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.

@Lanrak: Must be a 'by degrees' thing. Your not satisfied at the degree it's at now and I do. Some like it hot, some like it cold! I guess there are some places a little spit shine from GW would be appreciated, it's not like if they released 'em I wouldn't use 'em y'know? There's a point to how much you can really solidify rules though, MtG for instance is clarified and expanded in some way with each expansion, four expansions a year. Which often requires errattas and official rulings be ammended to their 10,000+ cards on Gatherer.com Like, somewhat recently 'put into play' became 'put onto the battlefield', and there has been some messing around with 'leaves the battlefield' or when something just 'dies' which is now essentially keyword for 'put into the/a graveyard'. And Magic is like 15+ years old and still trying to work some minor things out? I mean how picky should/can we get with a game company? Though I understand your point and believe at some level we are in full agreement.

Well unlike Magic, GW gets the chance to completely re-do everything without being cluttered with 15 year old cards with old wordings that need to be Errata'ed.

 Shandara wrote:
Well unlike Magic, GW gets the chance to completely re-do everything without being cluttered with 15 year old cards with old wordings that need to be Errata'ed.

Exactly. Every new edition, a new rule set is made, and new codices [supposedly designed to work with that edition, and in later codices, be compatible with the next] that rewrite the army to work properly.
As much as I hate to admit it, Matt Ward was good at one thing: Making armies work in the current/next edition of 40k. While he is the chief cheese monkey, and kingpin of all unbalancers, I've seen surprisingly few problems getting his stuff to work in 6th ed (Where difficulties arise, it's usually a problem in the rulebook, or with another codex).

Well even though I said they get the chance, they don't really do it.

They still insist on giving simple rules and then section upon section of exceptions to those rules to cover vehicles, flyers, etc..

I'm no game designer but I would collate all those into a single section for movement, e.g. 'This is how units move, with these types using these rules', shooting, assault, etc..

Instead of duplicating a lot across sections/sub-sections/sub-sub-sections to deal with the change of Infantry into Vehicles into Flyers.

Each new edition gives them the chance to clean up the rules.

 Shandara wrote:
Well even though I said they get the chance, they don't really do it.

They still insist on giving simple rules and then section upon section of exceptions to those rules to cover vehicles, flyers, etc..

I'm no game designer but I would collate all those into a single section for movement, e.g. 'This is how units move, with these types using these rules', shooting, assault, etc..

Instead of duplicating a lot across sections/sub-sections/sub-sub-sections to deal with the change of Infantry into Vehicles into Flyers.

Each new edition gives them the chance to clean up the rules.

Yeah, I'm on your side of the argument, but in my self-rage at admitting matt ward was capable of something, I forgot to add the "They do a poor job" part to my post.

EDIT: added this bit:

You'd think that by 6 editions in, they'd know how to write a rulebook...

Exactly right!? Six editions in and still goofing the core a smidgen? But each new edition is just a mutation off the last isn't it? Magic hasn't had to rewrite the core. I'm not sure how deep we want to get into a cross-comparison to Magic, but for what we've already talked about, I want to clarify some things. Wizards of the Coast along with the DCI are extremely good about keeping the Oracle text up to date. All rules errata to previous cards that need to be made due to a change or new expansion are posted, IIRC, the week before or week of the change or release. On all 10k+ cards. On extremely rare occasions a clarification by judges ruling may need to be added, but only rarely. And the Oracle text is easily brought up on a phone through Gatherer.com. And I'd say 99.95% of the time these things are rarely even relevant or worth noticing because the original cards wording is still clear enough and hasn't suffered any functional change (e.g. a change in cost, power, toughness, abilities, type, etc). Any changes or updates are to clarify previous wording by installing the new wording so that (as Lanrak would like) their is a consistent terminology/language/whatever. And I wouldn't use the word 'cluttered'. Due to the format divisions (Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, maybe one more) every single card is divided into place(s) where it can stay out of the way where wanted/needed and purposely not clutter the games environment. If you'd like I could go find an example of what a few changes might be.

