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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


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.

That simply is not true anywhere I've played. I've never even met a single person who enjoys playing in a store, including all of the people I've only ever talked to in a gaming store.

I'm all for a serious competitor to GW to step up.

That said. I think my issues with 6th have been for the most part stated.

I want to pick my warlord's trait (like the traits given but not the randomness)

I want to pick my pskyer's powers (Like Warp Charge points though, as ultra powerful abilities will take very high level and expensive models to pull off)

Random charge is absolutly a horrible idea. It's was stupid and fun killing in fantasy, it's stupid and fun killing in 40K.

Being able to buy buildings...day one I was screaming with rage at this idea. But...and there is a but. If they had given more non Imperial armies a few options, it'd have a place. Sure you could 'refluff' an Aegis for Tau and call it something 'Tauish' but I think giving them something more 'approperiate' would be interesting. And Nids could have Spore chimney's and bioacid lakes, and other things that fit thier modus operadi. The examples could go on and on.

But still the 'massive' buildings are bull**** the gun line thing and 'quick set up' buildings I can dig. Real world troops dig thier own trenches and set up quick walls and bunkers, so futuristic I can imagine a small bunker can be 'dropped' into place. A fortress...not so much.

The allies matrix is also bull, yes they nerfed the Nids, but they messed up the other armies horribly to. But for TLDR Eldar and Dark Eldar are not battle brothers, never have been, never will be. Desperate Allies...maybe. Hell come the Apocalypse...much more likely.

Running was stupid in 5th, it's stupid in 6th.

And all units, even tanks should be able to capture objectives. I mean really are you going to tell me the crew of Space Marine Land Raider can't open a hatch, reach out and take something? Or that a Tau is going to just take that 'intel breifcase' out away from a Grey Knight Terminator? Really? He is just going to hand it over because "Here blue skin, your a troop choice you should have this."

And though it's been a rule for some time, why can't I assault out of Rhino, or a Chimera? Or Eldar Falcon?

I'm going to still have reservations playing against people using allies, or buildings for right now. Maybe some errata will clean it up, but otherwise just not going to play with people using them.

Now that the negatives are out of the way, it's time for a bit of positives.

I like the 'above' 2K points list expansion, as for larger battles I can tailor my forces to the style I like to play for that army.

I thought Flyers got a bit of a needed nerf in 6th. Not a major one, but having to always start in reserve is a kick in the pants to some, but really aircraft aren't an 'on demand' service in real life so I'm cool with it. Though I do wonder how you can even get a flyer into some 40K battlefields. (One of my favorites when GW was at Concord Mills in Charlotte was the inside of a space ship.)

I like Overwatch, as it's hit on 6s not the model's BS skill for the "Oh Emperor save me, a Zerker! Kill it! Kill it! Kill it! Kill it!" *guardsmen firing with his eyes closed* effect.

The new special rules they added are going to take me some time to get used to, but so far I think they are neat.

AP on melee weapons is another thing I like.


Final Thought:
3rd edition is still the best edition IMHO, but 6th isn't too bad, it's complicated, but I'm wanting to play it. It's got some great ideas, but the Commissar's bullet missed it's mark on the execution. I expect to see a lot of house ruling to come into play. (For me it's no allies and no buildings, and fixed charge ranges.) It's truly a YMMV game now.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

 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.

Even so, war is chaotic, rarely are armies afforded such luxuries. Intel is inaccurate or fails at times. You don't always get to pick your battles, because sometimes the enemy does. The perfect battle field DOES NOT EXIST. The technological edge has been removed for the most part in 40K, that's just how 40k is. If armies were actually able to use their technology properly, well most of this combat would be reduced to air strikes and orbital bombardments, which would not make the game much fun.

No, the technological edge has been removed from the Imperium. Necrons have it just fine. As do Eldar. Those two armies don't plan a single battle nor fight one unless everything is in place and ready to go. If they get caught with their pants down they withdraw. and fight the battle right at a later date. They never have random generals leading their armies, and they certainly know what their objectives are before they go to war.

It's the stupid Imperials that fit the description of how you see 40k battles fought.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
No, the technological edge has been removed from the Imperium. Necrons have it just fine. As do Eldar. Those two armies don't plan a single battle nor fight one unless everything is in place and ready to go. If they get caught with their pants down they withdraw. and fight the battle right at a later date. They never have random generals leading their armies, and they certainly know what their objectives are before they go to war.

It's the stupid Imperials that fit the description of how you see 40k battles fought.

Meh, The logistics of those two armies pale in compared to the nightmare that imperial logistics would be. The Guard in many ways is so large they have very little opportunity to shift commanders, much less whole armies around to fit a specific purpose.

