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.

 Gunzhard wrote:
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.

Hold on. I like 6th a lot and I disagree with most of the major complaints (flyers, random charges, etc). But there are lots of games (in fact lots of things, that I've never tried that I know, without having direct experience of them, would not be to my liking.

As someone who primarily watches BatReps instead of actually playing the game, I can safely say that I enjoy 6th Ed immensely.

5thEd was incredibly dull. The god-damned metal bawxes gameplay that was prevalent in every single game.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:

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.

...I did say role playing, not roll playing. You don't need progressing statistics for role playing. Your warlord could well have a customizable character beyond your trait. I can select all manner of options for my Inquisitor after all, including whether he's a 'spellcaster' or not. I can issue mighty challenges to opponent commanders. It's creating a story, and each player is playing a part.

"D&D level of roleplaying" might have been a little misleading, given how most D&D games seem to turn out. Perhaps I should have settled for "relentless pursuit of narrative at the cost of providing a balanced environment". For example, surely you would agree that the section on putting terrain out is very soft. "Here's this great narrative method. Did we mention that the story is the most important thing?" "Oh, right, well, if you CAN'T agree to set up something, then you can use these rules..." I just read this, and I can't help but think there should be a GM somewhere watching over the game. Maybe I'm just a hopelessly competitive player (and I've felt myself polarizing even further that way as I've been typing this up), but when it's not a largely cooperative game (like D&D), I prefer my rules spelled out a little more

 Gunzhard wrote:
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.

Saying its not an insult doesn't make it true. You can't respect someones opinion and then follow up with an ad homin attack

"D&D level of roleplaying" might have been a little misleading, given how most D&D games seem to turn out. Perhaps I should have settled for "relentless pursuit of narrative at the cost of providing a balanced environment". For example, surely you would agree that the section on putting terrain out is very soft. "Here's this great narrative method. Did we mention that the story is the most important thing?" "Oh, right, well, if you CAN'T agree to set up something, then you can use these rules..." I just read this, and I can't help but think there should be a GM somewhere watching over the game. Maybe I'm just a hopelessly competitive player (and I've felt myself polarizing even further that way as I've been typing this up), but when it's not a largely cooperative game (like D&D), I prefer my rules spelled out a little more

Again. most role playing games are unlike 6th ed. 40K. What tends to happen in most roleplaying is that players combine to try and 'beat' the GM, which is kind of stupid but seems almost to be a default setting (game = competition, therefore there must be someone to beat). In the best roleplaying games, the players play their characters fearlessly (not hideously conservatively) and the GM reward heroic or in character play (rather than penalising it as 'foolish').

In 40K cooperation is limited to perhaps setting up terrain or creating a scenario. thereafter one seeks to crush the other guy's ego (or maybe just his army), quite unlike roleplaying.

I'm pretty competitive myself (except when roleplaying where I managed to grow out of the fear of my character dying by that age of about 35. . . and had much more fun thereafter) and I honestly can't see how 6th edition is a step back from 5th in terms of competitiveness. in fact we now have (thank god) terrain placement rules that allow both players input as well as some 'objective' ruling rather than the old (and seldommadhered to) 25% of the board.

that's not to say I wouldn't welcome the current rules about terrain placement to be tightened (how big is 'substantial'?), but 5th didn't even have vage guidelines about set up beyond mutually agreeable and the 25% guideline. 6th is miles better (and gives the option for 'competitive' or 'narrative')

I made my opinions known earlier and actually have been following it because of the Poll Numbers, which if find fascinating. The numbers don’t seem to be moving around munch to me that tells me something. That this “Worthless Internet Poll” has a constant, I’m don’t know what than means in polling terms, but I intemperate that the numbers voting seem to think in the same percentage.

As far as the Terrain Placement, we are having a small issue because 80% of our terrain does not fit there mold and we keep ending up with 5 heavy sections surrounding a mostly empty section of the board.

