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.

 Hollowman wrote:

Don't see the problem there. In 5th, my AV13 would often survive a whole game of AT fire directed at it (which should not happen) and get off less shots than it does in 6th edition (which also shouldn't happen). 6th is far better for my exorcists than 5th was.

In 6E you won't get off any more shots than you did previously on average because you'll be dead a whole lot sooner. If your tanks spent the whole game stunned, well, that's a rather awkward string of luck on both side and not average by any means, and you are just as liable to be stunned in 6th aside from glances so you're reducing the chance to be shaken/stunned by 1/18 with each hit, that's all.

If you couldn't kill an AV13 tank over the course of a game that was critically important, you didn't bring enough AT assets, plain as that. With the firepower armies can pack, routinely seeing upwards of 30 or more guns capable of killing AV13 tanks in lists, the tanks would go down if you really wanted them to.

I routinely played and saw games that had double digits worth of dead tanks on boards in 5th, hell I played lots of games where I alone lost double-digits worth of tanks. Yeah, they were hardy, it's the first edition that vehicles as a whole were universally useful as opposed to being either all fragile or skimmer-supremacy. Tanks actually survived about as often as infantry units did for once, but were still entirely killable.

That an AV13 tank dies to autocannon glances as easily as a 5th ed AV12 did to penetrations is...silly.

Yes... which makes them fast MC's. With much better shooting than most MC.

Many MC's carry equivalent firepower, have actual saves, and can take/contest objectives and are fearsome in assault.

There's certainly no way slow vehicles like Walkers in any way compare with MC's in terms of survivability, killyness, etc in 6E

Hi .
As reguards to vehicles and MCs.
As these units forfill similar roles in different armies.
Then why can they not share the same , game mechanics and resolution methods?

Either let MCs use vehicle rules , or let vehicles have the same stats as other units, eg armour save and toughness ...

Why purposly build in ballance issues and over complication when it can easily be avoided?

My only thought is the dev team try to make the rules so over complicated ,by the time gamers have got to grips with them and realise the problems , the new edition comes out with another draft of over complex poorly defined and concieved rules...

Untill they realise what a complete waste of time and effort the 40k rules are.(Comparativley.)And give up on GWs rules for 40k .

 Fafnir wrote:
Vakathi, as almost always, I agree with you again.

It's for that reason that myself and at least one other friend of mine have given up on 40k, at least for now. There may be a time in the future when 40k will be enjoyable for me to play again, but it likely won't be for a long time, sadly. It's a shame too, having spent so much money and having spent so long on converting and painting so many models, but if the game itself is in no way enjoyable for me to play anymore, there's simply nothing else left for me to do.

Preach it.

I've come to the same conclusion. I may finish painting what I have half-finished, but 40K is off the agenda for the foreseeable future. I may play some WHFB, but probably not much even of that. Most likely I'll be switching to Malifaux. Seems to be growing in popularity at my FLGS.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, there *was* a lot I didn't like about 5th, Kill Points, Defensive Weapons, and Wound Allocation in particular, and the over-reliance on 4+ cover saves as a crutch mechanic as well.

6th however can't decide if it wants to be a reboot or a progression and thus, I feel, tries to do both and ends up doing neither well.

This^^

The rule "book" for Starfleet Battles, by Amarillo Design Bureau, has something like 24 to 25 expansion booklets -- that all have to be collated into the main book -- and reads like a tech-manual for a nuclear submarine (I know, I was on a submarine when I was in the Navy).

The Warhammer books have always been somewhat bothersome of a read... But once you get to playing, it makes a LOT more sense...

I understand players wanting to be able to plan out their strategies, for any given encounter, ahead of time... But that leads to very static games, always do this that way, always do that this way... And, for people who do not have a bazillion things on their plates, will sit and read and math-hammer until they find all the loopholes, and then just walk over everyone that plays anything other than X-army...
We had a guy that played a "Hordes of Chaos" army, back in the day (WFB), but it was anything but a horde... He had a Lord w/ mark of Khorne w/ G-Weap, 16 Chosen w/ mark of Khorne, 3x 16 CW w/ mark of Khorne... If you had a magic heavy army, you had wasted every point spent on said magic... If you were anything but Empire, he wanted to play, and you lost - horribly... But if you were Empire, then he said, "You win... Moving on..."
When you add in randomness to the game, then you still have a chance to at least make a show against armies like that. Or, do what I did, and spend about a month pouring through old WD issues, until you find that diamond WAAC unit modifier (Army of Qatar, anyone?)... And come in with a Bone Giant as my Heirophant/Tomb King, 2x 4 Ushabti units (core), 2 Tomb Scorpions (core), 2x Bone Giants w/ 2hw, 2x Bone Giants w/ hw/sh... I wouldn't play it against anyone but him... And it only took once for him to quit playing against my Tomb Kings.

But I ramble... the point is, with random effects, you can still at least have a chance against a WAAC army... I don't necessarily agree with all of the randomness, I personally don't like the random objectives, seems odd that a military unit would go after something, not knowing it's true value... And the random Warlord traits are pretty Meh, at best.

