so, my apologies.

Coming from 3rd some of the things that are iffy to me is the new assault rules (random range??), the seeming removal of taking your special/heavy weapons troopers away last, the allies matrix (especially since people seem to abuse the hell out of this, instead of using them for good themed armies), Escalation/allowing to use superheavies and titans in normal games, and for me at least the idea that you can purchase terrain (i.e. fortifications) to use in your army.

This is all anecdotal evidence though as I've only seen a single game (using Kill Team rules) done as a quick demo so I haven't played 6th edition yet.

Let's say I buy a car, an expensive new car, and find myself under the car every weekend tweaking it so it keeps running.

Would I not be entitled, as a paying customer, to be mildly miffed that the car I paid money for is requiring my constant attention just to be used?

I would be, hence the warranty the car comes with that means that if there's a problem it's the car company's responsibility to fix it.

GW sells a product, which they describe as a premium product, and yet provide rules with deficiencies that they seem unwilling or unable to correct.

I can understand a model producing company that makes its newest toys just that little bit better than the old toys in order to sell them to previous customers, but as I've already noted GW don't even seem able to do that.

It's almost as if the game designers and Codex writers have no idea about how their respective rules interact over the course of a game.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Let's say I buy a car, an expensive new car, and find myself under the car every weekend tweaking it so it keeps running.

Would I not be entitled, as a paying customer, to be mildly miffed that the car I paid money for is requiring my constant attention just to be used?

I would be, hence the warranty the car comes with that means that if there's a problem it's the car company's responsibility to fix it.

GW sells a product, which they describe as a premium product, and yet provide rules with deficiencies that they seem unwilling or unable to correct.

I can understand a model producing company that makes its newest toys just that little bit better than the old toys in order to sell them to previous customers, but as I've already noted GW don't even seem able to do that.

It's almost as if the game designers and Codex writers have no idea about how their respective rules interact over the course of a game.

Yes but you wouldnt buy a car knwing it was gonna need constant attention, so why buy a GW rule book? Gotta research what you buy, dont buy something knowing it aint great then complain.

I know what you are saying but most people knew what they where getting into when they updated their rule books. Its hard not to with the internet. Same with cars

its not, its one of the best editions yet,

I have played since 3rd, this one does pretty much everything right, save a few tweaks, but nothing really that game breaking...

random charge is... a bit too random, 6" + d6 or cap it a minimum 4" or something, but really all the small gripes are just that, small gripes.

its only on places like dakka that things get out of hand.

When you've been collecting and playing for 5 editions you suffer a bit from the sunk cost fallacy.

It's not the CRB, it's the army lists.

 easysauce wrote:
its not, its one of the best editions yet,

I have played since 3rd, this one does pretty much everything right, save a few tweaks, but nothing really that game breaking...


its only on places like dakka that things get out of hand.

Exactly, I (and many people i know of) never knew these problems to exist until we started looking at 40k stuff on the internet.

Play casual and the issue is resolved.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Let's say I buy a car, an expensive new car, and find myself under the car every weekend tweaking it so it keeps running.

Would I not be entitled, as a paying customer, to be mildly miffed that the car I paid money for is requiring my constant attention just to be used?

I would be, hence the warranty the car comes with that means that if there's a problem it's the car company's responsibility to fix it.

GW sells a product, which they describe as a premium product, and yet provide rules with deficiencies that they seem unwilling or unable to correct.

I can understand a model producing company that makes its newest toys just that little bit better than the old toys in order to sell them to previous customers, but as I've already noted GW don't even seem able to do that.

It's almost as if the game designers and Codex writers have no idea about how their respective rules interact over the course of a game.

I'll state another commonly repeated mantra that GW has regularly mentioned- they are first and foremost/primarily a model company.

They just happen to release rules to use with said models.

I would still consider GW models (at least plastics) to be premium- the majority of the kits are very high quality and well done. Worth the price? Debatable.

Again- I think everyone is in agreement that the game could use a tighter ruleset. The primary argument in this thread is the idea that 6e, or any edition preceding it, is 'broken', to which I would say a 'no'. Broken suggests it does not work, but that the game isn't 100% how you would like it, or is flawless is not the issue.