BlaxicanX wrote:
As someone who primarily watches BatReps instead of actually playing the game, I can safely say that I enjoy 6th Ed immensely.

5thEd was incredibly dull. The god-damned metal bawxes gameplay that was prevalent in every single game.

Don't get too excited. Once players settle down and get over the shock of how vehicles take damage, metal bawxes and their close cousins, flying metal bawxes, will be just as prevalent and powerful as before, if not, even moreso than in fifth.

Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.

Oh, and don't forget stationary metal bawxes. Those will be pretty damn popular too. Really, anyone who thinks that 6th was the end to mechhammer was dead wrong.

Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"

Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.

 Fafnir wrote:
Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.

I don’t know about “Ruthless Hit”, in my local Meta we are still using “Assault Armies” and have only noticed that most Close Combats are ending quicker. Now if that is due to Overwatch or just way things work now I am not sure, we are having to much fun to pay attention.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.

I don’t know about “Ruthless Hit”, in my local Meta we are still using “Assault Armies” and have only noticed that most Close Combats are ending quicker.

I never said assault armies. I said assault based transport armies. Key word their is "transport." And they certainly have. Unless they're open topped, they're entirely unplayable now.

Assault armies in general didn't really gain much, and random charge distance doesn't give or take away much from a mathematical point of view, although I do dislike it.

As for combats ending faster, that really depends on what you're playing, and how dirty you are about it. I can force some fights to go on for a dreadfully long time, thanks to challenges.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Assault based transport armies took a ruthless (and entirely unneeded) flogging, but shooty transport armies lost very little, and gained a lot of reliability in the process, in addition to the rest of the buffs that shooting got.

I don’t know about “Ruthless Hit”, in my local Meta we are still using “Assault Armies” and have only noticed that most Close Combats are ending quicker.

I never said assault armies. I said assault based transport armies. Key word their is "transport." And they certainly have. Unless they're open topped, they're entirely unplayable now.

Assault armies in general didn't really gain much, and random charge distance doesn't give or take away much from a mathematical point of view, although I do dislike it.

As for combats ending faster, that really depends on what you're playing, and how dirty you are about it. I can force some fights to go on for a dreadfully long time, thanks to challenges.

I am afraid we have noticed that other than that would explain why the Khorne Berserkers got mauled the last time they tried to rhino rush.

By the end of 6th edition, unless there's some wildly powerful assault options introduced, I can see the entire game breaking down into a much more extreme version of 5th edition's late metagame.

Shooting armies will be extremely dominant, especially mechanized and flyer based armies. Gunlines in terrain and emplacements will also be quite powerful.

Expect metal bawxes to make a comeback like you would have never imagined. What's more, don't expect it too be too exciting.

I think Orks can still do good as just about everything is opened toped. The Genestealers have those yingmauls or what ever they are called; they are still doing ok at least with us.

Now this from a mostly dedicated Marine Player:
Space Wolves: I have not notice myself because I tend to run Gunlines, or Land Raiders with my Space Wolves. I will probably still run my Gunline Wolves [the only real vehicles I use any ways is an LRC, Pods and Land Speeders] with out Rhinos. I might add a few Razorbacks to give my Long Fangs some extra Fire Support, but that’s about it.
Blood Angels: I really have not played Blood Angels in 6th yet, but it’s mostly Jump Troops and Podding Sternguard anyways.
Grey Knights: My Grey Knights have not changed much either as far as I can tell. I only recently put together my Grey Knights so I am still figuring them out.
Imperial Guard: I think they got a real boost, but I have not got to try them yet. My only Assault Units I use are Rough Riders and like I said, I have not got to try them yes.


I see the Rhino Rush coming back into favor after a while for those marine players run their Marines like Orks or they will start using more specialized Assault Troops, like Assault Squads, Assault Terminators out of LRCs and Vanguard Vets.


I could not tell you about the other armies, nobody around here plays them.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
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.