Necrons have their own hampering as their tech conceivably would destroy everyone if they really wanted, but they just seam to fight for whatever reason.

Eldar are hampered by having the most advanced technology that sucks! Seriously the shurikan catapult has to be one of the worst weapons in the game....and it used to be the best.

Right now warlord traits are free, I guess if you wanted to pay for something specific you should be able to, but it should be at a premium, while others who don't want to pay still get the free roll. I suppose you could do the same with psyker abilities.

I come from the days where 40k was very very random, you just had to adapt and overcome. It made the game more fun, people didn't take losses so hard, you just did the best you could. Which is actually more realistic, rarely in the real world do two evenly matched armies come to battle. I really liked the game more when it was not so competitive.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
I'm all for a serious competitor to GW to step up.

That said. I think my issues with 6th have been for the most part stated....

[a list of issues].

I disagree with everything you said. I think the complete opposite of pretty much everything stated in your post.

And GW has to try and make a game that satisfies both us!

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

3rd edition is still the best edition

Oh certainly. Blood Angels moving 18" in a Rhino, deploying 2", shooting twice, then charging at S5 I5, killing a unit, then moving 6" into assault with another unit was clearly the best edition?

You appear to have decided to dissect my post, allow me to return the favor with your responses.

 BryllCream wrote:

 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.

If Dark Eldar are mistrusted allies by everyone but Eldar, who are fairly similar as a glass cannon army, but all MEQ armies can gap fill with Imperial Guard massed infantry and Artillery squadrons, then you can couple already existing codex abuse with the addition of what your army lacks, as long as it's imperials, you can put a marine character into a huge imperial guard blob and use wargear to ensure funtimes for the whole mob of them. It's a sliding scale of terrible ideas and abuse potential. There is no 0/1 to this, it's a long series of escalating combos and abuses allowing you to cherrypick the best bits of the various codices.

 BryllCream wrote:

 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

Ok, well my Battlewagons sure as hell do, as do my Dark Eldar raiders and venoms. I guess you don't fight necrons much?

 BryllCream wrote:

 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.

Dark eldar principally revolved around small assault units that relied on getting into combat before they were shot into pieces on the table, the combo of vehicle nerf and overwatch fire is punishing that new army badly. Orks losing an entire front row to overwatch is causing them to miss getting into assault. Please expound on 'absurd' for 5th's wound allocation? If you say 'cinematically', I will hunt you down and fashion a nice coat from your flayed skin...

 BryllCream wrote:

 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.

Most people do, I do with friends. At stores or clubs with people I don't know, the expectation would be to follow the rules for placement etc. The rulebook states on page 91 that you and your opponent may agree what type of mysterious terrain rivers and jungles etc are but again, in cases of pick up games or tournaments you'll be looking at rolling rather than arbitrary choice. All this peripheral stuff should have been in a separate section at the back and the prime rules presented in a suitable fashion for tournaments.

 BryllCream 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.

Hm no. I want casual rules thanks.

By casual, you mean poorly defined? Because a clear and fluid ruleset for tournament play, with the additional peripheral rules provided as optional, would serve both our churches.

 BryllCream wrote:

 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.

That you like fiddly rulesets, have more available free time than I do and don't mind having to relearn basic gameplay of the system, also that you don't own armies that got the hose from this edition? Oh, you have Imperial Guard, 6th certainly didn't do them any harm...

I'll still be playing it, but I'll say this again clearly, it was a step backwards from 5th.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

3rd edition is still the best edition

Oh certainly. Blood Angels moving 18" in a Rhino, deploying 2", shooting twice, then charging at S5 I5, killing a unit, then moving 6" into assault with another unit was clearly the best edition?

I don't want to remember that..

When I had my Eldar army back then, my Wraithlords and masses of Starcannon fire made Rhinos go boom, and force all of that to walk. Rhino rush was one of very few abusable tactics. It's baby food weak sauce compared to Grey Knights and Necrons of today.

The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative ...

Not entirely true (well, ok, yeah, our armor save still sucks. lol). DE armies that relied on MSU and CC are getting smakced around, but I retooled my list to be large squads of shooty kabalites in Raiders with a very small Haemy contingent with a lot of FA and a maxed Heavy slot and I'm doing way better than I did in 5th. Especially since the local meta has shifted to foot-sloggers. It's almost abusive how much easier it's become. I still have some issues with tank heavy lists, but that's something DE were always going to struggle with.

Also, to your point about Orks, there aren't many Ork players here, but the ones we do have are kicking serious tail as well. Dakka jets on a WAAAGH are brutal! lol Maybe you just need to retool your lists a little?

As for everything else:

ALLIES:
I agree that the Allies matrix, and the handling of Allies in general is clumsy and heavy handed, but I haven't seen anyone propose a better (or even a different system), and I don't have any fixes myself so I can't really complain about it too much beyond what I've already said.

