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.

 sennacherib wrote:
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.

You're also leaving out the fact that of course people who actually like 6th edition would be more enthusiastic to post and vote about it.

Haven't played it yet.

I haven't played it, but scouring the rules vs. 5th edition, I like it. Can't wait for Tau and Eldar codices, though.

Well, I've never really been a competitive player. I've always been somebody who enjoys the game for purposes of sheer fun, and the ability to tell an epic story about the battle as it's ongoing. My friends and I had already taken to naming our heroes - Boss Skullrenda, Brother-Captain Regier, and Overlord Isos are the three 'centerpiece' characters - and got really into the stories of the battles. Glorious last stands, unexpected turnabouts, epic duels and intercessions from the leaders of our respective armies... all of it was great fun.

Sixth Edition may not be a technically balanced edition, but none of us have ever cared about balance so much as we care about fun. Sixth Edition seems, to me, to be intended to enable more of the type of fun that we enjoy. Characters shape the battlefield more than ever before, duels to the death are part of the rules, and so on. I also love the fact that they've expanded on melee weaponry (though I miss power swords being able to cut through Terminator armor); that was an area I was really hoping would get some more love in this edition, and it did. Vehicle rules also seem much improved, since they're no longer absolute death machines that dominate the entire battlefield while still being important. Monstrous Creatures seem more viable as well, which I like, though I haven't yet played enough to know if I'm right about that.

All in all, I really, really like Sixth. I'm not the best player out there, but I will say that this new edition is a hell of a lot of fun.

 Fafnir wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
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.

You're also leaving out the fact that of course people who actually like 6th edition would be more enthusiastic to post and vote about it.

And you're leaving out the fact that, vis a vis, folks on Dakka that hate Sixth (as skepticism, nay-saying, and negativity, are all hallmarks of "critical thinking"), would likely be just as enthusiastic to post, and vote the negative.Thus your statement there has no merit.

Perhaps, but the point I was trying to make, those with the less enthusiastic or more moderate viewpoints on would be less likely to vote.

If this were a poll given to everyone in the 40k community, not just those who are part of Dakka, and made mandatory, then yes, this poll might be worth something.

Furthermore, those without an opinion summarized by the poll would probably be less likely to vote as well.

 DeadlyFungi wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
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.

You're also leaving out the fact that of course people who actually like 6th edition would be more enthusiastic to post and vote about it.

And you're leaving out the fact that, vis a vis, folks on Dakka that hate Sixth (as skepticism, nay-saying, and negativity, are all hallmarks of "critical thinking"), would likely be just as enthusiastic to post, and vote the negative.Thus your statement there has no merit.

Thank you. +1

There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to using online polling for statistical analysis of a population. An Open Access Pole (such as this one) typically reflect the opinion of the respondents most motivated to respond to the question being asked. Due to selection bias this method of polling is not as statistically accurate as other much more elaborate and expensive methods. However, this pole has the advantage of reaching the rather narrow slice of the population that actually play 40k and are familiar with 6th edition as well as 5th. It is also well suited for assessing the feelings of a very narrow group. Dakkaites.

That said. Here we have a poll with over 400 respondents. We need at least 30 for a traditional sample, but since we are dealing with an online poll., the larger sample size tends to reduce the margin of error and increase our confidence in the final result. As DeadlyFungi wisely pointed out, those respondents that are most motivated to respond are also the most likely to respond in open access poling, and given that dakka would appear to have a vocal crowd of willing nay-sayers who are more than willing to speak up and voice their complaints I would assume that the numbers at either tail of the poll would be greatly inflated. (This assumption I have to admit is based entirely on the last 5 or so years i have been on dakka watching huge arguments flare over nothing. If you honestly believe that dakkaites who are upset with something are going to be less likely to speak up than those that are happy, please make that argument i am all ears). This means that the numbers towards the tail ends of the bell curve will most likely be inflated creating a bit more response with the outliers of the group. These outliers would be the love/hate crowd. Currently the love/hate ratio is 7:1, and the like/dislike ratio is about 5:1.