As a player in 5ed, who truly won so few games it was pathetic, to see me rolling dice again the following week, 6ed has been a minor god-send (or emperor-send (if you want to be TFG)). I know the rules are a little more convoluted. Yes, so many tables to try and keep track of. Yes, GW putting a whole section in the book about buying their terrain. But what I see as a consistent theme in this thread is the players are only just reading the rules and shelving their gear. No true attempts to grind out anything resembling a win. My SOB have been winning by using the rules out of 5ed that were still consistent in 6ed. Everyone seems to forget that there are two players at the table. You have a 50% chance of victory by how you play your army. But if you give up the moment your HVT gets dropped, when bad on you. You obviously didn't want to play anyways. Dice rolls are still dice rolls. Plastic, resin, and metal models still have No True Emotions. So tamp it up. Go get a game. Win or lose go grab a brew with your opponent afterwards and talk tactics. gak, guys and gals, most of us are adults. We work professional jobs. We enjoy our ability to have fun. Stop complaining. It was your choice to buy the book and models. I've spent around or more than 2k For A Hobby, that is not killing my liver. Or leaving me emotionally empty like strip clubs. Grow Up.

We enjoy our ability to have fun

1 being forced to buy a new army isnt fun
2 losing isnt fun
3 losing because your not playing necron or IG flyer builds is not fun
4 having fewer options then all other dex just because GW decided to show the middle finger to nid players isnt fun
5 having your army killed by a FAQ like BT is not fun

People dislike of 6th ed is not something just in people mind or something that can be fixed with alkohol .

ah and I play IG . I lose 4 people out of 7 in my closest gaming group . I dont think we are going to have a lot of fun playing against 2 other people over and over again .

Makumba wrote:

We enjoy our ability to have fun

2 losing isnt fun

I feel I need to clarify this point before a flame war develops.

A game where you lose can still be very fun, but the act of losing itself is not fun.

While I understand the frustrations over the new edition most of the complaints seem to be typical transitional woes. With any change in rules there will be catches and hiccups, slowing the game down (damn challenges), changing your strategies, and readjusting play. To those who say they can't win without an IG/Cron flyer spam I would say what about the Razorback spams and leaf blower lists of 5th? It will always be difficult to tackle ultra-competitive spam lists that possess little in the way of creativity or fun. Yes, the rules are messy right now, but, this is only 2 months in (or whatever) and the dust hasn't settled. As you continue to play the new rules will become ingrained and seem less disruptive and I believe you'll find the game to be have more variety and balance than before. Just give it some time and stick it out and don't be so dramatic. Overall I think 40k still offers the most bang for your buck as far as hours of enjoyment; the depth of this game is so vast that you can get lost for days just pouring over a codex, list, or fluff piece not to mention the building/painting aspect. I'm not willing to trade in my Rolls Royce for a Toyota just because it's more practical.

Hi Big JP.
Compared to other wargames 40k IS over complicated, (and getting worse each edition.)
There ARE severe game play issues caused by the use of inapropriate game merchanics, and poorly implemented resolution methods.

The ONLY reason 40k is still endured, is because of the inspiring background and artwork.
The actual rule set it self is pretty abismal by the standard of amount of written rules compared to amount of game play.

I can pay HALF as much for other games systems and get TWICE as much game play out of them.

Being a gamer I prefer to actualy play the games.
The current 40k rules get in the way of playing the game more than any other rule set I am aware of!

While 6th ed (and each edition) has issues that annoy some people and not others, I believe that poor core rules is only one of the problems. If all the dexes had a detailed, proper errata at the release of 6th, reasonably fixing (again not looking for perfection here) most units/wargear issues/imbalances then for some people the problems they have with 6th might remain annoying but they will still play. That is how it is for me. I don't care for all the randomness added, how GW handled Allies, how challenges are handled, etc, but if each dex was relatively balanced internally and externally I would probably put up with it because in an evolving game like 40K we are all not going to get want we want. It is GWs total disregard for balance and disrespect to the players that have spent so much time and money on their game that is the problem.

Vaktathi wrote: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

Yes.

 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.

Not sure where do that 85-85.5 numbers come from, 5th was a step too far into randomness (run, charge through cover etc) but 6th is drasticaly closer to a luck based dicefest. It's still not there but warlord traits, psychic powers, night fighting, forests, objectives, random charge, all make a significant difference.

Btw more randomness is useful when you want to cover lack of balance which is exactly why it's added by GW under "cinematic" or "craziness" excuses.

Would a military unit run as fast every single time to the second? I don't have a problem with random charge distances. Make it a no brainer get as close as you can before you charge its as simple as that.

As far as Warlord traits go my gaming group has a house rule allowing us to roll and then chose which trait list we want to pick from, to avoid getting a completely useless trait.

Said it already in this thread an will say it again, I love this edition. My group really hasn't lost anyone to it, an we have even gained a couple gamers who had stopped playing for awhile. We also have a great guy coming back from Afghanistan who is a regular.