FLYERS:
Including flyers in a game of this scale is perfectly fine unless you're looking for an ultra-realistic representation (and if that's the case you are playing the wrong game anyway). I just think that, much like the allies matrix, the rules for them are a little awkward. Starship Troopers was the same scale (if I'm not mistaken) and flyers worked perfectly fine. I think if GW maybe just tweaks things ever so slightly and gets all the other fliers released, the will be fine. I am excited by their inclusion as I can remember playing Rogue Trader as a little kid with my friends and talking about how cool it would be to have them in a game. They are not perfectly integrated (yet), but I prefer the game WITH them.

SCALE:
IMO no sense in even bothering with complaining about it now. It's been a goofy issue since RT (yes, that's how long I've played - GET OFF MY LAWN! lol/jk). It was an issue the second they decided that a pistol fired 6" while the tank the model was sitting next to was 7-8". lol This has nothing to do what-so-ever with the "GW Business Model". Again, if you're looking to have something perfectly accurate, or more truly representational of the "real world" then you're just playing the wrong game.

I looked up 15mm 40k, and, like the others, didn't find much. Personally, I would NOT be interested in playing at that scale. It's just not as fun to me. I'm sure there's plenty of people who like that scale and more power to them, but in my area, no one really plays/paints at that scale.

I dislike things like the terrain placement system and all of the random rolling you need to do. That being said though, I mainly play friendly games at my FLGS and for the most part we just ignore a lot of those rules. In a tournament setting I can see a lot of that getting in the way, but then, most of the local tourney's I've seen just don't use those either.

Purchasing buildings as part of your army IS something I'm not super thrilled with. Combined with the general nerfing of vehicles, and the extreme nurfing of CC (especially where it pretains to reserves and deep striking) I think that purchasing buildings just creates a game that becomes increasingly more static. Sure, they've added little bits and pieces to encourage movement, and yeah, you still have to move to capture objectives, but the game feels like it's becoming increasingly more static. My gun line fires at your gun line and then at the last second we all rush out towards objectives.

3rd edition is still the best edition

To each his own, but I stopped playing for years because of 3rd. I think 6th could use a little more streamlining, but going back to something like third would kill it for me.

It's baby food weak sauce compared to Grey Knights and Necrons of today.

Which is more a factor of the codexes than the rules themselves.

Bottom line is this:

If you like the game, play it. If you don't.... don't.

I personally think Flyers destroyed the feel of 40k. Not an argument I know... but the game does carry a certain feel to it. It's not just any wargame like FoW or WM... it's 40k. It's grimdark (or was) and that is the bulk of it's appeal for me (and I assume some others). It also opens up a MASSIVE rift in the suspense of reality for the game.

(Oh look, it's a hell drake swooping down to rake at my scouts... ON THE GROUND! Maybe those Assault Marines with fething jump packs should leap up plant a damn melta bomb on it. or hell, just chop at with a sword...But no... that would make sense and thereby has no place being involved with Flyers.

Power weapons with AP values are .... meh, I'll get used to that. Not sure I agree on which ones have which values, but I'll overlook that.

The randomness is absurd. This game is already played with freakin' DICE. They've condensed centuries of pitched grueling battles and jaw dropping violence that is the life of a Space Marine (used only for reference) and called it a WS4 BS4. Oh, but hell, a few months of basic training or being fething conscript to the IG and hell, you're at a 3. Or better yes, Millenia old Eldar who have been fighting for survival since before the other races were in their diapers are a what? 3 also? Thanks GW...

But since that wasn't RANDOM enough, now you can't choose powers, warlord traits, etc.

They are taking control away from the players, marking the prices of all items, and adding even more expensive items into army lists that DEMAND further purchases to even play with.

Yet... for all the nonsense, I still play. I just play with folks that don't "play to win at all costs" we have fun by just playing in a fashion that doesn't always abuse the new stuff

My friends and I simply choose our traits/powers/whatever.

The randomness is a HUGE killer of this game. The more random, the less control the player has, and the moment you start taking control away from the player it becomes less of a game and more of a chore.

For those who like the randomness, cool. I think you should be able to play the game exactly how you want, with the traits you want, with the powers you want. I mean really, what does a Librarian do before a battle? Pick a book of spells, close his eyes, point at a random spell? No, he learns his gak before the battle and doesn't waste time learning stupid spells that are ineffective or useless.

The D6 system (and the system of 10) that GW uses is bad. Simply bad. Using greater values allows more freedom, however the greater freedom complicates things. I do think GW could find a middle ground, but at this point they're just sucking money too hard and fast to care at all.

SUUUUPPP!

