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.

Lack off AA in many armies is number one my book i dis like flyers so i wish they made more AAoptions . also hp just seem to be a bit strange to me. i got in to this hobby in 5ed seems then vehicles where better and last longer

Games Workshop can only go so far to help players add some story to their games, but I think 6th Edition makes a good job of helping players out there.

Challenges might not be balanced, but I really enjoy them. even if I know I'm going to lose how can an Ork ever back down

 Psienesis wrote:
It could be called "OMG, I brought a knife to a gunfight, WHY R I LOSING?!"

Because if assault is useless then it literally means that the army with the best shooting/gunline will literally win every game.

I think Challenges are balanced.

The really lame Shas'la challenges that big bad Chaos Lord so his comrades might be able to stick a few chaos marines before they die. = Heroic

The Chaos Lord butchers the puny Shas'la and is rewarded by the gods. = Heroic

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think Challenges are balanced.

I dunno, maybe you should try playing orks sometime its a pretty brutal blow to us. I just didnt see it as a necessary or interesting addition to the game at all

See, you aren't thinking like a propa ork.

The Nob wants to crump the biggest baddy the enemies got. "Dat Puny Sargant ain't got nuffin on yur powa claw, get em boss!"

 Kain wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I have to say that I love the Codexes that came out in 6th Edition, but I think they could have handled 6th Edition a little better as a core ruleset by incorporating a smoother release system for the flyers. Being too lazy to FAQ in AA for armies was just stupid.

It's so we'll all have to buy their shiny new AA models and bits.

you're right. He should never release any new kits, ever. In fact, there are too many. Hell, vehicles are just a cynical ploy to make money off little Timmys everywhere!

I'm laughing.

Half the threads here say 6th has too much randomness, and then others are looking for random shooting distances.

Sure I even seen a post that said both

The posts about random shooting distances are more to create an absurd parallel to illustrate why random assault distance is annoying.

I am laughing that you have missed that incredibly obvious point...

 akaean wrote:
The posts about random shooting distances are more to create an absurd parallel to illustrate why random assault distance is annoying.

I am laughing that you have missed that incredibly obvious point...

Well perhaps that is because I am a former fantasy player, and see no problem with random charge distance; I actually believe it adds to the game, as suggested by several others. There are many many things on an active battlefield that could steal the impetus from a charging force, and random charge distances represent that well, as well as allowing for a more tactical game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
See, you aren't thinking like a propa ork.

The Nob wants to crump the biggest baddy the enemies got. "Dat Puny Sargant ain't got nuffin on yur powa claw, get em boss!"

True, but thats a situation where the nob would probably win. Im mostly talking about a lot of the situations you run into an MC, or another char that will crush a nob (often before he can even attack). We used to be able to rely on that hidden PK in 5th to get a few hits in every turn in order to turn the tide of combat. Now we just rely on nob bikers and manz to do it I guess..

 Billagio wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think Challenges are balanced.

I dunno, maybe you should try playing orks sometime its a pretty brutal blow to us. I just didnt see it as a necessary or interesting addition to the game at all

Yay, I miss insta-gibbing half a squad with my klaws too. But challenges also work in our favor sometimes: Nobs are fearsome enemies to face for most sergeant and even some HQ characters. I've seen lowly nobs drilling an extra set of belly bottoms on guys like Sathonix, Eldrad and the odd marine librarian

Grey Templar wrote:See, you aren't thinking like a propa ork.

That's because I'm a human playing a game, not an ork.

The Nob wants to crump the biggest baddy the enemies got. "Dat Puny Sargant ain't got nuffin on yur powa claw, get em boss!"

As others have pointed out, that's swell and all, but so do all the other orks. Instead, they're just going to watch as the one guy in the squad with a weapon that can really hurt the monster gets killed first. It's stupid.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think Challenges are balanced.