Would a military unit run as fast every single time to the second? I don't have a problem with random charge distances.

if shoting would suppose to be realistic then most units would be runing with bs of 1 and would have to re-roll succeful hits over 12" . stationary marines would maybe have bs 2. the problem right now is that shoting has 1 less random effect buid in , then assault has. this automaticly makes assault suck . why bother with an army that may work ok when it gets the charge of when you can have an army that will shot the opposing army dead?

Btw more randomness is useful when you want to cover lack of balance which is exactly why it's added by GW under "cinematic" or "craziness" excuses

I totaly agree . The problem I still see with this , is that people will try to mitigate the random anyway . So they will move away from assault units , gunlines or other shoty armies will be the army of choice , just because the smaller random element makes them better , I mean a full assault army , cant even hurt a flyer.

Makumba wrote:
I mean a full assault army , cant even hurt a flyer.

Very true, which is why you shouldn't take a full on assault army.

Makumba wrote:
I mean a full assault army , cant even hurt a flyer.

Sure. And if you take an entire army of Marines with Bolters, they can't hurt Land Raiders or Monoliths.

Building a well-rounded army is up to you.

So ive been reading this thread over while i was at work today(call center) and barely made it through half the pages as i just couldn't deal with all the whining about 6th edition
Too many complainers to quote , so sorry in advance for the size!

Now ive only been playing for just over a year maybe yr & a half, had gotten 5th ed down then 6th came, and had to start over, but to be honest was not hard to transfer at all and id agree 6th hard to teach complete noobs, but start with 5th then add in the 6th rules and its hella alot easier.

Not trying to be rude here but common now, its not half as bad as everyone is seeming to make it out to be, surprisingly enough one of the positive replies for 6th came from a Tau player which is an army that is kinda handicap flier wise for the moment. unless ofcourse they take an ally, ex: IG to get some AA.

Now there are obviously some flaws as its a fresh new rule book and after all these years of being imperfect I never had my hopes up of that changing with the new book. ( which is half of your problems ) Its like your ( being the negative posters ) looking for this perfected game to be produced to everyones likings and standards like the church is waiting for God to make a second coming. which the latter is more likely...

Fliers: everyone either loves them or hates them and that's clearly dependent on what army you play. But GW obviously loves there $$$ so you will obviously see everyone getting a flier at some point or another.
BUT the EASIEST way to eliminate the flier spam is ONLY ALLOW ONE Flier per unit... its as e.z. as an errata... boom problem solved. now you can only field 3. Wheres the E.Z. Button??

ALLIES: i can see where people would see some flaws here, and id agree to an extent(as in some just don't make sense or just stupid). BUT.... do the points math when your throwing out all these cheese ally ideas and see how much that cheese is gonna cost you, then tell me those points spent on same said army rather then allying would be worse off. because i see the points to get you those ally is what balances allies. But i wouldn't hate an errata to make sense of the allies and remove the ones that don't make sense, i see it as more a fluff addition or to get a new army started but it shouldnt b a broken concept that its claimed to be.

New randomness:[/u] So these complaints bothered me the most i think lol because its really not a big deal at all!!!!! Just step back, Breath, Stretch, Let It Go.... so what you have to roll a couple extra times before the game starts for stupid random items/terrain. You Don't Like it? Don't Bother With It?? Oh your Worried the guy/kid at the store gonna be a prick and make you do it even tho you've expressed you think its silly? Is this a tournament or pick up game? kuzz if tournament they will just setup there own terrain and there own randomness and now you don't have to roll for it and have to deal with whats there, or they will take it out all together.. Pickup game: are you winning a metal? money? wait... are you winning anything in a pick up game? or you just go play a pick up game to have fun and test/play like everyone else? so in making a big deal over a couple extra dice rolls for some random effects that most people clearly dislike and clearly dont mind playing without (myself included) your gonna raise a fuss? sound like TFG to me.... unless your a power gamer then your self explanatory.

Anti Air:[u] GW likes $ ill promise everyone will get some sort of AA, If you dont, ally someone who gets it fairly e.z./Cheap = IG? i play Tau, IG, RavenWing... Tau has no AA and ravenwing over priced I could care less, Bring on the challenge, because victory will be that much sweeter.

Extra dice rolling:... ok really? for a game that's more or less based around dice rolling your complaining about it? first you complain you cant do anything when its not your turn and you hate standing around, now you complain you have to roll some extra dice, i love rolling dice. In fact i love Yahtzee, craps, risk, Warhammer. If you don't like dice rolling go play DOW or something of the sort where the comp does the rolling. Because WH is a RTS game on a Tabletop.

Finally: the extra rules make the game more fun, makes some things more explainable, even some things just dont make sense still, it is an improvement, 5th was very bland IMO, 6th is Spicy!
But Really a new codex across the board, solve all the problems, even add units you are still producing who cares, IMO the least GW could do after years of BS and us still being Loyal to the Plas Crack.

In conclusion 6th isnt to far off from 5th. i do agree 6th is more confusing to learn if your new, but WHFB & WH40k are very intimidating games if you dont have an inside link to it already so that also doesn't help nubs at all. But any newbie read this thread they probably wouldn't even bother with the game. All that needs to happen is a few very minor errata would solve huge problems, EX: fliers, allies, AA....