Hooo boy! where to start? Sixth ed. 40K. Here goes on the subject of 'randomness'. If we take the time we can explain it away, but that won't satisfy us geek types. I'd be down for it, but some thinks-he-knows-it-all comes around and furiously stabs your perfectly reasonable excuse for a games lack or presence of 'realisticness' with a +5 vorpal logic bane ugly stick which, turns out guys, is SUPER EFFECTIVE! at killing the mood and preventing the resolution of your dispute. In science, we call these faux-logic wielders 'that guy', or TFGs for short. Please don't be one.

It is a game drawn out of a book written by a few who knew how THEY thought of it, played by millions who are not privy to these internal reasoning's. Therefore we simply MUST generalize where we can. So far everyone has mentioned something about the new randomness. I want to talk/write about that. Because to me the entire concept of a 40k battle was initially dumb sounding. Why? Let me say this. I'm going to put it on a seperate line and I want you to read it three times and think about it before reading further. Ready? Remember three times you need to read this. Kay, here it is:

You and your opponent....showed up to a battle....get this....with roughly equivalent armies!

Did you read it three times? GOOD! So after some reflection you should all be thinking 'wait a sec, we brought about the same amount of stuff?' YEP! Neither one of you, for some mysterious reason was able to bring that one more tank or infantry platoon to seal the deal. So the first thing we have to consider is that this curious lack of material superiority is a factor. Yes, I knooow, a good build makes one list better then another, or the number of actual models will vary and 'outnumber', blah blah blah. But you cant deny that you each started with the same point limit. Nuf said. So thats Factor ONE: Material Equivalence. Moving on.

Factor two is Blind Table/Blind list. Most games you set your table up right as you get started. Then you lay out objectives. But what you have to work with is already decided by your list you should have already made! Well if I knew one objective was going to be in a fire corridor, I would have brought a unit optimized to that! Then you see your opponent spam a unit type, and say: Well if I knew he was using all those I would have brought this other unit/weapon load out! So we can call Factor TWO: Super Fog of War.

Then off of these two factors we extrapolate how in the bloody heck we got into this. If this is grim dark, and we fight battles on planets with lines of dudes fighting all the way up and down miles of terrain, after all the intelligence, positioning, gear prep, and whatever else, then I can conclude that on this 100 mile long front line packed with dudes, I'm playing the critical point in the line where it is truly undecided. Because every where else there is some tactical/numerical/technological/etc advantage that essentially decides every other section of that battle line. So zoom in on this tiny 1500 point game because THIS is where the day is won or lost. So randomness in this light is somewhat reasonable. I wouldn't know where per se that critical struggle might take place. My long winded point is this: The very concept of setup for an even game is tactically absurd. Has been since before this random stuff came in and made it obvious. The answer is house rules. Make them. You haz da power. I belivez in you

Beachhead Assault(Rough v0.01, something I want to do for a friend of mine):
Choose an attacker and defender. The defender designs the board and his list, chooses his deployment zone(s), and places three objectives. Then shows the board to the attacker, half his list in unit type and numbers and primary gear but not auxillary gear(like grenades/markerlights/psyker powers that he chose) and deployment zones. Play around with how you choose to reveal the defender list(how much is revealed, how randomly). The defender also points out two objectives that hes placed on the board, not the third, that will have to be revealed on turn one of the game. The attacker then takes a week to prepare a list and decide on his deployment zone maintaining some distance from the defenders as you see fit, and where to place one additional objective.

There, now weve made it an official Proposed rule thread!

KnuckleWolf wrote:
If this is grim dark, and we fight battles on planets with lines of dudes fighting all the way up and down miles of terrain, after all the intelligence, positioning, gear prep, and whatever else, then I can conclude that on this 100 mile long front line packed with dudes, I'm playing the critical point in the line where it is truly undecided. Because every where else there is some tactical/numerical/technological/etc advantage that essentially decides every other section of that battle line. So zoom in on this tiny 1500 point game because THIS is where the day is won or lost. So randomness in this light is somewhat reasonable. I wouldn't know where per se that critical struggle might take place.

This was actually the setup to 40k games in many editions.

 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.

Given that I'm replying to a post suggesting to wait for the codexes to be updated I don't see how that can be considered dealing with it. Don't judge the game on a fictional state with a complete edition with updated codexes since it won't happen, you need to judge it on what you actually get and thats some armies tucking into a second steak while others are still in the workhouse. By deal with it do you really mean just ignore the problem?

Having 5+ fliers manouvering over a battlefield the size of a football pitch come across to me at least like top gun in hot air ballons.

