Anyone else feeling 6th edition is just...more trouble than it's worth?

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.

**bosky**

I'm always baffled that a company as large as GW can't release updated codexes alongside the new rules edition. Just shows how beaten down fans are when they accept such a shoddy process. Playing with a super old book that has been FAQ'd across the board doesn't seems amateurish, not something the "leading" miniatures company should be doing.
I still think 40k needs a full rewrite. It's based on an old system, UGO-IGO is dated as heck, the fantasy based statline is hilarious, etc. Seriously if GW didn't have the momentum, existing fan base, and miniature branch it'd be dead in the water. The rules on their own are brutal, just brutal.

**Ailaros**

daedalus wrote: Random everything just brings the game further away from chess and closer to Candyland.

To be fair, it went from 85% candyland to 85.5% candyland.

40k has always been a dice game with limited places for player skill to interact with the game. If 6th edition seems "way more random" to you now, then you were underestimating the role of chance in 5th ed.

Xenocidal Maniac wrote:1) Roll with it.
2) Quit.

There is really nothing more to say on the matter.

I agree. Nobody likes change, especially change they don't control. 6th ed IS a slightly new game, and you've got to adapt to it, or stop altogether (or play 5th). Conversation about how to adapt to change is useful. Conversation about how much change is bothering you is just whining.

**Backfire**

Vaktathi wrote:
Backfire wrote:

Funnily enough, nearly all in your list is a boon in my books. I like challenges, I think they're fun. 5th edition "hidden fist" stuff was stupid and annoying.
Anymore than 'hidden missile launchers'?

Yes. What would always happen was that big famous hero led his squad to some random mob of Orks, would kill few random boyz, then was picked out and instakilled by random Nob.

The issue is that none of those other unit types require a similar unit to destroy them. You don't need an MC to kill an MC. You generally need a flyer to engage another flyer, or specialized AA units that are even more rare.

"Specialized AA unit" which is available for all armies, you mean?

And it's not like flyers seem to dominate 6th ed tournaments so far at least as far as I have seen results, either, even at this state where few armies have specialized tools against them.

The issue is that they're highly unbalanced. In some ways this makes sense, but when one army has 7 battle brothers and can ally with almost every army in the game and another can't ally with anyone at all, and they provide access to additional FoC slots meaning more big guns/troops/etc, they're very unbalanced.

Except that they don't work like that, to get more "big guns", you have to also buy troops and HQ. It's often not very efficient.

And yet the most powerful armies in the game by most accounts were shooting oriented armies, not CC armies.

That's because new 5th ed codices added enormously powerful MSU shooting armies. It was completely different early on 5th. Ork codex and 5th edition rules obsoleted 4th edition shooty armies overnight. Of course, none of that helped my armies, both of which had 4th edition codex.

**Vaktathi**

Carnage43 wrote:
I think what killed it for you, and what Ailaros is getting at, is that you tolerated 5th editon....barely. You knew about the mech spam, the wound allocation abuse, over-powered GKs, etc and thought 6th would be an excellent opportunity for GW to fix all that and make the game we all hoped to see. Instead, they got rid of a lot of the old issues, and just replaced them with new problems. Now we have flyer/skyfire imbalance, challenge oddities, random tables galore and they've just replaced one set of problems with a new set. You are disappointed in a missed opportunity on GWs part really.

A lot of things in 5E didn't bother me that did bother other people, but yeah, perhaps it's more the missed opportunity than anything else. Nothing really got fixed, the game doesn't play any smoother or feel more immersive, it reads like an awkward set of house rules more than anything else. And I guess that could potentially be the problem, I was hoping for something more than what feels like a set of awkward house rules.

The problems I had with 5th are mostly gone in 6th, however much of that is by removing the circumstances of their occurence and replacing them with different problems, and adding a ton of new ones with mechanics for things both smaller and larger than the scale really should be concerned with and are better left to just Apocalypse or to games like Necromunda.

And Xenocidal Maniac, this is a discussion of why people are or are not disappointed with 6th edition, not about my posting history or that I need to get out of the hobby. The internet is where people come to complain/discuss/read/argue/conjecture/etc about things they don't want to muck around with over an actual game or want to spoil people's gaming time with. Saying 'roll with it or quit" is immaterial to the discussion, and bringing up my posting history is irrelevant, I realize how my posting history reads because web forums are the best place to talk about those things without hurting feelings or ruining previous gaming time in a real life setting where playing is more important and your issues with the games are best left not wasting other people's limited gaming time.

Hollowman wrote:

The ruleset knows exactly what it wants to be - a large scale strategic game with strong tactical/heroic elements.

There are tons of ways to do that very well that don't require you to have mechanics detailed down to moral support in a duel.

Read what you wrote above and you've got it. Most of the rule changes are, frankly, better. vehicles work better, the USR's work better, the changes to power weapons are not quite what I would have done but I like differentiating them.

I'd debate they're better, vehicles in particular...but that's for another thread. The problem is that it's trying to do two different scales with an much more widened gulf that often just doesn't make any sense and ends up either feeling gamey (and thus immersion breaking) or slows things down trying to do stuff best left to smaller games. It feels like they're trying to cram Necromunda into Apocalypse.

I don't like the random elements, but obviously the designers wanted them there. They are not a product of confusion.

From that perspective no, and I never made such an assertion. However from a scale and "all comers/pickup game" perspective, it really does make the game a whole lot more awkward, clunky and slow, more appropriate to a small scale game than a game often played with 200 models on the board. It's confused from the perspective that 40k doesn't know what it wants to be except that it wants to try and be everything and it just doesn't work well when you've got armies of dudes worth 5pts each who's HQ could be killed by the basic troops of half the armies in the game opposed by an army of super-men each taking as much firepower to kill as a battle tank and everything in between.

I don't like allies because they dilute the variety inherent in fighting different armies and are not especially fluffy, but as far as them breaking the game - no.

I'd disagree on the allies part here, having access to additional Troops units and Heavy Support options over an opponent not fielding allies can very definitely swing a game, especially with something like say, an alpha strike based army playing for objectives.

Flyers are an issue for a few months, maybe half a year, and then a few flyers and AA rules waves in WD will remove the problem. No big deal at all.

that remains to be seen. While I have some issues with flyers included simply from a scale perspective, my biggest issue is how much more powerful they've become from their Forgeworld incarnations where everyone thought they were broken. Higher armor, more survivability, more reliable appearances and greater table-time, and they all can shoot at each other without issue. Unless GW *really* steps up releases, it'll be a lot more than half a year before the situation is rectified, closer to three years at the rate GW has done releases if we have half a dozen books (out of near triple the number of armies) by then.

**Backfire**

Hückleberry wrote:
Backfire wrote:

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.

True, but that was also just one aspect of 5th that was random.

