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.

Hey guys, the following is meant to open a discussion as to general overall issues that we, "The Gaming Community", are having with the 40k system and more specifically 6th edition.
I believe that it has been an acceptable amount of time to determine the problems we have with 6th ed. Basically that its not just "new edition syndrome" but rather a critique of game mechanics that are just not working or fitting appropriately within the base game structure.

I'll start with my letter to 6th(All tongue in cheek ), then move on to my observations as to basic Game Mechanics issues, will end the opening post with some suggested solutions and then leave the floor open for comments.


Dear 6th ed.,

This is to let you know that after much consideration and self-questioning that I have come to the decision that we need to part ways. Hey, I know that you will miss my steady influx of cash, ....... but realize that it's not me......it's you. You just don't meet my needs and because you are unable to change in any significant manner, there is no reason for me to waste any more time or money on you.

Now don't worry, I will continue to care for and support Tau, Eldar and little DE. They won't be neglected or forgotten. On this subject, you will not be seeing them much. I will not allow them to be forced to to endure your misconcieved and flawed ideas. You will only get to see them when supervised and only on a very limited basis.

I know that this is difficult for you to understand, you believe that you are without flaw and this is part of the problem. You have flaws that are peculiar to you and others that came to you from your ancestors. Thing is that these flaws are fixable but because you believe in your own perfection, they will never be fixed. It is for these reasons that I am ending our association and why I have taken steps to find another who will meet my needs.

Sincerely,
Focusedfire.


Now that is out of my system, I'd like to share some of my personal observations.

When 6th ed hit something felt off. Having played since 2004 and having been around friends who played since the mid-90's I was willing to give this edition time to see if it was just me or if there was some fatal flaw inherent to this edition.
After 7 months I've come to the conclusion that this edition has some inherent fatal flaws and that 40K itself has a flaw that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. Note- This is not me bashing GW. They are a corporation trying to make money. I just feel that the business model doesn't fit the game.

What are these flaws, "you ask"?

IMO, they are as follow:

First is the introduction of Flyers as an in game mechanic.
Having aircraft striking your enemies while your forces are engaged on the table top is like shooting into cc or shooting your own troops. It feels very inconsistent and doesn't fit with the roles of aircraft in a battlezone. If GW wanted to make Flyer models then they should have been for their own seperate game and with very limited use in the game of 40K. Really,

Second is how the Allies matrix was set up.
It could have been a great mechanic for faction balance, alas the matrix is too simplified and because of this it leads to exploitation that adds imbalance to the game.

Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale".
28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.

Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.


There are others but these are the big three. Now, what I think could be done to fix these flaws is as follows:


40k Flyers-
They should have been a seperate game that could tie in unobtrusively. If we are going to have them in the basic game of 40k then they should be limited to things like 1st turn only strikes, intercepting reserves, or not allowed to be on the board for 2 consecutive turns unless transport aircraft (at which point they become skimmers).

Allies Matrix-
Having a matrix that wasn't a mirror of itself would have helped. Example would be if IG takes Tau detachment then they are allies of convienence but Tau taking IG would be battle brothers(Gue'vesa). Same thing on Chaos would creat LatD. I admit that this is more of a fluff fix but I do feel more could have been done to create an allies matrix that didn't favor the Imperium factions so much. GK's backed by a squadron of 3 Vendettas is right up their with cron air imo..

Scale-
I've come to the conclusion that 40K played in 10-15mm(Not epic 6mm) would be ideal. You don't have to change any distances in the books and los blocking terrain would be plentiful. Others have also discovered this trick and I must say that just the simple change in scale drastically improves how the game plays. Its easier for me to tell you to play a game using FoW proxies rather than explain everything in detail.
What I will elaborate on is that there is a growing market for 15mm sci-fi and, imo, that it might be in GW's long-term best interest to limit the size of 28mm 40K games and to introduce a 15mm version of the game. Doing such would drop the buy in cost of the game to a point that would likely reverse the current shrinkage in the playerbase. I know GW won't do this and that is their loss. The 15mm 40k player base is growing and there are other companies more than willing to provide beautiful models as proxies.