6th edition is 'OK' I guess, I find it slightly better than 5th in most areas but I have to admit that to me the flyer/FMC rules suck.
Epic was the best PvP tabletop system GW ever did imho, it was far more reliant on enacting an overall grand strategy. A modern version based around a heavily streamlined 40k ruleset would be incredible.
Imagine a proper drop-pod assault as dozens of pods rain down for surgical strikes in critical locations, or emplacements of Hydras providing interlocking fields of fire against flyers.

It won't ever happen though, not enough profit in it. :(

The following is my edit from the first page. I had lost an edit before posting. Am reposting here for clarification.

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.


Now for some replies

Breng77 wrote: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)

Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?

Breng77 wrote: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.

Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.

The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.

We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected

Breng77 wrote:
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.

It might seem that way but in truth it doesn't happen that way. Ask FoW players. Most players know how long a game takes and settle for the 1500 to 2000 point levels because that is a good game that usually lasts 2-3 hours. A board flooded with 4000 points of 15mm figures playing with current 40k rules would be a 5+ hour game. Most players wouldn't try that for a casual pick-up game.

Also, 4000+ point games would be apoc level and would be played on a 8-12 foot apoc table. If the points level ever got to the point of crowding the apoc tables then you are playing a weekend campain that would allow for reserve rules to control table crowding..

Breng77 wrote:
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.

And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.

punkow wrote: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.

A)How are my suggestions "unappropriate"(think the word you are looking for here is inappropriate)? Seriously, instead of coming from a "they are different so they are bad" or a "I don't like them so they are wrong" position, discuss the issues that you have with what "I" have proposed.

B)Fliers "are" bad. At least to me they are. They create to much of a logic break that just ruins the game for me. Note, I never said get rid of them, just that they should have been implemented differently.
Now, What I did say is that, "they should have been in a seperate system that tied in loosely to the base game. That Fighters have no place over a Battlefield once the shooting starts."
Again, note I said fighters. IMO, Transport fliers are ok but IMO any that stays for a second turn should automatically switch to skimmer mode.Fighters staying on the board a second turn if they should suffer a stall that forces a roll to see if they recover.

C)I corrected the editing error in my previous post. Google 15mm sci-fi mininatures and you will find some fairly nice models that would be suitable for proxy-ing. You just can't take one faction and change over but rather you have to hunt through all of the manufacturers to find a decent army.
I admit its not for everyone but after a proy game I was sold. It turned the small hills that most stores have into mountains that could hide a colum of tanks. The shooting and movement ranges just felt more natural/intuitive.

D)Randomness??? I don't think that was one of my primary complaints

lordofthegophers wrote: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.

*Cute*. I was probably aware of 40K being a money grab before your mom bought you your first battleforce. Also, you might want to reread my OP...no crying there, some satire, yes...crying, no.

Now I do agree that there are other more balanced systems out there(Can't wait for WM's Convergence of Cyriss to hit the shelves ).

ArbitorIan wrote:

 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....

The problem is that not even 1500 points is what it used to be. With the constant points drops 1500 points is crowding the board a lot more than it was in 4th ed.

HerbaciousT wrote: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.

I corrected a mistake in my earlier post. Look at 15mm sci fi minis. there are some very nice models for proxying and the cost is pretty easy on the wallet if you shop carefully.

DarknessEternal wrote:
That simply is not true anywhere I've played. I've never even met a single person who enjoys playing in a store, including all of the people I've only ever talked to in a gaming store.

You need to travel to a different store. If no one enjoys playing at that store then move to another. If another is not available let us know where you playing because that store is asking to be put out of business, "if what you are saying is true".

My personal experiece has been that I enjoy playing stores much more than at the average gamers house (Usually, on an unstable piece of plywood). Very few players in the U.S. have a well built 4'x8' game table with quality terrain. I do,...my friends do...yet we all seem to meet up at the store. I think its because it gets us away from the wives.

BTW, Before you snap back with a possibly snarky comment about where I've played, just want to let you know that I travelled the country for the past decade and would play at stores where ever I went.

 focusedfire wrote:
The following is my edit from the first page. I had lost an edit before posting. Am reposting here for clarification.

[Now for some replies

Breng77 wrote: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)

Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?

Yes, indeed it is a reason. If I cannot find games, I don't want to spend the money, so if I am liking 40k as is why spend extra money to try to convince people to do something different.

Breng77 wrote: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.

Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.

The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.

We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected

Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...just seems like one of the gripes you have with the system is not a gripe with the system, but the environment in which you play.

Breng77 wrote:
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.

It might seem that way but in truth it doesn't happen that way. Ask FoW players. Most players know how long a game takes and settle for the 1500 to 2000 point levels because that is a good game that usually lasts 2-3 hours. A board flooded with 4000 points of 15mm figures playing with current 40k rules would be a 5+ hour game. Most players wouldn't try that for a casual pick-up game.