There were many others. Vehicle damage, for starters. It wasn't a problem early in the edition, when vehicles were seldom very plentiful. Then came new Marine books, IG and DE which could put out enormous number of cheap vehicles on the field. It was very frustrating to deal with as if you were unlucky with dice, all you did was shake and stun them over and over. I never understood why they went that way with vehicles, when they already received a buff from core rules.

I'd like to emphasize that it's not like I'm a cheerleader, I am not so hot about some aspects of 6th edition either. However even at worst, I don't think the features make it actively worse than the 5th, and the change is good. There was a distinct feeling that 5th edition was "played through", it was time for something different.

For me, 6th edition feels like new Iron Maiden record, it has many really good parts and it could be really great if they just had polished it in a studio couple of weeks more. As it is, it's somewhat maddeningly incomplete.

**Vaktathi**

Backfire wrote:

Yes. What would always happen was that big famous hero led his squad to some random mob of Orks, would kill few random boyz, then was picked out and instakilled by random Nob.

that was an intentional thing to prevent characters from just being thrown willy-nilly into anything without risk and steamrolling over units. It's also why now most sport invuls (often very good ones) of some sort. Being able to just pick out the one threatening models turns it into an easymode stompfest that the character has little to worry from.

"Specialized AA unit" which is available for all armies, you mean?

The quad gun? Yes, all armies can bring a single T7 W2 Quad gun, a super effective defense when not all of them can actually use it and they may be facing up to 9 flyers.

And it's not like flyers seem to dominate 6th ed tournaments so far at least as far as I have seen results, either, even at this state where few armies have specialized tools against them.

I honestly have no idea how to interpret tournament results at this point given that many of them use extensive house rules and the huge variance in meta as it's being hammered out currently.

Except that they don't work like that, to get more "big guns", you have to also buy troops and HQ. It's often not very efficient.

Except that many troops are very good units and more scoring units is always helpful in objective based missions. I've seen armies built around allies just so they can have hardy scoring units where they otherwise wouldn't necessarily. Troops and HQ's aren't bad things to have more of.

That's because new 5th ed codices added enormously powerful MSU shooting armies. It was completely different early on 5th. Ork codex and 5th edition rules obsoleted 4th edition shooty armies overnight.

That's because most shooty oriented armies weren't particularly good in 4th edition either

**daedalus**

Ailaros wrote:
daedalus wrote: Random everything just brings the game further away from chess and closer to Candyland.

To be fair, it went from 85% candyland to 85.5% candyland.

40k has always been a dice game with limited places for player skill to interact with the game. If 6th edition seems "way more random" to you now, then you were underestimating the role of chance in 5th ed.

Oh, come on, give me at least 85% to 87.5%. At least back in the day you could count on a 6" charge in open terrain.

I agree. Nobody likes change, especially change they don't control. 6th ed IS a slightly new game, and you've got to adapt to it, or stop altogether (or play 5th). Conversation about how to adapt to change is useful. Conversation about how much change is bothering you is just whining.

Perhaps whining at it's worst, but probably still cathartic.

**LordOfTheSloths**

Ventus wrote:
Vak, I agree with much of what you said. I am tired of the mish-mash of rules and poorly handled ideas in a game that could easily be so much better. Since nids are my main army and I don't use tervigons (can't stand the unit and GWs execution of it in the game) my army has been a problem to play since the dex dropped in 5th (and that is with buying many new models, changing tactics etc). The game has just been on a downward spiral in the fun department, IMO. Sure, it might be fun if you have armies that have strong dexes with many choices and have allies (that you want to take with your army - I cringe at the thought of seeing lots of combos like necrons/GK or Eldar/Dark Eldar on a regular basis - how cinematic and fluffy) to do the things you want

The current errata/FAQs were disappointing because of the mess and for me because GW failed again to make any attempt to fix/balance the nid dex (and others) so that MOST units/biomorphs/wargear are decent options. I am tired of their BS - super slow dex updates, mediocre errata, even failures in models, touted as their main area. Where are all the nid models and biomorphs for example? Why does the new winged tyrant not even have one set of devourers? I just read on another forum some complaining about wraithguard being released in finecast with 5 models in a box but for an obscene price, at least in Canada. After the grumbling, many players will buy them anyways.

It seems to me that GW survives with making such a poor game (and yes IMO a good game should be reasonably balanced internally and externally) because many players are trapped. Sure there are those that don't care that GW makes them spend lots of extra dough to play a decent army or don't care what they are playing, but IMO many players have invested so much time and money in the game, and love a lot of aspects of the universe, that they are unwilling or feel unable to walk away. And this 'trapped player' situation allows GW to continue its BS.

Are players really expecting that new dexes will help things like the mish-mash of flyers and anti-flyer abilities in the game? At the rate GW releases dexes? There is always talk of GW changing their practices but the last 6-7 years has shown me otherwise.

For those that love 6th edition and don't care if they have to replace most of their army for no real reason because of a new ruleset and/or errata (or lack of decent errata), or wait years for a new dex to fix their broken army only to find that it is a poorly written dex or that the army has a small window where it works well before new rules or errata come out to screw it up, I say enjoy. I'm shelving my armies for now and walking away from a game I think could be great fun (for all players).

Well stated.

For those who are having none of 6th, maybe the thing to do is look at the five previous editions and their related codices, select the ones you like, and play with them. For the really ambitious, take the features of each that you like, work up your own custom combined rule set, and play with that. Hate hull points? Use the 3rd edition vehicle damage table. Don't feel like wasting $70 on fliers? Ban 'em. Not down with challenges? Ban 'em. Not happy with 5th edition Tyranids? Use the 4th or 3rd edition codex. Like doctrines and traits? Take them from the older IG and SM codices. Like jungle fighting rules? Get them from the old Catachan mini-dex. Bored with the same old missions? Use missions from previous editions, or missions from tournaments, or make up your own. Mix and match. Don't let GW dictate how you play the game and how you use your own minis that you've spent countless hours and dollars on.

**Backfire**

Vaktathi wrote:
Backfire wrote:

Yes. What would always happen was that big famous hero led his squad to some random mob of Orks, would kill few random boyz, then was picked out and instakilled by random Nob.
that was an intentional thing to prevent characters from just being thrown willy-nilly into anything without risk and steamrolling over units. It's also why now most sport invuls (often very good ones) of some sort.

What it meant in practice was that IC's tended to be liability, rather than asset, in assaults, and nameless sergeants were much more effective than the most famous hero of the army.

The quad gun? Yes, all armies can bring a single T7 W2 Quad gun, a super effective defense when not all of them can actually use it and they may be facing up to 9 flyers.

Yeah, that sounds almost as bad as facing 4 Rune Priests with army with no psychic defence. Seriously, I think you are hugely overestimating impact of flyers in the game.

I honestly have no idea how to interpret tournament results at this point given that many of them use extensive house rules and the huge variance in meta as it's being hammered out currently.

Yet you apparently are able to make sweeping statements about game balance?