I don't think 'fanboy' means what you think it means. I also think, if you don't like what 40K is and want to play something else, you should go and play something else. Write your own rules, find a likeminded group, and leave the rest of us alone.

Please.

AWESOME!! I like the direction they went with the game...assaulting with your assault squad isnot always a given.

Isuppos the easy way to put it would be to say that it just seem more realistic.

6th has done some nice things. I like the variety in missions. I like the speed of vehicles. Flyers will be cool once every army gets its toys and ways to fight them, and it's nice to be able to use toys like grenades in ways that they would be used.

I love allies, but I wish that your ally choices weren't so limited. (Probably because my two main armies are Dark Angels and Dark Eldar). I can envision almost anybody teaming up with anybody if someone worse comes along.

I hate, hate, hate random stuff. Warlord traits contain too much randomness. Many are completely useless based on the scenario, and some can break the game. Random charge distances blow. Seriously - failing 4 and 5 inch charges through open terrain? No. That's just wrong.

In the grand scheme of things, it's a mix for me. My wyches got nerfed, my Deathwing got buffed - and I need to figure out how to play again.

Like it thus far but i HATE challenges. HATE THEM to the point of distraction. There is absolutly no need for them in 40K.

RedAngel wrote:
Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"

Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.

I like this man. He understands.

Those of us who hate 6th hate it for a reason, and that reason is betrayal. Everytime GW pulls a dick move they lose more players. For some, this is the last straw.
Why am I still hanging around the 40k section of this site? Because I'm hurt that my lovingly painted armies are never going to see the table top again because I so loathe watching them get bent over the table and reemed by this crappy excuse for a rule set that screams "BUY MORE STUFF!!" like an ADD five year old. Because I'm hurt that the local gaming shop can put on a 70% off sale on GW minis and I can't be bothered to buy a single one. Because the 40k period of life that followed me from high school to university to a career is now done and burried.

...bad enough that my first games of sixth were using a neglected 4th edition book...
Seriously GW, I look forward to the day when you actually need to make sound marketting decisions instead of assuming cart-blanche over every scenario and flipping us all the bird.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:
I'm pretty competitive myself (except when roleplaying where I managed to grow out of the fear of my character dying by that age of about 35. . . and had much more fun thereafter) and I honestly can't see how 6th edition is a step back from 5th in terms of competitiveness.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/07/40k-editorial-6th-ed-and-directional.html , article about 6th directional combat, very positive btw with words like fantastic, promising etc:

...Out of all the years that I've been playing 40K, I must say that 6th Ed. looks to be the most promising.

There's no doubt by now that 6th Ed. is a very cinematic edition. There's a lot of stuff out there that captures the narrative of 40K and it's clear to me that GW does not want 40K to be a competitive game. You can tell because there's zero consideration for game balance. This is the first thing most competitive gamers such as myself notice when they browse through the rules.

With the inclusion of Allies, the goal is to sell models and demote the aspects of competitive gaming. There's obvious and broken combinations that are overwhelmingly powerful, but for fluff reasons they make perfect sense. Some combinations don't really make sense and that's perfectly fine too. It allows players to experiment and most importantly, it gives them the option to buy models from different armies. Who knows, if they play with them enough, maybe they'll start another army. It always starts like that guys, you know this by now. First you buy a box of marines, promising yourself that you won't buy another thing, then it's a box of Terminators and soon you're on your way to building a full company. I've been there, you've been there, and it's clear that's what GW wants us to do.

Aside from Allies, let's talk about point ranges. It's quite clear to me that 2K+ points is viewed as "no one cares". You can take another FOC chart and you can expand your army to take 12 Troops, 6 FA, 6 Elites and 6 Heavies. If this doesn't scream mini-apoc I don't know what does. It's crystal clear to me that the point range that GW wants us to play at is sub 2K points for standardized games. The most played meta around here hovers at the 2K point range and I'm pretty sure that's going to change to 1999. I don't mind playing smaller sized games, I actually love it. A lot of people might disagree with me saying that higher points games allows you to take more "toys" or "answer more problems", but everyone that I've spoken to agrees that 6 Heavies is simply outrageous.