Also, 4000+ point games would be apoc level and would be played on a 8-12 foot apoc table. If the points level ever got to the point of crowding the apoc tables then you are playing a weekend campain that would allow for reserve rules to control table crowding..

Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...

Breng77 wrote:
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.

And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.

Which is your choice, and a fine one. I just don't see the need for everyone (not just directed at you, but I have seen it a lot lately) that decides to quit the game decides they need to deride the gaming system to justify their choice. Not everyone is going to like anything, it is fine to not do so, but it seems like you (and others) feel the need to convince everyone else that the game is bad and everyone should quit.

What games people prefer to play is down to personal choice.

Compared to other games 6th ed 40k rule set IS over complicated, counter intuitive , poorly balanced and random to the point it becomes diffuse.

Most people that play 40k , do so because of the asthetic of the game or their own level of personal investment.(Most play 40k despite the rules, not because of them.)

I can not think of ANY part of the 40k rule set that could not be replaced with a mechanic/resolution method that would make the rules more in synergy with the background, in a more straightforward way.

Because current 40k rules describe how WHFB is played.Then adds on vehicle rules USRs and special rules to mutate the gameplay into 'sort of 40k'.
Rather than start with core rules written for 'actual 40k.'

25 years later 40k STILL uses WHFB game mechanics .Why is that?

Whoah, with all those colors on the screen I ran to the doctor for a toxin screening! Almost swore I was on a trip or something. LOL

I would be ALL THE HECK down with writing core rules from ground up. Cool elements in Flames of War I'd love to see used in 40k. (i.e. Morale/Training chart) And to show enhanced Communication gear, use an action system similar to DnD 3.5 (i.e. Move and shoot in choice of order type stuff). Hell im sure theres something we could pull out of Mechwarrior CLIX battles. But...I are lazy!

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


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.

That simply is not true anywhere I've played. I've never even met a single person who enjoys playing in a store, including all of the people I've only ever talked to in a gaming store.

I love this. I hate playing pickup games at stores or even playing in stores with my friends. I like to play much more casual with more beer and more fun. I want to be able to pick and choose what rules we want to use without someone telling me i am wrong for doing so. It may come from moving to 40k from D&D but i think the rules are just there as a guideline and if you dont like a certain rule or would like it to be different and you and your friends agree on it then there ya go problem solved. no need to write to a toy company to get the latest rules update so you can use it to your advantage against some stranger. I LOVE 6th edition because it was written with dudes like me in mind. I do however understand how someone would be frustrated if they played purely for competetive reasons, might as well come up with your own ruleset for that since its not really what the guys that made 40k had in mind.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)

Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?

Yes, indeed it is a reason. If I cannot find games, I don't want to spend the money, so if I am liking 40k as is why spend extra money to try to convince people to do something different.

Not having seen someone doing it is an excuse, as is your reply about spending money. There is a big difference in trying something and buying in whole sale. I did not say to spend money on it, I suggested for people to try it. This means, do as I did, get together with a friend who has FoW or some other 15mm armies and try a game using them as proxies.

I understand your resistance to the idea. It is an all to common attitude in this day and age of safety first and only take chances in a game, Many people are not comfortable trying new things (especially recent generations) and they will rationalize reasons to not venture into unknown territory. They want the comfort of knowing that others have gone there first and that there will be a crowd when they get there. Basically, they want to belong. If you don't want to try a 15mm proxy game simply because you are not comfortable being the one to break new ground in your area then just say so, rather than making an excuse.
I only suggested for people to try it because, from my perspective it improved the game drastically.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.

The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.

We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected

Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...just seems like one of the gripes you have with the system is not a gripe with the system, but the environment in which you play.

I invite you to take the time and to actually read what I typed and then look at your reply.

I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:

People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.

I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.

Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?

I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.

Which is your choice, and a fine one. I just don't see the need for everyone (not just directed at you, but I have seen it a lot lately) that decides to quit the game decides they need to deride the gaming system to justify their choice. Not everyone is going to like anything, it is fine to not do so, but it seems like you (and others) feel the need to convince everyone else that the game is bad and everyone should quit.

OK, here is where I have to point out a few things that seem to have escaped your notice.

A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.

B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.

C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.


This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.

I came to this thread purely wondering what you felt was wrong with the rule set. YES! Flyers are great, but that's not a problem with the rules for flyers. The problem is, IMO, that are under-priced. Scale? Whats wrong with the current one? los is only a problem if you want it to be. Go make some hills outa foam or plaster. Worked for me. Allies are a great thing for 40k too. While they do
open up the cheese, they allow many to make the army they want. In 5th, you would see the same kind of thing every time you went out. Now, I play a different list and different combos every week. Don't tell me everyone plays guard and Grey knights. Tomorrow we have a tournament that people form half the country are coming too. The most represented army is eldar, 9 people have them!. Grey knights only show up 4 times (2 as main, 2 as allies) and guard only 4 times too (all main) out of the 38 players.

