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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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)

Saying it so, doesn't make it so is exactly right. Dude you are forgetting that we are not always pitting the exact same SM list versus an identical SM list with matching deployment zones and matching powers and matching dice. There are SO many ways to get Stealth in this game, and Counter Attack for that matter... are you telling me you give up whenever this scenario of yours happens? Or only when you've just learned about it before the game has begun? Further most of the Warlord traits apply to the warlord and his unit, if he can even join one; and even the Strategic Traits apply mostly to specialty type units like outflankers or infilitrators or even just the units you choose to hold in reserve.

Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is. You are choosing to over-emphasize the affect of these specific, and mostly narrowly applicable, rules because they are new. But I'd be REALLY surprised if your Warlord Trait scenario was the first time you've seen a shooty unit with buffed cover or an Assaulty unit with Counter-attack in a situation where it didn't help. If 'win-button' lists are not your bag, which is good to hear, then how does it make sense continue the same "actions and decisions" if you know it will cost you the game because of a rule that is as drastically impacting as you say? I just don't get why THESE rules, these very narrow rules, amongst all of the rules on the table at one time, are so unnerving and game changing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

 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."

 Gunzhard wrote:

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.

I feel that 6th edition is good,but vehicles having structure points kinda nerfs one of my army lists witch is based around rhinos, stormravens,ect

I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.

I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.

 Fafnir wrote:
I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.

I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.

My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.

What else should I be defending? ...I have played every edition of this game and I believe that it has only continued to get better and more fun, with better and cooler units and better and cooler models. Not everything is a homerun, not everything is perfect and GW will never create a game that makes everyone happy, but it's still an awesome game.

Even the haters and complainers still have interest in it. Further, I am certainly not some wise old sage, but this exact thread with the same fears and complaints - has happened several times throughout the history of this game.

The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released. At least Vaktathi seems to be playing the game and making rational examples, though I think he is greatly exaggerating the affect of certain new elements in the rules; mostly because in the games I've played or 'sat in' I've experienced something else.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.

I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.

My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.

But clearly, most of us HAVE tried 6th edition.

The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released.

And now we have the rules. So those calls of BS are completely pointless.

At least Vaktathi seems to be playing the game and making rational examples, though I think he is greatly exaggerating the affect of certain new elements in the rules; mostly because in the games I've played or 'sat in' I've experienced something else.

I'd say that his examples are without any hyperbole. For example, Warlord Traits. If the Dark Eldar player gets the trait that allows them to force night fight, that's a huge boon that can win the game right there.
Or giving the warlord the ability to be scoring. With some characters being as survivable as Draigo or Lysander, that's huge.

If you've read the warlord traits, and can't see how some of them can be entirely game changing with the right army, then your grasp of the game must be extremely limited.

Gunzhard wrote:
Saying it so, doesn't make it so is exactly right. Dude you are forgetting that we are not always pitting the exact same SM list versus an identical SM list with matching deployment zones and matching powers and matching dice.

No, I'm not, that's kinda my point. A huge number of these abilities are utterly useless to some armies and very powerful for others.

There are SO many ways to get Stealth in this game, and Counter Attack for that matter...

I addressed this already. Not every army can, and certainly not often outside of limited builds. Either way, irrelevant to the argument, the point was that one side (mine) got a huge advantage in that I'd just been made significantly harder to engage, while my opponents ability was quite literally worthless, he was never going to get assaulted and certainly not in his own deployment zone, and it swung the game because I was provided with a clear advantage and was able to deploy and set up in such a manner that meant I would take very few casualties by the time my opponent reached my positions and thus was unable to dislodge me by the time he got there.

are you telling me you give up whenever this scenario of yours happens?

No, I'm saying it detracts from the tactical challenge of beating an opponent on fair footing and the fun of the game when it comes up. "giving up" or not isn't what this is about.

Further most of the Warlord traits apply to the warlord and his unit, if he can even join one; and even the Strategic Traits apply mostly to specialty type units like outflankers or infilitrators or even just the units you choose to hold in reserve.

Yes...hence my point, why many of them often prove to be utterly worthless or very powerful.

Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules.

The problem is that they aren't even handed, they're basically a free bonus that often provides a major boost to one side and proves utterly worthless to the other. When a good player is able to make use of a warlord ability while their opponent rolled something they can't use, that really throws an unnecessary kink in the game.