That's because most shooty oriented armies weren't particularly good in 4th edition either

Really? Mech Tau, Necrons, lasplas Marines, CSM? Meta change from 4th to 5th was big. Mind you, there was also enormous amount of whining how 5th edition has turned the game to beer & pretzels kids game, how there was no tactics anymore, what a stupid concept True LOS was, how Kill Points were most idiotic thing ever, etc...

**Peregrine**

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
For those who are having none of 6th, maybe the thing to do is look at the five previous editions and their related codices, select the ones you like, and play with them. For the really ambitious, take the features of each that you like, work up your own custom combined rule set, and play with that. Hate hull points? Use the 3rd edition vehicle damage table. Don't feel like wasting $70 on fliers? Ban 'em. Not down with challenges? Ban 'em. Not happy with 5th edition Tyranids? Use the 4th or 3rd edition codex. Like doctrines and traits? Take them from the older IG and SM codices. Like jungle fighting rules? Get them from the old Catachan mini-dex. Bored with the same old missions? Use missions from previous editions, or missions from tournaments, or make up your own. Mix and match. Don't let GW dictate how you play the game and how you use your own minis that you've spent countless hours and dollars on.

Except then you're limited to the small number of people who share your exact complaints, if you can even find any. Forget about going to the local store for 40k night and getting a random game, playing in tournaments/leagues, etc. Maybe it's different where you live, but in my experience the vast majority of my games are against random opponents at 40k night, which means the game needs to be playable straight out of the book.

**Vaktathi**

Backfire wrote:

What it meant in practice was that IC's tended to be liability, rather than asset, in assaults, and nameless sergeants were much more effective than the most famous hero of the army.

It meant you didn't throw it into a unit with a powerfist without making sure your could wipe it out and supporting the combat character. Anything that didn't have a powerfist didn't present the same sort of threat. It was about choosing your targets and support, not just being able to dive into anything, immediately pick out and kill the one thing that presents a threat, and then mash everything the next round.

Yeah, that sounds almost as bad as facing 4 Rune Priests with army with no psychic defence. Seriously, I think you are hugely overestimating impact of flyers in the game.

Rune priests are basically a beefed up heavy weapon trooper in function and you kill them the same way you kill any other heavy infantry. You can't deal with flyers the same way you deal with other vehicles because your average required number of shots required to do so is increased by 300-400%, and in fact the better your ballistic skill the harder it becomes to deal with flyers typically.

Yet you apparently are able to make sweeping statements about game balance?

When we're using the uniform standard of the 6E rules as is within the context of my own experience with it? Sure. I'm not going to try to analyze a small sample size of tournaments at different points values with different rules for terrain, warlord rolls, allies, forgeworld inclusion, double-FoC, missions, mysterious rolls, allowing/not allowing Fortifications, etc.

Really? Mech Tau, Necrons, lasplas Marines, CSM? Meta change from 4th to 5th was big. Mind you, there was also enormous amount of whining how 5th edition has turned the game to beer & pretzels kids game, how there was no tactics anymore, what a stupid concept True LOS was, how Kill Points were most idiotic thing ever, etc...

CSM were good at shooting in 4th only until their 2007 book when they shifted solidly to a more assault oriented army, and primarily because they could min/max abuse vet skills and heavy weapon units and field potentially up to 6 Havoc squads, or use Iron Warriors lists to field 4 Heavy Support units

Most still had a major assault component however . Las/Plas was always very win big/lose big army that worked very well against some armies and very poorly against others, it was just easy to figure out and buy/build/paint. Necrons and Tau were the only consistently capable shooting armies throughout 4th that didn't routinely incorporate an assault component or need to rely on ridiculously cookie/cutter min/max'd builds to be effective.

I've been around for multiple edition turnovers for several games (40k, DnD, Firestorm Armada, WHFB, Battletech, etc). This is really the only time I've ever really felt this awkward about an edition change.

**Rysaer**

This kind of thing comes up with every new edition of this game and even fantasy battle too.

I'd like to point out that while there are some minor issues I've found with 6th ed, (very, very minor). I've had nothing but fun with it so far and I see very little wrong with it.

They've made some interesting changes, simplified things where they can and at the end of the day delivered a great product. They are getting faster with new rulebooks and codices and even faqs to resolve these minor issues.

My point is generally what i say to most people who don't like a new edition, suck it up.

The start of a new edition is where we weed out the fickle players, the kind of players who instead of looking at this new edition with a glimmer of hope/enthusiasm in their eye, instead hang up on the fact that:

'Oh god, my power gaming army list or unit of x isn't able to table everyone, this game is awful'

The simple fact of the matter is, for all the hassle GW gets from players it's suprising they turn around more than one book a year, they'd have to spend 5 years just to begin to make a book no one could cry about.

So in short, I'm not trying to be harsh or upset anyone, I've just seen too many complainers lately.

I'm a happy 6th edition gamer, who has fallen even more in love with the game, and thinks that if you don't like 6th edition, then don't play it.

**Peregrine**

Rysaer wrote:
'Oh god, my power gaming army list or unit of x isn't able to table everyone, this game is awful'

Nice strawman there. Many of these complaints have nothing at all to do with a "power gaming" list becoming less effective and winning less being just too much to tolerate. The random tables are frustrating no matter which player gets the advantage as a result, wound allocation doesn't suddenly stop taking way too much time and rolling depending on which player is winning, etc.

The simple fact of the matter is, for all the hassle GW gets from players it's suprising they turn around more than one book a year, they'd have to spend 5 years just to begin to make a book no one could cry about.

No, they'd just have to actually be professional about game design and put serious effort into it, not just consider it a tool for selling models to 10 year olds or use "beer and pretzels" and "cinematic" as an excuse for failure.

I'm a happy 6th edition gamer, who has fallen even more in love with the game, and thinks that if you don't like 6th edition, then don't play it.

Yeah, everyone who dislikes anything about 6th should just shut up and put their armies (which have taken years to build and paint) on ebay for a fraction of what they cost. How dare they continue to be part of a community they have invested in when they could just drop it and move on to the next game.

**Rysaer**

I've yet to see an actual legitimate argument as to why 6th edition has driven players to quit or left them dis-interested in the game, I can't see any part of it that is so poor it's worth getting upset over. The bulk of the arguments that I've seen have either been related to the weakening or strengthing of units/play styles, not the core gameplay. If there is then I'll happily admit I'm wrong, but in general it's a pretty solid set of rules.

GW are professional about their Games Design, with a game this big and a general culture which can be vastly over-critical they do fine work in a short space of time. I can guarantee if you made people wait a ridiculous amount of time for 'the perfect rulebook' you'd have more complaints about nothing new coming out rather than minor rule errors.

I'd also like to point out, no gaming system is perfect, if you know of one then great but every system has its flaws, everyone will have a different opinion on this obviously, but I'm happy to accept that no system will ever be perfect and I think most people should be happy with what GW have done. If your not then I'm sorry to hear that and that is your opinion that you are fully entitled to.