But over here we got GW! Now none of this is meant as criticism, this is very important for you to understand, but...Wouldn't it be great if we could still use like a 1st ed Codex that had just been reprinted every year with constantly evolving, proportionally expanding rules, all changes to which were posted for free online? (that might not be clear for what I'm envisioning) And if all our FAQs and needed erratas were just posted once at release of a new edition and done with? What if it all just had been polished for the past 5 editions, instead of being rewritten over and over? But then the greater questions to the questions: Would that be good for 40k's casual, sandbox feel? Would they have been able to stay in business with out making us buy new rules entirely? Sub-question: If they had spent this time refining rules instead, would the game have a stronger/larger following? I don't know the answer to any of these. I DO know I like my little toy soldiers in the sandbox that we do have. Like I said before, I don't really want them changed, but wouldn't care either if they did.

Personal observation: It seems to me that somewhere in games there are these strange borders of evolution on one side, and change on the other. I could for instance point to DnD and say that Original evolved into Advanced, changed into 3rd ed, which evolved into 3.5, then changed into Fourth while also evolving into Pathfinder. Axis and Allies evolves over time, while also changing into alternate games and even game types. Warhammer and 40k constantly change but rarely evolve. None of this is inherently good or bad mind you. Hmmm, maybe that's just me in my own words.

Edit: We should be expecting another epic post by Focusedfire soon too shouldn't we?

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Edit: We should be expecting another epic post by Focusedfire soon too shouldn't we?

i can't wait for all of us to proven WRONG, and to be reminded that everything originally stated in the OP is objectively RIGHT.

*waits with baited breath*

 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.

Never a truer word spoken. I've found 40K (and GW in general) to be getting a bit stale recently and 6th edition just feels like the last edition with a load of house rules dumped on the top to add "depth". I've taken the bits I like and adapt the game to scenarios that I can write and play out at the local club. Far better than the line up here and there, go at it style of play.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote: I've found 40K (and GW in general) to be getting a bit stale recently and 6th edition just feels like the last edition with a load of house rules dumped on the top to add "depth". I've taken the bits I like and adapt the game to scenarios that I can write and play out at the local club. Far better than the line up here and there, go at it style of play.

I agree with this to some degree, though the pick and choose what you want and then playing out at the local club doesn't work so well in many parts of the USA. The reason why has to do with both geographical and cultural issues.
In many areas of the US, you have to drive distances, most britts would find astounding, in order to meet up with others that are into 40K.

As to cultural, lets just say that he US doesn't do small gaming groups very well. Imo, the gameplay in small groups eventually becomes very stale. You get to know one another to well and everything gets too predictable. I guess that I'm old school. That I prefer my randomness to come from my opponent rather than clumsy game mechanics that makes the entire game pointless.

PS-
I do envy you Britts and Europeans in general as to how easy it is to get to a game store and the number of fellow gamers available..

Let's be honest here. 40K has become a lot like WoW. GW feels that the way to expand the game is to increase the player base by making it easier for noobs to be successful playing the game. Since the old player base is already saturated it's time to increase sales with a game system that depends more on luck than skill. Thus all the random BS. Hence, anyone can win with the right rock-paper-scissor combo, but even the best players will lose because of it. It makes the game more generalized but less appealing if you ask me, but it's been an on-going trend for some time. Pity.

The problem is GW can not decide what damoghraphic they are targeting...

Most other companies produce rules focused on game play , to allow players to grow with the system.(Like chess.)
And /or price their products to compete for buisness in the open market.

GW price their products so high it acts as a barrier to new players wanting to start.
And the 'dumb down the game play' with so much randomness it deters some veteran players.

And then GW wonder why sales volumes are falling....

I have lost a lot of my interest in 40K. I started in 4th edition and as I learned the game and discovered weird, unbalancing things in the game, I would often here "yes that is overpowered or unbalanced, but you should have seen 'X' in last edition - GW is getting better with 40K each edition". So 5th edition rolled around and the same feelings. Yes GW fixed some issues but usually created as many or more. 6th edition comes along and IMO things have gotten worse for balance and what I enjoy in a game.

Flyers: I also felt that flyers (meaning using models on the table) don't fit the scale of the game and board size you need to play (and games in our area when I started were normally around 1750, then 1850 in 5th and 2000 in 6th - everyone wants to use all the toys). Since GW decided to include flyers it would be nice to have made an attempt to balance them in the game. The way it is going, maybe there will be a semblance of balance with flyers for 6th when 7th edition starts - I doubt it. It is the clumsy way GW has introduced flyers that is the issue - no attempt at balance between armies.