I am not suggesting that these results are perfect or that i am a great poll writer or statistician. But i am a biologist who has worked with some stats in the past. As you accuratly pointed out Fafnir i could have included some options that were not represented by the poll. In truth, the sole goal of the poll was to measure the love/hate relationship between dakka and the new rules set, not those with an opinion represented outside of the options i posted. I also was only interested in polling the opinions of those here on dakka and not the entire 40k community, nor was i really interested in the opinions of those who had moderate feelings on the matter, though i did give them an option to respond, and they responded with a 5:1 like/dislike ratio.The Sole reason I posted this poll because i watched several very heated discussions threads here on dakka wherein a handful of persons who really dont like the new rules set repeatedly posted long, vitriolic analysis of the rules and the state of the game. Just looking at the sheer number of posts without looking at the posters, one could be led to believe that the upset crowd was representative of dakka. These data that this poll generated, however flawed (even with a huge margin of error) , suggest something very different.

I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.

A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.

Many of the people decrying 5th as being awful now were the same ones saying how great 5th was and how awful 4th was.


I'd like to pull this little nugget from a forum thread several years old when discussing a similar topic about 5th ed vis-a-vi previous editions.

Grot 6 wrote:.


5th is your favorite until 6th comes out.

I feel this is particularly apt. With any new release, the majority of people will say they like it, but when people look back on it next to other previous editions after new ones have come out, or simply after the metagame has been firmly established, then their opinion is often different.

 sennacherib wrote:
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.

- it's posted in 40K General Disscusion section and competitive players who are more likely to dislike 6th edition might not be as much a lurkers here as more narrative players. I can't say, you can't say, I suggest a poll about it
- how many people voted? The forum has 61 972 registered users
- how about a measurment of time the topic was on the first page, at what time and the impact on results it has? Who are you, where are you from, at what time do you usualy surf the Internet, how old are you, how would you describe the game culture around you, are you competitive or narrative driven, do you consider polls a worthy tool to prove a point on forum, so many questions, so many polls
- I'm a harsh critic of 6th but did not vote, how many are there like me and why? I suggest a poll about it
- the posters positive towards 6th might still be running on "newness" fuel and maybe in half years time will change their minds. I suggest a poll then btw
- separete poll for each of the questions accuracy could be needed too, note though that those might need some research and preparation before as well
- last but not least, dakkadakka might be the forum with more narrative driven players as competitive ones go to sites with articles more suited to them. Hmm, a global community poll? Might work.

This poll proves nothing, you can corelate the steady percentage of positive answers with general opinion the whole day but scientificaly the data is worthless. You may accidentaly be right that "majority likes it" but you can't use this poll results to prove it, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Sole reason I posted this poll because i watched several very heated discussions threads here on dakka wherein a handful of persons who really dont like the new rules set repeatedly posted long, vitriolic analysis of the rules and the state of the game. Just looking at the sheer number of posts without looking at the posters, one could be led to believe that the upset crowd was representative of dakka.

I think that logical long, vitrolic analysis of rules and state of the game is worth more as a measure of the ruleset quality than the poll showing that people "like" the new edition. Why does it bother you btw that it would look like the upset crowd is representative of Dakka?

So it looks like you have your work cut out for you. I welcome your efforts to help analyze peoples feelings on 6th ed. I will gladly participate in any polls that you come up with, and will comment on them in order to help keep them up on the front page so they get greater exposure. Perhaps you could use survey monkey and post a link here in whatever thread you choose to post.

as for your question why it would bother me that the small vocal minority of unhappy gamers would appear to represent dakka. ITs not what they appear to represent. its the way they are representing. The same posters started popping up on any thread about 6th ed and game play and posting angry diatribes in response to anyones post that did not mirror their feelings. The way they made it sound, GW had ruined the game, the sky was falling, oh woe is me, anyone who likes the game now is an idiot... etc etc. Their posts were met with by a similar group who argued that the game was still fun, things change move on etc. Some very good arguments were made on both sides. however it was very difficult to tell what the majority of dakka posters thought. thus the poll.

This is often how it goes on Dakka. You appear to be fairly new here, though you may be a long time lurker (i have no way of knowing except your joined on date). a few posters with very strong opinions post repeartedly their feelings on any thread concerning what they are really emotional about. This makes it very hard to discern what the overarching emotional responce to the topic is. I wanted to know if the myriad of negative posts which seem to have been posted by a minority of dakka memebers represented how dakka felt.

My local community has really bloomed with 6th edition. I've yet to see or hear of a single person that doesn't like the new rules thus far.

I know for some us, well me for sure, 5th edition was a hangover that made my simple brain over-complicate things that are in fact very easy and logical in this edition.

Having played every edition of 40k, I'll say this - more or less, every edition HAS been an improvement - and the loudest internet-FREAKOUTS seem to always be amongst people that don't actually play games but sit around at home reading rules and getting upset.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.

A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.