Finally, I didn't mean sell their armies or cast aside the hobby entirely, I'm simply saying if you don't like 6th then go back to playing 5th, 4th, 3rd, whatever makes you happy. You have the power to do so, instead of over-reacting and selling your army.

**Peregrine**

Rysaer wrote:
I've yet to see an actual legitimate argument as to why 6th edition has driven players to quit or left them dis-interested in the game, I can't see any part of it that is so poor it's worth getting upset over. The bulk of the arguments that I've seen have either been related to the weakening or strengthing of units/play styles, not the core gameplay. If there is then I'll happily admit I'm wrong, but in general it's a pretty solid set of rules.

How about starting by reading all of my posts in this thread? I've posted quite a few complaints that have nothing to do with "my army can't win anymore", and I'm not the only one.

GW are professional about their Games Design, with a game this big and a general culture which can be vastly over-critical they do fine work in a short space of time. I can guarantee if you made people wait a ridiculous amount of time for 'the perfect rulebook' you'd have more complaints about nothing new coming out rather than minor rule errors.

Lol.

The idea that GW has professional game design is just laughable. Compare them to Magic, an even bigger game, where the developers openly talk about the extensive design and playtesting process, how new products are developed to keep each player archetype happy, etc. And the end result is that the game plays smoothly, the competitive metagame is balanced and fun, there's a huge diversity in "kitchen table" casual gaming, every single rule question is given an explicit answer (and if you find one that isn't, it will quickly be fixed), and they somehow still manage to have 4+ major releases every year with completely new content.

Compare this to GW where playtesting is minimal (and they even admit it), balance is almost nonexistent, rule ambiguity is constant (even with long FAQs), entire player archetypes are dismissed (GW's refusal to consider competitive gaming with their products), and the release schedule is painfully slow (poor Tau/BT/etc players) even though vast amounts of their "new" products are simply recycled content from previous editions. This is incredibly unprofessional work, and there are only two reasons it doesn't kill GW: their awesome models, and the critical mass factor of starting out bigger than their current competition.

If you want the proof, just look at the recent errata to wound allocation. A professional game company would have had proper playtesting, including testing by competitive gamers who would have used LOS for wound allocation control instead of the "cinematic" idea of keeping a sergeant alive. The professional company would have then made a choice, either that LOS for wound allocation was fine, or that it needed to be fixed. In the second case, they would have fixed it before the book was printed, and the problem never would have been made public. Contrast this with GW where nobody bothered to find the mistake before release day, so we get a random "FAQ" to change the rule.

I'd also like to point out, no gaming system is perfect, if you know of one then great but every system has its flaws, everyone will have a different opinion on this obviously, but I'm happy to accept that no system will ever be perfect and I think most people should be happy with what GW have done. If your not then I'm sorry to hear that and that is your opinion that you are fully entitled to.

No gaming system is perfect, but there's a difference between "perfect" and having major flaws because you aren't willing to invest the effort required to make a proper rule set instead of a tool for selling space marines to kids.

Finally, I didn't mean sell their armies or cast aside the hobby entirely, I'm simply saying if you don't like 6th then go back to playing 5th, 4th, 3rd, whatever makes you happy. You have the power to do so, instead of over-reacting and selling your army.

And play it against who exactly?

**Rysaer**

Peregrine wrote:
How about starting by reading all of my posts in this thread? I've posted quite a few complaints that have nothing to do with "my army can't win anymore", and I'm not the only one.

At no point did I say you were complaining about units/armies not winning, I'm saying most people, not just on here, are of that mindset however. Also I'm simply saying that none of those 'Major Flaws' are so game breaking that it should cause people to quit. If you feel they are then you are entitled to think so, I however don't think they are.

No gaming system is perfect, but there's a difference between "perfect" and having major flaws because you aren't willing to invest the effort required to make a proper rule set instead of a tool for selling space marines to kids.

GW knows it is not just catering to kids considering the largest demographic for the game is in the 15-30 age group, but GW have invested a willing effort into the design/playtesting process, fair enough, more could be done, I'm hardly going to deny it but you could say this of any system, and if it was so fundamentally bad or full of major flaws, then people would not be playing it still, even if GW started ahead of its competition. Something that is fundamentally bad will not last or stand unsupported but GW have supported their product and will continue to do so just as you are saying magic have. Patience is what is required with a new edition not out of turn snap decisions about how bad it is from the bat, as I said if you are unhappy, play 5th and wait for 6th to get to the stage you do want to play it, or if 7th ed rolls around.

And play it against who exactly?

'Lol'

Plenty of people are still currently playing and will continue to play 5th edition, there are even large groups still dedicated to 3rd edition.

If you want the proof, just look at the recent errata to wound allocation. A professional game company would have had proper playtesting, including testing by competitive gamers who would have used LOS for wound allocation control instead of the "cinematic" idea of keeping a sergeant alive. The professional company would have then made a choice, either that LOS for wound allocation was fine, or that it needed to be fixed. In the second case, they would have fixed it before the book was printed, and the problem never would have been made public. Contrast this with GW where nobody bothered to find the mistake before release day, so we get a random "FAQ" to change the rule.

The fact does stand that though, this system of wound allocation maybe isn't the most streamlined, neither was last edition, it was abused in most cases, but I've played several games of 6th edition to date, and this method has not caused any hassle or hiccups that have taken more than a minute to correct or resolve fairly, and is not something that has caused anyone I know of to begin losing interest, stressing out, getting upset with or quitting the game over, which is all I'm trying to get across here 'There is nothing in 6th edition worth getting upset over.'

**farrowking37**

I like the new 6th ed rules.
While i can understand what you are saying, i feel that this gives you a tad more flexibility in trying new ideas out in a game, so that you don't have to stick to one of the 2 or 3 builds that actually worked with each army like in 5th.

**-Loki-**

Rysaer wrote:
'Lol'

Plenty of people are still currently playing and will continue to play 5th edition, there are even large groups still dedicated to 3rd edition.

These people tend to stick to their own groups though. It's not like they go into the FLGS looking for a 3rd edition pick up game. In general, playing an older edition just doesn't happen without planning it beforehand with your opponent, which doesn't happen for pick up games at a shop. And even if these groups exist, the chance that they are even anywhere near you are slim.

Just because these grtoups exist, it doesn't mean it's easy for people to find them and get games in.

**Rysaer**

farrowking37 wrote:
I like the new 6th ed rules.
While i can understand what you are saying, i feel that this gives you a tad more flexibility in trying new ideas out in a game, so that you don't have to stick to one of the 2 or 3 builds that actually worked with each army like in 5th.

Well said.

Also I'll agree with you there Loki, but if you were looking for a game of 5th it's actually still simply done, plus a lot of people have not yet moved over out of cost, so 5th is still viable at this point until 6th is updated/fixed as people want.