I dunno, maybe you should try playing orks sometime its a pretty brutal blow to us. I just didnt see it as a necessary or interesting addition to the game at all

Yay, I miss insta-gibbing half a squad with my klaws too. But challenges also work in our favor sometimes: Nobs are fearsome enemies to face for most sergeant and even some HQ characters. I've seen lowly nobs drilling an extra set of belly bottoms on guys like Sathonix, Eldrad and the odd marine librarian

I guess. I dunno, guys like eldrad or a marine libby arnt going to really do much to a mob of orks in CC anyways. Theyre nothing the boyz couldnt handle. The main problem is dealing with tough HQs/characters that boyz wont be too decent at killing (like 2+ saves or high T). Dont know much about Sathonix.

Defensive Fire/Overwatch is not a new idea. It's been part of other games a long time. that it was adopted isn't surprising. The concept of it is intuitive.

What Orks need is a rule that says when they run, they always run 6". The Waaaaagh could then be an ability that allows them, 1 time per game, to maximize their charge distances.

It stops round 1 charges from happening still and it gives them a sure round 2 charge, where orks should be: in melee, krumpin' stuff.

I think the allocation rules are stupid, frankly, though it looks like many people like them. The 2+ save dude stands in the front, sucking bullets, until a plasma round comes in when somebody else jumps in front? Meh to that. They didn't do anything elegant in this edition, just kind of random rules that more or less work. Overwatch kinda has an an effect, sort of, for some armies in some situations rather than being a tactical addition to the game, its just a small buff to shooting units. Hull points are Ok, I suppose, but vehicles are way too vulnerable to close combat. Flying MCs and chariot rules are kind of clunky. The random terrain rules are ludicrous, thankfully people don't usually object to not using them. Warlord traits just slow down starting your game usually.

Glad to see people tend to like it though, because at the end of the day what matters is that people are having fun playing games.

kestral wrote:
I think the allocation rules are stupid, frankly, though it looks like many people like them. The 2+ save dude stands in the front, sucking bullets, until a plasma round comes in when somebody else jumps in front? Meh to that.

Change your order of shooting then. Fire the plasma gun first. At worsst, he makes a 50% chance roll and another guys eats it. Even then, a favorable outcome is the squads special/heavy weapon is the one that jumps in front and eats it.

I play Tyranids, so I get absolutely no benefit from the new wound allocation rules. I suffer from the bad parts - my assault squads lose models from the front, and I don't gain any of the benefits - I have no squad leaders to have fun with Look Out Sir!. I still like the new wound allocation system, because I can work it in my favour. If my friends Wych squad is on the ground, I can, for example, position a squad to shoot it and kill his Hydraglove/Shardnet/etc models. With the old allocation system, he simply removed those last. Now, I get to choose when they get removed, as long as I position my units well.

The only real problem with the current wound allocation system is, as people have already said, Barrage weapons.

kestral wrote:
Hull points are Ok, I suppose, but vehicles are way too vulnerable to close combat.

Hull Points were a fantastic addition, because they fixed the key problem of vehicles - the unreliability of damage to them. You could land multiple penetrating hits on a vehicle every turn and do nothing more than stunlock it.

And frankly, vehicles should be vulnerable to assault. If you let someone get close enough to strap a melta bomb to your tank, or let someone with a powerfist get close enough to have a boxing match with it, it deserved to die.

kestral wrote:
Flying MCs and chariot rules are kind of clunky.

The Flying Monstrous Creature rules are actually more intuitive than normal Flyers. They can move like infantry, they can move like jump infantry, and they can fly, slower than aircraft, with limited mobility. FMCs fit the game far, far better than flyers. Think of Swooping as more like longer jumps aided by their wings, and gliding as shorter jumps.

kestral wrote:
The random terrain rules are ludicrous, thankfully people don't usually object to not using them. Warlord traits just slow down starting your game usually.

Yes, random terrain rules are pretty bad. Warlord traits as well. As you said though, no one uses the random terrain anyway. I fail to see how a single roll on a table at the start of the game slows down starting a game - psykers slow down the start of the game more than Warlord traits.

-Loki- wrote:

Hull Points were a fantastic addition, because they fixed the key problem of vehicles - the unreliability of damage to them. You could land multiple penetrating hits on a vehicle every turn and do nothing more than stunlock it.