P.S. Whoever complained(either this thread or another sorry :S) about IG getting hit negatively with the FAQ errata, they did not, they are still top tier id say so stop talking smack!

THE REASON WH40K and WHFB FOR THAT MATTER ARE BETTER THEN THE REST EVEN WITH THE FLAWS IS HOW CUSTOM THE GAME IS!!! MODELS/RULES/RPG/Scenario/campaign very very custom, very in depth. very grim-dark lol...

Thanks for reading!

Edited by Mannahnin

 Diezel wrote:
Fliers:everyone either loves them or hates them and that's clearly dependent on what army you play. But GW obviously loves there $$$ so you will obviously see everyone getting a flier at some point or another.
BUT the EASIEST way to eliminate the flier spam is ONLY ALLOW ONE Flier per unit... its as e.z. as an errata... boom problem solved. now you can only field 3. Wheres the E.Z. Button??

So because you can come up with a house rule that doesn't actually fix the problem (Necron flyerspam uses dedicated transports to get 99999 flyers on the table, not squadrons) we should all stop complaining about it? Really?

But i wouldn't hate an errata to make sense of the allies and remove the ones that don't make sense, i see it as more a fluff addition or to get a new army started but it shouldnt b a broken concept that its claimed to be.

So because GW might someday (if you pray hard enough?) release errata to completely change the allies system we should stop complaining about how it works according to the rules they actually printed?

PS: it's not just about broken combinations, it's about the stupidity of how the allies matrix was created. BT can ally with xenos witches, Farsight Tau can ally with orks, but we can't possibly let Tyranids ally with anyone.

New randomness: So these complaints bothered me the most i think lol because its really not a big deal at all!!!!! Just step back, Breath, Stretch, Let It Go.... so what you have to roll a couple extra times before the game starts for stupid random items/terrain. You Don't Like it? Don't Bother With It??

So because you can make a house rule that removes the random elements from the game we should stop complaining about the fact that they were included in the actual rules GW printed?

Oh your Worried the guy/kid at the store gonna be a prick and make you do it even tho you've expressed you think its silly?

So because you can refuse to play unless your opponent (who might LIKE the random elements) agrees to your house rules we should stop complaining about the fact that every game now has to begin with negotiations over which parts we need to remove?

Pickup game: are you winning a metal? money? wait... are you winning anything in a pick up game? or you just go play a pick up game to have fun and test/play like everyone else? so in making a big deal over a couple extra dice rolls for some random effects that most people clearly dislike and clearly dont mind playing without (myself included) your gonna raise a fuss? sound like TFG to me.... unless your a power gamer then your self explanatory.

So because there's no money at stake we should stop complaining about the fact that the random tables have a high chance of ruining the fun of the game?

Anti Air:[u] GW likes $ ill promise everyone will get some sort of AA, If you dont, ally someone who gets it fairly e.z./Cheap = IG? i play Tau, IG, RavenWing... Tau has no AA and ravenwing over priced I could care less, Bring on the challenge, because victory will be that much sweeter.

So because eventually GW might fix the game we should stop complaining about the current broken state of things which is going to stay broken for at least the next few months, if not longer?

PS: allies don't fix it.

But any newbie read this thread they probably wouldn't even bother with the game.

Good. If hearing the truth about 6th convinces them that 6th edition 40k isn't the game they want to play it's a good thing if they avoid wasting their money on it.

All that needs to happen is a few very minor errata would solve huge problems, EX: fliers, allies, AA....

I don't think your definition of "minor errata" is really the same one that the rest of us use.

P.S. Whoever complained(either this thread or another sorry :S) about IG getting hit negatively with the FAQ errata, they did not, they are still top tier id say so stop talking smack!

Oh yeah, they're still top-tier if you bought the right IG list. If you wasted your money on power blobs, sorry for ruining your army, now go spend $300 on Vendettas?

Well, I just started playing in 5th, so I have no basis of comparison going back farther. That said, I liked 5th, and I like 6th. I like 40k. Making the models and painting them is fun. I like putting my whole army on the table and looking at it. I think their fluff is pretty cool, with a lot of it to look through and learn. (I do wish they would hire some competent writers for the Black Library, though, most of those books are just awful.) I also like playing the game, it is dynamic and different every time, even against the same person playing the same army.

I find that too many people stress about things like the flaws. I have been playing a lot of games for a long, long time and they all had flaws. You look past them and enjoy the good parts.

I also think the competition is generally pretty meh. Especially warmachine, those models are just... to me at least... stupid looking. I could never get in to painting them. I haven't played, but I have watched people. It looks dull. However much you may not like all the 40k rules, it is rarely dull.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 Peregrine wrote:
First of all, please learn to write coherently. There's no excuse for writing like a five year old, so stop doing it.

 Diezel wrote:
Fliers:everyone either loves them or hates them and that's clearly dependent on what army you play. But GW obviously loves there $$$ so you will obviously see everyone getting a flier at some point or another.
BUT the EASIEST way to eliminate the flier spam is ONLY ALLOW ONE Flier per unit... its as e.z. as an errata... boom problem solved. now you can only field 3. Wheres the E.Z. Button??