Los blocking terain is easy to make get a gaming mat put a book or dish below it boom los blocking terain and not that big.

Why should players HAVE to use LOS blocking terrain , to make up for over an crowded playing area, the game mechanics can not cope with?

When 40k moved from a skirmish game into a battle game-2nd to 3rd ed.WHY did the game mechanics not change to suit the new scale of the game?

GW wanting to sell more toy soldiers is understandable.GW are '..a minatures company first and foremost..' and 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children..' T.Kirby CEO and Chairman of the board of directors of GW.

However, I am sure they would sell more to players with a well defined intuitive rule set that was easy to learn and hard to master.(More tactical focus.)
(This is why GWs competitors are growing in support without needing to push their product through expencive B&M stores.)

Becuse of the focus on the easiest to please demoghraphic ,(children and collectors..who don't care about game play that much. )

This means the studio focus on the strategic elements where 'exclusive rules' mean the game progression is dependant on new models being included to expand strategic options.
Which plugs into the mentalitiy of selling toy soldiers , rather than selling a game system.

Objectivley looking at 6th ed, they simply increased the amount of randomness, shoe horned in GW models of flyers and terrain as 'must buy items'.

And what exactly did they 'fix'?

Just shifting the meta game to make buying new models because they are more effective, is not realy game development .Its more of a promoting sales of new releases...

 focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)

Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?

Yes, indeed it is a reason. If I cannot find games, I don't want to spend the money, so if I am liking 40k as is why spend extra money to try to convince people to do something different.

Not having seen someone doing it is an excuse, as is your reply about spending money. There is a big difference in trying something and buying in whole sale. I did not say to spend money on it, I suggested for people to try it. This means, do as I did, get together with a friend who has FoW or some other 15mm armies and try a game using them as proxies.

I understand your resistance to the idea. It is an all to common attitude in this day and age of safety first and only take chances in a game, Many people are not comfortable trying new things (especially recent generations) and they will rationalize reasons to not venture into unknown territory. They want the comfort of knowing that others have gone there first and that there will be a crowd when they get there. Basically, they want to belong. If you don't want to try a 15mm proxy game simply because you are not comfortable being the one to break new ground in your area then just say so, rather than making an excuse.
I only suggested for people to try it because, from my perspective it improved the game drastically.

No one in my area plays flames, so yes I would have to buy something to do this. I have done so before, and ended up with lots of stuff I never use and wasted money...so yes I would rather play a game I am enjoying than throw money at fixing things I don't find horribly wrong.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.

The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.

We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected

Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...just seems like one of the gripes you have with the system is not a gripe with the system, but the environment in which you play.

I invite you to take the time and to actually read what I typed and then look at your reply.

I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:

People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.

I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.

Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?

I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).

Perhaps you would not like the terrain I typically play with. This begs the question how is this a 6th ed problem? Wasn't scale the same in 5th? Why was this not an issue then? Furthermore I hardly think 40k is perfect, no game is nor will it ever be. There are plenty of problems, I just happen not to agree with most of yours as being problems with the game system. My issues with 40k 6th ed: Double force org is heavy handed and could have been handled better to allow for better expansion as points increase (try adding one slot at a time not another army.), Allies matrix could have been more balanced, it fits fluff(somewhat) but as such heavily favors imperial armies(forces of Order, Neurtality, and Disorder, would have been more balanced depending on how you break it up.), ATSKNF confering to any squad, True line of sight is now and has always been a poor gameplay mechanic(abstract terrain makes for a better game), I also have small issues with the WS chart (high WS is relatively meaningless after a point), the cover save mechanic, (cover should go back to being a modifier not a save, less saves = shorter games). There are more, none of them however have me wanting to quit the game (elsewise I would have done so long ago, and not felt the need to vent about it on the internet trying to convince others how bad the game is.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
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.

And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.

Which is your choice, and a fine one. I just don't see the need for everyone (not just directed at you, but I have seen it a lot lately) that decides to quit the game decides they need to deride the gaming system to justify their choice. Not everyone is going to like anything, it is fine to not do so, but it seems like you (and others) feel the need to convince everyone else that the game is bad and everyone should quit.

OK, here is where I have to point out a few things that seem to have escaped your notice.

A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.

B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.

C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.


This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.

A.) A discusson that begins talking about at "fatal" flaw indicates that the flaw is something that is true for every one and that the game is inherently bad because of it. Maybe had you phrased it as, I felt like something felt wrong about the game to me....and figured out what was bothering me.... Instead you make wholesale statements about that the scale makes for non-tactical play (I disagree), and state that LOS blocking terrain is an issue (your opinion.). Which you do caption prior to stating them.