You are choosing to over-emphasize the affect of these specific, and mostly narrowly applicable, rules because they are new.

I don't think I am, too many of these abilities add huge advantage to niche builds while proving useless to others or are just very useful to certain types of armies or dependent on if you go first or second. They're just too variable and arbitrary.

There's nothing narrow about many of these. For any army that isn't relying on a powerful combat lord and isn't relying on reserves (a great many armies), literally half the warlord abilities won't do anything for you. If you've built an army built around a mobile force with a killy HQ and a good chunk of reserves, you'll almost always gain a benefit to Warlord abilities.

But I'd be REALLY surprised if your Warlord Trait scenario was the first time you've seen a shooty unit with buffed cover or an Assaulty unit with Counter-attack in a situation where it didn't help.

It's not, but that's irrelevant, the point is that the game just awarded, arbitrarily, a powerful ability to one side and a completely pointless one to another, and there was no counterbalance to the side that got something useful, no points spent or force restrictions or increased objective need, etc.

If 'win-button' lists are not your bag, which is good to hear, then how does it make sense continue the same "actions and decisions" if you know it will cost you the game because of a rule that is as drastically impacting as you say? I just don't get why THESE rules, these very narrow rules, amongst all of the rules on the table at one time, are so unnerving and game changing?

It's specifically because they're so variable, some are very narrow in their applicability and are quite often worthless and other times very powerful, others will almost always be useful, at least one's is almost exactly 50/50 depending if you won the roll to go first or not. And it's not *JUST* the Warlord rules, they're just an example. Mysterious Terrain and Mysterious Objectives have similar issues.

 Vaktathi wrote:

And it's not *JUST* the Warlord rules, they're just an example. Mysterious Terrain and Mysterious Objectives have similar issues.

Oh boy, I do not look forward to rolling the psyker rape terrain on my Paladins...

Playing a pretty good game. All of a sudden, player lands on mysterious terrain. My Paladin Squad gets nuked for no reason. Game over.

Fun!

 Fafnir wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.

I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.

My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.

But clearly, most of us HAVE tried 6th edition.

Funny I was distinctly replying to a guy in this thread that doesn't play... just reads rules and gets upset. Are you telling me that is not just silly?

 Fafnir wrote:

The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released.

And now we have the rules. So those calls of BS are completely pointless.

And you have it all figured out already? I've been playing 6th edition and I've still yet to play through a game where I didn't get at least one rule, if not several, wrong - because the book is so new. It will certainly be some time before the local or region or tournament metas shift and people get comfortable enough with the rules where they can really take advantage and also have enough opportunities to play different armies and different builds and different players. I am impressed that you are so ahead of the curve.

 Fafnir wrote:

At least Vaktathi seems to be playing the game and making rational examples, though I think he is greatly exaggerating the affect of certain new elements in the rules; mostly because in the games I've played or 'sat in' I've experienced something else.

I'd say that his examples are without any hyperbole. For example, Warlord Traits. If the Dark Eldar player gets the trait that allows them to force night fight, that's a huge boon that can win the game right there.
Or giving the warlord the ability to be scoring. With some characters being as survivable as Draigo or Lysander, that's huge.

If you've read the warlord traits, and can't see how some of them can be entirely game changing with the right army, then your grasp of the game must be extremely limited.

If this and if that... what has been your experience so far? I would LOVE if you wasted Draigo or Lysander on a single objective. Please do that, because my 'limited' gameplay skill has never allowed me to go after more than one objective or find other ways to win, I just give up if some rule, like basically every rule in every codex, seems to offer my opponent some advantage when I let him play HIS game.

 Gunzhard wrote:


Funny I was distinctly replying to a guy in this thread that doesn't play... just reads rules and gets upset. Are you telling me that is not just silly?

That depends. For some of the smaller nuances, perhaps. But there are many glaring issues in 6th edition (and, let's face it, previous editions as well) that one can tell just by reading the rules.

 Fafnir wrote:

The main reason I call BS to most of the complaints I've seen so far (regarding specifically the random stuff) is because the complaints came before the rules were even confirmed let alone released.

And now we have the rules. So those calls of BS are completely pointless.