I now leave it to you guys and what you see as the primary issues with 6th ed. Please be civil and discuss respectfully. Also, pls no GW fanbois complaining those of us who find that 40k no longer meets our gaming needs. Be it because of 6th ed, Fliers, Scale or a variety of other reasons there are many of us whom, for reasons legitimate to us, are moving away from 6th ed.

Later,
Focusedfire.

Having a matrix that wasn't a mirror of itself would have helped. Example would be if IG takes Tau detachment then they are allies of convienence but Tau taking IG would be battle brothers(Gue'vesa). Same thing on Chaos would creat LatD. I admit that this is more of a fluff fix but I do feel more could have been done to create an allies matrix that didn't favor the Imperium factions so much. GK's backed by a squadron of 3 Vendettas is right up their with cron air imo..

You mean IG backed by GK, because by the rules you can only take one vendetta with GK as the primary

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Having a matrix that wasn't a mirror of itself would have helped. Example would be if IG takes Tau detachment then they are allies of convienence but Tau taking IG would be battle brothers(Gue'vesa). Same thing on Chaos would creat LatD. I admit that this is more of a fluff fix but I do feel more could have been done to create an allies matrix that didn't favor the Imperium factions so much. GK's backed by a squadron of 3 Vendettas is right up their with cron air imo..

You mean IG backed by GK, because by the rules you can only take one vendetta with GK as the primary

Vendetta are squadronable in units of 1-3 Vendettas.

More importantly if you wanted to spam Vendettas you'd just play guard.

I'm sorry, but where is this 15mm 40k community?

 Krellnus wrote:

Vendetta are squadronable in units of 1-3 Vendettas.

Thats right, and having their Storm Ravens being screened by a squadron of Vendettas that happen to be carrying cheap vet squads is what puts it the build up there with the Flying Bakery.

Really, I still maintain that the issue is how fliers were crammed into 6th ed. Every faction getting a flier won't fix the flaw of how this game mechanic was executed.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:I'm sorry, but where is this 15mm 40k community?

First, I said that 15mm sci-fi is taking off with the intent that there are plenty of models available to use as proxies. They can be found in Britain, France, U.S.A. and plenty of other places. Quickest answer is google 15mm sci-fi minatures.

Second, there are people realizing that 15mm 40 is a great way to alleviate the scale problem. For info, google 15mm 40k.


Edit for clarification

I will certainly agree on the lack of los blocking terrain.

i play warhamer as a part to paint too, im not fond of 15mm. and less qq and mann up, every eddition is diffrent you just gotta adapt.

phatonic wrote:
i play warhamer as a part to paint too, im not fond of 15mm. and less qq and mann up, every eddition is diffrent you just gotta adapt.

Really? Rua trollz? I ask because of your spelling and the mann up comment.

Dude, focusedfire is man enough to stop playing a game/edition that no longer works for him. "Manning up" the way you suggest is the path of the weak who won't stand up for themselves.

Go back and read the op. He clearly states that this is not new edition blues but something deeper. That the games basic flaws have reached the point that he is taking his business elswhere. If more players stopped rewarding gw's bad behaviour with their money the game and the models might actually improve.


Its the compulsive addict types that act as if the game is a freakin mandatory necessity that are why the game is suffering.

@ff-
Dude, you nailed it on the fliers needing to be more limited or not being in the game all together. There really wasn't a need for the models as far as 40k went
Having the fliers as a seperate game that could join 40k in a limited manner(campain maybe?) would be a vast improvement.

Don't know what should be done with the allies matrix. Anyone got ideas????

15mm 40k sounds like a blast. Have you seen any of the rebel minis??

There are some amazing 15mm sci-fi minis out there right now.
Anyone got ideas as to whom to proxy for each faction??

i ment as take it as a challange, i like flyers and if i meet them i can counter them with units ot ignore em and get into cc as fast as possible, yes he took the step thats a good thing.

and GW seems to be more of a MOdel company first rather than gaming. i agree at some parts of this post. sorry that i pressed enter to early on my first post, i didnt have my morning coffee.

cheer Phatonic

I don't really feel that fliers themselves are the problem, but rather the piecemeal way in which they have been rolled out to the various armies. In addition, I don't think the allies matrix is a source of huge imbalance, more that it's just rather boring.

