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:
While previous editions were never the epitome of balance by any means, 6th feels like it's taken a massive step backwards.

How so? I haven't really seen any evidence that balance is somehow worse. Sure meta changed and different armies were nerfed compared to 5th. There was a huge balance change from 4th to 5th, too.

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While previous editions were never the epitome of balance by any means, 6th feels like it's taken a massive step backwards.

How so? I haven't really seen any evidence that balance is somehow worse. Sure meta changed and different armies were nerfed compared to 5th. There was a huge balance change from 4th to 5th, too.

While I admit that I haven't been around for an edition shift, it's worth pointing out that nobody has a 6th Edition codex yet.

To sum up 6th ed: far, far too much dice rolling.

It really does seem me to me like GW thinks that it is Warhammer 40,000: 6th Edition "Let's Make Money Off Models!"

$60 for Necron transports
$82.50 for Stormraven
$60 for most space marine tanks
Finecast is the SAME price if not MORE than the metal models.
$75 Rule Book that is 2/3 fluff. If you want the smaller one, you have to spend $100 and end up with a bunch of extra models. Yes they can be sold but that's a pain in the butt just to get some money back on something they should just sell separately anyway.

"The hobby is only as expensive as you want it to be." - GW

Dandruff wrote:
It really does seem me to me like GW thinks that it is Warhammer 40,000: 6th Edition "Let's Make Money Off Models!"

$60 for Necron transports
$82.50 for Stormraven
$60 for most space marine tanks
Finecast is the SAME price if not MORE than the metal models.
$75 Rule Book that is 2/3 fluff. If you want the smaller one, you have to spend $100 and end up with a bunch of extra models. Yes they can be sold but that's a pain in the butt just to get some money back on something they should just sell separately anyway.

"The hobby is only as expensive as you want it to be." - GW

This is literally every edition of 40K since like what... 2nd?

 DeadlySquirrel wrote:
To sum up 6th ed: far, far too much dice rolling.

I need a handheld dice roller so that when I make my 60+ shots with my green tide I don't bowl everything ever in a tide of dice. So yeah, to much dice rolling indeed.

I just jumped on the 40k boat with 6th edition (abiet with a lower cost-to-entry then most). I gotta say, in the end, The game is only as fun as the people I play it with. From the stuff I've read, (and the ridiculously overpriced GW minis) I don't have a lick of respect for Games Workshop at all.

If I wasn't practically given a 40k army and I was dead set on wargaming, I'd probably be playing infinity. The rules are free, and the game rewards unthinking your opponent far more than simply having the right tools (plasma) for the right job (terminators). As they say, It's not your list, it's you.

As of now, the only reason I'm playing is because of the people I play with. If they moved to infinity or warmachine, I probably would as well.


That said, I do like the 6th edition rules, and the scale is pretty impressive, if a bit unwieldy to put buckets of models back in their boxes.

Vaktathi, I truly do say this with all due respect, but over the years I've seen your posts both here and on Warseer, and you strike me as one of the most discontent 40k players in the community. Sorry if that's inaccurate, but that's what your posts suggest to me. I understand that this post here is kind of a "cry for help", if you will, but I'm wondering if it isn't simply time for you to move on to greener pastures. There are plenty of other games out there. I know it's hard to quit something you've put so much time and energy into, but, again, you've consistently struck me as being immensely unhappy with 40k for years now. I think you might have better luck elsewhere.

So, experiment some. Try out other games (as it sounds like you're doing). Maybe take a break from 40k for a couple of months and see how you feel.

Whatever you decide, best of luck.

I can see where your coming from. The battle field has become cluttered with new models that not everyone understands yet, and at times it seems the game has become about who can drop the most money.

However I find my self having more fun with 6th ed then any other ed of 40K I've ever played. I like how wounds are more realistic again, the addition of Challenges, all the weapons are balanced out, and even the small things like snap fire and over watch. I feel the game has become much more about your strategy vs your ability to copy a powerlist from the internet. Some of the new elements annoy me at times hull points being #1 in my book (being that almost everything glances a trukk lol). However I welcome the new challenge of trying to get my Nobz across the board without the truck falling apart. It all mostly depends on what lite you look at the new rules.

 kestril wrote:
The game is only as fun as the people I play it with.

This!