And you have it all figured out already? I've been playing 6th edition and I've still yet to play through a game where I didn't get at least one rule, if not several, wrong - because the book is so new. It will certainly be some time before the local or region or tournament metas shift and people get comfortable enough with the rules where they can really take advantage and also have enough opportunities to play different armies and different builds and different players. I am impressed that you are so ahead of the curve.

Sure, there are still the transitory pains from moving to the new edition, but I'd like to think that I, and the people I play against, have the core rules down pretty well. I know that for the rules that I exploit the hell out of, I know very well.

If this and if that... what has been your experience so far? I would LOVE if you wasted Draigo or Lysander on a single objective.

I've done it before. Granted, not only did I waste Draigo on a single objective. I had him waste 400 points of Marines on the way there. It wins games. I already would do that in 5th edition just to contest objectives, but the ability to turn such a tactic from denial to scoring is obscenely powerful.

Please do that, because my 'limited' gameplay skill has never allowed me to go after more than one objective or find other ways to win,

Draigo being scoring may not seem like a big deal. But when my army only has 3 scoring units normally, getting a 4th for free, and in the form of the nigh-unkillable combat monster that is Draigo, that's incredibly huge. As a Paladin/Nobstar player, map control and maneuverability are huge issues for me. The opportunity to turn Draigo into a scoring unit (At no cost! Can you believe that?) is something I'd kill for.

I just give up if some rule, like basically every rule in every codex, seems to offer my opponent some advantage when I let him play HIS game.

Words. Mouth. Forcing of. You do lots of that.

Haven't played. No real specific issues with 6th, just a lot of little annoyances and lack of enthusiasm over War hammer in general. Happened with 4th edition as well

6th edition? feth this game sideways!

Er... I'm still getting used to it. Ask this question in about 3 more months or so.

As for houseruling, I'm thinking about it. For the start, I'm going to fix random charges to 6" and fleet as well (btw anyone can tell me the average of 2d6 with reroll to any of the dice or both? I'm not sure), rule out nightfighting, warlord traits, mysterious anything, challenges, look out sir (maybe one attempt for one shooting or cc) with possible point cost cut further down the road. Oh wait... I'm as good staying with 5th or making a whole new ruleset.

In the end, I'm probably not going to buy a single codex and a single model outside of an used one, and most importantly not going to play 6th - the book is good for its art but that's it imo. Doesn't change the fact that the suggestion for dissatisfied players to get together and play own rules is quite a bad one as that alienates me from a solid number of players, playing in the shops etc. It is even worse because it would take only a little efort from the company to please their whole consumer base - a tourney rules and scenarios in BRB.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
I like how it seems that Gunzhard's only real defense is that everyone who dislikes 6th hasn't tried it yet.

I've had at least 7 games so far, and I've sat in for many more. The book's been out for a while, we've all had a chance to play it enough to figure out what we like and dislike.

My only defense to what? I'm sorry but if you have NOT tried 6th edition you really have NO leg to stand on in terms of making a credible judgement on it. Hah and that idea goes WAY beyond miniature games.

But clearly, most of us HAVE tried 6th edition.

Funny I was distinctly replying to a guy in this thread that doesn't play... just reads rules and gets upset. Are you telling me that is not just silly?

Of course it isn't silly. If I didn't play, I still would have reports like this one:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/08/40k-editorial-lessons-from-1st-gt-of.html

not to mention I hated d6 run in 5th, how could I like 2d6 charge out of the sudden?

And if it was silly, it would be equaly silly then to claiming this is the best edition or a great one after only a few games.

 daedalus wrote:
6th edition? feth this game sideways!

Er... I'm still getting used to it. Ask this question in about 3 more months or so.

I totally will .
BTW, the Hate crowd is slowly loosing ground, and the votes keep piling up.
I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it. Thats great and i fully encourage actual discussion, but this was not the point of the poll. I merely wanted to determine if the lovers outweighed the haters. It looks like they do by a large margin.

There is a vocal group within Dakka that is very critical of GW. There is nothing wrong with being critical, and many within this group site very legitimate reasons why they dont like the new rules. However most people appear to like them just fine. You dont have to believe the polls accuracy. Yet the growing numbers of votes and the fact that there is an 8:1 ratio in favor of loving the game is pretty substantial evidence to support the claim that more people love the game than don't. If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.

I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it.

because people that dont like 6th just drop from the game or put w40k on hold till their army gets a new codex . which more offten then not means they dont check and recheck w40k subforums to vote on 6th like/dislike ?