Balance: tight rules with decent internal and external balance between dexes is good for both tournament and casual players. There are no rules from stopping players from doing whatever they want. If you and you mates think necrons and GK should be best buds and fight together - who cares. It is another thing to add it into the game as a standard rule. The Allies matrix just makes a bad situation worse, IMO. Rather than put out a decent errata on each army with 6th edition to correct serious issues in any dex and with changing to a new game edition, GW just tossed in the Allies rules that, yes have some obvious fluffy aspects for some, but are filled with exploitable things for others (which are regularly exploited making many lists/units unplayable even in many casual games).

Randomness: Yes it is a dice game and so there are many random elements. That doesn't mean trying to make almost everything random when it doesn't need to be. Rolling for warlord traits seems silly to me as others have said. Commander X, are best leader in coordinating reserves and getting them to the battle at the right place and time at great advantage, will be sent in to lead the battle with no reserves (not that we don't have reserves in our army - we just decided not to use his 'great advantage' and give him reserves for the heck of it). I guess new dexes give certain characters warlord traits already - good. Is it so hard to errata each army and give them traits to that are applicable to their armies?

Yes GW needs to make money as it is a business and has shareholders. However, their business practices, which I find are detrimental to making a good game and to the customer, have been constantly pushing me away from 40K.

Off-Topic

ArbitorIan wrote:
There is nothing on this forum that riles me more than people starting their comments with 'Wrong'. Later in the same post you criticise another poster for not stating 'In My Opinion' at the start, yet apparently your opinions are objective statements? Corma states that he enjoys 6th and feels that it's a great return to theme - how can he be 'Wrong'?

Noted, it is a pet peeve of yours. So much so that you will jump in to defend one who was being offensive.

KnuckleWolf wrote:Before we begin there is something I must do. *ahem* In my oppinion. OK! Were good now. Read on.


I read the same words you did from Comradepanda and I don't know where you got lost. Nothing about what the dude said sounded condescending, arrogant, 'baby talk', indicative of being a TFG, or rude. Though he walked that line like it was a tight rope.

When I first read his post there wasn't much of a problem. It wasn't until the end that he said something that cast the rest of his post in a much more negative tone.

I do agrre that he walked the tight rope for a bit, but he went over with the following:

comradepanda wrote:
I conclude with; you think their is no tactics, it is all list. Perhaps for the dumb player that is what it is at. But a war game isnt like magic where you find a nice combo and call it a tactic. A war game is where you find a nice way to combo units across the board with moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit.

I highlighted the part that crossed the line. You read that line and then go back and re-read his whole post and there is definitely a condescending and insulting tone.

ArbitorIan wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Edit: We should be expecting another epic post by Focusedfire soon too shouldn't we?

i can't wait for all of us to proven WRONG, and to be reminded that everything originally stated in the OP is objectively RIGHT.

*waits with baited breath*

Funny, I feel that it has been the opposite. I stated that I had problems with 6th ed that were driving me away from the game and listed the reasons. Then others start telling me that I'm WRONG to quit this editions for those reasons. Go figure.

Also, what's up dude? We've never had an issue before yet now you seem to be in this thread primarily to take shots at me. Would rather that people discuss the issues with this edition and could be done to correct said issues.


ON TOPIC:

Another concern of mine is what does this edition mean in relation to future editions.

I mean, We have had:

Squad Hammer
Hero-Hammer
Infantry Hammer
Tank Hammer
and now
Flier Hammer

Where does GW go with 40k from here?

Titan-Hammer? Where Titans are the new must have.

Space Hammer? Where Space/Landing craft like the Manta are the new Black?



Seriously, Their business model of more units and larger units has a tipping point. I feel that it was reached in 5th ed, others disagree.

Point is though that 40K is quickly approaching a point where either players will have no room to play at the current scale or GW will have to implement "Reserve Hammer" where the players can only start with x points on the board and can only bring in x points of reserves in a turn.
The only other option would be to reboot the whole system and I don't think anyone would want to see GW corporates version of a reboot.

Later

*opens closet, finds dusty old thread with shiny new post* Oh, hey, we're still doing this thing? Cool.

Hey FF! Wassup!? I was just razzing you man. Wondered where you ran off to is all.