There are some rather questionable things in 6th Ed. that might raise some eyebrows. Night Fighting being everywhere is one of them, the randomness of terrain and the randomness of relics. Even charges are random, how fast you can get in grips with the enemy is now based on a 2d6 system. Psyker abilities and what powers they know are also random, and this is obviously something that ticks a lot of players off. The more I see this, the more I understand that GW is breaking away from the competitive scene. Warhammer was never meant to be a competitive game and it took me over 10 years to realize this. Just play the game, enjoy the rules and take it for what it is.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I want to talk about why 6th Ed. is a fantastic edition with all things considered...

Now, I very much agree with the guy about directional combat but why oh why no balanced, competitive ruleset with directional combat? It's crap that (and this is where he's clearly wrong in the article) the company stated that the game is competitive one since 2nd edition (so since it became a wargame) to out of the sudden decide it's a 100+ pages of rules vehicle for stories, just after people have spent thousands of dollars for their merchandise. Cheap lazy writing and rules meant to sell miniatures, I love you GW and your edition.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:
that's not to say I wouldn't welcome the current rules about terrain placement to be tightened (how big is 'substantial'?), but 5th didn't even have vage guidelines about set up beyond mutually agreeable and the 25% guideline. 6th is miles better (and gives the option for 'competitive' or 'narrative')

We did 25% in 5th with random placement and following guidelines about mixing different kind of terrain, worked great.

RedAngel wrote:
Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"

Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.

Why, you're quite right. In fact, why should we roll dice to hit or wound? Why not just remove enemy models when we come into contact with them, or declare a shooting attack? Why take LD checks? Think of how much more dependable things would be if you could just force the enemy to automatically fail their morale check. The raw skill of players will be revealed if we remove any need to adapt or think. And let's not forget the SNAFU that is the codexes! Think about how we could eliminate the imbalances of the army lists by simply having a proscribed 1500 point list for each race, with no variation! Then pure skill would be the only deciding factor in the game!

Ursa wrote:
Like it thus far but i HATE challenges. HATE THEM to the point of distraction. There is absolutly no need for them in 40K.

Challenges are awesome, and should never have taken this long to become a part of 40K.

Challanges are something that we mostly tried to engineer in our games so that the the Ork Warboss would fight the Sace Marine Commander etc etc - its very 40k

"You'll never know if your in range" - you mean like in 5th Ed when you could not pre-measure range and you had to guess........

"Random charge movement?" As above.

"Random movement" - er like in 5th Ed running - so no change then

RedAngel wrote:
Random charge movement? Awesome! Lets aslo have random firearms range. Youll never know if your in range. Random movement. You bet! Now youll never know if you can walk or not. Who knows, maybe your Tau forgot to tie there shoe laces. Why should any factor in your army be dependable? Think of the non stop mystery-fun you can have by never knowing where your troops are going and what theyll do when they get there. This way we're really simulating battle. The constant, " Will my gun fire when I pull the trigger?" or "Is my Leadership value a 6 or 9 right now?"

Why was a penalizing random factor applied to h&h and not another round of the game? Assault units can spend multiple rounds trying to get in to charge range only to find themselves cheated of combat by the fickle finger of fate.Then to add salt to the wound that unit is now standing slack jawed and helpless in front of a firing squad. Its a nostalgic bit of shoots and ladders applied to warfare in the 41st millenium. It should be removed, or there should be a blanket set of random factors penalizing all parts of the game.

 Kaldor wrote:
Why, you're quite right. In fact, why should we roll dice to hit or wound? Why not just remove enemy models when we come into contact with them, or declare a shooting attack? Why take LD checks? Think of how much more dependable things would be if you could just force the enemy to automatically fail their morale check. The raw skill of players will be revealed if we remove any need to adapt or think. And let's not forget the SNAFU that is the codexes! Think about how we could eliminate the imbalances of the army lists by simply having a proscribed 1500 point list for each race, with no variation! Then pure skill would be the only deciding factor in the game!