If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.

you would need to groups for testing . then cross reference it with polls done for different sub groups of players , lets say doing 2 polls on a forum , 2 on groups playing in shops/clubs and 2 groups polled on a tournament . you need 200-300 people polled in each group and then you have viable data . If both the main and the control group give simiular resoults then you can say that the situation for one country looks like this . But the problem would still be the error margin . For most studies like this its 2,5-5% [I doubt we could do it like medics do it who have a 0,0001% or lower margin of error] , it can be a big difference in data resoults even for larger groups like local communities , but for small communities it can be a huge difference [specialy when we dont have a way to get good resoults for polls from people who just play against friends at home and people that stoped playing in 6th] .

And you have it all figured out already? I've been playing 6th edition and I've still yet to play through a game where I didn't get at least one rule, if not several, wrong - because the book is so new. It will certainly be some time before the local or region or tournament metas shift and people get comfortable enough with the rules where they can really take advantage and also have enough opportunities to play different armies and different builds and different players. I am impressed that you are so ahead of the curve.

do you need months of testing to see that first blood/getting first turn is rather unbalanced , that it forced to play with units [or at least start with them on the table] that cant be easily killed turn 1 . when shoting is a lot less random then assault is it hard to notice that assault armies will be weaker ? I mean imagine that the range of weapons was 12"[point blank range] and 2d6/3d5/4d6/5d6/ depanding on weapon type , would shoting/gunline armies have it better then assault ones if assault ones got 5th ed rules only buffed[to represent the 6th ed overwatch,focus firing etc] ? with the amount of AA stuff in the game is it hard to notice that flyers maybe good and armies that can spam them for cheap have an upper hand over others.
This is stuff one can know without ever playing w40k , just by reading the rule book .

I have only played a single game thus far and found it mostly enjoyable with the rules being an improvement for the majority and the additions of Snap fire, challenges etc being welcome and adding a new dimension to the game. Also the clarification involving walkers and pivoting when immobilised pleased me greatly.

Things I am not sure of yet are the rules regarding infiltration and outflank, although I can see the logic in this, Look out sir seems a bit over the top, maybe a restriction of 1 attempt should have been applied err and I think that's it actually. So not bad, only 2 gripes.

I think I would have liked to have seen a comment made earlier in this thread made reality, regarding Jump Packs and Bikes, having Hit and Run, as it would make sense. Also units with Move through Cover not being affected by terrain when assaulting, but that's neither here nor there and wishing listing.

I haven't voted yet as I don't believe a single game is enough to judge, but overall I am happy with it.

 sennacherib wrote:

BTW, the Hate crowd is slowly loosing ground, and the votes keep piling up.
I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it. Thats great and i fully encourage actual discussion, but this was not the point of the poll. I merely wanted to determine if the lovers outweighed the haters. It looks like they do by a large margin.

You are still doing it... "hate crowd", "love vs hate responders", "substantial evidence"... how ffs can you ever hate the game...

 sennacherib wrote:
There is a vocal group within Dakka that is very critical of GW. There is nothing wrong with being critical, and many within this group site very legitimate reasons why they dont like the new rules. However most people appear to like them just fine. You dont have to believe the polls accuracy. Yet the growing numbers of votes and the fact that there is an 8:1 ratio in favor of loving the game is pretty substantial evidence to support the claim that more people love the game than don't. If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.

The poll of this nature, Internet forum poll will not work. I'm quality manager, we have like 10 - 20 clients a year and my feedback poll is 3 A4 pages long and you wanted to do it using one question containing "love" and "hate" as answers. Imagine you're GW and want to properly measure feedback of 6th edition, take into account your entire consumer base and have a valid data (just to say "majority likes it for sure"), how hard would that be? Because I'm quite sure it's a huge task prone to failure even if you do it proffesionaly. Big researches conducted by specialised companies go wrong and are prone to manipulation, the simple polls like "who are you going to vote on?" have history of failures and you think something complex like reaction to and judgment of the new ruleset is doable throuht the forum thread.