I dunno. A reboot can take many shapes. If they got some GOOD designerS( yes plural) on the game design team, who knows. I would subcontract the rule writing out if I were them. I was wondering about that myself in our long recess. Now no one ever really likes my ideas but I was thinking something like this:

They release a "Core" rule book that is simple as dirt. Just move/shoot/assault, terrain, stats. Not these BRBs, that can be extra. Simultaneous with that release is a super balanced string of codexes for each army that ONLY contain Characters, a generic HQ, a basic troop, and then three other units of whatever type. All the rules for other models will be available on the website but are noted to not have much balancing work done. Only these 'Mini' codexes will be tourney legal as they have been fine tuned for balance. Every four months, they slide one more unit into each codex, this will allow them to evolve a campaign over the course of a few releases. Then much like magic, every year, after youv'e run through a full campaign series of expansions you take the core codex list and tweak it a little to start the next campaign by changing the original codex line up. I should say before I go that its 4am where I am so this might not be as clear or concise or whatever an explanation as I want it to be. It was just a though anyway

Night!

having played a few games of 6th in not overly impressed Flyers as you say are very overpowered and the game just doesn't flow anymore recently ive been getting into the knight models Arkham city game Tonnes of fun the game is urban so theres plenty of LoS blocking terrain having the scale of the game is small and fast with each side having few models the action is fast paced and the best bit the rules are free the models are gorgeous and of course its Batman :-)

@Knucklewolf. I like the direction of your idea but it has a flaw that would need to be addressed.

The flaw has to do with such a short release and turn -over rate. Many players would not be able to purchase, build, paint and play their models in your trimester to annual cycle.


I do agree about releasing a stream-lined & coherent core rule set . Though I think that they should do the whole rule book like the mini books in the battle boxes and then offer the big fancy one for the collectors.

Imo, a lot of the over complication in the rules is from trying to add onto an existing rule set that has gone through many revisions. This is why I feel a from the ground up reboot is necessary.

The problem with doing such a reboot is GW Corporates' past behavior. It just doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to handle such a project. Now note that I specifically said GW Corporate . I feel that they have the personnel to do this, just not the culture to do so.


Later

Honestly the only real issue i have with 6th is flyers. not so much the units themselves but the lack of updates for every race with flyers of their own AND ways to deal with them(skyfire upgrades n what not).

What i think they should have done is make a "flyers codex" that has aircraft and anti-aircraft for every army. I think that could solve a lot of issues people have with flyers.

Think of it this way. Is there a perfect game out there that NO ONE has any qualms with? I would love to play that game, whether it be table top or comp. GW is jsut going at a snails pace when it comes to the rules and the secrecy of GW is in itself hurting GW, not from the usual $ aspect, but by the testers. Testing a version is what irons out the kinks and with only so many testers there will be more kinks. So my only response to people complaining about fliers are...just wait till the next edition and then they will prob be no more worth than a slowed rooster.

Best balanced, game I have everplayed...



But you have to learn a new language to play it ASL-inise, the rules are huge and detailed, and cover just about everything imaginable in a ww2 tactical setting.

If 40k ever became this detailed valanced and concise..thise would be the only kinda guys playing it..



not the current demographic of GW...a little on the older side (as am I ), I do miss playing ASL though , incredible game.

40k is a nice simple game, and a excuse to play with toys and not get locked away as a wackaloon.

^ASL looks (Cue Hogans Heros cheesy german accent) Verrry interrresteengk.(/accent).

the guys in that picture look about the age of both myself and those I game with.


Honestly, 40K wouldn't have to be perfectly balanced. Just a lot better than it is now, while also recognizing that there is a percentage of there player base where spatial relations and distances matter very much. I understand that many players have never developed their spatial reasoning skills. That is no reason to make the movement portion of the game so meaningless. that you have to force in a random mechanic just in order to make movement have some interaction with the game. .


The movement portion of the game should be just as powerful as the shooting and assault phases. Not something that is usually only used tactically in the first and last turns of the game.

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

More importantly, how in the world of feth are we going to get an entire model range ported to 15mm scale?

I like 40k at its kinda "this guy's 25mm and this guy's 28mm" scaling. I really do like it that they don't feel that every man must be exactly .5" (about 13mm) because that's 1/144 scale.

40k has never tried to be a game about the game. It's always tried to be a game to give some backing to the models we buy, since its the models you play for. I cannot convert 15mm models. Why would I want to buy them if I can't make them mine?

