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.

KnuckleWolf wrote:Dear FocusedFire,

----I as a fellow member of the 'Empire of the Rising Good' am hurt that you would commence a tirade of such awesome scale and not conjure forth some form of response to my - if I may be ever so bold and forward - well composed responses on many of the points that you have addressed and in the same breath simultaneously readdressed using the very points I had already put forth in perhaps a less complete manner. (Hows that for a sentence? ) Further, if you would do me the grandiose favor of picking a color other then bright teal for your posts it would be most advantageous to the continued health of my ocular organs as well the future function of my monitors brightness adjustment control mechanism. I believe no color modifications for standard replies is the forum accepted norm. Congratulations are at the least in order on your successful campaign of posting replies against, by my count, eight different posts/fronts in one prodigious swoop. Your victory by keyboard will be etched in the memories of millions. KAP-PLA!

From your brother in sophisticated electro-magnetic accelerated munitions, KnuckleWolf

Kid, I like your style.

A)I apologize for omitting you from my previous reply. It was not intended as a slight but was done to:
1)Prevent from sounding overly self-serving
2)Avoid reaching a word density that generated its own gravitational field
and
3) To avoid making the reply longer than a run from the core out to the rim

B)As to the colour....I will see what I can do. It is a tool(and a good one) that is used when catching up a bunch of responses at once. It helps to break up the wall of white so that the reader can see who is sayin what.

C)You mistake my intent. No campain or attemptted victory here. Just one seeking honest points of view rather than justifications, rationalizations and/or excuses.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
*snip*
All your points on what a small point battle entails are right on though FF, if slightly over enthused. And there is credence to the word strategy being applied to his 'traffic jam' as you call it. After all, in chess six out of your starting six-teen units are land locked until you move a piece out of the way. Please phrase your criticism as an oppinion.

A)Mayhap you might restate that "In your opinion" my points are slightly over enthused?

B)There is a difference between chess where your opponent moves one peice at a time and the ugoigo 40K format. I don't deny that it is a skill in spatial relations. Just don't see how it has any strategy above and beyond what is in all games of 40K.
To be more clear, in every game of 40k the player needs to consider what unit is moving where and what armour or unit is going to be left exposed. IMO, the manouvering through gridlock is a seperate solitary spatial skills game that the opponent has to sit idly through until the player finishes his overly long move. Then they go back to playing the game of 40k

C)As to phrasing criticism as opinion??? Please to go back and re-read my post. I prefaced my reply with "Imho".
Now I didn't do such for every sentence but that is proper writing technique. I shouldn't have to open each sentence or even each point with an opinion qulifier if I start my post with one.
Hmm.. Maybe I should have put the IMHO before the word First.


Now to a couple of things that I want to ask Slayer about.

Slayer le boucher wrote:
i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...

OK, noted

Slayerle bouche wrote:
I played once at a 1000 points, it was a tournament that I built......*snip.....and I've played low point games to help new players to learn the game. Even those were 1250-1500 points...

Noticed you edited this out of your second post on this page. Fourtunately, I often copy paste into Word to type my replies.
Wonder why you removed this?

Slayer le boucher wrote:
NOw i said in another post that i played 1000-ish games a few times, but they where only to show new players how the game went.

Ah, now I see why you erased the other post. To some extent, it contidicts both the first quote and this one.

So, Which of the above is it?

Actually, don't answer that. I just wanted to point out that you are changing your story to help prop up your argument.

Now breath. We are simply discussing our differences of opinion on the interwebs. This is not about either one of us "winning"(I don't even think that one can truly win an internet discussion) This is about exchanging ideas and points of view.
I get that you don't like the "idea" of lower point games. You dislike the idea to the point that you are willing the prevaricate reasons as to why you won't/don't like such. This tells me that no logical argument will entice you into playing such games and as such we will have to agree to disagree.

Slayer le boucher wrote:8 Zerkers with a Champ with a pair of LC and Melta bomb+ Icon, seems like a wargear overload?
Kharn is also the cheapest of the HQ's in the codex.

I only take the bare neccesary, to expressly avoid overload and have a decent model count, wich isn't easy with a CSM army, even if you don't go crazy on options.

Go back and re-read what i typed in my first reply. I said that you seemed to be spending too many points on wargear or "uber units". Point is that you are choosing to use the one of most expensive low model count builds to prop up your argument that the board isn't crowded. IMO, as posted, the build you typed comes across as stretching to meet the high points gaming environment you choose to play in.

May you crush your enemies, drive them before you and hear the lamentations of their women.
Later

I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?

A 6x4 board is rather large in my opinon, and interms of scale, i think it is really terrain makers that are getting it all wrong. For LOS blocking terrain my club uses soft rolling hills adding a 3d element to the game, and forests and things. This doesn't over crowd the board, and doesn't block movement too badly. I play a 180 model count army regularly, where my deployment tactics is "fill the zone." As far as warhammer tactics go, their is a pressing matter of knowing how to move your units to pull a win. Even at costs of models, and army, you can win by objectives. Many a time i have tabled my friend to 1 unit of guardsmen, and he won because he held a objective.


I personally enjoy the new shooting rules, it makes the game less streamlined, but it is more realistic. I hated the days of the magic curving bullets killing orks around a bend of terrain.

Fliers are a excellent addition to the game, maybe their rules and concepts are flawed, but they add a aggressive powerful element that is to be considered when you make a army.

Of course, not everyone has access to a counter to air, it is not impossible. Fighting a fluffy air list, which i use to have; i sold it because i stopped getting games no matter how i played it.

Now wargear overloads, and deathstars are common, typically deathstars have the wargear overload, now i do think deathstars are dumb, but you can stop them in their tracks with the right application of fire power, which is a tactical skill over just loading everything up on war gear.


Problems i have with 6th is victory conditions are often very flawed, most objective games i feel like we are playing over pocket watches with armies. Objectives in all reality should be some kind of fort with a gun, just a small pill box, and with a functioning gun it, This makes you want to own objectives, they increase the support of your army. But that is just me being crazy, you know nothing huge.