So again, in this case Internet forum poll is worthless especialy with answers like yours but if you still want to engage in such a waste of time, start with multiple questions poll, post it on multiple sites, pick responders at random from the given forum populations. Do a research before of how much the Internet reflects the customer base, define positive and negative feedback, find out which sites represent what cathegory of players at what percentage after of course defining those cathegories, make questions to get knowledge of what kind of people consider it better/worse and why, avoid words describing emotional reactions as those are influenced by too many factors, expect multiple tries to confirm, top of my head. You can go wrong at any point of the research - methodology/ defining/ cathegorising/ questions/ sample size/ respondent answers analysis etc... have fun.

do you need months of testing to see that first blood/getting first turn is rather unbalanced

Seeing as in most cases the only thing that first blood does is at best, stops a stalement, it has never been a complete gamebreaker within most games.

when shoting is a lot less random then assault is it hard to notice that assault armies will be weaker ?

Orks are doing fine in assault thank you, blood angels too, DE is only screwed by proxy of other rules.

This is stuff one can know without ever playing w40k , just by reading the rule book .

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


One can theorize all they want, without the proper gaming on the table to test their various findings theory is useless.

Actually you'd probably be better having a much simpler poll.

Option one: I am overall more satisfied than unhappy with the 6th edition 40K rules

Option two: I am overall more unhappy than satisfied with the 6th edition 40K rules


And asking people who are unsure or undecided not to vote until they have played enough to form an opinion.

Of course it still wouldn't be terribly accurate as a random sampling of all 40K players (because most aren't on Dakka), but once it had getting on for 1000 votes in all, if the ration was still over 5:1 in favour, that would be fairly telling. Even as it stands I think it's pretty obvious that more people are happy than not, unfortunate as that may be for those that are not.

Strangely, everyone I've played or seen play so far likes 6th overall (though they may dislike some aspects to a degree). this was not the case with 5th where a substantial number hankered for 4th edition and complained longer and harder about near-universal 4+ and wound allocation than any of them have grumbled about flyers, random charges or LOS! The only beef I'd say that was generally held is Warlord Powers being sometimes worthless for a given mission. Of course a small group of about three dozen people of whom perhaps twelve might be described as 'competitive players' is hardly a huge sample and I'd make no claims that being gebnerally true. I was just surprised how several different 'sets' of players have all been positive about 6th.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Irrelevant? ...that is the only question that matters. How can you claim to be 'open-minded' when you are not even TRYING the rules? That's like saying you don't like Broccoli because a magazine said it tastes bad... imo it does taste bad, but at least I've TRIED it - and numerous times. How do you expect to have a credible opinion of the game when you are not out playing the game? I mean seriously how do you envision that you even have a leg to stand on? At least for the sake of proving me wrong - go out and play 30 games, give it a few months at least, then tell us you hate it.

Yes, irrelevant. I don't need to try playing by rules that require large additional $$$ expenditure for units I think belong in other game systems rather than 40K, nor play with rules that come from other game systems (which I don't like even in those systems, but at least they make more sense there than in 40K). To counter one lame food analogy with another, I don't need to bite into a Snickers bar to know I'll react badly if I have a peanut allergy, I just have to read the label. That's how I "have a leg to stand on."

And I never claimed to be "open-minded". You imputed that to me.

You like 6th. I get it. I don't share your enthusiasm. I'm going to play previous editions and/or house-rules if I play at all. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. And that's my last post on the matter.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

And it's not *JUST* the Warlord rules, they're just an example. Mysterious Terrain and Mysterious Objectives have similar issues.

Oh boy, I do not look forward to rolling the psyker rape terrain on my Paladins...

Playing a pretty good game. All of a sudden, player lands on mysterious terrain. My Paladin Squad gets nuked for no reason. Game over.

Fun!

Hahaha the Psychneuein Hive. As a person who's already had to deal with it, let me tell you that's it's not nearly as bad as it seems.
With the Brotherhood of Psykers rule, the D3 Str3 AP2 attacks are only resolved against 1 random model in your Paladin squad. You're T4, so you are wounded on 5's. Then you get a 5+ invulnerable save, and FNP for a 5+ since of course it's a Paladin squad. Then, you also have 2 wounds.

When it was used against me, I had an Inquisitor with psychic powers and a GK Terminator squad as allies for my guard. My inquisitor unfortunately took a wound but she still had 2 left so I didn't really care. Honestly it's not that great. Yeah it sucks if you're the only one with psychic powers though, I do agree. But you're not gonna get "nuked" unless your opponent is rolling super well, and in that case you're screwed anyway.