All in all, you're talking out of your arse. I'm sorry, I know that's rude, but seriously. Who actually wants to play in 15mm? FOW can do it because it was built in 15mm. if 40k would do it, it had better be a damn new game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 focusedfire wrote:

Honestly, 40K wouldn't have to be perfectly balanced. Just a lot better than it is now, while also recognizing that there is a percentage of there player base where spatial relations and distances matter very much. I understand that many players have never developed their spatial reasoning skills. That is no reason to make the movement portion of the game so meaningless. that you have to force in a random mechanic just in order to make movement have some interaction with the game. .


The movement portion of the game should be just as powerful as the shooting and assault phases. Not something that is usually only used tactically in the first and last turns of the game.

Now, look. I was as miffed as the next guy when I realised everyone moved 6" (I really like Fantasy having characteristic movement values, I think that's a lot better a way to go.) I was also miffed when they refused to have G ranged weaponry. On the other hand, I liked the randomness of scatter. It adds something that you need to take into account. I also think the scatter dice is one of the most brilliant ideas ever, just for the record.

All that said, I'd be careful saying "never developed their spatial reasoning skills." That's a very, very edgy statement and while I'm sure you didn't mean to insinuate we're all dumb for enjoying 40k's current scale, you did just say it.

Movement is a bit unimportant, sure. Some armies never move. This just makes deployment more important.

I think you've misused tactics here, too. Tactically, movement is used every phase of the game. Strategically, the first and last turn of the game are crucial for making position or capturing objectives.

Maybe, you simply don't understand the finesse of tactical movement, rather than it simply doesn't exist? I know I have quite a few movement phase tactics that, if they weren't there, I couldn't win in the assault phase. I also know that there is a tactic to making the most of your consolidation and run moves, no matter their distance.

Hi again.
I think it is important to have a clear definition of what we mean by strategy and tactics.
As often we end up confusing them and talking at cross purpouses.

This is just a suggestion to allow the discussion to continue.(As discussing the fine points of definition and application would take 100s of pages. )

For simplicity we could define them as ;_
Strategic choices are made before the game starts..The mission objectives, deployment and units used.

And tactical choices are made in game.What units perform what actions in what order.

40k has strategic loading on movement. Eg where the units start and where the units move to to claim objectives.
But other games make it more tactical ,by limiting movement decisions to ONE phase, and making players choose what the units are going to do.

With 40k allowing movement in the moving shooting and assault phase.AND making it quite random.
The tactical choices about movement are diminished.

Other games make the players take more decisions on how units move in the 'command' or 'movement' phase for example.

What really annoys me about 40k though, is the massive over complication in the rules writing , which leads to so many WTF moments as the GW devs lose control of the rules.

40k relatively simple game play could be covered in a more straightforward way, with more appropriate core rules.
When you look at the Epic games, (Net Epic and Armageddon.)
You can help but feel 40k used the wrong choice of game mechanics when it changed from a skirmish to a battle game.

If you want more LOS-blocking terrain in your game, put more LOS-blocking terrain on your table.

LOS-blocking terrain advice there.

I first started playing 40k about 10 years ago when i was like 9 or something and ive enjoyed it ever since. Ill be the first to admit that yes some of the rules can be a bit iffy and every rule book has its problems. When it come to six edition i'd have to say i like it. The majority of the games I play now are tournaments or apoc games held at my house back home with my close friends and we play for fun!! we just have a good time playing a game we have all played and loved for quite a while. The rules suit me and friends just fine on the basis of the fact that we just don't really care to much. we just play to have an excuse to eat, drink, and hangout all day. I a rule seems stupid or broken or outright crazy we either congratulate the lucky punk who got the benefit! or we might make some simple house rules...
For example when it comes to the apoc rules. I have my complaints abut the deployment, who fights along side who, who goes first and several other strategic assets that can be taken...
To deal with this we have done two things, suck it up and just played and still had a great time! or we set up a scenario game... we use huge oddly shaped tables/ arranged tables, not just the standard 8x10 ... we draw maps and battle plans before hand to create campaigns and background to our game. and people deploy everywhere! We try to make it so that there isnt side by side fighting of two armies that just dont match... like necron and orks! We have also rid of or controlled some rules like flank march or we have given certain warlord traits to army generals based on the scenario. The APOC games we usually end up playing are fun as heck and tend to be quite bloody. For tournaments we hold, we throw alot of randomness and fun objectives into the mix. it makes for a fun and relaxed game!
So yes i know this is a discussion about playing the rules the letter like in a real tournament. And yes over the years i have seen how GW has geared its games towards buying more or bigger models, therefore more expensive. and yes there probably is some things that could be changed. Im just trying to show that you dont have to give up the game entirely and sell all your stuff... It can still be loads of fun! I personally play several different games, FOW, War of the ring, napoleonics, civil war ( black powder), fantasy and various other games that me and my friends all have a good time playing!
So take this how you will but 40k has been something me and friends have had loads of fun playing because we love the fluff, models, and hanging out!
remember its a game, have fun!
Happy Gaming !!
Tony A.