I wont give up sixth, it has been built to destroy the competitive world. Power creep has seemed to capsize with the last two codecs released, Dark Angels seem balanced, and so do Chaos Space marines. Thus in all reality, its about applying tactical advantages of rules, and minis over your enemies. If you find yourself losing all the time, then you are just a crappy player.

I play with "orks" and "eldar" which are considered to be "low par, low tier, weak codecs" and the list goes on. Then i make the space marine player eat every single word, space wolves are a preferred hobby of mine to kill, blood angels more so. The race i lose the most to is Tyranids. CAUSE GOD DAMN MONSTERS. i love the game of warhammer, i have tried other games like dust tactics, flames of war, war machine, infinity... nothing really builds up to the scale of a 180 models like warhammer40k.


I conclude with; you think their is no tactics, it is all list. Perhaps for the dumb player that is what it is at. But a war game isnt like magic where you find a nice combo and call it a tactic. A war game is where you find a nice way to combo units across the board with moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:


Third) Again, Your model counts seem to reflect that you overgear your units. Its easy to load a unit up with a bunch of wargear. Lower point games don't allow such luxury.

8 Zerkers with a Champ with a pair of LC and Melta bomb+ Icon, seems like a wargear overload?
Kharn is also the cheapest of the HQ's in the codex.

I only take the bare neccesary, to expressly avoid overload and have a decent model count, wich isn't easy with a CSM army, even if you don't go crazy on options.

NOw i said in another post that i played 1000-ish games a few times, but they where only to show new players how the game went.

Try a 500 - point deathmatch using only troops, and with heavy terrain.
S**t brix you will

Fair warning: Big post.

Thank you FocusedFire, I feel much better now. I think it should just be assumed that ALL posts not citing a reference should be assumed as opinion. That way we can just drop this right here, right? I was pretty sure the whole color thing had good organizational reason and wasnt just 'HEY look at ME!'. By all means color code, just use something duller in large quantities please. Teal is great for highlights, but maybe like red or orange for bulk? idk plain blue maybe? Lets continue. Love point A-2 btw. Freakin' hilarious I'll leave it to opinion on what constitutes strategy and agree to disagree if you will.

I want to go on to this whole 'Flier'...thing. I'm cool with fliers as a concept. Cuz warplanes and choppers and starships are flipping amazing and super cool! But I truly believe that they were purposely left out for editions one through five*** because the game designers had a plethora of good reasons. Think about that, five chances to add them to the game in the core rules, and all those White Dwarfs where they could have toed them in and they didn't do it. Until they did of course in a White Dwarf, then the following core. Ponder that decision for a moment: Five editions with NO fliers. You cant tell me they weren't thinking about it. They HAD to have good reasons not to do this for that long. Fliers are large imprint models: they are big bodied, and have a huge flight stand that does not agree well with the board on issues like sloped terrain, or with models moving underneath. They have to be big because they have to be at least close in scale to the rest of the game, which is one of the larger scale war games in the first place. Not the largest, but certainly not small either. Real world air combat vehicles are fast, they could pass over this size battlefield and miss it by a literal mile. So Squeezing the flier on to the board in speed-distance relationships is 'messy' at best. If we could reasonably play on a 18'x12' board, they at least wouldn't feel so crammed in to this tiny box that was only ever meant for infantry and at its largest super heavy tanks. Fortunately it is the forty-first millennium, and we can explain these issues away with psyker powers if all tech explanations fail. Then came the reason of the units already in the game generally aren't equipped with anti-air systems or tactics. Air is king. The game has demonstrated that very well and rightly so. Part of me would be upset if they weren't super powers. But for making a fun game experience they can make one-sided situations rather often.

As far as 'fixes' go? I'm no designer, but the flier concepts in 40k are all wrong. They all have way too many weapon systems that are way to powerful. I'm dead set against twin-linked lascannons and assault cannons on them. Give 'em like a single lascannon and one or two bombs/missiles, all with like BS 3 for the difficulty of hitting small targets while moving fast.. There is no reason for the tremendous payloads that they have. But that's done and wont be changing back, they are stuck with it now. So then i would look at points. I could slap a fifty to a hundred point tax on them without blinking. OR create a new spot in the force organisation chart for air support much the same way fortifications have. But all that is just me.

***Edit: This comes up later and is super relevant in a way as there technically were 'fliers' before sixth, thanks Bro!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
The Rogue Trader book didn't really do 'named' vehicles, since there were no kits available. Instead, it gave you very wide vehicle design rules, including rules for Flyers (as well as Juggernauts, Skimmers, Tanks, Road Cars, etc). There was an 'example' vehicle called the Argus Flyer, but that was it...

KnuckleWolf wrote:

And it's worth noting how many Fliers Forge World produced first. So that generated a lot of actual heartfelt demand that GW produce fliers. We had tasted them and wanted more. Sure there was demand before, if they had been produced they would have certainly been bought. But now that potential profit was filtering out to FW. Putting fliers in the game officially may have simply been them reclaiming the market, strictly business. In the end I believe it came down to this: There was now an undeniable demand, the demand was being supplied by a competitor company, and they needed something new that was not a variation on what they already had. (For this last one I would have felt fortifications would have sufficed but whatever.)

Except for the part that ForgeWorld is owned and operated by GW. For all intents and purpouses they ARE GW, not a "competitor company".

Oh wait seriously? I appologize. I have been under false information. Will delete that paragraph asap.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Oh wait seriously? I appologize. I have been under false information. Will delete that paragraph asap.

Why edit your previous posts? Such actions damages your integrity. Just accept the fact that you aren't perfect and in light of new facts, you re-affirm your beliefs.

"Because debate is a tool by which we discover and refine truth. By disagreeing with one another and stating the reasons why, it becomes easier to see where the correct answer lies. Without the back-and-forth, much of the benefit from this thread would be lost." - Doctor Thunder.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
I want to go on to this whole 'Flier'...thing. I'm cool with fliers as a concept. Cuz warplanes and choppers and starships are flipping amazing and super cool! But I truly believe that they were purposely left out for editions one through five because the game designers had a plethora of good reasons.