**undertow**

daedalus wrote:
Now, add imbalance and ambiguity from faqs. It's not hard to see why people would be a little frustrated.

I don't get this statement. The FAQs have removed a lot of ambiguity, where have they added it? I can't believe people are complaining about a timely release of FAQs that clear up some really contentious issues.

Granted, a lot of the things in the FAQs should have been caught in playtesting before 6E was released, but they weren't. The FAQs are good.

**Vaktathi**

Rysaer wrote:

The start of a new edition is where we weed out the fickle players, the kind of players who instead of looking at this new edition with a glimmer of hope/enthusiasm in their eye, instead hang up on the fact that:

'Oh god, my power gaming army list or unit of x isn't able to table everyone, this game is awful'

You very obviously did not bother reading my post apparently, I gave all sorts of explanations that have nothing to do with "zomg my power unit doesn't work anymore this game suxxorz!!!!1111oneoneeleventy". In case one hasn't noticed, they broke/nerfed a lot of stuff nobody really had issues with (e.g. reserve denial armies, assaults from reserves even from your own table edge, etc) and added a ton of stuff nobody asked for. A lot of the additions are nice, I'm not saying everything 6th did was bad, just that it was executed poorly in too many instances and focuses on things inappropriate to the scale of the game.

The simple fact of the matter is, for all the hassle GW gets from players it's suprising they turn around more than one book a year, they'd have to spend 5 years just to begin to make a book no one could cry about.

Nothing will ever be perfect. Nothing. Nobody is demanding anything be perfect because it's impossible. However I can think of more than half a dozen game systems off the top of my head that do updates, rules, FAQ, errata, etc far better than GW does. The simple fact of the matter is that, like it or not, GW is sloppy with its rules and often has several different authors pursuing different paradigms and have never had a coherent, consistent philosophy for the game, and this isn't anything new or earthshaking, they just happened to let it go a little far with 6th edition. One will notice most other game systems do not have the same issues with player discontent over their rules. Granted GW are the big dogs, but it has never been their rules that drew people to the game, it's the imagery and atmosphere and ability to create your own force personalized to your own taste from just about every imagineable scifi or fantasy trope one pleases, and it certainly didn't hurt that their main competition started being gobbled up by Hasbro or collapsing due to being unable to compete with them in the early 90's leaving GW a great market opportunity being otherwise isolated over in the UK.

Rysaer wrote:
I've yet to see an actual legitimate argument as to why 6th edition has driven players to quit or left them dis-interested in the game, I can't see any part of it that is so poor it's worth getting upset over. The bulk of the arguments that I've seen have either been related to the weakening or strengthing of units/play styles, not the core gameplay. If there is then I'll happily admit I'm wrong, but in general it's a pretty solid set of rules.

Again, re-read my initial post. There's all sorts of issues with the ruleset from scale confusion, pickup playability, event suitability, arbitrary and/or contradictory rules and FAQ's (e.g. Klaives get to be AP2, Banshee swords remain AP3, Kharn loses the benefit of his I5 because he was designed with an axe 16 years ago but Logan gets to use his as a Sword, vehicles for some reason can't interact with mission objectives but every other unit type including MC's can, more than half the warlord abilities are literally useless for any given army but one or two can entirely shift the game, etc)

GW are professional about their Games Design,

This I will argue. They really aren't. When you come right out and say you design a game without intent to provide a balanced ruleset, as they did at their Open Day event, then that assertion is not true. When a writer can make changes to well established lore and get a codex published and only get caught after the fact (Ward changed transport capacities on Land Raiders and Drop Pods with C:SM, he was told not to do it again after it was too late to correct and did not make it into subsequent SM variant books, by his own admission at GDUK 2010), the assertion is untrue.

Finally, I didn't mean sell their armies or cast aside the hobby entirely, I'm simply saying if you don't like 6th then go back to playing 5th, 4th, 3rd, whatever makes you happy. You have the power to do so, instead of over-reacting and selling your army.

The problem is, as others noted, wargaming is a social activity constrained by social contracts and routinely asking to use previous editions for games doesn't really work unless you just play with close friends who hold the same ideas.

**Rysaer**

Vaktathi wrote:
You very obviously did not bother reading my post apparently, I gave all sorts of explanations that have nothing to do with "zomg my power unit doesn't work anymore this game suxxorz!!!!1111oneoneeleventy". In case one hasn't noticed, they broke/nerfed a lot of stuff nobody really had issues with (e.g. reserve denial armies, assaults from reserves even from your own table edge, etc) and added a ton of stuff nobody asked for. A lot of the additions are nice, I'm not saying everything 6th did was bad, just that it was executed poorly in too many instances and focuses on things inappropriate to the scale of the game.

First off, I was not speaking about you directly, I'm simply making a generic comment, at no point did I say you said anything to this effect. Sorry for the confusion I could have explained myself better here.

Nothing will ever be perfect. Nothing. Nobody is demanding anything be perfect because it's impossible. However I can think of more than half a dozen game systems off the top of my head that do updates, rules, FAQ, errata, etc far better than GW does. The simple fact of the matter is that, like it or not, GW is sloppy with its rules and often has several different authors pursuing different paradigms and have never had a coherent, consistent philosophy for the game, and this isn't anything new or earthshaking, they just happened to let it go a little far with 6th edition. One will notice most other game systems do not have the same issues with player discontent over their rules. Granted GW are the big dogs, but it has never been their rules that drew people to the game, it's the imagery and atmosphere and ability to create your own force personalized to your own taste from just about every imagineable scifi or fantasy trope one pleases, and it certainly didn't hurt that their main competition started being gobbled up by Hasbro or collapsing due to being unable to compete with them in the early 90's leaving GW a great market opportunity being otherwise isolated over in the UK.

As I've been saying for about 100% of this thread, nothing is perfect, I agree with you. I have no denial whatsoever that games workshop can be sloppy, but the simple fact is 6th edition is nowhere near as bad as most of the 'disheartened' are letting it on to be. Again jut to be clear I am not specifically speaking about you, as I mentioned in my very first post, I'm not singling anyone out or trying to upset anyone.