B.) So you are allowed to express your opinions and if I disagree, then I should not say a word..ok got it.

c.)Perhaps you are right, then again this is about the 10th such thread I have seen, and it gets tiresome to have people constantly bitch about things, it is bad for the community at large. What it comes down to is that is sounds like you wanted a thread...just listing negative things about the game (something I consider bad for the community.), having not disagreement with your opinions, and just having people agree. But maybe I'm way off.

I think instead of framing this discussion as an "I'm quitting 40k because of 6th ed discussion, and I feel the need to share why" You would, assuming you are enjoying 15mm 40k. Have been better framing it as a 15mm 40k discussion. How it works, why you think it is better than the normal game, and other rules tweaks you are making to the system that you feel improve the feel of the game.

Not everyone needs to enjoy the same things, I would just rather see the changes framed in a postive constructive manner (hey, I am creating my own 40k spin off of sorts, and really enjoying it), than a negative one (40k sucks, its no fun, and here is why.)

KnuckleWolf wrote:

Beachhead Assault(Rough v0.01, something I want to do for a friend of mine):
Choose an attacker and defender. The defender designs the board and his list, chooses his deployment zone(s), and places three objectives. Then shows the board to the attacker, half his list in unit type and numbers and primary gear but not auxillary gear(like grenades/markerlights/psyker powers that he chose) and deployment zones. Play around with how you choose to reveal the defender list(how much is revealed, how randomly). The defender also points out two objectives that hes placed on the board, not the third, that will have to be revealed on turn one of the game. The attacker then takes a week to prepare a list and decide on his deployment zone maintaining some distance from the defenders as you see fit, and where to place one additional objective.

There, now weve made it an official Proposed rule thread!

This sounds awesome. I am going to try it sometime.

6th edition is an acceptable set of rules. Comparing them to other games is pretty silly, since GW exists to profit and produce models. If you are playing 40k for the gameplay and not the fluff or modeling, then yes you're going to be disappointed. The game is not "real" enough for some. That's fine. It's created to be a casual game played with friends where the rules are fluid and people have a good time. If you can't muster a casual gaming group that agrees to these stipulations, it will be difficult for you to enjoy any war game. If you enjoy something else, feel free to play it, but everyone still playing 6th are not lost sheep looking for guidance. Many, many people enjoy the comradery of a rousing game of shenanigans.

I will continue playing 6th edition and buying my models from eBay to avoid price spikes. I genuinely hope you enjoy whatever 15mm thing you're talking about.

Hi hubbsey.
You say 6th ed is an 'acceptable' set of rules.(By what definition do you use the term acceptable?)
Then saying comparing these rules to other rules is pointless, as they are not written for game play but short term sale of the latest minature releases?

Where as other rule sets that ARE written for game play attract more long term gamers who generate more interest and grow the game system long term ..

And then go on to say that the MAIN FUNCTION of a rule set, to deliver quality game play , does NOT apply somehow to 40k.

Lots of games are 'not real' eg based on reality, but flights of fantasy and science fiction.But they still manage to be written with clarity brevity and elegance.

6th ed rules ARE NOT FLUID , they are over complicated and diffuse.(Comparitively )

IF you and you mates are prepared to ignore the issues and put the work in to enjoy 40k, or lower your expectation to suit , that is absolutely fine.Enjoy the game your way.

But please do not say people pointing out the flaws in the rule set are wrong , simply because you choose to ignore them.

Imagine a rule set for 40k that was written for 40ks game play.A well defined intuitive elegant rule set...That MORE people could enjoy...Why would this be bad?

Everything plays the same or better, but the rules do not get in the way...Perhaps if more people played 40k, GW would NOT have to hike prices to make up for FALLING sales volumes?

Accepting 'product promotion' instead of 'actual rules development ' is only going to kill off 40k eventually.

As more and more players switch to other game systems that actualy have game development.

MOST people complaining about 40k rules WANT THEM TO IMPROVE.The others just quit and move to another game system.(As its a lot less effort.)

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

3rd edition is still the best edition

Oh certainly. Blood Angels moving 18" in a Rhino, deploying 2", shooting twice, then charging at S5 I5, killing a unit, then moving 6" into assault with another unit was clearly the best edition?

Bolters/Bolt Pistols shot once on the move in v3. If you couldn't blunt the rhino rush, you could certainly deny the charge by not deploying up to the edge of the deployment zone. Sure, rhino rush was prevalent, but so were ways of stopping it. Heck... Anything other than shaking the vehicle blunted this tactic, and if you didn't have enough firepower, remember that tactic REFUSED FLANK?

-sigh-