Just being pedantic, but flyers were included in the 1ed 40k rulebook.

Really? Never heard of em. Which ones? I may have alot more editing to do. LOL

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Really? Never heard of em. Which ones? I may have alot more editing to do. LOL

The Rogue Trader book didn't really do 'named' vehicles, since there were no kits available. Instead, it gave you very wide vehicle design rules, including rules for Flyers (as well as Juggernauts, Skimmers, Tanks, Road Cars, etc). There was an 'example' vehicle called the Argus Flyer, but that was it...

I will chuck my two cents into this discussion. I'll be honest and say that I have not read each and every individual response, but what I have read I can gather a fair idea of the many points.

Is 6th edition a a horrible rule set? No. Is it a great rule set? No. It's okay.

I'm willing to let a lot of things slide with 6th edition since it's trying to do a lot of new things.

Fliers:
For all intents and purposes, fliers are a new things and new mechanic introduced with 6th edition. I can not speak to Rogue Trader, since I wasn't playing the game at the time. I'm glad that fliers have been added. Again, it's something new, so I'm not surprised that it's not perfect right out of the gate. I personally like the idea one poster put about giving fliers their own force organization slot.

Randomness:
I agree that all the randomness is annoying, but I can understand why it was implemented: to curb the over the top competitiveness and tournament scene. As much as I would like to choose my warlord trait, I could see how having the ability would be abused. We would see combinations that would cheese.

Scale:
40k is the only table top game I have any experience with, so I can give any real opinion about scale. I personally don't have a problem with it. I think crowding has more to do with terrain density than actual number of "army" units on the board. I played a 1999 point game with 28 models on the board at any given time.

Allies:
As with fliers, this is a new mechanic that has been added to the game. One that I was excited about seeing, and I'm still eager to give a try. It too could use more refinement. Beasts of War did a great video on Allies of Convenience, and oh man, is it painfully funny. Again, it's something new, and allows players to have other armies without having to actually sink the large amount of money into actually getting another army then have to decide which one they are going to play.

As a few have pointed out, I think many of the short comings of 6th edition can be taken care of with house rules, or coming to a consistences between you and your opponent. I'm already beginning to contemplate some rules I would like to make to the Dark Angels codex.

@bkiker.
if you have only played 40k, its a bit difficult to hold an objective view of the 6th ed rule set.

Compared to 4th and 5th ed it IS sort of 'OK'
(But compared to games written for game play , like Infinity , Fast And Dirty, Warzone,Stargrunt, 3050, etc, it does look more like a marketing pamphlet! )

And if you belive adding lots of randomness is the only way to stop 'over the top' competitiveness, then you are using the same sort of restrictive vision of game design that is enforced at GW towers.

Which is backed up with your solution of PAYING GOOD MONEY FOR A RULE SET that FAILS to deliver the game play YOU WANT.AND FIXING IT YOURSELF!

Would you pay Ferrari prices for a car that needed constant work to make it run anything like as reliably as a much cheaper Ford Focus?

The game mechanics of WHFB on which 40k STILL USES 25 years later...
Are based on large block of troops moving into weapons range.This is where the bulk of ancient warfare tactics take place in the moving into contact.
As WHFB is mainly about CLOSECOMBAT match ups with ranged support, this game mechanic works in WHFB.(Better implemented in KoW and AoA , IMO.)

40k brings mostly skirmishing units armed with ranged weapons , supported by vehicles(monsters) to the games table.
This means that most units are in weapons range after turn 1.

Most games that have similar amounts of models on table as 40k tend to be 15mm ,which allows more room for the units to move into contact.(And the foreshortening of the horizontal scale compared to the vertical scale is less noticed.)AND/OR use a better mechanic to resolve ranged attacks.

40k is NOT trying new things!!
Its still using the same tired old game mechanics and resolution methods from over 30 years ago.
All its trying to do is to sell more stuff, by adding rules to include it.(Terrain and Flyers.)

NEW STUFF WOULD BE;-
A new INTERACTIVE game turn mechanic of interleaved phases, or alternating activation.

A UNIFIED damage resolution to allow more accurate comparison and balance.

A proper consideration/implementation of a morale system with more depth than OK or running away/dead.

If the game went a bit wonky while they made massive changes like this, I could forgive them a bit.

Thanks Bro-Arbitorlan. I put a clip in to the post to acknowledge that very interesting note. Gonna sit back and watch others talk for a while now.

@Lanrak

You are correct I haven't played any of the games that you have listed, but since the discussion was about 6th edition 40k I felt I could say my opinion about 6th edition 40k with some certainty. Just because I have not played other games does not less my opinion or experience with 6th edition 40k.

I find all the randomness equally annoying, but how would players choose/select powers, warlord traits, etc. without "those players" figuring out and creating cheese. As an example, I think it was two codices back when players could pick chapter traits for a home grown Codex Space Marine chapter. I thought that was a great thing and loved it. However, it wasn't long until " those players" figured out the cheese combos that basically broke the system. Perhaps that could be solved by giving a point value to the warlord trait or power. Perhaps that could be solved by assigning a particular trait to a particular HQ choice. The random charge length is strange, but maybe it is to represent a squad charging into a unit that is shooting at it, but I actually find that a benefit as it actually increases the charge distance more often than not. The missions and victory conditions are just a start. My friend and I still play the battle missions and planet strike expansion, and they still work well.

I still enjoy the scale. Since I have vision problems, the scale allows me to still paint and enjoy both the minis and the game with little problem. If the scale was any smaller, I wouldn't be able to paint or build the minis or really enjoy the game as I would be straining to see. If the number of models at the table is a factor, then there are missions and rules for Combat Patrol, which are available in the battle missions expansion or from Adepticon.

Your suggestion that GW trying creating new rules to sale things is... a point. However, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job at it, especially with fliers. Most peoples' opinion is the game wise the fliers are too expensive for what they do, so there is little reason to go out a purchase a model. I can speak from experience on this with the Dark Angels fliers. They're not great, and I honestly would probably only use one every once in a blue moon. The same can be said about main of the other units in the Dark Angels codex. The Deathwing Knights are expensive game wise and bring little to the table, so I will more than likely just stick with my standard terminators for Deathwing. As for the terrain, I got many of the terrain pieces back before there were points and rules for them. I just thought they would make great piece of terrain for the board, and that's what I use them for. Most players are moving away from using the fortifications.