Dandruff wrote:
It really does seem me to me like GW thinks that it is Warhammer 40,000: 6th Edition "Let's Make Money Off Models!"

$60 for Necron transports
$82.50 for Stormraven
$60 for most space marine tanks
Finecast is the SAME price if not MORE than the metal models.
$75 Rule Book that is 2/3 fluff. If you want the smaller one, you have to spend $100 and end up with a bunch of extra models. Yes they can be sold but that's a pain in the butt just to get some money back on something they should just sell separately anyway.

"The hobby is only as expensive as you want it to be." - GW

PSSSSST

E-bay and Miniaturemarket

Minimarket offerts 25% off at all times and E-bay is great for things like your small rule book

I get Vaktathi's point, and I share the opinion as well.

It's not the 6th rules or play that is bad, quite the opposite, these elements are very good, it's just all the Erratas and FAQs you have to keep on top of to play fairly. It's just messy, inconveinient and some gamers, who are less savvy will just miss out altogether.

I get the complaint, but to me, 6th is the 40k I always wanted. Its a real pain to teach (real pain), and kinda tough to get people into. But once you get to about the 5th game of 6th, it all clicks and its a blast.

6th edition has pretty much killed my competitive drive for warhammer 40k(going to bigger GT events on the west coast). I have just been playing and running local stuff around my area. I'm kind of meh at the moment as far as the rules go but after reading and playing through a couple of 6th ed games when the rules first came out I knew instantly that there were too many random variables for me to make the effort to attend major GTs.

kestril wrote:The game is only as fun as the people I play it with.

This. And sig'd.

There are lots of things in 6th I like and of course the things I dislike. I understand the concern some people have that GW has put out a FAQ/errata for the main rulebook with some significant changes so soon after release. However, I don't see any reason to think that suddenly GW will be releasing new FAQ/erratas every month for the rulebook and each army. From my perspective, GW has not done even close to enough with FAQ/erratas for armies to fix the numerous problems.

Look how long it took for GW to provide an errata for Black Templar and DA to bring some of their stuff in line with other marines. It was years too long. Units and wargear/biomorphs are not balanced in many armies. A hive tyrant has 4 ranged weapon options yet what is almost always seen when one is chosen - the devourers because it is so much better for the cost and the way the unit works/game rules work. The other three should be decent options. That is poor game design and poor use and lack of errata.

Within a couple of months of a new edition (and personally I believe this should happen the day of release of the new rulebook), each army should have a detailed errata to fix units/rules/wargear, etc to bring it in line with the new rules and to try to balance things internally and externally for each dex. Look how long the nid errata has taken after the dex was released and didn't fix much while nerfing some other things.

IMO it is not just some of the 6th edition things that some of us don't like, but a combination of that and how GW fails to even try to balance each army (and it would be so easy). Many players have spent lots of time and money on this company's product and a good company should not screw over players armies so readily. I would have spent hundreds and hundreds of more dollars on new units and new armies if I saw an honest attempt to make most of one of my armies balanced rather than encouraging me to put the hundreds of dollars spent on models on the shelf. GW is a poor company that makes a poor game that has all the elements to be a great game (not perfect but solidly good).

I think the the main problem is this:

Does it make more sense to add toppings to a delicious hamburger or take them off?

GW seems to think it's a better approach to pile every topping imaginable on a burger and let you pick it off, it's a bad approach considering you'll be sharing said burger with an opponent and chances are that your prefferences differ from your opponent's.




I mean the simple fact that fortifications/warlord traits aren't even context based (secenario) is an example of that. Rather than make those optional and simply provide rules in the event you and your opponent wish to try them they've sorta forced a lot of crap down our throat. The end result on the gaming culture is you get very entitled players who are used to their landing pads and other silly crap and aren't willing to tone it down once in a while. That to me is why the pickup game is dead, I can only play with a small group of likeminded opponents as to avoid many aspects of 6th we collectively find to be a bit too much (IE all the random crap).

 Hückleberry wrote:
6th edition has pretty much killed my competitive drive for warhammer 40k(going to bigger GT events on the west coast). I have just been playing and running local stuff around my area. I'm kind of meh at the moment as far as the rules go but after reading and playing through a couple of 6th ed games when the rules first came out I knew instantly that there were too many random variables for me to make the effort to attend major GTs.