Many of the people decrying 5th as being awful now were the same ones saying how great 5th was and how awful 4th was.


I'd like to pull this little nugget from a forum thread several years old when discussing a similar topic about 5th ed vis-a-vi previous editions.

Grot 6 wrote:.


5th is your favorite until 6th comes out.

I feel this is particularly apt. With any new release, the majority of people will say they like it, but when people look back on it next to other previous editions after new ones have come out, or simply after the metagame has been firmly established, then their opinion is often different.

Spot on. I'm bookmarking and printing this post for use when 7th ed 40K is about to come out and fanboys worldwide are whining about how old and stale 6th ed is and what a lousy rule set it was, how glad they are that something new has come along to make the game "fun" again, and how people who don't like 7th ed should shut up, move on and play.

For anyone who's interested, there's a new Facebook group dedicated to gamers who want to escape the trap that is constant edition/codex revision and continue to play the editions/codices they bought into in the first place:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/514140121933633/

In the Future there is only Fear of Change.

 Gunzhard wrote:
In the Future there is only Fear of Change.

In fairness there is a natural reluctance to embrace change when that change may involve (perhaps substantial) expense. There is also a natural conservatism that tends to regard new as worse and long term players of any system always have an idea of how the game should progress that may differ from how it does (I well remember my dismay at Runequest's switch from the well established 2nd to 3rd and also the demise of the historical based 7th edition WRG rules).

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.

A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.

I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I see the opposite effect. Whenever a new edition or even Codex comes out, tons of people freak out and claim the sky is falling. However, once they've had time to acclimate themselves to the new rules instead of just fixating on things that sound bad without having actually played games, their opinions lighten up. You can see this with every new Codex ever-- the rumors always get called broken, people bemoan how GW is ruining game balance and the new book can never be stopped, and then the rules come out and are actually fine once people get used to them.

I'm a long time player (every edition of 40k). My reactions are not 'knee-jerks', and I have only my own opinion - but time has proven, to me anyway, that every new edition was generally better and more fun than the last.

The 1st edition was not really very playable, the 2nd was ridiculously unbalanced and complicated for no reason in places, but more fun than the last; first run of 3rd ed went too far in a different direction but the tournament community exploded and the game was fun, after some rule updates it was a great edition. 4th ed had a codex lag problem but the ruleset was more balanced and a necessary step. The 5th ed really brought the tournament community to life and we saw so much new and renewed interest in this super fun game. So far 6th edition seems to be a homerun in so many regards and imo it's a true Evolution of all these editions.

One thing that has ALWAYS been the case is --- especially with Codex releases, the loudest complaints come from folks that don't actually play games, but instead just read rules and get upset.

 Gunzhard wrote:
In the Future there is only Fear of Change.

Opposition =/= "Fear of Change".

Get off your high horse. Not everyone agrees with the GW fanboys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.

A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.

I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I see the opposite effect. Whenever a new edition or even Codex comes out, tons of people freak out and claim the sky is falling. However, once they've had time to acclimate themselves to the new rules instead of just fixating on things that sound bad without having actually played games, their opinions lighten up. You can see this with every new Codex ever-- the rumors always get called broken, people bemoan how GW is ruining game balance and the new book can never be stopped, and then the rules come out and are actually fine once people get used to them.

Ah yes, the "lie back and enjoy it" attitude.

Well, some of us don't feel like lying back and enjoying it. Some of us think challenges, random magic, er, psyker powers, magic landscapes etc. belong in WHFB (if they even belong there), don't want to play under those rules, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us think flyers belong in Epic, don't want to spend $$$ on them, don't want to spent points and $$$ dealing with them, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us want to play the game we bought into, not the latest rules dump by faceless GW suits looking to pump up sales from GW fanboy-dom.

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
In the Future there is only Fear of Change.

Opposition =/= "Fear of Change".

Get off your high horse. Not everyone agrees with the GW fanboys.

Opposition? ...heh the rulebook just came out. How many games have you played at this point?

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think if you go back and look at the history of previous editions and similar posts made there (alas, both Dakka and Warseer had wipes before 5th and after 4th) you'll find very similar ratios with previous edition releases for both 40k and Fantasy.

A lot of people like the new rules just because they are new and shiny, not necessarily because the ruleset is good.

I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I see the opposite effect. Whenever a new edition or even Codex comes out, tons of people freak out and claim the sky is falling. However, once they've had time to acclimate themselves to the new rules instead of just fixating on things that sound bad without having actually played games, their opinions lighten up. You can see this with every new Codex ever-- the rumors always get called broken, people bemoan how GW is ruining game balance and the new book can never be stopped, and then the rules come out and are actually fine once people get used to them.