Your suggestion on new things 40k could do sound interesting. We are on a 50k Proposed Rules forum. Why don't you posted them? I would love to see them, and I'm not being sarcastic about it. I love to see home brew rules, and I think that is a great selling point for 40k. To say it's a waste of money to purchase a rule set that you go in and tweak is an argument that could be leveled at any table top game that gives players the ability, motivation, freedom, permission, directive, etc. to change rules

@bkiker.
I did not mean to infer your opinion was not valid, but not possibly as objective as some one who has a wider experience of more table top minature games(. )

How to combat 'cheesemongers' like every other games company in the world.
Strive for Internal and External balance in all army composition lists across the game system.
By using more accurate PV allocation and restriction to limit synergistic anomalies .

Perfect balance is impossible, but GW are just not trying at all in comparison to other games.

Mainly because the studio are more into ''promoting the latest minatures'' with 'special rules'' rather than extending the game play with 'better' core rules.I KNOW the current game developers at GW are capable of much better game system for 40k, IF they were 'allowed' to release it.( )

The fact the devs dont have time to do 'the job properly', means their rules applications is hit an miss.
But the 'cheesemongers' just pick the under costed units,and brow beat the 'fluff monkies' into submission .
...'Why don't you play to win, why pick that its not cost effective, I wouldn NOT field them !etc, etc.'
Which simply means those more interested in the background buy these 'over costed units' to prove a point ....
End result GW simply sell models , and the 'promotions department at GW towers' doesnt need to do any actual 'game development'...

I have no problem with using 28mm minatures in a battle game like 40k .IF the rules are written for it!(I know the minatures are what draws most people to 40k.)

My objection is the way lots of units are 'nailed on' as Rick puts it.Without any thought to of detriment to the game play . And the level of complication in the rules is getting worse, while the level game play is just stalling because of it.

I am currently posting some ideas in the 40k proposed rules forum. (40k in 40 pages.)(If the 50k proposed rules forum is different please post a link for me. .)

I was NOT saying ADDING to a WELL DEFINED INTUITIVE RULE SET is a waste of time.(We all write campains and add special stuff in and special rules for them don't we? )

But the amount of work you have to put in to 40k just to make the basic game work is silly, compared to how much you pay for them IMO.

There are 'free to down' load rules that are a lot better than 40k If you want to modify a rule set!!
Why not use these FREE rule sets for modification, this was the point I was trying to make.

@Lanrak

The draw back of non-spoken Internet dialogue strikes again.

Your rebuttal is thought provoking. I particularly agree with your cheesemonger verus fluff monkies point as I like to think of myself in the fluff monkies camp.

I will look for your 40k in 40 pages thread as I'm interested in seeing what you proposed. I for one will be posting some proposals for the Dark Angels codex next week.

Your final point about changing the 40k rules to make the basic game work is one too consider, and one I'll look into by finding these free to download rules that you mentioned. If you have some suggestions I would like to here. I concede that I can't make a final call because of my lack of experience with other table top games.

I can't help but feel like a lot of the gripes listed in the OP are attributable to codex lag. We seem to always go through this when the new rules are released, FAQs haven't been updated adequately, and until we get new codices we're out of luck.

To me, this is inherently the problem with fliers right now -- but I still enjoy using them. More units need skyfire, and the aegis defense line needs to be less automatic against flier-heavy lists, but overall I think it's an issue that will get resolved over time.

The ally matrix is simplistic, but it was done largely to service fluff. It still feels too early to know the ramifications for sure, and whether it's resulting in wild imbalance. Personally, I haven't faced any game-breaking combinations, but acknowledge there probably are some out there.

In terms of scale, I don't understand the desire to switch. I love the 28mm scale, and I can't recall a game that became strategically dull because of scale. If the board is crowded it's likely because of a huge horde army, which isn't a regular occurrence, and adds to the cinematic quality of the encounter.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of sixth for all the reasons I was lukewarm on fifth. I like that power weapons aren't all homogeneous, I enjoy the randomness of charge distances, and like the variety in mission types and objectives.

It's far from perfect, but it's my favorite rule set in a long tim.

All the problems in 40k since 3rd ed ,are simply down to the studio being forced to use WHFB game mechanics in the modern war game 40k should have become.IMO.

If you look at Net Epic (fan supported Epic Space Marine ), or Epic Armageddon rule set.(138 pages including ALL the army lists and the game play for more stuff than that in an 40k Apocalypse game!)
You can see why some people think the 'battle game' is best played with smaller minatures.

However, I think using rule set for this sort of battle game, and adding more detail.Would arrive at a better rule set for 40k.(Still using heroic 28 mm minatures.)

The IDEA of 6th ed game play is great! Its just the actual rules are not in synergy with this idea!!

@bkiker.
These might still be free to down load in' beta' or' trial' formats..;-Infinity, No Limits,Chain reaction II, Stargrunt II ,Fast and Dirty, Warzone, Urban War,Dust Tactics etc.
Just looking at these games ,(And the Epic scale ones mentioned above.)Can shows some ideas on how the game play of 40k could be represented in the rules in a more 'intuitive' way...

I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I can think up some good questions...

cormadepanda wrote:I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?

Wrong.
Why?
Because a lot of "casual gaming groups" are short lived entities started by TFG's because they can neither get pick-up games or play in local tournies due to their habits of cheating and poor sportsmanship. You can't compromise with this type of indicidual, so coming to an agreement on homebrew rules ends up being nothing but an exercise in futility(Unless your willing to give the spoiled little brat every advantage and like dealing with rage quitters).
Another reason I don't like dealing with these little home gaming groups is because they tend to be clique-ish and filled with interpersonal politics. This is why I prefer pick-up games or meeting friends at a flgs. It gives a greater pool of opponents and helps to prevent my friends and I from isolating ourselves.

comradepanda wrote:A 6x4 board is rather large in my opinon, and interms of scale, i think it is really terrain makers that are getting it all wrong. For LOS blocking terrain my club uses soft rolling hills adding a 3d element to the game, and forests and things. This doesn't over crowd the board, and doesn't block movement too badly. I play a 180 model count army regularly, where my deployment tactics is "fill the zone."