So because you can come up with a house rule that doesn't actually fix the problem (Necron flyerspam uses dedicated transports to get 99999 flyers on the table, not squadrons) we should all stop complaining about it? Really?

But i wouldn't hate an errata to make sense of the allies and remove the ones that don't make sense, i see it as more a fluff addition or to get a new army started but it shouldnt b a broken concept that its claimed to be.

So because GW might someday (if you pray hard enough?) release errata to completely change the allies system we should stop complaining about how it works according to the rules they actually printed?

PS: it's not just about broken combinations, it's about the stupidity of how the allies matrix was created. BT can ally with xenos witches, Farsight Tau can ally with orks, but we can't possibly let Tyranids ally with anyone.

New randomness: So these complaints bothered me the most i think lol because its really not a big deal at all!!!!! Just step back, Breath, Stretch, Let It Go.... so what you have to roll a couple extra times before the game starts for stupid random items/terrain. You Don't Like it? Don't Bother With It??

So because you can make a house rule that removes the random elements from the game we should stop complaining about the fact that they were included in the actual rules GW printed?

Oh your Worried the guy/kid at the store gonna be a prick and make you do it even tho you've expressed you think its silly?

So because you can refuse to play unless your opponent (who might LIKE the random elements) agrees to your house rules we should stop complaining about the fact that every game now has to begin with negotiations over which parts we need to remove?

Pickup game: are you winning a metal? money? wait... are you winning anything in a pick up game? or you just go play a pick up game to have fun and test/play like everyone else? so in making a big deal over a couple extra dice rolls for some random effects that most people clearly dislike and clearly dont mind playing without (myself included) your gonna raise a fuss? sound like TFG to me.... unless your a power gamer then your self explanatory.

So because there's no money at stake we should stop complaining about the fact that the random tables have a high chance of ruining the fun of the game?

Anti Air:[u] GW likes $ ill promise everyone will get some sort of AA, If you dont, ally someone who gets it fairly e.z./Cheap = IG? i play Tau, IG, RavenWing... Tau has no AA and ravenwing over priced I could care less, Bring on the challenge, because victory will be that much sweeter.

So because eventually GW might fix the game we should stop complaining about the current broken state of things which is going to stay broken for at least the next few months, if not longer?

PS: allies don't fix it.

But any newbie read this thread they probably wouldn't even bother with the game.

Good. If hearing the truth about 6th convinces them that 6th edition 40k isn't the game they want to play it's a good thing if they avoid wasting their money on it.

All that needs to happen is a few very minor errata would solve huge problems, EX: fliers, allies, AA....

I don't think your definition of "minor errata" is really the same one that the rest of us use.

P.S. Whoever complained(either this thread or another sorry :S) about IG getting hit negatively with the FAQ errata, they did not, they are still top tier id say so stop talking smack!

Oh yeah, they're still top-tier if you bought the right IG list. If you wasted your money on power blobs, sorry for ruining your army, now go spend $300 on Vendettas?

First of all my writing is completely readable and my words are spelled correctly. I feel that's good enough considering your not grading this paper, so get over it and if your on that tip why dont you go police all the other threads with much much worse grammar/Broken english.

Ok so about the necron fliers, didnt know thats how they did it so obv that would not solve the problem, i figured they would make the necron flier like the others, my bad.

Never said redo the whole allies chart, thats you making something bigger then it is, just like 6th.
It was an idea, since all i hear is complain and no kinds of solutions and Because clearly you already beleive GW wont change anything so why bother complaining about it and quit now lol.

If you read i already said some allies just dont make sense, i also never said to remove it as im fine with it. Oh and get over it Your Zerg would never ally with anything anyway with maybe exception to demons but thats not allies that demons possesing zerg. ( yes i call them Zerg )

Who said house rule? its a common thing people clearly do not favor, so your most likely not going to run into someone it will be a problem with or if you post looking for a game add in dont like the randomness, its only a problem if you make it one and thats what your doing ( your: being te negative people ) and as for the pick up games that are " just for fun" if you see a guy with a bunch of cases like he has flier spam, umm just avoid ? again a problem the player is making bigger then it has to be. Its not going to ruin your fun unless you only play to lose and your a sore loser.

Random terrain: isnt that bad, you goto said planet, said planet happens to have man eating plants near your drop pod, valk, transport in general oh no, life is difficult. as is life, sh*t happens.
Theres still alot of tactic behind the game if you think otherwise, give a new player a rape list and yours not so rape and ill bet you will still win. its not that random. infact the whole game is random(roling dice) you just pick armies, units and wargear to modify the random to your liking.

Only person to refuse MAYBE a game here or there at the least because of the little extra random stuff is kinda sad man, its about fun,
again, bigger deal then it has to be. You make the game seem as tho it is broken beyond repair and theres no hope for WH40k lol kinda starting to sound drama queeny

If i have to wait a month or 2 for GW to fix something no sweat, maybe if im waiting 3+ months for one thing to change that may be a problem, but im no child, i actually have other things to do, dont forget this is a hobby.... to most.
But yes the wait time is usually brutal, so hopefully GW will keep there word this time with the promised speed ups.