Funnily enough, I think that 6th edition is no more random than the 5th. It's just that people look at all the random stuff which is added (much of it optional) and miss all the randomness which is reduced.

For example, in the 5th what nearly always happened in objective matches was that in the end of turn 5 movement, 2nd player would drive a vehicle to contest the objective. Then dice was rolled, and whole match came down to a dice roll whether game continued so first player had a chance to destroy the vehicle. This was really lame, very random, and it is almost completely gone now.

 Testify wrote:
I can understand why you'd hate 6th, but not why you'd hate 6th and NOT hate 5th. 6th very much feels like 5th++.

That's not been my experience. While there are obviously similarities, 6th edition plays very differently to 5th.

TBH, I think that GW has finally gotten to the point that they know they can throw out pretty much anything & some people will still play it.

Instead of actually balancing codex's through actual FAQ's or updates, they've changed the rules in such a way that it effectively nerfed some of the top tier armies (or in some cases certain builds of said armies - I'm looking @ you WWP Wych cult lists) and helped those on the bottom tiers. Then they force randomnes down our throats in the name of 'Cinematics!' and say they no longer care if players are competetive, they just want to help us 'write a story w/ our battles'. They took amazing characters & face'd them into obscurity (Kharn & Dante are I1!?!). Why do CC weapons need AP values now? Or additional clumsy rules that in no way represent any sense of balance? Power axes are I1, AP2, but regular chain axes are still user initiative & allow armor saves?

I've read & re-read & re-re-read the rules now & have played a rather small handful of games and must say - meh. Do I still enjoy it? Yes. But, after my first game where I completely outplayed my opponent & got my scoring unit killed by a combination of an exploding objective in a lethal forest - resulting in a loss - I decided that they no longer give a feth about playability, balance or actual player skill. They threw out an unholy combination of WHFB and WH40K, using the worst parts of both, added a bunch of unnecessary, ill-concieved ideas & called it 6th ed. Units & models that never had any place in a standard 40k game now are commonplace & since the dev's didn't think ahead, if you have flyers in your army - you win.

It's such a blatant money grab it's pretty much offensive. "Have a hole in your list that your skill can't counter? No problem! Add allies!"

There are a few things that went well - fixing the wound allocation & the cover saves were the best (tho in my FLGS 90% of the terrain is ruins so it didn't help much in my local meta), but, IMO, 6th ed isn't a step forward. More like a step to the side.

~Vryce

 Vryce wrote:
TBH, I think that GW has finally gotten to the point that they know they can throw out pretty much anything & some people will still play it.

Instead of actually balancing codex's through actual FAQ's or updates, they've changed the rules in such a way that it effectively nerfed some of the top tier armies (or in some cases certain builds of said armies - I'm looking @ you WWP Wych cult lists) and helped those on the bottom tiers.

Exact same thing happened with 4th -> 5th...

I continue to be amused how Ally rules and 6th edition in general are somehow a "money grab". Ally rule, at best, encourages you to buy small amount of models from some armies you may want to try out. In the 5th, you had to buy an entire army to put them on the field. 6th edition also seems to encourage smaller points games (seldom see people play 2500pts games anymore).

 Vryce wrote:
Instead of actually balancing codex's through actual FAQ's or updates, they've changed the rules in such a way that it effectively nerfed some of the top tier armies (or in some cases certain builds of said armies - I'm looking @ you WWP Wych cult lists) and helped those on the bottom tiers.

This happens every edition change. In some cases (I'm looking at you, 3rd ed Trial Assault Rules and Trial Vehicle Rules) it happens in the middle of an edition.

Units & models that never had any place in a standard 40k game now are commonplace ...

Which is surely a good thing...

...& since the dev's didn't think ahead, if you have flyers in your army - you win.

The Ork player I played in the final round of a tournament a couple of weeks back would possibly disagree with you there...

Instead of actually balancing codex's through actual FAQ's or updates, they've changed the rules in such a way that it effectively nerfed some of the top tier armies (or in some cases certain builds of said armies - I'm looking @ you WWP Wych cult lists) and helped those on the bottom tiers.

..Balance is bad? Since when?

Seriously, think this over, this is kinda what it looks like.

"These armies should've stayed completely top tier while NOTHING was done to balance the bottom tier armies. The edition should've made it so the Top Tier stayed Top while the bottom tiers stayed at the rock bottom."