Ah yes, the "lie back and enjoy it" attitude.

Well, some of us don't feel like lying back and enjoying it. Some of us think challenges, random magic, er, psyker powers, magic landscapes etc. belong in WHFB (if they even belong there), don't want to play under those rules, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us think flyers belong in Epic, don't want to spend $$$ on them, don't want to spent points and $$$ dealing with them, and resent not being able to go to our FLGS and readily play without them. Some of us want to play the game we bought into, not the latest rules dump by faceless GW suits looking to pump up sales from GW fanboy-dom.

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

That seems a sensible approach: there are plenty of options, including house-ruling your own 40K rules.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

That seems a sensible approach: there are plenty of options, including house-ruling your own 40K rules.

One group I used to play with used house rules all the time, though we did a few major campaigns so we had alotta custom stuff for various planets and the like.

 sennacherib wrote:
So it looks like you have your work cut out for you. I welcome your efforts to help analyze peoples feelings on 6th ed. I will gladly participate in any polls that you come up with, and will comment on them in order to help keep them up on the front page so they get greater exposure. Perhaps you could use survey monkey and post a link here in whatever thread you choose to post.

No polls from me because Internet polls are predominantly useless. It's not that your particular poll is so wrong, what I want to show is that it's extremly hard to obtain any serious data from Internet poll Even if you gave the effort to create a good question set you would still have to analyze the sample etc via PM or another polls. . Lots of senseless work and like shooting flies with Abrams. I only have issue with you drawing hard conclusions like "majority for sure likes it", I'm quite certain you can't. I hope I didn't come off as rude, I don't want to attack you because you like 6th, just posted a few examples of difficulties in this area

 sennacherib wrote:
as for your question why it would bother me that the small vocal minority of unhappy gamers would appear to represent dakka. ITs not what they appear to represent. its the way they are representing. The same posters started popping up on any thread about 6th ed and game play and posting angry diatribes in response to anyones post that did not mirror their feelings. The way they made it sound, GW had ruined the game, the sky was falling, oh woe is me, anyone who likes the game now is an idiot... etc etc. Their posts were met with by a similar group who argued that the game was still fun, things change move on etc. Some very good arguments were made on both sides. however it was very difficult to tell what the majority of dakka posters thought. thus the poll.

On the other hand, anyone who dislikes it is WAAC bordering on TFG, according to the other side of the argument. Ok though, I thought you worry for GWs writers feelings if they accidentaly saw this or sth. Btw I wouldn't say tht they ruined the game but seem to try imo

 sennacherib wrote:
This is often how it goes on Dakka. You appear to be fairly new here, though you may be a long time lurker (i have no way of knowing except your joined on date). a few posters with very strong opinions post repeartedly their feelings on any thread concerning what they are really emotional about. This makes it very hard to discern what the overarching emotional responce to the topic is. I wanted to know if the myriad of negative posts which seem to have been posted by a minority of dakka memebers represented how dakka felt.

This is often how it goes on any forum and yes I was quite a lurker (6th made me register, heh) but whatever, my stance is it's not majority that counts but hard logic, the numbers are irrelevant to the discussion. Imo ofc.

 sennacherib wrote:
Thanks to all who have participated so far. I was curious about how most of dakka felt and though only 134 people have voted i have to say that this is a large enough number of votes to be able to consider it from a statistical perspective. The results would lead me to conclude that all the grumbling in the forums is primarily being stirred up by the small number of extreamly vocal neck-beared brigade members, and that most of dakka appears to be pretty happy with the changes.

checking it the wrong way . no study with one question is ok . SM players form the majority of the game field . they can/have flyers or can ally them with battlebrothers . If necrons were as popular as GK , then you would have a lot more people disliking the edition .
the edition is ok . there is stuff changed just to changed stuff and stuff changed to sell more models . nothing new . too much randomness that hits more or less only one way of playing the game is not good for the game in the future . No one who wants a good working army will build an assault one ,unless there comes a codex that totaly ignores random charge/charging out of transport etc . Tbis will shift the meta game to more gunline/shoty type armies .If assault units are going to be used they will be counter ones or ones that can double as both shoty and hth units like paladins for example. All of that wouldnt be a bad thing , if there didnt werent armies in the game that dont do shoting well or at all . I dont envy a WE player for example . two editions of meh kind of sucks , thats like 10 years wasted game time .


there is also some for fun stuff that GW made to makes stuff "cool" like challanges , but it feels as if they forgot they have paladins/nobz in the game. and with a the ally rules they can have paladins in more or less every imperial army . not a big thing now , but will start getting more problematic with each new dex.