A 6'x4' board is a good sized board.... When played at the proper points level for the scale that you are playing.

All of the terrain stuff you mention here is standard operating procedure pretty much everywhere I've ever played. And I have played at flgs's(or BB's) in 8 out of 10 of GW's largest north american largest markets.

Also, Might be wise if you added an "In your Opinion" where you say that it doesn't over-crowd the board.

Finally, A 180 model count army on a 6'x4' board using 28mm IS overcrowding. I feel stating this as a fact is ok because of your comment about "filling the zone" during deployment. Such model counts at 28MM leave no room but to run headlong into each other or to move one skimmer from the left side of the board to the right and then hopscotching the smimmer on the right to the left side. Thing is that there is no room to pull any opponent with half a brain any where. They just advance and you meet head on. (Yes the skimmers can jump over the front lines but it is still a head on movement).

You gotta understand that GW realized that they were expanding the game beyond the scale of the average game board back in 4th ed. This is why 5th ed introduced the outflanking rule. The rule was a patch for where GW was going to ruin the games movement/tactics with the rest of 5th ed BRB and the power creep codices.

comradepanda wrote:As far as warhammer tactics go, their is a pressing matter of knowing how to move your units to pull a win. Even at costs of models, and army, you can win by objectives. Many a time i have tabled my friend to 1 unit of guardsmen, and he won because he held a objective.

Thank you for being condescending. Seriously, do you realize how arrogant you sound here? Pro-tip, don't try to baby talk tatctics that most gamers learn in their first 10 games to people who have been playing just as long or longer than you. It makes you seem trollish.

comradepanda wrote:I personally enjoy the new shooting rules, it makes the game less streamlined, but it is more realistic. I hated the days of the magic curving bullets killing orks around a bend of terrain.

I agree with the above. The return to 4thed style shooting while maintaing 5th ed los mechanic works fine. Now if they would just dump the KP system and bring back VP's. Would also be nice if GW had stored all of the 4th ed & earlier los blocking terrain instead of "quietly" instructing thier stores to dump said terrain.

comradepanda wrote:Fliers are a excellent addition to the game, maybe their rules and concepts are flawed, but they add a aggressive powerful element that is to be considered when you make a army.

Strongly disagree. It is tactically rediculous, implemented poorly and a flawed idea that completely breaks game immersion for many players. Air support being under the command of the field infantry was something abandoned almost as soon as there were air corps/air forces.
Mind you air cav(Choppers and Ospreys) are different than air combat craft such as supersonic jets &such, due to both their flight profiles and their mission as transports. Skimmer rules were fine for the Valk/Vendettas/Storm Ravens because such vehicles dropping units in a hot LZ are very vulnerable. Now they make no sense when you look at their intended missions vs how they are used under the 6th ed rules.

comradepanda wrote:Of course, not everyone has access to a counter to air, it is not impossible. Fighting a fluffy air list, which i use to have; i sold it because i stopped getting games no matter how i played it.

So a "fluffy air list" can lead to people seeing you not as, "a casual player", but rather as tfg with his op list. Sshhhh, Don't let the Casual Gamer Mafia hear you say that. Don't you know that only super evil people that engage in icky competitive play can have op lists that make people stop playing with them.

comradepanda wrote:Problems i have with 6th is victory conditions are often very flawed, most objective games i feel like we are playing over pocket watches with armies. Objectives in all reality should be some kind of fort with a gun, just a small pill box, and with a functioning gun it, This makes you want to own objectives, they increase the support of your army. But that is just me being crazy, you know nothing huge.

Absolutely agree that the missions need work. IMHO, best missions, terrain set-ups and game sizes were back in the 1000 point "Cities of Death" days. If you put the current LOS shooting rules into 4th ed and used that to play the old CoD expansion....that would be pure win.

comradepanda wrote:I wont give up sixth, it has been built to destroy the competitive world. Power creep has seemed to capsize with the last two codecs released, Dark Angels seem balanced, and so do Chaos Space marines. Thus in all reality, its about applying tactical advantages of rules, and minis over your enemies. If you find yourself losing all the time, then you are just a crappy player.

a) Nobody aske you to give up 6th ed.
b)Your comment about 6th ed being built to destroy the competitive world implies that you think of yourself as a casual gamer, yet you previously you admitted to running wreck your face WAAC "Fluffy Air list" and you end this paragraph with an "if you can't win you are a crappy player" insult. Hmmm, You are doing a good job of proving what I said about "casual gaming groups" at the beginning of my reply.
c)You talk about applying tactical advantage of rules and minis........you don't get that tactics are more than rule book and codex power combos. Of course many 40k players don't undertand such because they have never played a game that allowed for both strategic and tactical maneuvering after deployment but before you are with small arms range.
and
d)Your insult about losing and being a crappy player are unwarranted and off the mark. This is because I never said that I had a problem winning. In fact, had a better than 60% win average with my Tau at the end of 5th ed. Newcrons were the only army that I couldn't win against with any consistency while using my Tau.
Also, I know many players who have their chosen army because they can only afford "one army". Said army can be old. not considered competitive and the player may lose more than they win...yet...they are good players. They are good sports and usually have stuck with their chosen army long enough to master a lot of the nuances that Fotm tourny & casual players never take the time to learn.

comradepanda wrote:I play with "orks" and "eldar" which are considered to be "low par, low tier, weak codecs" and the list goes on. Then i make the space marine player eat every single word, space wolves are a preferred hobby of mine to kill, blood angels more so. The race i lose the most to is Tyranids. CAUSE GOD DAMN MONSTERS. i love the game of warhammer, i have tried other games like dust tactics, flames of war, war machine, infinity... nothing really builds up to the scale of a 180 models like warhammer40k.

a)As one who played Tau all through 5th ed and managed to win more than I lost, your claimed feats with the orks and eldar are not so impressive.
and
b)I understand why you don't like the better written and better balanced smaller scale game systems. By your own words, you like an over crowded board that forgoes tactical maneuver in favor of an in your face head on style. And thats ok, still doesn't invalidate my issues with 40ks scale.

comradepanda wrote:I conclude with; you think their is no tactics, it is all list. Perhaps for the dumb player that is what it is at. But a war game isnt like magic where you find a nice combo and call it a tactic. A war game is where you find a nice way to combo units across the board with moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit.