Again, re-read my initial post. There's all sorts of issues with the ruleset from scale confusion, pickup playability, event suitability, arbitrary and/or contradictory rules and FAQ's (e.g. Klaives get to be AP2, Banshee swords remain AP3, Kharn loses the benefit of his I5 because he was designed with an axe 16 years ago but Logan gets to use his as a Sword, vehicles for some reason can't interact with mission objectives but every other unit type including MC's can, more than half the warlord abilities are literally useless for any given army but one or two can entirely shift the game, etc)

The faq's as far as I'm concerned have been perfectly clear and fixed about 80-90% of these minor rule errors. Vehicles being unable to interact with mission objectives in my mind makes sense I don't see a problem there, if memory serves in most editions before vehicles couldn't interact and I don't think they should be able to, klaives get to be AP 2 because Dark Eldar have little to no anti-terminator defence especially in combat and these types of weapon are more unique. Banshee swords should remain at AP3 as the swords they use are power weapons, I don't see why they should be anymore special than anyone elses power weapon, they already have banshee masks and exarch abilities to enhance their combat, while AP2 would be nice, I don't feel they need it quite yet but thats my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

When it comes to Kharn and his axe, as a World Eater Player..... I am alright with this, the AP2 benefit of an axe is worth the lowered initiative, while I agree he should be faster it's not like he's the only one who has to obey this rule and the unwieldy rule does make sense to me, an axe is unwieldy... hard to parry with..... hard to recover after striking with, if anybody else uses an axe they suffer the same penalty, in what way is that unfair on just Kharn, also this will probably be resolved in the new chaos book out very soon anyway. As for Logan, if he has both, then he can use both again I don't really see the issue, everyone has gained/lost something from these new rules, Logan was just lucky enough to gain in my opinion.

The warlord traits I'll admit aren't that great, but with new books we will get new tables, also thiswill be resolved as each new book is getting a new table to roll from if you want to. This goes back to my previous point about patience, we've all been screwed by GW at some point or another, I don't mind waiting a while to get a shiny new table, besides while there are some it really does benefit in general everyone is about level.

The problem is, as others noted, wargaming is a social activity constrained by social contracts and routinely asking to use previous editions for games doesn't really work unless you just play with close friends who hold the same ideas.

I'm sorry that 6th hasn't worked out ideally for you, and I don't mean that as an insult or to mock or upset, but the case is for now those who are unhappy have to grin and bare it for a little longer or resort to older editions with friends. I respect your opinions and while you may not agree with my opinions I am not using them to mock or offend I am simply justifying why I can live with 6th ed and why I enjoy it.

I am again sorry for any offence I caused, it was not intentional.

**Peregrine**

Rysaer wrote:
At no point did I say you were complaining about units/armies not winning, I'm saying most people, not just on here, are of that mindset however. Also I'm simply saying that none of those 'Major Flaws' are so game breaking that it should cause people to quit. If you feel they are then you are entitled to think so, I however don't think they are.

No, what you said was "I've yet to see an actual legitimate argument", when various "legitimate" arguments had already been posted in this thread alone.

GW knows it is not just catering to kids considering the largest demographic for the game is in the 15-30 age group, but GW have invested a willing effort into the design/playtesting process, fair enough, more could be done, I'm hardly going to deny it but you could say this of any system, and if it was so fundamentally bad or full of major flaws, then people would not be playing it still, even if GW started ahead of its competition. Something that is fundamentally bad will not last or stand unsupported but GW have supported their product and will continue to do so just as you are saying magic have. Patience is what is required with a new edition not out of turn snap decisions about how bad it is from the bat, as I said if you are unhappy, play 5th and wait for 6th to get to the stage you do want to play it, or if 7th ed rolls around.

Why do people play GW games even though the rules are deeply flawed?

Because GW has awesome models, and the only 28mm game with a full range of tanks/aircraft/etc in addition to infantry.

Because GW games are the most popular, and therefore the easiest to find other players for, while superior games aren't an option if nobody plays them locally.

Because GW games are the most popular, and therefore are most likely to be the game that all of your friends play and invite you to join.

Because GW games have been around for a long time, and many players have a lot invested in armies/communities/etc.

Because GW games are the only ones with a dedicated retail presence, and are therefore the game a non-gamer is most likely to see first.

Plenty of people are still currently playing and will continue to play 5th edition, there are even large groups still dedicated to 3rd edition.

But how many of them play in stores on 40k night, vs. playing in their homes against a small group of friends and never inviting outsiders? The answer, as far as I've seen, is zero. You either come prepared to play 40k straight out of the book (with maybe a small change or two like "let's not use mysterious terrain"), or you don't bother showing up.

The fact does stand that though, this system of wound allocation maybe isn't the most streamlined, neither was last edition, it was abused in most cases, but I've played several games of 6th edition to date, and this method has not caused any hassle or hiccups that have taken more than a minute to correct or resolve fairly, and is not something that has caused anyone I know of to begin losing interest, stressing out, getting upset with or quitting the game over, which is all I'm trying to get across here 'There is nothing in 6th edition worth getting upset over.'

There's a difference between being streamlined and being exploitable. 5th edition wound allocation could be exploited to make a unit tougher than it "should" be, but it was always quick to resolve as long as the player knew what they're doing. 6th edition wound allocation is FAR worse in terms of streamlining. Every 6th edition game I've played has had wound allocation take longer than in 5th, and I haven't even played any games using the really complex stuff. Consider:

My battery of three quad guns (each a barrage weapon with four shots) shoots at your infantry unit with a character, an independent character, various special weapon upgrades, and maybe a different save or two. That's a potential of up to twelve different sets of wounds to measure "closest model" from and argue over whether the melta gunner or the meatshield is closer, plus the non-barrage lasgun shots from the crew. Sure, GW ambiguously FAQed it that you just measure everything from the first shot, but how the hell did this get through playtesting without someone realizing that it was a complete mess?

(And of course in 5th this would be nice and simple: total up the wounds, divide up between wound groups and roll saves.)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rysaer wrote:
Vehicles being unable to interact with mission objectives in my mind makes sense I don't see a problem there, if memory serves in most editions before vehicles couldn't interact and I don't think they should be able to

In 5th your troops inside the vehicle could claim the objective, and the vehicle itself could deny control of an objective. In 6th your troops magically stop holding the position while they're inside their transport, and an enemy unit is considered to be in 100% control of an objective even if they're a single surviving guardsman surrounded at point blank range by a dozen enemy tanks. This is absolutely stupid.

klaives get to be AP 2 because Dark Eldar have little to no anti-terminator defence especially in combat and these types of weapon are more unique.

It might be balanced, but it's completely inconsistent. Why do DE get an AP 2 weapon that strikes at initiative, while everyone else gets reduced to I1? Why doesn't Kharn, for example, get a special AP 2 "super sword" or whatever, instead of being stuck with an axe because someone a decade ago decided to model it as an axe instead of a fancy sword?

As for Logan, if he has both, then he can use both again I don't really see the issue, everyone has gained/lost something from these new rules, Logan was just lucky enough to gain in my opinion.

It's an issue because "the model has an axe" is the reason used to deny Kharn's ability to strike at initiative, while Logan's model also has an axe but it magically gets to strike at initiative. There is absolutely no consistency between the two rulings.

The warlord traits I'll admit aren't that great, but with new books we will get new tables, also thiswill be resolved as each new book is getting a new table to roll from if you want to. This goes back to my previous point about patience, we've all been screwed by GW at some point or another, I don't mind waiting a while to get a shiny new table, besides while there are some it really does benefit in general everyone is about level.