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

well considering that many tournaments still go no FW , 1999+1 or no random terrain , that is more or less what is happening . But at the same time those guys are getting flakk from non tournament gamers for "not playing w40k" with the full rule set and that because tournament Orgs/players dont like too much randomness it somehow makes them worse kind of players .

As for the three random things I keep seeing as “Hate/Disliked” items: Mysterious Terrain, Warlord Powers and the Psychic Powers.

Mysterious Terrain: I don’t recall a Single Mission that Requires them.

Warlord Powers: If you and your opponent don’t like them. Don’t use them or allow you to choose.

Psychic Powers: See Warlord Powers.

The 'Randomness-FreakOut' is totally ridiculous and unfounded anyway... the affects of these "random" elements are SO incredibly overblown; and the reason this freakout has little to no legitimacy is because it began long before the rules were even released. Simply playing some games should cure this; but I realize that is asking a lot of folks that love to complain.

So far I've rolled the 'Exploding' random objective several times and it has yet to even cause a wound on either side. The rest of the stuff is pretty fun and at best, has a very small impact on a very small area of the game.

Random terrain seriously ...it's totally ridiculous that people are so afraid of this. I've yet to see a wound caused by this even when the brainbugs successfully made a model attack his own unit, which was just hilarious anyway. Why freakout about this? Even if it DOES cause a wound, god forbid! ...so does regular dangerous terrain sometimes.

Random psychic powers are not truly Random at all - you can choose powers from your codex, you can roll on several small tables of your CHOICE, and still if you don't like what you've rolled you can CHOOSE to take the standard power. You now have MORE choice.

Warlord powers are entirely extra and free... most really have but a small impact if any on games. I hear everyone bellyaching about that one guy that won a game because his Warlord was scoring... well unless this power (to score) was magically revealed at the very last second then that is not why he won the game, his opponent let this happen.

Makumba wrote:

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

well considering that many tournaments still go no FW , 1999+1 or no random terrain , that is more or less what is happening . But at the same time those guys are getting flakk from non tournament gamers for "not playing w40k" with the full rule set and that because tournament Orgs/players dont like too much randomness it somehow makes them worse kind of players .

"Worse kind of players" I don't know... but ridiculous for being so afraid of virtually nothing... umm yes absolutely.

 Gunzhard wrote:

So far I've rolled the 'Exploding' random objective several times and it has yet to even cause a wound on either side.

When you're playing a marine army sure. It's not so ignorable when your guys are T3 4+/5+sv and can't take refuge in transports anymore.

Warlord powers are entirely extra and free... most really have but a small impact if any on games. I hear everyone bellyaching about that one guy that won a game because his Warlord was scoring... well unless this power (to score) was magically revealed at the very last second then that is not why he won the game, his opponent let this happen.

These can have a *huge* impact on games. Reserves manipulation, stealth in ruins on certain boards, etc. In more than half the games I've played or watched, the Warlord power has had a noticeable effect on the outcome. In fact, I won my last game in large part due to my Warlord ability.

The problem is that many are useless, and others provide a varying degree of power depending on what army you are playing, and very much can in some cases flip an outcome.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

So far I've rolled the 'Exploding' random objective several times and it has yet to even cause a wound on either side.

When you're playing a marine army sure. It's not so ignorable when your guys are T3 4+/5+sv and can't take refuge in transports anymore.

In my last two games against Dark Eldar it was the DE player on the exploding objective... I don't recall what the Toughness and Save were but they were certainly not marines... none of them died either. But seriously - if one did die? BFD. Are you expecting to play this game without losing any models?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Warlord powers are entirely extra and free... most really have but a small impact if any on games. I hear everyone bellyaching about that one guy that won a game because his Warlord was scoring... well unless this power (to score) was magically revealed at the very last second then that is not why he won the game, his opponent let this happen.

These can have a *huge* impact on games. Reserves manipulation, stealth in ruins on certain boards, etc. In more than half the games I've played or watched, the Warlord power has had a noticeable effect on the outcome. In fact, I won my last game in large part due to my Warlord ability.

The problem is that many are useless, and others provide a varying degree of power depending on what army you are playing, and very much can in some cases flip an outcome.