In this two quotes we have 2 unwanted ends of the spectrum. To which one are we closer with 6th, with only gun ranges and basic movement left fixed? 6th edition is too close to the random side, good compromise is imo movement including run and charges distance fixed, and maybe making leadership and some important single d6 throws more reliable, by rerolls or sth. Both 40k chess and mindless dicefest would be a bad option but the former sounds like games you buy for 3 years old kid, you roll a dice, move a figure and something awesome happens. Chesslike 40k with open board and all the map posibilities, that could turn out suprisingly playable and even if not, for sure would be better than senslessly throwing dice all day.

evilsponge wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
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.

Saying its not an insult doesn't make it true. You can't respect someones opinion and then follow up with an ad homin attack

No but the fact that it actually isn't an insult makes it not an insult. It's not an attack either; he is just stating the facts of things, and I agree with him. The internet is terrible for people claiming games are crap before ever playing them, and sometimes before even seeing the rules.

And to the people complaining about randomness, are ye really surprised? It is a dice game, and always has been. I think people are upset on this front mostly because they were naive enough to believe 40k to be a game predominently of skill and wits, and to some people tournament play was an important thing in life. But at the end of the day guys, it is and was always just a game, and one that the designers stated over and over (and still do) was never meant to be competitive.

all challenges do is give power gamers and mathhammers somethimg more to cheese. they are a fantasy aspect that should stay there.

And to the people complaining about randomness, are ye really surprised? It is a dice game, and always has been.

the difference in randomnes of shoting and assault is too big . With the changes to transport and addition of flyers making shoting armies ultra powerful it makes playing assault armies non viable . only thing a shoting army has to worry , and even that not always, is when is night fight going to happen an assault army player has to worry about each single dice rolled. It is unbalanced .

Same with warlord templates , it promotes meq HQs over other armies HQs.

Challanges are something that we mostly tried to engineer in our games so that the the Ork Warboss would fight the Sace Marine Commander etc etc - its very 40k

and what you realy are getting is tank HQs , SW WG tanks , sacrificial sgts/asp champions and character units HQ switch outs.

Shooting armies will be extremely dominant, especially mechanized and flyer based armies. Gunlines in terrain and emplacements will also be quite powerful.

couldnt say it any better . Imagine any gunline list getting own psychic power which either buffs shoting[for example unit X shots twice this turn , but doesnt shot next turn] or gives a unit/model flyer USR for a turn .

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
And to the people complaining about randomness, are ye really surprised? It is a dice game, and always has been. I think people are upset on this front mostly because they were naive enough to believe 40k to be a game predominently of skill and wits, and to some people tournament play was an important thing in life. But at the end of the day guys, it is and was always just a game, and one that the designers stated over and over (and still do) was never meant to be competitive.

You're wrong. Let me dig up a quote for you:

 English Assassin wrote:

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4

"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix

It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill, because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.

I see a lot of people providing excuses why GW don't have to make a proper, balanced ruleset that require some thinking from a player instead of throwing dice and going "Wow! The hit! Imagine that!" 20 times a game,among them I like this one a most "it's not a game of skill, it never was, accept that". What is it then? A castrated rpg combined with luck based wargame where you have to memorise 100+ pages of rules and multiple codieces? I think I've just described one of the worst games known to man.

Funny thing is, I've never been less immersed in the game mood-wise because it was competitive. It's about a player character not a ruleset, just wait for a players appearing with 6th edition power lists and you will see.

It is only now, with 6th edition that they decided they don't have to balance the game or write rules to assure the importance of skill, because it's all about stories written over the table happening in their genuine sf world... oh wait, they've just massively ripped off 2000AD and a bunch of movies later to provide a backstory for a game. Funny because now it's the story that is important, here's the newsflash - there are 1000s stories like those on the table of 40K but times deeper in the 2000AD comic books, numerous books and movies.