Why do you keep making excuses for laughably unprofessional behavior? If the main rulebook tables are not meant to be adequate (and they SHOULD be, if the game was designed well), then codex-specific tables need to be there on release day, not years later when GW finally gets around to it.

**Vaktathi**

Rysaer wrote:
First off, I was not speaking about you directly, I'm simply making a generic comment, at no point did I say you said anything to this effect. Sorry for the confusion I could have explained myself better here.

Apologies then if I made an ass of myself, your previous post made it sound however as if you simply had not registered any arguments other than lamenting lost powerbuilds.

The faq's as far as I'm concerned have been perfectly clear and fixed about 80-90% of these minor rule errors. Vehicles being unable to interact with mission objectives in my mind makes sense I don't see a problem there, if memory serves in most editions before vehicles couldn't interact and I don't think they should be able to,

It was pretty much only 5th edition that vehicles couldn't hold objectives, they could still contest, and in every other edition they could hold them as long as they weren't a dedicated transport. For what reason should vehicles not be able to interact with objectives at all, much less be the only unit type not able to? A towering Wraithlord construct can contest an objective, but a Dreadnought cannot for instance. A Tervigon can hold and contest objectives but an Ork Dread taken as a Troops unit cannot. A jetbike unit can contest an objective but a skimmer cannot. It is difficult to see a good game design reason for such to be the case, especially now that vehicles are easier to kill on average and with less transport utility than they ever have been in 40k's history, at least since the 3E reboot if nothing else.

klaives get to be AP 2 because Dark Eldar have little to no anti-terminator defence especially in combat and these types of weapon are more unique. Banshee swords should remain at AP3 as the swords they use are power weapons, I don't see why they should be anymore special than anyone elses power weapon, they already have banshee masks and exarch abilities to enhance their combat, while AP2 would be nice, I don't feel they need it quite yet but thats my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Banshee's used to be used as an anti-2+sv unit, as they're other CC counterpart, Scorpions, couldn't get through the armor at all. It's just odd how some weapons get ruled one way and others get ruled another. It's not like Craftworld Eldar have a proliferation of AP2 capability in CC either, in fact it's pretty much just Avatar, Wraithlord, and rending-spam from harlies.

When it comes to Kharn and his axe, as a World Eater Player..... I am alright with this, the AP2 benefit of an axe is worth the lowered initiative, while I agree he should be faster it's not like he's the only one who has to obey this rule and the unwieldy rule does make sense to me, an axe is unwieldy... hard to parry with..... hard to recover after striking with, if anybody else uses an axe they suffer the same penalty, in what way is that unfair on just Kharn,

I guess it's really an issue with axes in general. Being dumped to I1 kills it as there's just too much that can kill him before he gets to strike as he himself is only 3+/5++, it's an unwarranted nerf based on a modelling decision. They were never intended to be characters that strike at I1. Being hard to use to parry with is one thing, being slow to attack with is another altogether. The power axe in general I just feel was poorly designed. -1 init would be one thing, but otherwise dumping it all the way to I1 it's just a cheaper, less effective powerfist typically used by units never intended for that role. To be perfectly honest the oft overlooked Power Maul is going to be one of the best weapons in the game, being superior to a basic Power Sword against anything in a 6+/5+/4+/2+sv and equal against stuff like T6 3+sv units as well while being superior to the Power Axe against anything that isn't wearing a 3+/2+sv and often roughly equal against large things given the higher striking init and better likelyhood of striking a blow at all, though now it's another discussion altogether

also this will probably be resolved in the new chaos book out very soon anyway.

Possibly very true.

As for Logan, if he has both, then he can use both again I don't really see the issue, everyone has gained/lost something from these new rules, Logan was just lucky enough to gain in my opinion.

Logan simply has a big axe that he gets to choose what it wants to be, previously it was powerfist or powerweapon, now it's powerfist or powersword, despite being an axe.

The warlord traits I'll admit aren't that great, but with new books we will get new tables, also thiswill be resolved as each new book is getting a new table to roll from if you want to.

First I've heard of that though I'll admit I'm not 100% up on my rumor-mongering. Either way, while I can see the appeal, really it's just another table for another unnecessary ability that the game doesn't need to be fun or to function, it's a kicks and giggles thing mainly. I wouldn't have a problem if they were scenario based, but having them be random and in play for every basic mission feels like just adding stuff for it's own sake really.

**Jstncloud**

Vaktathi wrote:
I'm looking over the FAQ's, and the more I read the more I feel disheartened to play 40k, because it really is just a mess, moreso than it has ever really been, and it's really sapping my desire to play. Especially with all the other great games out there in the current renaissance in tabletop gaming and the huge number of other, typically vastly more affordable, games out there now compared even with just 5 years ago and certainly compared to 10 years ago. I've never wanted to be "that guy" that's always talking about how much "40k sucks and everyone should play game X instead because GW is the sux", but I feel that's where I'm being herded. (or rather, more likely, I'll play the odd game with my typical gaming companions and no longer pickups, tournaments, or events on a weekly basis) 6th edition just feels like it's more trouble than it's worth given how far the rulebook, codex books and FAQ's differ from each other and how critical these very extensive FAQ's are going to be just to play the game correctly relative to previous editions.

We've had a radical change in the rules, the largest since the 2E-3E reboot, with armies going back two editions and no army released in almost a year now (and none designed for the current edition) and while this has always been an issue it's never been messier or more convoluted than it is now. Instead of a natural progression of the 3E ruleset that 4E and 5E were, despite their flaws, the ruleset basically feels like a book where the designers clamped down on some of their pet peeves, tried to make the game what people *thought* 2nd edition was, and make something where everything GW sells can be thrown onto a table with rules and be used together in almost any instance. The game can't decide if it wants to be a skirmish ruleset, a company level wargame, an RPG, a platoon level wargame, or something else altogether. It can't decide if it wants to be GrimDark or HeroHammer. As a result of these things it comes off as clunky and confused, especially with regards to existing armies. The FAQ's have really highlighted this for me, and highlighted how poorly the core rulebook handled the transition and encompassing of the current set of army books.

We got a ton of new close combat weapon rules, and they're applied rather inconsistently (e.g. Axe of Morkai gets to be a powerfist or a Frost Sword, but Kharn and Dante get punted to Initiative 1, Klaives get to be AP2 but Banshee swords do not, etc), new special rules applied over old special rules in ways that sometimes make sense but often don't really do what they original rule was there for (e.g. Ordnance weapon Leman Russ tanks and the change from Lumbering Behemoth to Heavy). We get some AA units that have Interceptor and others that don't without any particular rhyme or reason, and it's very apparently that GW has never been able to figure out what they want vehicles to be or do however and simply want their impact minimized this edition aside from Flyers. Barrage blast weapons and Biker Nobz are now some of the most effective ways to pick a specific model out of a unit. Stuff like this

While future books may rectify this state of affairs, at the rate GW puts out codex books and releases new editions these issues will plague 6th through it's entire lifespan and begin anew with 7th unless they really radically change their release timetable and do things very differently than they have for the last 20 years.