In my view, the brokenness comes in the form of the gap between tier 1 codices and tier 2 and below codices.

Martel732 wrote:
In my view, the brokenness comes in the form of the gap between tier 1 codices and tier 2 and below codices.

Only if abused (or played competitively).

I am not excusing GW for these balance oversights, but these issues are only evident when abused as such. If you were to take a random smattering of units from any of the top tier codexes and played a similar list from another, I am sure the game would be a lot closer.

And yes, I am aware these types of lists are 'unfocused and bad'- but at least the game would be more fun for both players.

It's not abuse to make legal choices and field said legal choices. There should not be units that are able to be "abused".

To compare to Starcraft, the Zergling rush is very potent against new player who don't know how to defend it. But once they learn, the Zerg player has to learn something new. Because Zerglings aren't actually broken.

There is nothing I can do to defend against Wave Serpents. I am at a drastic mathematical disadvantage against them. I could learn and adapt, but the Eldar player can learn how to use Wave Serpents better as well. Then it boils back to mathematical advantage he enjoys.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not abuse to make legal choices and field said legal choices. There should not be units that are able to be "abused".

To compare to Starcraft, the Zergling rush is very potent against new player who don't know how to defend it. But once they learn, the Zerg player has to learn something new. Because Zerglings aren't actually broken.

There is nothing I can do to defend against Wave Serpents. I am at a drastic mathematical disadvantage against them. I could learn and adapt, but the Eldar player can learn how to use Wave Serpents better as well. Then it boils back to mathematical advantage he enjoys.

I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.

So really, the issue is with the player. In a perfect world all GW codexes would be balanced.

That unfortunately is not the case, so it is on the player to choose what they do with their book (including abuse). It is a conscious effort to decide to bring these sort of things to a game, and if you willingly do this and then turn around and complain about the problems with this game.. I don't even know what to say to people like that.

XenosTerminus wrote:
[I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.

How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.

The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.

The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
[I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.

How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.

The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.

The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?

Because the rules are here, they will probably always have this problem and i dont think it will change anytime soon. So instead of playing it in a way which causes the attitude you have towards the game, we try play it so we can squeeze as much fun as possible out of it. Clearly we are happy and fine with that so we must be doing something right.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
[I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.

How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.

The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.

The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?

Nobody is saying they don't want a tighter ruleset. The 'Timmy' example demonstrates a difference between someone concentrating on the hobby aspect (models they enjoy), and someone who jumps codexes, or purchases what the best units in a codex are and spams them/breaks the game.

While the ruleset allows for both, it's far more likely that the prevalence of these overpowered units on the table are the result of win-more powergaming than timmy the fluff player. Neither would be fun to play against, but at least Timmy didn't know. A lot of people do.

I find that there is enough gray zones in the game that it seems to attract the WAAC and TFG people who are bent and determined to use it as a medium to abuse someone and expect them to take it and smile. Even worse, they think it is a "competitive" game and feel all powerful when winning (yay! you won the equivalent of rock/paper/scissors!).

I like for the same reason that it has just enough flexibility that pretty much any scenario I want to create is doable and can be fun.

So is it "broken"? It is more open to "abuse" (however you want to define that). Is it better than 5th? I would say so. As a hobbyist I can combine my armies in all kinds of cool ways and field MOAHR models. If I had TFG tendencies, combining advantages of multiple armies would be a huge boon (let's see how fast I can table you now!!!).

I would say the game is much like the codexs that went out: a mixed bag of advantages and disadvantages depending on your style of play you would have a differing opinion.

Either way, I will continue to find fun players to play with and reserve my "power gaming" for games with tighter rules.

XenosTerminus wrote:

I'll state another commonly repeated mantra that GW has regularly mentioned- they are first and foremost/primarily a model company.

They just happen to release rules to use with said models.

I would still consider GW models (at least plastics) to be premium- the majority of the kits are very high quality and well done. Worth the price? Debatable.