And again, Thank you for the condecending insult. The irony of you trying to label me as a net list MtG cheesy combo guy is very amusing. Any examination of my posting history would tell you otherwise.
Now, Close examination of your words has shown that you could very possibly be that cheesy list guy. You then finishing with an instruction of what a war game is becomes priceless when you look at how your definition fits the core problem I'm having with 40K. You talk about, "moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit(Your poor use of english and sentence structure, not mine). You never once mention manouvering. You talk about getting across the board as if that is the only way to win or play. It is not, if the game is scaled properly.

bkiker wrote:
I still enjoy the scale. Since I have vision problems, the scale allows me to still paint and enjoy both the minis and the game with little problem. If the scale was any smaller, I wouldn't be able to paint or build the minis or really enjoy the game as I would be straining to see. If the number of models at the table is a factor, then there are missions and rules for Combat Patrol, which are available in the battle missions expansion or from Adepticon.

A)You mention that eye sight is an issue with smaller scale minis. I'm not going argue your personal experience but just want to ask if you have tried painting a 15mm model?
The reason I ask is that many older players are gravitating towards 15mm and they/we cite that the model being easier to paint as one of our reasons for switching. Now its true that you don't get as much detail but many who have switched comment about how they can paint an entire squad in the same time it takes to paint a single 28mm model.

Also want to note for many who might get confused on some of the searches, 40K epic was 6mm. What I am talking about is 15mm. I note this because some 15mm sci-fi searches will point towards 40K epic which is about 1/5 the size of 40K. 15mm is 1/2 the size of 40K.

B)I agree about combat patrol helping, but scale isn't the only issue. Want to play 40K, not spend 1 hour on house ruling for ever 2 hours of game play. 40k should be a game where I can learn the rules to where I don't have to constantly reference and then play different scenarios that don't conflict with the rules that I've taken the time to program into myself. Problem with mst houserules is that you end up programming conflicting info into your memory, thus subsequent games end up being longer than they should because you have to go back and re-learn the base system.
This is also a problem due to how many faq's and expansions GW is trying to cram in. You don't even have time to play enough to get the rules down before they make some of the rules obsolete(WD, Ipad faqs andSkies of Death, I'm looking at you.).

bkiker wrote:Your suggestion that GW trying creating new rules to sale things is... a point. However, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job at it, especially with fliers. Most peoples' opinion is the game wise the fliers are too expensive for what they do, so there is little reason to go out a purchase a model. I can speak from experience on this with the Dark Angels fliers. They're not great, and I honestly would probably only use one every once in a blue moon. The same can be said about main of the other units in the Dark Angels codex.

Might I suggest that your opinion about "Fliers are too expensive for what they do" is possibly limited to your local area. They seem to show up in numbers at many tournaments in the US and the amout of complaints about them not having a decent counter seem to come from all over the world. I feel that so many people wouldn't be complaiing about a lack of counters if they were to expensive for what they do.

Auswin wrote:I can't help but feel like a lot of the gripes listed in the OP are attributable to codex lag. We seem to always go through this when the new rules are released, FAQs haven't been updated adequately, and until we get new codices we're out of luck.

If codex lag was the issue, I would have dropped 40K half way through 5th ed due to being primarily a Tau Player

Auswin wrote:To me, this is inherently the problem with fliers right now -- but I still enjoy using them. More units need skyfire, and the aegis defense line needs to be less automatic against flier-heavy lists, but overall I think it's an issue that will get resolved over time.

Somewhat agree that more armies should have been updated with anti-air options when 6th ed dropped.

Still doesn't fix what bothers me about them. Imo, Fliers should have to leave the board at the end of the movement phase on their 2nd turn on the board unless they are air cav units that enter hover mode.
Even then they would bother me because the aircraft fires/drops its weapons on strafing/bombing runs before they are over the target(or even over that section of the battlefield. Meh, maybe its from my time in the Air Force.

Auswin wrote:In terms of scale, I don't understand the desire to switch. I love the 28mm scale, and I can't recall a game that became strategically dull because of scale. If the board is crowded it's likely because of a huge horde army, which isn't a regular occurrence, and adds to the cinematic quality of the encounter.

I understand that you love 28mm and feel that the game is not stratigically dull. If it works for you, great.

My opinion differs due to how I remember the game when played at a points and movement level that matched the intended scale. My opinion also differs from getting to play in 15mm scale where two opposing armoured columns have enough room to maneuver for tactical advantage before there is any real shooting.

 focusedfire wrote:

cormadepanda wrote:I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?

Wrong.
Why?
Because a lot of "casual gaming groups" are short lived entities started by TFG's because they can neither get pick-up games or play in local tournies due to their habits of cheating and poor sportsmanship. You can't compromise with this type of indicidual, so coming to an agreement on homebrew rules ends up being nothing but an exercise in futility(Unless your willing to give the spoiled little brat every advantage and like dealing with rage quitters).

There is nothing on this forum that riles me more than people starting their comments with 'Wrong'. Later in the same post you criticise another poster for not stating 'In My Opinion' at the start, yet apparently your opinions are objective statements? Corma states that he enjoys 6th and feels that it's a great return to theme - how can he be 'Wrong'?

Anyway, while I'm sure there are TFG-run casual groups, I think they're a tiny minority. I mostly play with a group of friends at our houses. We're extremely casual, and have no problems with TFG behaviour. When I was at school, fifteen years ago, we went around each others' houses on the weekends to play. Again, no problems. I sometimes play in FLGS and tournaments but when I do they're almost always more 'formal' affairs, with less house rules or fun changes.