In my mind the things which let 6th ed down are:
1) massive reduction in viability of CC
2) Focus on randomness
3) poor standard missions
4) this notion of cinematicicy. Overwatch is unneeded. it simply takes time and has no real tactical factor. Likewise, warlord traits are random, imbalanced and pointless as a result.


I strongly believe that tactics revolve around having a good understanding of what you're troops can do. Randomness is ok, sure. In large enough numbers you can expect a roughly average result. However, it is the situations where the numbers involved are so small that it will always be random (such as warlord traits) and similarly for overwatch, where the rule is mainly for effect as it has little impact on the game.

I love the idea of warlord traits, but I think they should've just been a list of equally balanced traits of which you just pick one when you pick your list. Likewise, the danger of assaulting a squad of shooting enemy soldiers could be portrayed simply by the random charge distance, rather than having two ways to punish CC troops.

I won't even go into the missions and deployment zones, suffice to say that less than half of them are actually good for balanced play.

The scenarios are not all created equal, that's a given. Kill points are still pretty stupid. There's a certain race to the bottom vibe to 6th ed like the need for fortifications/allies in every game, the lack of AA for some armies and access to flyers, the fact that plenty of people don't play with much terrain (los blockers) and every battle just ending up being a bit static and dull with both sides having their aegis lines and landing pads that nothing ever seems to land on. The movement phase tends to be less important, especially without any real gradient for hitting vehicles in cc anymore, even if moving at insane speeds like 24-36 inches.

Because the rules are really permissive it's difficult to say no to someone using fortifications/allies without risking a great reduction in prospective opponents and I think that leads to the "well if everyone is going to do it I may as well too" response by many which in turn leads to the whole race to the bottom thing. I remember when you'd look over at another table and see a bunch of seemingly random models and think "oh they must be playing apoc or something" and recently without fail it ends up that the game you mistook for apoc was actually just 6th ed 40k. There's a certain GI JOE vibe to it all, right down to the cobra mega battle fortress err.. fortress of redemption. I remember seeing someone comment on a blog postings about how a 6th ed tournament shouldn't call itself that without allowing attendees to bring a fortress of redemption? Really? Like all those less than genuine 5th ed tournaments that had the audacity to not allow players to bring their own terrain. Overly permissive rules breed overly entitled players.

I’m by no means throwing in the towel but I do find I have to be more selective about my opponents and be on the same page with how often we want to “forge a narrative”. A lot of that is also terrain rules and preference for slightly more involved and specific terrain rules. I feel for a game that has real los the terrain rules are utilized far too often in needlessly abstract ways, some that often detract from the movement phase and tactical play overall.

Just a few things.

1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)

2.) The LOS blocking terrain is a you and your area issue, most events I play in (and run) have a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain (and I am working to construct more). In reality this is an issue of lazyness in your area not an issue with the scale of the game.

3.) If GW changed the scale the same problem would remain because they would just make you buy more small minis to play the game, rather than making the game actually cost less.

In the end everyone is entitled to their opinion (I love 6th, though I agree some parts could have been implemented better), but if you are not digging it, move on to other games or if your playing 15mm (which presumably is with a small local group) you could also just stick with the old rules and 5th ed and call it a day.

Terrain should be part of the table, not your army list.
Warlord traits could be chosen and paid for in points, as should spells.
Charges should be fixed length not random.

I'll be brutally honest: LULWUT?
If you don't like the game, well, you do the right choice quitting, but the solutions you propose are... well... simply unappropriate.
We all have issues with flyers but saying they're a bad addition is IMHO totally wrong... Flyers give a little bit more futuristic feel to 40K (which was badly needed) and are a very nice new range of models. Graudally, with more anti-air options things will get better.
And about 15mm scale... I really didn't even imagine someone thought about that and whn I googled it I only obtained 2 threads on dakka with some seriously silly proposals for count as...
And about the randomness of this edition I actually like it: It doesn't impair tactics, it impairs power-list building, which is IMHO a good thing...

Here's a fact: 40k is a game of pew pew lazorz for kids, rules and releases are driven by profits. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can stop crying about how you don't like it and move on to a balanced game system that was created with balance and community in mind.

My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.

As far as the cost, and "money grab". I feel ya, this hobby definitely hits the wallet, but I'll still dish it out cause its the one I love.