Changing rules to benefit worked out for the best for 8th edition fantasy (Stopped DE,VC, and DoC from completely dominating the scene), it worked here too, some cases not so well however. (Like the reserves lists, I feel bad for kommando's and webways)

Backfire wrote:
Funnily enough, I think that 6th edition is no more random than the 5th. It's just that people look at all the random stuff which is added (much of it optional) and miss all the randomness which is reduced.

For example, in the 5th what nearly always happened in objective matches was that in the end of turn 5 movement, 2nd player would drive a vehicle to contest the objective. Then dice was rolled, and whole match came down to a dice roll whether game continued so first player had a chance to destroy the vehicle. This was really lame, very random, and it is almost completely gone now.

I don't think it's at all the same. Sure, you had the random roll to end the game (which is still in 6th), but unless you suck at the game you could predict which vehicles might be used for that purpose and make it a priority to kill them. Or you could gamble and make other targets a priority and hope that the game would keep going long enough to finish off the vehicles later. And of course the other player had to take a gamble in moving their vehicles to contest at the end of turn 5, since if the game did go to turn 6/7 those vehicles would be in an exposed position and more easily destroyed. In the end, the last-turn vehicle contesting was only "random" or "unfair" if you refused to think about strategy instead of mindlessly rolling dice.

In 6th, on the other hand, you get stuff like mysterious terrain, where my forest gives me a 3+ cover save but your forest eats your units, or I roll the warlord trait that gives me extra VPs while you roll the warlord trait that gives your space wolves counter-attack. There's no strategy involved in this, one player simply gains an advantage through completely random rolls on poorly balanced tables.

Of course, you could possibly make an argument that if balance between codexes is lacking anyway, random elements that affect the balance even further really aren't that game-changing...

6th Ed for me feels like a revamped 2nd Ed with 5th Ed toppings.

I enjoyed 5th Ed, and I enjoyed 2nd (and all the other editions) but each one was different.

Every single edition shift would have had posts like the OP's if the net had been as prevalent back then.

I remember a SM player friend ragequitting when the 2-LR's boxes and 3-Rhino boxes were discontinued.

Another threatened to quit (but didn't) when 2nd ed became 3rd.

A bunch locally quit when 4th ed gave way to 5th..

I'll keep playing for as long as it still interests me. It has been interesting since RT (though my Orks and DE saw some mighty lean years here and there...)

My DE WWP coven list took a vigorous Nerfbatting with the new edition. It happens every edition that some armies/units/rules change or become useless (or are retconned out of existence..my poor squats )

Not a problem, really. I'll be painting them more than playing them, while I dust off some long-unused Ork units..

To OP: If 40K is getting you down this edition and other games appeal more, go for it. You can either sell or shelve your armies (or use the models in the new games..) until the next edition. See if that appeals more

Nope. Best edition so far.

Lethality of 2nd edition with simplified rules of 5th edition. Two good things that go great together.

I'm not a rules guru. I love the concept of sixth but I don't memorize word for word some 200+ pages. After reading the facts I'm kinda cross eyed and confused. I thought I had a good grasp of how he game flows and now I'm left wondering what changed and how it changed exactly.

So now what I end up with is a 400+ page rule book that I've had to edit with sticky notes throughout. A rule book that cost 80 dollars that wasn't properly proofread or spell checked I might add. And on top off that I might be required to buy white dwarf if they ever decide to change anything else. The only thing I can do is role my eyes and sigh. You would think that a company as old as theirs would be more professional.

I will say this though. I like 40 and I will continue playing but I am NEVER buying their large rulebook again. I'll pick up the mini in the starter kits. I'll still have to edit it but at least I have some cool models too.

 Peregrine wrote:

In 6th, on the other hand, you get stuff like mysterious terrain, where my forest gives me a 3+ cover save but your forest eats your units, or I roll the warlord trait that gives me extra VPs while you roll the warlord trait that gives your space wolves counter-attack. There's no strategy involved in this, one player simply gains an advantage through completely random rolls on poorly balanced tables.

So maybe, if you don't like mystery terrain or objectives, don't play with them??

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Nope. Best edition so far.

Lethality of 2nd edition with simplified rules of 5th edition. Two good things that go great together.

Pretty much my thoughts on 6th.