When you take into account everyone who plays 40k, from the little kids all the way up, I think you'll find the VAST majority are in 'casual gaming groups' rather than part of a regular FLGS, and they aren't all run by TFGs..

Oh... IMO

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

cormadepanda wrote:I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?

Wrong.
Why?
Because a lot of "casual gaming groups" are short lived entities started by TFG's because they can neither get pick-up games or play in local tournies due to their habits of cheating and poor sportsmanship. You can't compromise with this type of indicidual, so coming to an agreement on homebrew rules ends up being nothing but an exercise in futility(Unless your willing to give the spoiled little brat every advantage and like dealing with rage quitters).

There is nothing on this forum that riles me more than people starting their comments with 'Wrong'. Later in the same post you criticise another poster for not stating 'In My Opinion' at the start, yet apparently your opinions are objective statements? Corma states that he enjoys 6th and feels that it's a great return to theme - how can he be 'Wrong'?

Anyway, while I'm sure there are TFG-run casual groups, I think they're a tiny minority. I mostly play with a group of friends at our houses. We're extremely casual, and have no problems with TFG behaviour. When I was at school, fifteen years ago, we went around each others' houses on the weekends to play. Again, no problems. I sometimes play in FLGS and tournaments but when I do they're almost always more 'formal' affairs, with less house rules or fun changes.

When you take into account everyone who plays 40k, from the little kids all the way up, I think you'll find the VAST majority are in 'casual gaming groups' rather than part of a regular FLGS, and they aren't all run by TFGs..

Oh... IMO

Made me smile
Exalted

 focusedfire wrote:



What are these flaws, "you ask"?

IMO, they are as follow:

First is the introduction of Flyers as an in game mechanic.
Having aircraft striking your enemies while your forces are engaged on the table top is like shooting into cc or shooting your own troops. It feels very inconsistent and doesn't fit with the roles of aircraft in a battlezone. If GW wanted to make Flyer models then they should have been for their own seperate game and with very limited use in the game of 40K. Really,

Not entirely true. If you want to talk realism in battle I've seen attack aircraft coming in so low and slow you can read the tail numbers. While I do agree GW should have introduced AA with fliers, fliers are not broken.

Second is how the Allies matrix was set up.
It could have been a great mechanic for faction balance, alas the matrix is too simplified and because of this it leads to exploitation that adds imbalance to the game.

Easily fixed. If you do not like allies just let everyone at your LGS know you won't play a list with them in it. Problem solved.

Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale".
28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.

Never has for me and I've put over over 200 models on the table at one time with my Orks.

Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.

This isn't a game issue this is an issue where you play. You do know that in 6th edition players roll for density and place terrain don't you? Here at my LGS we have everything from 2X2 woods to 12X12 hills 2 feet tall.

@Arbitorian

I loved your response. An important point that I think is ether lost or doesn't exist in number on the Internet. Most people see this as a GAME played with LITTLE PLASTIC ARMY MEN. We play this to have fun with friends in a causal environment. You're correct. Not everyone is TFG. Every game I've played at LGS has been nothing but absolute fun.

I'm still not sold on the allies issue. This is my reason why. The Allies is an interesting mechanic, and looks like so much fun. However, to take an ally is to take points away from my main army. I haven't used allies because those are points I would like to spend on my main army.
Secondly, I pretty sure the allies matrix was the same matrix that was introduced by Forgeworld and later used way back when Apocalypse came out, and I don't recall people raising much of fuss then.

Ultimately, I have to ask this to the original poster and many others. What are the reasons you have for playing Warhammer 40k and/or participating in the Warhammer 40k hobby as opposed to playing golf or knitting or playing chess? I ask this because it seems that while people are leveling criticism towards GW and the rules nobody seems to be completely quitting the game or hobby. They are simply waiting until a rule book comes out that soothes their own personal opinions and taste. Since this is a non-verbal form of discussion, I want to make it clear that I'm not asking this or pointing this out to be hostile. I'm just asking this so everyone can take a moment and reflect on what their motives are for playing a game with little plastic army men.

 bkiker wrote:
Ultimately, I have to ask this to the original poster and many others. What are the reasons you have for playing Warhammer 40k and/or participating in the Warhammer 40k hobby as opposed to playing golf or knitting or playing chess? I ask this because it seems that while people are leveling criticism towards GW and the rules nobody seems to be completely quitting the game or hobby. They are simply waiting until a rule book comes out that soothes their own personal opinions and taste. Since this is a non-verbal form of discussion, I want to make it clear that I'm not asking this or pointing this out to be hostile. I'm just asking this so everyone can take a moment and reflect on what their motives are for playing a game with little plastic army men.

First and foremost it is a game. However when the army that you have chosen as your own, painted lovingly, and spent your money on becomes rather useless overnight that is why GW gets so much hate. It's not like GW can't re-balance a lot of the armies out there or release other options for them, they choose not to for profit sake. It's not difficult to release an errata stating that a unit's statline changes to XYZ to not make it useless overnight when an edition change hits. They are writing the rulebook, if they know their game they will know what units will be effected. Right out the gate from sixth they knew they have only a handful of armies with fliers or anti-air and they knew fliers would be extremely powerful. Did they give you flyer options for you armies? Nope, if you want a flier or flier defense go buy an ally.

In the end it is indeed a game played with LITTLE PLASTIC ARMY MEN, however now GW isn't the only known game out there with quality. What do people do when a company screws up their own game? They find a new one. We all love 40k, don't get us wrong. There is no other game of it's type that uses vehicles like 40k does and the fluffy for the different armies is practically ingrained in nerd history. That is why most people hang onto their armies and jsut quit playing the game in hopes that GW fixes their ways after they lose their profit or they sell off the IP to someone who does care.

@ bkiker.
I like the asthetic of 40k, as do most of my group of friends who play table top games.
We simply use alternative rules sets that we feel fit the game play we want.(And we try out a few to be fair .)
40k cool minatures rubbish rules..solution use other rule sets!!!(I forgot Warpath on my previous list BTW.)