Wow - c'mon man that is a total exaggeration. Essentially all of these powers/affects you can find, and have to deal with, from elsewhere in the game/codex... but the Warlord versions are all mostly watered down. It's just another thing you, might, have to account for as the opposing player - which is entirely what this game is about, unless you just want a 'win-button' net list. NONE of the powers are over-powered and none are useless - but certain armies obviously benefit more or less, or sometimes not at all, from certain powers. To say they have a *huge* impact on the game is just not accurate.

The "flip the outcome" argument is also nonsense because your opponent should know what your Warlord power is before the game begins. It should be no surprise, it should 'flip' nothing.

 Gunzhard wrote:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.

Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.

"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:

I urge dissatisfied players to find ways to get together among themselves and play the games you want to play, not the one GW wants you to play.

That seems a sensible approach: there are plenty of options, including house-ruling your own 40K rules.

House-ruling is something I've often thought of doing, maybe combining the best (or at least good) aspects of 3rd, 4th and 5th. I'd be happy to collaborate on such a project.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.

Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.

"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded."

Again I ask, how many games have you played to draw your vast 'open-minded' conclusion from? Did you have the rulebook several months before the rest of us or something?

 Gunzhard wrote:

In my last two games against Dark Eldar it was the DE player on the exploding objective... I don't recall what the Toughness and Save were but they were certainly not marines... none of them died either. But seriously - if one did die? BFD. Are you expecting to play this game without losing any models?

Not really what I was getting at. I'm saying the unit as a whole dies a whole lot easier, and thus holding the objective is much more difficult. Casualties are expected, I'm really not new to this game, I've been known to laugh at opponents when they killing 30 guardsmen in close combat means anything to me

The problem isn't casualties, it's the ability to hold the objective, which, with weeny units, becomes a very big deal when the objective itself is deadly.

Wow - c'mon man that is a total exaggeration.

Handwaving and saying it's an exaggeration does not make it so.

Essentially all of these powers/affects you can find, and have to deal with, from elsewhere in the game/codex... but the Warlord versions are all mostly watered down.

And they're usually very restricted and/or impost restrictions (e.g. If Eldar want reserve bonuses, they can't take their full complement of psychic support), or cost a fair amount of points, and aren't available to all armies.

It's just another thing you, might, have to account for as the opposing player - which is entirely what this game is about, unless you just want a 'win-button' net list.

yes... because win-button net-lists are what I'm talking about...>_>

What I'm saying is that they're very much imbalanced and for some armies they may not make much difference while for others they may swing the game.

NONE of the powers are over-powered and none are useless

Saying so doesn't make it so. Virtually none of the personal warlord powers are going to do much for an IG army, likewise if deploying 2nd, Master of Deceit isn't doing much for anyone.

- but certain armies obviously benefit more or less, or sometimes not at all, from certain powers. To say they have a *huge* impact on the game is just not accurate.

I've played games where they've done just that. Getting Stealth in ruins (and thus a 3+ cover) with an IG gunline is a hilarious thing when the table's got 3 large Ruins in your deployment zone while you're opponent is sitting there thinking "wow, my Counterattack Warlord ability is going to be *SO* useful against an IG gunline..."

The "flip the outcome" argument is also nonsense because your opponent should know what your Warlord power is before the game begins. It should be no surprise, it should 'flip' nothing.

I'm not saying it should be a surprise, I'm saying it can change the outcome of what would have happened it the Warlord power was not present, and often times there isn't much one can really do about it (e.g. the actions and decisions often would remain largely the same regardless, the other side's impact is simply larger)

 Gunzhard wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when your group of "dissatisfied" players get together... I bet you are fun and open minded bunch.

Yes, of course, because you are so morally superior, so "open-minded", so much fun, and just so much better than people who don't think and act like fanboys.

"Open-mindedness" is a vastly overrated personal quality in any event. And to quote an earlier edition of 40K (3rd IIRC), "An open mind is like a fortress with the gates unlocked and unguarded."

Again I ask, how many games have you played to draw your vast 'open-minded' conclusion from? Did you have the rulebook several months before the rest of us or something?

The question is irrelevant. I can read the rules like anyone else, and draw my own conclusions based thereon. I don't need to play months' worth of games to know that I don't want to play with flyers, that I don't want to play with anti-flyer units, that I don't want to play with challenges, that I don't want to play with random charges, that I don't want to play with hull points, that I don't want to play with not being able to assault out of vehicles, etc.

You are happy to do so. Good on you. Play 6th all you want. It's all yours. I'll stick to previous editions and house rules.