Negotiation time? are you kidding me? how long does it take you to even set up or get your sh*t together before the game even starts, its as easy as saying, " You do the random terrain?" something that simple, is made into a thread like this one ( not attacking anyone ) and over stressed. guess what? your making it bigger then it needs to be.

whats wrong with blobs? other then painting them lol.... and if you run a proper IG blob using the proper components its still not bad, guard are still better mech or mixed.

I get a Valk for 69$ canadian... Tau Battleforce at GW store is 145.99 canadian, i goto wholesale hobby store its 99.99.... so that enough to buy some more discounted models which means my army is bigger/cheaper. If your a smart shopper you buy from places that mark it down 25% because they get it wholesale... but if you want to continue paying full price by all means....

insaniak wrote:

Makumba wrote: I mean a full assault army , cant even hurt a flyer.

Building a well-rounded army is up to you.

Yes, but it used to be possible to run an army that was both well-rounded AND assault based. Now it's rather not.

I mean, imagine if shooty armies suddenly became too one-dimensional to be considered well-rounded. That would be just as disruptive to shooty armies as 6th ed has been to choppy ones, and you KNOW that if GW introduced a new whole class of units that could ONLY be targeted in assault, you would be instantly deafened by the screams of cheese.

Plumbumbarum wrote:6th is drasticaly closer to a luck based dicefest

I stand by my statement:

Ailaros wrote:If 6th edition seems "way more random" to you now, then you were underestimating the role of chance in 5th ed.

Most of the new random stuff comes up infrequently, has little impact on the game, or both. You can always choose psychic powers from your codex, warlord traits scarcely ever do anything, and you can always simply not enter mysterious terrain (or just ignore that rule altogether, as most people seem to be doing along with mysterious objectives).

The new random assaults is the only serious new random thing and, as much as I rather don't care for it, it's ONE new thing.

 Diezel wrote:
First of all my writing is completely readable and my words are spelled correctly. I feel that's good enough considering your not grading this paper, so get over it and if your on that tip why dont you go police all the other threads with much much worse grammar/Broken english.

When you're claiming that you don't have any spelling mistakes it's usually a good idea to ensure that your claim itself doesn't contain any spelling mistakes. It's also usually a good idea to write the rest of your post using coherent sentences, but I suppose we have to settle for baby steps.

(PS: "your" is still spelled wrong even if there's no little red line under it.)

If you read i already said some allies just dont make sense, i also never said to remove it as im fine with it. Oh and get over it Your Zerg would never ally with anything anyway with maybe exception to demons but thats not allies that demons possesing zerg. ( yes i call them Zerg )

And Black Templars (you know, the chapter that is fanatical about "kill the alien, burn the witch") would never ally with Eldar (you know, the army of xenos witches). And Farsight Tau (the anti-ork character) would never ally with orks. But somehow GW feels that it's ok to ignore what makes sense and give some armies allies they shouldn't have, but not others? You can't have it both ways, either limit allies to the combinations that actually make fluff sense, or admit that having access to allies is an important element of game balance and give every army the same level of opportunities.

Random terrain: isnt that bad, you goto said planet, said planet happens to have man eating plants near your drop pod, valk, transport in general oh no, life is difficult. as is life, sh*t happens.
Theres still alot of tactic behind the game if you think otherwise, give a new player a rape list and yours not so rape and ill bet you will still win. its not that random. infact the whole game is random(roling dice) you just pick armies, units and wargear to modify the random to your liking.

Except it's completely stupid. It makes no sense that I roll randomly and get a forest that eats my squad, while my opponent a hundred feet away across the battlefield rolls randomly and gets a forest that gives him a 3+ cover save. It doesn't make any fluff sense, and it's horrible for game balance.

If i have to wait a month or 2 for GW to fix something no sweat, maybe if im waiting 3+ months for one thing to change that may be a problem, but im no child, i actually have other things to do, dont forget this is a hobby.... to most.
But yes the wait time is usually brutal, so hopefully GW will keep there word this time with the promised speed ups.

It's been a month or two already, and we have absolutely no sign of flyers or AA units coming for Tau/Eldar/etc. Given that we have some idea of the release schedule for the rest of the year this means at least an additional 3-6 month wait, and probably longer. I really don't see why we should make excuses for GW's decision to leave several armies in a rather screwed state for 6+ months before possibly fixing the problem.

Negotiation time? are you kidding me? how long does it take you to even set up or get your sh*t together before the game even starts, its as easy as saying, " You do the random terrain?" something that simple, is made into a thread like this one ( not attacking anyone ) and over stressed. guess what? your making it bigger then it needs to be.

And what do you say when your opponent likes random terrain, but doesn't like allies (and you brought your army with allies)? Hint: it's called "negotiation".

Also, I really don't see why we should excuse GW's poor game design choices just because two players can negotiate a house rule to fix them. The original choice was still just as stupid, and we shouldn't forget it.

whats wrong with blobs? other then painting them lol.... and if you run a proper IG blob using the proper components its still not bad, guard are still better mech or mixed.

Blobs were awesome in 5th because of how wound allocation worked, you got power weapons that were really hard to kill and you rarely failed morale checks to keep fighting.