If GW ALWAYS turned out 'duff' rule sets , then we could say its always been like it' like it or lump it'..

But Epic (SM &EA,), Necromundia, Blood Bowl, Battle Fleet Gothic, Space Hulk, etc, prove this is not true.

Since 2004 the game devlopers WANTED to address the problems with 40k battle game.But corperate managment prevented it.
(It is most likely this is why Andy Chambers left , followed by a long list of game developers ending with Rick Priestly most recently.)

It is in EVERY type of players interest to have rules written with clarity , brevity and elegance.

ONLY 'WAAC rules lawyers' and 'Cheesemongers' thrive with poorly defined ambiguos rules , they can easily exploit and abuse...
I find it odd the player type GW say they only make up 'less than 5% of their customer base, gain the most benifit from the way GW write their rules for 40k...

And the new young gamers benifit the least from this type of rules writing..

Quite simply I belive its time for 40k to have a rule set written specificaly for its own game play.

I hope that answers you question ?

@BlueDagger
We have all felt the pain of our army getting left behind. I'm feeling it again with the new Dark Angels codex. I can't help but feel that this time next year I'll be playing green Ultramarines.

@Lanrak
An eloquent and thought provoking post. Again, my question was more rhetorical than anything, meant to cause people to reflect on their reasons and motivation for choosing and playing Warhammer 40k. Many of your points I would have to agree on to some level.

 bkiker wrote:
@BlueDagger
We have all felt the pain of our army getting left behind. I'm feeling it again with the new Dark Angels codex. I can't help but feel that this time next year I'll be playing green Ultramarines.

That is the major problem, it shouldn't have to be that way. It comes down to the business model of invalidating armies for the "new shineys" for the sake of profit. Everything GW does screams of profit and not for the sake of making a good game.

Before we begin there is something I must do. *ahem* In my oppinion. OK! Were good now. Read on.

To Focusedfire: Thank you for the color change! Nice choice. Bold yet smooth, just the way I like my alcohol, morning tea, and women. If you could as a space saving measure, knock out some dead space from your posts? When your typing with post-quotes, don't put another line between the quoted text and your response to it, just start your response at the end of the 'end quote code' (i.e. ".../quote]your response here[nextquote...) The quote code will automatically put a line between the beginning and end of each quote. If its easier to type otherwise or with out that, have at it man, just thought I'd ask. Now for the grim task of responding to your...text book?...Novella?...Greek Epic?...Pile?

I read the same words you did from Comradepanda and I don't know where you got lost. Nothing about what the dude said sounded condescending, arrogant, 'baby talk', indicative of being a TFG, or rude. Though he walked that line like it was a tight rope. He seemed like he was stating opinions. He seemed like he was aware that many people who read these forums are only in their first few battles of any wargame at all. He seemed like he had a unique perspective, one that was from a different point of experience. (In fact I don't know if you even interpreted his words properly on the fluffy air thing, his English was confusing but it sounded like he was losing games with his air list, not losing chances to play. IDK) And another thing, nobodies personal records in this game are valid claims in a post. They are easily falsified, exaggerated, misreported, etc. They are further un-indicative of any form of expertise or experience. Just dismiss them. And as a Tau player, just between you and me, we could hold our own in fifth. With good strategy and tactics you could pull your claimed win percentage no sweat. And no I'm not talking lists either, to those who care. Most people look at my lists like I'm a moron, till turns out I could rumble with the Necrons. (Quick aside, honestly I wish people would quit preaching broadsides to me. I don't overly like the model, I don't particularly like the function, I don't like the retail price). And again, even my claims can not be substantiated for the same reasons above, but I feel better having a rebuttal on thread. I wont even deal with the rest except to say that fliers would reasonably only be on the table for one turn before they zoomed off, but this is a game with confines by which we must agree or agree to bend or break. If fliers were on for only a turn, you wouldn't need a model, a token would suffice, and GW wants to sell you a model. All in all bro, simmer down.

Reading through the rest of the thread, you guys can duke it out on terrain, we don't have many problems. Allies, meh, whatevs, would laugh hard at a Tau night fight list with the necron light switch guy though . GW is a company, profit goals are expected. They are toy plastic space dudes, the dudes abide. All I need from a game is a solid framework of core rules, with bros we can fill in the rest. Want to know my dirty little secret? My primary game of choice is Magic: the Gathering! When I want clearly defined rules, I read their 190+ page rule book that damn near requires a law degree to understand. When I want a sandbox, Dungeons and Dragons, or 40k. I almost don't want the rules to be that much tighter. We have social skills and wisdom of age, we can deal with TFG's and lawyers without a rule book. No seriously, you almost need a law degree! Look at this excerpt!--->

"112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it’s on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability’s trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability’s cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone." -MtG Comprehensive Rules...My brain is all like

My gaming group and I are BY FAR happier with 6th edition than any edition previous and some of us started during 2nd.

I guess you can't please everyboy. See you around FF.

@ KnuckleWolf.
I agree all you need is a solid frame work of core rules , but I prefer them to cover the intended game play.
(40ks current core rules only cover standard infantry units.Every other unit uses exceptions, USR's, and vehicle rules.etc)

And in my definition a 'solid framework of core rules ' = 'well defined instructions to play the game.'
The amount of FAQS and ERRATA for 40k sort of implies that the frame work is rather shaky and poorly defined.

And my definition of 'well defined' is simply using language correctly .
Do not call something universal , which means it applies to everything, and then call it special , which implies it does not apply to everything.
Do not say 'must' when you mean 'may','never', when you mean 'not often','always' when you mean 'mostly '....etc

GW likes to write rules using 'inspiring language' to inspire customers to buy toy soldiers.Which leads to very poor definition of the instructions to play the game.

I have read quite a few of rule sets over the years.(About 30 ish..)
The well written ones do not have to break into 'technical instruction-esque' language to explain how the game is played.
(MtG and CBT are a bit 'TI' as you pointed out.)

My favorite rules sets manage better definition , simply by applying 'every day language correctly and consistently.'