Most people still play 40k because of the artistry and background.

DESPITE the poor rules and codex books, which they pay a fortune for.(Even the GW dev team don't know how the rules are supposed to work according to Jervis. )
And then try to fix all the problems them selves!

I am a bit clueless why anyone would pay over the odds for substandard product , just so they can 'enjoy fixing it themselves!'

Lanrak wrote:
Most people still play 40k because of the artistry and background.

DESPITE the poor rules and codex books, which they pay a fortune for.(Even the GW dev team don't know how the rules are supposed to work according to Jervis. )
And then try to fix all the problems them selves!

I am a bit clueless why anyone would pay over the odds for substandard product , just so they can 'enjoy fixing it themselves!'

Funny, I've come to feel that most stick to the game because of a near religious belief that things will eventually get better and a "To big to Fail" mentality. I believe that most eventually come to know that the Game rules have massive issues and that the game is way out of scale for the models it uses. Thing is, that by the time they come realize these problems, they feel like they have "too much invested" to quit and in some instances, even complain.

Instead, these "GW faithful" hold out hope for the "Next Edition". When the edition arrives, the desire for it to be good is so bad that the player will make justifications for the new glaring issues.
Justifications like, "Wait for a few codices to be released", "The meta will eventually shift" and my favorite "Just buy a current power army until your other one gets an update". I swear that there are times that GW seems like it is a splinter faction/ branch of Sc******ogy or some other religion.

Well, the one thought I have on flyers is this, they have WAY too much armor. Flyers should be dependent on speed to protect them, and needing a 6 to hit them unless you have a skyfire weapon works well. That every flyer I can think of is at least as heavily armored as a rhino is absolutely wrong.

That being said I find it incredibly frustrating to for my flyrant to have a 1 in 3 chance of being knocked out of the sky by weapons that didn't even hurt him!

I get what you are saying ff and I agree wholeheartedly. My gaming buddies and I use 5th ed rules and codices. Though it means we don't get rules for a majority of the new models ect. But hey, I really like the models and all the fluff for the 40k universe.
GW obviously aim their game at younger gamers. This can be seen by overly simple/permissive rules.
I don't use allies, but I think there should be more restrictions both points wise and who can ally with who.
The introduction of flyers into the main game seems like a desperate attempt by gw to get mor interest in the game system. Which, might I add, is overpriced. However I will keep buying the models although another price increase will break me.

Hey, maybe the lucky shot just got him in the eye? Might be a lil easier to bring him down then lol

I think that legitimate complaints against 6th edition can fall mostly into two categories.

1) Personal taste
2) Awkward clumsy rules

As a matter of personal taste I am not keen on the flier rules, the challenge rules, random rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers.

I find the whole challenge system to be unneeded and it seems like they ported that from whfb.

Overall 6th seems to me to be more fiddly and a bit like 2nd edition, which I do not see as a great advancement. I like to play 40k and the changes from 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 all had their pros and cons but it seemed like the game was progressing. Sixth seems to me to be a bit of a step backward.

The real test of an edition is the codexes. I think the necron codex is a real problem for this edition and hope something changes in the meta to slow them down a bit. I hope for the sake of the Tau players that their codex is much better than the demon codex because that book is just terrible.

As far as a 15 mm scale game of 40k is concerned, I just do not see that as an option. It wouldnt really be 40k, how would you remove figures from the typical stand of 5 figs when there was a casualty. Sure, 15mm scale games can be great but I just dont see 40k transferring to that scale. I could see epic translated to 15mm but since there are already 6mm figs and rule sets I dont see the point in it.