Again- I think everyone is in agreement that the game could use a tighter ruleset. The primary argument in this thread is the idea that 6e, or any edition preceding it, is 'broken', to which I would say a 'no'. Broken suggests it does not work, but that the game isn't 100% how you would like it, or is flawless is not the issue.

I've said the same thing myself, but as long as they release rules, and charge (quite a lot) for those rules, they are also a rule selling company.

Also, as I noted, GW are not particularly good at selling models. Certainly they make very nice models but then they create rules for them that basically relegate those nice models to a shelf either at the player's house or (if they were more perceptive and didn't buy them in the first place) the shop.

Let us, just for the sake of argument, say that one, terminators were actually worth taking, and two, you wanted to sell a box of mutilators. You would look at what a squad of terminators does, and what it costs to do that job, and then, for the same cost you would make the mutilators slightly better than the terminators at one of the jobs the terminators does, but slightly worse at another job. Voilà, people who already have the terminators but want a slightly better unit at the particular job they're using those terminators for would buy a box of mutilators, but people who didn't necessarily want the mutilators (they might not like how they look) would keep playing their terminators and they wouldn't be that unhappy that terminators are slightly worse than mutilators at that job. Instead we have a game where terminators are not worth taking, and however bad terminators are compared to other units, the mutilators are worse.

Of course you can mitigate that effect by combining the rather poor unit with a moderately decent one in one box, mutilators with obliterators for example, or warp talons with raptors, but then you run the risk of people asking why they have to pay for a bunch of extra parts that they're not going to use.

XenosTerminus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not abuse to make legal choices and field said legal choices. There should not be units that are able to be "abused".

To compare to Starcraft, the Zergling rush is very potent against new player who don't know how to defend it. But once they learn, the Zerg player has to learn something new. Because Zerglings aren't actually broken.

There is nothing I can do to defend against Wave Serpents. I am at a drastic mathematical disadvantage against them. I could learn and adapt, but the Eldar player can learn how to use Wave Serpents better as well. Then it boils back to mathematical advantage he enjoys.

I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.

So really, the issue is with the player. In a perfect world all GW codexes would be balanced.

That unfortunately is not the case, so it is on the player to choose what they do with their book (including abuse). It is a conscious effort to decide to bring these sort of things to a game, and if you willingly do this and then turn around and complain about the problems with this game.. I don't even know what to say to people like that.

I do willingly do this: with BA. Am I not spamming because my codex sucks out loud? I just don't see how you can fault players for making legal selections. GW needs to make these kinds of choices not possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
[I would classify spamming what is argued as an overpowered or unbalanced unit as 'abuse'. Especially if said player is blissfully aware they are doing so. It's one thing for Timmy to walk into a local hobby store and decide he likes Wave Serpents, so he buys 10 of them (very unlikely). It's another thing entirely when this is all you see on competitive tables, in competitive discussions, and lurk into FLGS settings because of net listing.

How? How is that different? In both scenarios a unit is spammed and the "casual" opponent will end up not enjoying the game.
Why is it not abuse when Timmy does it because he likes the way the models look but it's totally abuse when Joe Tournament-Player does it.
Bad evil Mr. Tournament-Player...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone who would use their first example as a 'rules issue' the fact GW did not state models without eyes can still shoot, plays for fun.

The fact that you can't separate the rule from how you play the game isn't my problem.

The problem is that the rules in the BRB are objectively poorly written. You can accept that or not, that doesn't change the fact.
People who keep advocating for even more poorly written rules seem crazy to me - how could a tighter rule set possibly inhibit your casual fun when you houserule all kinds of things already?

Because the rules are here, they will probably always have this problem and i dont think it will change anytime soon. So instead of playing it in a way which causes the attitude you have towards the game, we try play it so we can squeeze as much fun as possible out of it. Clearly we are happy and fine with that so we must be doing something right.

That requires opponents that think likewise. The players in my area play to win.

If 6th edition is broken, then the previous editions were beyond repair because this really is the best edition so far. I've been playing since RT and this is by far my favorite edition. If a rule vaguery comes up, we just figure out what would be the funnest fix and keep going. Is the game perfect? Of course not.