I've never really felt this way before, there's always been issues with 40k, always things to gripe about, but never quite like this, at least to me. 6th just feels like so much of a mess, so many things they are going out of their way intentionally to make not useful or almost mandatory, or mechanics that feel like they are forced (we need a rule to make people visualize EVERYTHING! IT must be...CINEMATIC!) and/or not suited to the size of 40k games (e.g. challenges with armies larger than most Flames of War 15mm scale armies in terms of model and unit count), to the point where it's apparent and immersion breaking even in friendly narrative games. And as for competitive games, well, 6th edition is not in any way a balanced ruleset that works for competitive play and GW came right out and said exactly as much at their Design Studio Open Day that they never intended it to be.

I'm not writing this to say GW shouldn't do FAQ's and Errata, they should and in fact I think they really need to do more than they have (they still missed several major notable issues and then sat on the FAQ's for a month and a half). It's just that the latest round has really highlighted what a mess 6th edition truly is, and how much I just don't feel like dealing with it.

Is this just a phase I'm going through? Perhaps. Is it just that I'm a whiny grognard afraid of change? Perhaps though I've gone through previous editions and edition changes for other games without anywhere near this much issue and often without issue at all. Is it just an issue of where the game is at at this particular point in time? Perhaps, it may change a few years in when we have some army books designed specifically for 6th in their entirety and a large enough number for the metagame to work. Is it possible however that 6th edition really is just an awful mess of an edition that really is a poor excuse for a ruleset? Perhaps so, perhaps all of these are true to some extent.

Anyone else have similar thoughts?

P.S. don't take any of this *too* seriously, it's a 3:30am rant where I've just finished playing a game of Heavy Gear and a game of 4th edition 40k and am reading up on new FAQ postings in a bleary eyed state and need a rant/release as I watch last week's Futurama season finale. However, please share your thoughts anyway

I've enjoyed 6th edition quite a bit since it has come out however, like you've mentioned, some of the stuff they are doing FAQ/Rule wise just isn't realistic. To add to what you've noted, Dante is initiative 1, up until this FAQ Astorath qualified for unusual power weapon however now he is also initiative 1. So they've taken 2 'melee' HQs from a 'melee' army and screwed them. They've ruined Battle Tanks for IG (if you run the basic Battle Tank) and they did such a poor job with writing the rules that we are now, like you said, having to rely heavily on the FAQs to make sure the game is functioning correctly.

I love warhammer, don't get me wrong, but at some point information overload followed by information-FAQ-overload gets to be too much.

**daedalus**

undertow wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Now, add imbalance and ambiguity from faqs. It's not hard to see why people would be a little frustrated.
I don't get this statement. The FAQs have removed a lot of ambiguity, where have they added it? I can't believe people are complaining about a timely release of FAQs that clear up some really contentious issues.

Granted, a lot of the things in the FAQs should have been caught in playtesting before 6E was released, but they weren't. The FAQs are good.

Not really ambiguity in the rulings, but the decision making process behind them. I think perhaps 'arbitrary' was the word I was looking for to describe it better. If you would like explanations of what feels arbitrary, I can certainly provide those.

**Warptide**

Read the book, play a few games, it's not that hard.

**TheAvengingKnee**

I actually like 6th edition more than 5th, I haven't played a lot of games yet, but they have all been pretty good games. I have mostly just played Necrons in 6th so far because I have been to lazy to finish up some of my blood angels models.

Over all I like 6th much better than 5th.

**Mr. S Baldrick**

OP,
I have to say I feel the same way is “it more trouble than it’s worth”? My friends and I don’t get together and game very often and I work odd hours so it make is difficult to go to the local game store for pickup games. So before we play any 6th rules I have plenty of time to read the whole book. Each edition I have found it useful for a least one person in the group to read the rules cover to cover, most of the time that winds up being me. I have to say from all the rumors I read I was hesitant about 6th. My biggest issue is do we want to learn a new edition just for the hand full of games we play a year. After reading about the bulk of the book I would say it is now a mixed bag of emotions, from “that is awesome” to “that is so dumb” to “WFT did they come up with that”. It is evident that the new rules are designed for sales. That said, there are a lot of things I like and some things I hate. Allies, new power weapons, even snap fire is kind of cool. The parts I hate a not changes per se but vagueness, redundancy and over complication.
The wound system and flyers seems over complicated. The wound system is also very vague is spots as are other rules. Some parts are also extremely redundant, such as the Zealot USR. Why have a USR that just says you have two other USRs? WTF is up with that? Also lightning claws, if you have one they you have a PW and the Shred USR. That is really dumb in my opinion for years we never needed to have a USR to tell us how they worked. It was just part of the lightning claw rules. These are the kind of things that bother me with the game. It’s like they went nuts adding stuff in just to make the book bigger. The influence of he who shall not be named is over whelming, plus he has his picture all over the front few pages.

All that negative stuff aside I think there are some positives that could make it a fun game. I don’t believe in changing systems just because something is new, but I think there are reasons to give this one a chance. There is a lot to digest and I have not made up my mind yet, but I am going to give it a while before I make up my mind. As for me I would suggest that you remember that the days of consistency, balance, and competition are gone for GW, the guys who made all of that are gone. Now days you just have to go with the game as it unfolds and ty to have fun without taking it serious. If we want that back then we have to play older editions, which is fine as long as we can find someone to play.

**LordOfTheSloths**

Peregrine wrote:
LordOfTheSloths wrote:
For those who are having none of 6th, maybe the thing to do is look at the five previous editions and their related codices, select the ones you like, and play with them. For the really ambitious, take the features of each that you like, work up your own custom combined rule set, and play with that. Hate hull points? Use the 3rd edition vehicle damage table. Don't feel like wasting $70 on fliers? Ban 'em. Not down with challenges? Ban 'em. Not happy with 5th edition Tyranids? Use the 4th or 3rd edition codex. Like doctrines and traits? Take them from the older IG and SM codices. Like jungle fighting rules? Get them from the old Catachan mini-dex. Bored with the same old missions? Use missions from previous editions, or missions from tournaments, or make up your own. Mix and match. Don't let GW dictate how you play the game and how you use your own minis that you've spent countless hours and dollars on.

Except then you're limited to the small number of people who share your exact complaints, if you can even find any. Forget about going to the local store for 40k night and getting a random game, playing in tournaments/leagues, etc. Maybe it's different where you live, but in my experience the vast majority of my games are against random opponents at 40k night, which means the game needs to be playable straight out of the book.

Whis is precisely why I and others react so negatively to the periodic GW wrecking ball: it does force us to "forget about going to the local store for 40k night."

It's up to us to find other like-minded players and game with them.