Please, has anyone ever played a truly skill based variant of 40k? First you had Rogue Trader which really was narrative based with an actual GM, 2nd pretty much was the fun edition, because there sure was alotta crappy combo's that could screw everyone, third edition had some iffy rules for transports and vehicle strength, fourth had skimmerspam, fifth had far to powerful mech...

To put it lightly, there's never been true medium of skill involved, because each edition has changed where the skill level is at.

"You'll never know if your in range" - you mean like in 5th Ed when you could not pre-measure range and you had to guess........

Ive been playing 40k since it was a colated stack of photocopied articles cut out of white dwarf issues. Guessing range doesnt bother me. I was there when people cheated by laying there forearms across the table was invented, for puposes of guessing range on Guess weapons. If you cant figure out if your in rapid fire range or not, youve got bigger problems. My statement was hyperbole.

Random charge movement?" As above.

Now the crux of it. I dont NEED to measure. I DO NOT fail charges because I cant figure out what 6" is. The failure to charge is based on a random, nonsense roll that determines whether or not I can even get into combat.

Random movement" - er like in 5th Ed running - so no change then

Other people have answered this further on down the post, but for my 2 cents thats RUNNING. I was suggesting a random Movement.

Why, you're quite right. In fact, why should we roll dice to hit or wound? Why not just remove enemy models when we come into contact with them, or declare a shooting attack? Why take LD checks? Think of how much more dependable things would be if you could just force the enemy to automatically fail their morale check. The raw skill of players will be revealed if we remove any need to adapt or think. And let's not forget the SNAFU that is the codexes! Think about how we could eliminate the imbalances of the army lists by simply having a proscribed 1500 point list for each race, with no variation! Then pure skill would be the only deciding factor in the game!

Adaptation and thinking can not account for random variables because of the very nature of RANDOM. Now some people will make the MtG analogy here, and I think thats very appropriate. I can build my deck like I build my army list. Certain preperations can be made within the limitations of my codex/color. For my BAs its infernus and plasma pistols for tanks and MCs. Thereby increasing my chances of suceeding in the to wound roll, effictivly effecting a random factor. That kind of 3 dimensional problem solving is what RPGs and battle games were made for. Its why we lovingly poor through our codicies to get ready for the next fight, and the new opponent. Theres no fix for not moving. "Get a jump pack." you say? "Go faster." you say? I did. Geting right in your opponents face and then just sitting there cant be fixed. Its not fun to fail, to lose without having made a poor decision. It sucks to lose, to see your whole battle plan thrashed by some baloney rule that you cant anticipate. If you think thats fun then advocate for non stop random rules that make each game, each turn something where any kind of prep is pointless. Create random army making lists that take all decisions out of your hands. In fact dont take the time to paint models or make terrain. Dont crack a book or place minis just roll a single die to see who wins, scratch that. Save the money and just flip a coin.

I love overwatch. I think its a great Stand and Fire kind of similarity, entirely appropriate for a sci fi game where guns should be the king. Random charge however does nothing with balance in terms of shoot VS assault. It just makes it unpredictable. This so called update didnt fix a problem, overwatch did. Overwatch is a solid rule with definable qualities slanting power in favor of shooting. That in my opinion is good.

I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.

AngryMarine wrote:I like sixth about as much as a forced colonic irrigation. I like sixth as much as finding Santa's fetid, maggot strewn corpse in my chimney.
6th edition wasn't made to clarify any disputed rules, or fix the game as a whole. It wasn't made to improve the product. It was made so you would drop another 300 bucks making your army relevant to the new rules. They made rules for their crappy terrain so that they could recoup their losses on the molds. This entire edition screams "All your cash are belong to us." I pray I can convince my friends to give up on this garbage.
My armies are going to buy more Warmachine models. I'll likely try out Relic Knights, Infinity and Malifaux.

QFT! An Enema is still an Enema and the rule set stinks just as bad.