Blobs are dead in 6th, since the power weapons can't attack unless they're in BtB with their target, and having I3 usually means they're going to die before ever getting to swing. That is, if you ever get into assault at with overwatch and taking casualties from the front. If you spent money on building a power blob IG army you just threw away that money, and you'll need to buy a new army to be competitive in 6th. I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty good reason to be upset about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
I mean, imagine if shooty armies suddenly became too one-dimensional to be considered well-rounded. That would be just as disruptive to shooty armies as 6th ed has been to choppy ones, and you KNOW that if GW introduced a new whole class of units that could ONLY be targeted in assault, you would be instantly deafened by the screams of cheese.

The difference is one makes sense and the other doesn't. It makes perfect sense that an airplane 500' or more above the battlefield can't be hit by an angry guy with a sword. In fact, I'd be pretty unhappy if you could assault flyers, since it would be laughably unfluffy. On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to have a unit that is 100% immune to shooting. Even if you describe it as some magical "no bullets" spell (which somehow doesn't get cast on the rest of the army) it's still very obviously a weak attempt at justifying game mechanics rather than basing game mechanics on what makes sense.

warlord traits scarcely ever do anything

And that's the problem: most of the time they do very little (or literally nothing, which is pretty common), but the occasionally they decide the game. And since you have a 1/6 chance of getting that game-winning trait, all you can do is hope to roll the right number when your opponent doesn't. It's frustrating no matter which trait you get, either you're wasting your time with a meaningless table, or you're randomly winning or losing for no good reason. In short: terrible game design.

Peregrine wrote:The difference is one makes sense and the other doesn't.

40k rules are based on what makes sense? Could have fooled me.

In any case, if we accept sensibility as the norm, then it's a matter of game balance, not common sense. GW screwed over an entire class of armies without doing anything to balance things out. That's the problem. The point of the excersize of the unit that can only be targeted in assault is to think about what that would do to game balance, not about how much sense such a thing would make.

I find all the whining amusing. If you don't like 6th, feel free to play something else. We won't stop you.

People need to learn that things created by us tend to mirror us: we are all fallible and none of us are perfect. Get over your expectations of a product based on your own whims and fancies, and appreciate that this was a collaborated work from a dedicated team of authors and play testers who are generally satisfied with their work. If you don't like it, don't play. Chromedog has it right: he just uses the models he likes in his Tomorrow's War games, and doesn't stress about it.

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
I find all the whining amusing. If you don't like 6th, feel free to play something else. We won't stop you.

People need to learn that things created by us tend to mirror us: we are all fallible and none of us are perfect. Get over your expectations of a product based on your own whims and fancies, and appreciate that this was a collaborated work from a dedicated team of authors and play testers who are generally satisfied with their work. If you don't like it, don't play. Chromedog has it right: he just uses the models he likes in his Tomorrow's War games, and doesn't stress about it.

As someone who's followed the exact same route that you've suggested, and has stopped playing, it does still leave quite the bad taste in one's mouth when you have to give up a hobby you've put thousands of dollars and hours into because the new ruleset is that bad. I understand that 40k is no turning into a game that I no longer want to play, and that that Games Workshop doesn't really want my interest or business anyway, but it does feel kind of bad.

^ I kind of wonder about people who say things like this, because if the equivalent was a computer game one would simply play the prequel/not update to the latest patch/start a mod and play within the modding community. I mean, that's what DotA is and look how well that went.

 Ratbarf wrote:
^ I kind of wonder about people who say things like this, because if the equivalent was a computer game one would simply play the prequel/not update to the latest patch/start a mod and play within the modding community. I mean, that's what DotA is and look how well that went.

DotA and its progeny provide you easy access to an international audience, thanks to being played through the internet, which means even if the communities aren't as big, they can still be found and developed.

Old/custom editions of 40k do not. Playing in such a way immediately limits your pool of fellow players, assuming that you have a dedicated group already that's willing to follow through with something like that.

 Ailaros wrote:
40k rules are based on what makes sense? Could have fooled me.

Of course they're based on what makes sense (even if "sense" is defined in terms of the fictional universe). When you shoot something with lasguns, you expect to inflict wounds, not randomly teleport the target unit across the table and give the shooting unit the Swarm rule. If things didn't mostly make sense you wouldn't bother playing the game, and you certainly wouldn't have a huge archive of in-character battle reports!

Even some rules we hate are an effort to have things make sense. For example, the wound allocation changes were designed to fix things in 5th like killing models that were impossible to hit, or shooting lasguns in addition to your plasma doing less damage than just shooting the plasma. It's a poorly executed solution, but at least the intent was to have things make sense. Flyers are the same: just like wound allocation in 5th felt like exploiting game mechanics, assaulting a flyer in 5th felt like exploiting game mechanics. It didn't make sense, and the new rules were intended to fix that.

In any case, if we accept sensibility as the norm, then it's a matter of game balance, not common sense. GW screwed over an entire class of armies without doing anything to balance things out. That's the problem. The point of the excersize of the unit that can only be targeted in assault is to think about what that would do to game balance, not about how much sense such a thing would make.