I hope you find what you are looking for or that we will see you back soon.

Generally, I've warmed to 6ed - I thought it was a bit over the top with tables whe it was first released, but over the last few months I've started to really like it - more than 5ed.

 focusedfire wrote:

Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale".
28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.

Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.

We rarely have a problem with scale, because we play at the standard size of 1500pts, just like we always have.

It's the slow creep up in points levels that seems to be causing the problem. People want to play with all their toys at once, and so we end up with 1850pts being normal and 2000pts being common.

Try playing at 1500pts and there really isn't a problem.


EDIT: Agree with the point on flyers, though. Unless we're talking about dropships/gunships, which are sorta believable - fighter aircraft have no place on a game that scale....

 Mycatdied wrote:
My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.

The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).


Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.

Most of what you have said pretty much sums up my minor gripes with 40k. I do think that it is very easy for game boards to look very cramped, particularly with horde armies. And a bit more LOS blocking terrain is always nice.

I also agree that the Flyers need a little tweaking, but I must admit I do actually like having them in the game.

As for the 15mm scale, it would certainly be interesting to see. I may have to google this and look into it.

The allies matrix is fairly terrible due to: The crippling disadvantage it forces on tyranids, the massive advantage it affords imperium armies - many of whom are already dominant powers with well maintained and updated codices, the slightly less crippling disadvantage it forces on several other xenos lists, the bizarre 'well it's based on background argument vs the 'tau with marines' team ups or necrons brofisting marines combos. It was badly constructed and wide open to abuse.

Every single vehicle should have +1 hull point. Just add 1 for every vehicle's value and you change up the current weakness without the parking lots of the previous edition (which were a fault of the codices not the rules btw).

Wound allocation and overwatch have hosed assault armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, my two armies, are really struggling in this edition. I had my orks to a fine art in the previous and was comfortable taking on any number of opponents and now they fail to a stiff breeze. The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative, whilst the orks are mown down in numbers before they get into combat and then shredded before they get to strike.

Flyers are currently over the top powerful and the flyer spam necron army is ridiculous.

Terrain set up is nonsensical, you place your bought fortification and then the opponent sets up a LOS blocking ruin in front of it... Just daft.

Look, all the additional stuff, the terrain rules and such would have been great as 'optional' and we should have been presented with a refined version of 5th with all these add-ons as 'narrative options' for friendly games.

I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.

The entire ruleset reads as a big step backwards for me and I mourn the loss of Alessio from the studio, he came there as a tournament winner and fought to have streamlined and faster play, now a game is back to 2nd edition timescales and that means sacrificing serious time.

Messy, cluttered, illogical progression, far worsening balance issues to many armies and disproportionate, overly complicated added rules.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.

I think organised games around friends' houses where everyone plays pretty casually is actually the VAST majority of 40k players, and GW are right to concentrate on them. Even in the (very few) pick up games I play with strangers, the general mood has been casual and friendly (so no fortification/LOS fun occuring).

Maybe that's why I haven't had any problems?

EDIT: I agree about the weird allies rules, though.

I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?

Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.

Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.

Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.

I think a good question is why do we have armies that are so focused on assault? Its a pew pew game, warhamer is the hack hack game! Overwatch was needed because without it the game was turning into a close combat game, that was getting out of hand. Too many units just suicide charging around the field to get into CC or melta range. It just felt weird.

People really need to play smaller games, when I see so many vehicles and infantry that the board is just cluttered.....how does that even work.

I know, I know don't look for reality in 40k. I think that mantra has let the game really just get out of hand. Here is to the new Warzone Resurrection, may it be the game that I have been waiting for, and the competition that GW needs to start making 40k better.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?

Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.

Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.

Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.

Watch some war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 Mycatdied wrote:
My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.

The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).


Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.

And there were people saying this in 5th edition, as well, and some in 4th. Codex lag is going to happen. We can either deal with it and move on or endlessly complain about it. Only one outcome is actually useful.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.

I think organised games around friends' houses where everyone plays pretty casually is actually the VAST majority of 40k players, and GW are right to concentrate on them. Even in the (very few) pick up games I play with strangers, the general mood has been casual and friendly (so no fortification/LOS fun occuring).

Maybe that's why I haven't had any problems?