 Gunzhard wrote:
e3cad0a9e40230b3240c685d3062a3bb.jpg]
Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is. You are choosing to over-emphasize the affect of these specific, and mostly narrowly applicable, rules because they are new. But I'd be REALLY surprised if your Warlord Trait scenario was the first time you've seen a shooty unit with buffed cover or an Assaulty unit with Counter-attack in a situation where it didn't help. If 'win-button' lists are not your bag, which is good to hear, then how does it make sense continue the same "actions and decisions" if you know it will cost you the game because of a rule that is as drastically impacting as you say? I just don't get why THESE rules, these very narrow rules, amongst all of the rules on the table at one time, are so unnerving and game changing?

Excuse me, but do you play any games other than GW games?

Because if you do, then you'll know that "Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is." just isn't true. Player's are only good by knowing how to control their armies through any given situation. Take Warmachine, for example, as a game where the players displaying the most control of their army on the field is the winner. Naturally, randomness at best limits and, at worst, takes away a player's ability to control their army or the game - so randomness naturally hampers control. A good player is therefor better at controlling their army when there is less randomness than when there is more. Now, considering this game is based around dice, there is already quite a bit of randomness players have to adapt to, though sixth edition has clearly added more randomness than 5th.
Randomness is essentially luck, and now that more things are random in 6th than in 5th, more luck is needed than in 5th. Good players now need to bank on even more luck than they had to in 5th (and we all know what bad days felt like in that regard) because 6th has removed certain elements of control from a good player's hands.
So instead of your: "Like EVERY rule in this game, a good player can make good use of them, given luck and the right circumstances, as a good player defending can accommodate his opponents rules. That is exactly what this game is."
It should read: "Unlike EVERY rule in this game, a player who is lucky can make good use of them, given a degree of skill and the right circumstances, as a lucky player defending can accommodate his opponent's rules. That is exactly what this game is."
6th Edition has made luck an integral part of the game (and made list building even more important, but that is a topic for another time) but before you say 'This game is about dice - duh! It is going to revolve around luck!' consider this: in what other games are your tactical decisions not based on your own strategy, but instead based on luck? Ask yourself that. There are plenty of good games where the only thing that is random are rolls that affect the enemy. Should 40k not be one of them? Is it before off not being one of them? As a now 'former' player who feels slighted that the rules for the armies I lovingly collected no longer reflect how I want to play, my answer would be 'No'.

Its nice except from a few things mentioned in this thread..
But to be honest i enjoy it more than 5th. It has more flavor.
Its more fluffy and it has depth. 5th didnt had.
Oh and btw rules making game for fun and "realistic" in some ways
overcome the rest rules.

There are plenty of good games where the only thing that is random are rolls that affect the enemy

And there are plenty of good games where random rolls (for instance to 'activate' a commander or unit) affect one's own army. To imply such games are less tactical than those that offer greater control over one's units is strange to me as many of those games have been excellent simulations as well as entertaining and well balanced (please note I do not mean to imply by that that 40K is an excellent simulation nor well balanced, though in the former case it's hard to see what it's supposed to be simulating beyond 40K stories/background material and in the latter because achieving balance, and what constitutes balance, in a game that has as many units with peculiar special rules as 40K does is very hard to say -- Malifaux, for instance, is manifestly unbalanced, though it seems to do a good job of simulating the background).

 sennacherib wrote:

I agree with some of the points that have been made concerning the statistical validity of this poll, and i agree with some concerning the accuracty of the poll etc. However we are not trying to use statistics to suss out who is going to win where there is a margin a few percentage point, or even a 200% difference. Currently there have been 8:1 love vrs hate responders. there is some great dialog going on concerning why people like or dont like it. Thats great and i fully encourage actual discussion, but this was not the point of the poll. I merely wanted to determine if the lovers outweighed the haters. It looks like they do by a large margin.

Which is legit, so long as you keep in mind the issues with accuracy. Internet polls should never be used to validate anything. It wouldn't be hard to misrepresent this poll into any result a person was looking for, let alone polling bias, etc. Internet polls have a whole new layer of suspect on them even beyond conventional pollsters.