My problem isn't with the rules but some codexs. You have chaos Marines which has half the codex being useless and then Tau and Eldar which you'll have a hard time losing against certain armies. But the issue isn't with the edition. The edition is fine as long as you use some sportsmanship and common sense.

I agree that the 6th CRB is my favorite. They just needed to go retcon all the point values from 5th edition books. And release balanced 6th edition books. Neither happened.

6th edition is not broken, at least not any more broken than 4th and 5th edition were: but at times it can be bit chore to play, since there is some stuff which just wasn't thought out properly: not so much of rules clarity (although there are those too) but more akin to how scenario and game rules work together. There are lot of little things which alone are not a problem, but tend to get annoying when you experience whole shebang.

There are only a few spots that stand out as bad to me in the core rules:
-random assault range + overwatch + furious charge nerf + cover save nerf combo pack. Too much assault nerfing all at once here.

-lolrandom psychic powers. At least they recognize that random powers suck and librarians' point costs have been shaved significantly. (Mine still haven't. >:|)

-Hull points were set too low in half the vehicles.

-shooting at flyers and snap shots in general should've been -1 or -2 to BS, not auto BS1. Makes no sense that a vindicaire assassin is just as bad at shooting at a storm raven as a rank and file ork.

The only other thing wrong with 40k at the moment is the recent rash of OP xeno codices.

Well the Nids ended that streak. Too bad Eldar, Tau, and Daemons are still in print.

niv-mizzet wrote:

The only other thing wrong with 40k at the moment is the recent rash of OP xeno codices.

This is really hilarious comment in retrospect, given that exact opposite was said during the 5th.

Hi all.
I think we are having a difference of opinion , over terminology.
We can make this work with a bit of effort.(Broken but fixable by the customer.)
IS NOT
This works as intended without any extra work from us.(Perfect working order.)

This poorly defined over complicated rule set, is not much worse than the previous 5 poorly defined over complicated rule sets in the series.
IS NOT
This IS a poorly defined over complicated rule set when compared to other rule sets from other companies.

I am sure if you are heavily invested in 40k , you WILL be more inclined to put more effort in to make it work.And while you PAY GW AND do their job for them , they are not going to change anything , are they?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...

To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.

Rogue Trader: No one
2E: Eldar, Eldar, Eldar
3E: CSM, Eldar
4E: Eldar, Tau
5E: SW, GK
6E: Eldar, Tau

..with Necrons there somewhere..

Yes, I can see why xenos players have been very unhappy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One thing more, not 6E related. You would think GW knew their own rules, but no.

Exhibit A: Burning Chariot of Tzeentch

I will be surprised if they ever fix that. Seeing how happy they were about its performance in WD, I doubt they even realize they were breaking the rules.

Should not take a year to get that one sorted out.

Naw wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...

To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.

Rogue Trader: No one
2E: Eldar, Eldar, Eldar
3E: CSM, Eldar
4E: Eldar, Tau
5E: SW, GK
6E: Eldar, Tau

..with Necrons there somewhere..

Yes, I can see why xenos players have been very unhappy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One thing more, not 6E related. You would think GW knew their own rules, but no.

Exhibit A: Burning Chariot of Tzeentch

I will be surprised if they ever fix that. Seeing how happy they were about its performance in WD, I doubt they even realize they were breaking the rules.

Should not take a year to get that one sorted out.

Hahahaha so true.

My local group has given up on 6th because for us it is broken. No one has rage quit, we have just stopped playing 40k for now and are playing more fantasy. Zero people showed up for the last 40k tournament but the fantasy tournaments have been picking up new people.

The local consensus is that the game is a mess and we just cant be bothered to play it until things get straightened out.

I have never seen a fanbase blame the players for faults in a product in the same way the 40k fan base does.

The responsibility to ensure the rule book you paid decent sum for is not on the players it is on the company selling the rule book. Don't go blaming players for not coming up with rules to fix something that "obviously is not broken."