EDIT: I agree about the weird allies rules, though.

I'd agree it's likely the majority for the UK (but that's been changing for a while gradually) but in the US the absolute reverse is true, people game in stores to a huge extent.

Having lived in Bristol for a few years and gamed there, there was a sizable club/store playing presence there and coming to the US, store games are the great majority.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?

Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.

Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.

Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.

Watch some war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 Mycatdied wrote:
My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.

The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).


Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.

And there were people saying this in 5th edition, as well, and some in 4th. Codex lag is going to happen. We can either deal with it and move on or endlessly complain about it. Only one outcome is actually useful.

I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?

I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?

I'm sure any military would love to have the luxury of always being able to dictate the set up of any battle. It rarely happens that way. You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the one you want.

So the military always has the right guy in the right position? Historically I can think of plenty of situations where the wrong guy was in charge or brought the wrong formations for a specific battle. I know of whole wars where armies seamed to have little grasp of what their objectives were.

Randomness happens in battles all the time. Planning is essential but the best laid plans do not survive the first encounter with the enemy.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The allies matrix is fairly terrible due to: The crippling disadvantage it forces on tyranids, the massive advantage it affords imperium armies - many of whom are already dominant powers with well maintained and updated codices, the slightly less crippling disadvantage it forces on several other xenos lists, the bizarre 'well it's based on background argument vs the 'tau with marines' team ups or necrons brofisting marines combos. It was badly constructed and wide open to abuse.

Allies aren't nearly as abusable as normal codex options actually. I find them to be so constrained that it's cheese or go home. There are few fluffy allies combos, but I've settled on a squad of horrors with a herald deep-striking.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Every single vehicle should have +1 hull point. Just add 1 for every vehicle's value and you change up the current weakness without the parking lots of the previous edition (which were a fault of the codices not the rules btw).

Hahahahahahaha. Oh you're a funny one. No, my mech guard do not need +1 hull point each

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Wound allocation and overwatch have hosed assault armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, my two armies, are really struggling in this edition. I had my orks to a fine art in the previous and was comfortable taking on any number of opponents and now they fail to a stiff breeze. The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative, whilst the orks are mown down in numbers before they get into combat and then shredded before they get to strike.

Wound allocation I have sympathy for, but I think many people over-state the effectiveness of overwatch. 5th edition wound allocation was just absurd though.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Flyers are currently over the top powerful and the flyer spam necron army is ridiculous.

Terrain set up is nonsensical, you place your bought fortification and then the opponent sets up a LOS blocking ruin in front of it... Just daft.

Agreed.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Look, all the additional stuff, the terrain rules and such would have been great as 'optional' and we should have been presented with a refined version of 5th with all these add-ons as 'narrative options' for friendly games.

I think they are optional? Most of the time my friends and I just shimmy some terrain onto the board until we think it looks right.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.

Hm no. I want casual rules thanks.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The entire ruleset reads as a big step backwards for me and I mourn the loss of Alessio from the studio, he came there as a tournament winner and fought to have streamlined and faster play, now a game is back to 2nd edition timescales and that means sacrificing serious time.

Messy, cluttered, illogical progression, far worsening balance issues to many armies and disproportionate, overly complicated added rules.

Also the best damn ruleset we've had make of that what you will, I guess.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?

I'm sure any military would love to have the luxury of always being able to dictate the set up of any battle. It rarely happens that way. You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the one you want.

So the military always has the right guy in the right position? Historically I can think of plenty of situations where the wrong guy was in charge or brought the wrong formations for a specific battle. I know of whole wars where armies seamed to have little grasp of what their objectives were.

Randomness happens in battles all the time. Planning is essential but the best laid plans do not survive the first encounter with the enemy.

So can I, but you know what? most of that was from the time before things like satellites to show enemy dispositions, Warships that could see hundreds of miles away, Jet Aircraft with smart missile systems. etc. A lot of the military mess ups were from an era long gone. When people barely knew how to read, much less plan military tactics or put generals in the right positions.

Warhammer 40k is in a time where they DO have the luxury of being able to plan their battles. To put Generals with the right abilities in the right positions. To know what their objectives are because they have planned it right down to the last detail. After all, some of these wars have been going on for generations. If you can't plan for battles in that amount of time you have no business going to war.