Except it's not comparable at all.

Flyers have an impact on game balance, but they make up for it by making sense. It's unfortunate that pure assault armies (in a shooting-focused rule system) took a hit in the process, but there's at least a good reason for doing it that way.

A class of unit which can't be shot at has an impact on game balance but no redeeming qualities to balance it out. It's purely a "screw shooting armies" decision that removes believability from the game, and for no good reason.

 Diezel wrote:

First of all my writing is completely readable and my words are spelled correctly. I feel that's good enough considering your not grading this paper, so get over it and if your on that tip why dont you go police all the other threads with much much worse grammar/Broken english.

Truely, ours is the time of Eternal September.

Ok so about the necron fliers, didnt know thats how they did it so obv that would not solve the problem, i figured they would make the necron flier like the others, my bad.

Never said redo the whole allies chart, thats you making something bigger then it is, just like 6th.
It was an idea, since all i hear is complain and no kinds of solutions and Because clearly you already beleive GW wont change anything so why bother complaining about it and quit now lol.

There's no solutions offered because, beyond inconsistent and often-times equally poorly conceived house rules, there's no solutions. House ruling is utterly worthless for any sort of tournament play. The only solution I see is for INAT to effectively rewrite large portions of the rulebook, and that causes fragmentation, which will only sow MORE frustration.

If you read i already said some allies just dont make sense, i also never said to remove it as im fine with it. Oh and get over it Your Zerg would never ally with anything anyway with maybe exception to demons but thats not allies that demons possesing zerg. ( yes i call them Zerg )

Interestingly, the Zerg would ally with things. Consider the Brood War expansion for the first Starcraft. Kerrigan was actually working with some Terrans for a while. Inconsequential to 40k, of course, but you brought it up.

Who said house rule? its a common thing people clearly do not favor, so your most likely not going to run into someone it will be a problem with or if you post looking for a game add in dont like the randomness, its only a problem if you make it one and thats what your doing ( your: being te negative people ) and as for the pick up games that are " just for fun" if you see a guy with a bunch of cases like he has flier spam, umm just avoid ? again a problem the player is making bigger then it has to be. Its not going to ruin your fun unless you only play to lose and your a sore loser.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here other than "don't play the guy who uses his codex to it's fullest extent". That's like saying, "only participate in fencing matches with people who have their dominant hand tied behind their backs". It's also utterly worthless for tournament play.

Random terrain: isnt that bad, you goto said planet, said planet happens to have man eating plants near your drop pod, valk, transport in general oh no, life is difficult. as is life, sh*t happens.
Theres still alot of tactic behind the game if you think otherwise, give a new player a rape list and yours not so rape and ill bet you will still win. its not that random. infact the whole game is random(roling dice) you just pick armies, units and wargear to modify the random to your liking.

Quite, but an increase in randomness makes it worse for tournament play. There's a reason why you see chess tournaments and you don't see candyland tournaments.

Only person to refuse MAYBE a game here or there at the least because of the little extra random stuff is kinda sad man, its about fun,
again, bigger deal then it has to be. You make the game seem as tho it is broken beyond repair and theres no hope for WH40k lol kinda starting to sound drama queeny

In some cases it is. I've still never gotten a consistent answer for what they mean by the phrase "your army". Sounds trivial, but it has ramifications all over the place.

Negotiation time? are you kidding me? how long does it take you to even set up or get your sh*t together before the game even starts, its as easy as saying, " You do the random terrain?" something that simple, is made into a thread like this one ( not attacking anyone ) and over stressed. guess what? your making it bigger then it needs to be.

We doing random terrain? We doing mysterious objectives? We playing with squadronable flyers or not? We playing with Forge World stuff or not? Can you take 2 HQs in your allied Wolf Guard? Is Pedro's scoring ability for sternguard transferrable to my Blood Angels? Does counting my allied units as enemy units for all purposes except... mean that they contest my own objectives?

So that last one I'm pretty sure we all know what's reasonable, but yeah, there's some negotiation time.

whats wrong with blobs? other then painting them lol.... and if you run a proper IG blob using the proper components its still not bad, guard are still better mech or mixed.

Depends on your definition of "proper", I guess. The general consensus is that power blobs are not viable, for reasons that aren't worth repeating here.

I get a Valk for 69$ canadian... Tau Battleforce at GW store is 145.99 canadian, i goto wholesale hobby store its 99.99.... so that enough to buy some more discounted models which means my army is bigger/cheaper. If your a smart shopper you buy from places that mark it down 25% because they get it wholesale... but if you want to continue paying full price by all means....

Sure, now add 3-5 more of those, and you end up with about 300 bucks.

Peregrine wrote:Flyers have an impact on game balance, but they make up for it by making sense.

Last I checked, the definition of "game balance" was not "what most closely corresponds to reality".

Even if, in some strange world, this were true, we're talking about a game that's set in a fantasy setting. A setting where things, on purpose, don't make sense with reality.

Game balance is game balance. Often you need to distort reality in order to make things fair. If something is unfair, then it's unfair, regardless of how similar it is to what you would intuitively expect.