There is a vocal group within Dakka that is very critical of GW. There is nothing wrong with being critical, and many within this group site very legitimate reasons why they dont like the new rules. However most people appear to like them just fine. You dont have to believe the polls accuracy. Yet the growing numbers of votes and the fact that there is an 8:1 ratio in favor of loving the game is pretty substantial evidence to support the claim that more people love the game than don't. If any of you have any ideas about better ways to conduct a poll of this nature, i welcome the help in achieving better, more reliable results.

The amount of time it takes to play even a 'simple' version of the game is frustrating to me. A lot of that is admittedly my own awkwardness with the rules, but a lot of it is still the added complexity of the new system. I'm kind of a little butthurt about my entire Nid army needing to be rebuilt, but who would have guessed they'd have hobbled Genestealers? I also feel there is an active war against competitive mindsets as well. It's, in places, almost like they tried to thumb their noses at tournaments as much as possible. I'm very curious to see how on earth the Adepticon guys will rationalize this ruleset into something cohesive enough to be functional.

Don't get me wrong though, they've done some very interesting things as well. "What do you mean the missile launcher can't fire, he stood still while everyone else moved" was a longstanding complaint of mine. Never made sense. They also did a lot of other stuff that 'made sense', but it doesn't feel like Warhammer. It's like they gave up on providing a streamlined abstraction and now want us to have the full D&D level of roleplaying experience, with nothing inbetween.

the full D&D level of roleplaying experience,

I honestly can't see any roleplaying aspects that have been added to the game beyond (perhaps) Warlord Traits (which are weak roleplaying as they're not chosen). There is no character progression, no character interaction (beyond combat), no customisable character ability set (beyond as I say one random Warlord trait). These three things are staples of rpgs, in fact so well established as to be essentially intrinsic to an rpg.

I can understand a dislike of 6th edition rules, that's fair enough. But I don't think comparison to any rpg is really valid.

 Chapter Master Prascus wrote:
I feel that 6th edition is good,but vehicles having structure points kinda nerfs one of my army lists witch is based around rhinos, stormravens,ect

How so? Three glancing killed a Rhino in 5th. Three glancing kill it in 6th.

Structure points and other vehicle rules changed alot of things. Some got better (flyers like the Stormraven), others got worse (Chimera?), but the Rhino seems to be the "pivot" vehicle GW used to tinker the rules around. It is literally the vehicle that has not changed in the transition (at least as far as damage goes).

The question I would like answered is this;
Do you think that the latest edition is a true progression of the rules or is it a minor step from the previous? I don't mean 'is it good or bad', has it leapt forward or is it playing it safe?

 Zweischneid wrote:

How so? Three glancing could kill a Rhino in 5th. Three glancing kill it in 6th.

Fixd'. See the difference?


Also, I like 6th ed. It is silly, but in a good way, and in the ~20 battles I had with it were all funny and all had some sort of EPIK moment.

The question I would like answered is this;
Do you think that the latest edition is a true progression of the rules or is it a minor step from the previous? I don't mean 'is it good or bad', has it leapt forward or is it playing it safe?

Personally I think it's 'fixed' the two most common gripes I heard about 5th (which were near univeral 4+ cover and wound allocation). In that sense I think it's just a step on. Also it's reintroduced overwatch in a manner that is slightly unpleaing to me 'aesthetically' but that actually works very well gameplay-wise, unlike the previous version as I recall it.

On the other hand I think all (rather than the vast bulk of) charges being random, flyers, warlord traits and mysterious terrain have thrown enough popel into a spin to warrant it as being a leap (forward or back according to taste).

Clearly I like the new rules and throughout the history of this game I truly believe it has only continued to get better and more fun. I see a lot of gripes and dislikes and some people that just simply hate entirely the new game and that is of course fine... but to have NOT EVEN TRIED something (6th edition) and declare that you hate it - is literally the definition of ignorance. That is not an insult, that is fact.

If you think your ignorance is the same as others' experience well then I would agree on one thing - nothing will ever come of this discussion.

And if you have been playing the game and still dislike it - why would you bother defending this (above)? It only weakens your argument. I feel like I'm dealing with the Tea Party in here. C'mon this is getting ridiculous. Play the game... use your own experience and data to draw your own conclusions, at least before you announce them publicly. If you still hate 6th edition after giving it a fair chance, which I don't believe is the case for MOST people, at least you will have a credible opinion. At which point you can follow some of the very reasonable advice on here and make house rules etc or just play other editions that for some reason you believe are more acceptable.