You can do the same thing to anything with a save, the damage table *was* the vehicles save, except you always at least kept it from doing something or crippled it even if you didn't kill it.

Vehicles effectively were T6-10 W1 models with a 3+ save that resulted in them being crippled or mitigated in some way if they made their save.

Now it's like saying "Well, you inflicted 3 wounds on that marine, don't bother rolling the saves in case he makes them all, he just falls apart".


Vehicles in general were never the issue. Nobody had a problem with most vehicles. No, the problem was that certain Transports were auto-takes. Instead of addressing the issue where it came from, in the codex entries for those transports, GW wrecked the viability of vehicles in general.

And frankly, vehicles should be vulnerable to assault. If you let someone get close enough to strap a melta bomb to your tank, or let someone with a powerfist get close enough to have a boxing match with it, it deserved to die.

Assaults can happen quite often turn 1, routinely on turn 2, and most lists can't bubblewrap all their tanks all the time. It's not hard at all getting into CC with vehicles, especially if you have units that are something other than basic infantry.

And you don't even need a powerfist or meltabomb. More than half the armies in the game have basic troops equipped with Krak Grenades that will do the job. A tac quad, hell even a 70pt IG veteran squad, getting into any 3HP tank, regardless of how far it moved, will need notably below average rolls *not* to kill it.

I also don't understand how it's easier to hit a grav tank moving at highway speeds, or a maneuvering tracked battletank, than it is to fight something your own size, especially without any risk whatsoever to yourself unless you explode it. It's not like trying to clamp grenades to a moving battletank or zooming skimmer shouldn't entail a rather high degree of risk and large incidence of bodily harm...

Tanks in general are ridiculously, unnecessarily vulnerable to CC in 40k, they're laughably easy to kill. As a result, between these vehicle CC and HP changes, vehicles have very quickly evaporate off tables. Watching my league's games tonight, the only non-flyer vehicles I saw on any of the tables being played were Necron AV13 shielded skimmers, Land Raiders, and a couple Drop Pods.

All that I see people taking generally is the stuff that usually doesn't care about the new vehicle rules (pods, and Land Raiders that are usually killed by weapons with high likelyhoods of inflicting Explodes results more than HP's and are rear AV14) or has huge mitigation (Necron AV13 skimmers)...or they're flyers.

 -Loki- wrote:
And frankly, vehicles should be vulnerable to assault. If you let someone get close enough to strap a melta bomb to your tank, or let someone with a powerfist get close enough to have a boxing match with it, it deserved to die.

Stationary tank? Sure, melta bomb it to death. But it turns into pure stupidity when you have a tank moving at full speed (which, if you ignore 40k's ridiculous scale issues, is much faster than a person can run) only having a 33% chance of avoiding an untrained conscript with a grenade. Assaulting a moving vehicle should be much harder (maybe a 5+ for a LRBT, 6+ re-rolling successes for an Eldar tank moving flat out) and a failed to-hit roll should mean that the model automatically dies like with a failed death or glory attack.

 Vaktathi wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Hull Points were a fantastic addition, because they fixed the key problem of vehicles - the unreliability of damage to them. You could land multiple penetrating hits on a vehicle every turn and do nothing more than stunlock it.

You can do the same thing to anything with a save, the damage table *was* the vehicles save, except you always at least kept it from doing something or crippled it even if you didn't kill it.

Vehicles effectively were T6-10 W1 models with a 3+ save that resulted in them being crippled or mitigated in some way if they made their save.

Now it's like saying "Well, you inflicted 3 wounds on that marine, don't bother rolling the saves in case he makes them all, he just falls apart".


Vehicles in general were never the issue. Nobody had a problem with most vehicles. No, the problem was that certain Transports were auto-takes. Instead of addressing the issue where it came from, in the codex entries for those transports, GW wrecked the viability of vehicles in general.

I'm not saying it's a good system, merely that I find it great over the old system. I've been on the other side, watching Railgun shot after Railgun shot bounce off a Predator while my friend grimaced and I cackled with glee.

Honestly, vehicles should have just been given toughness, wounds and an armour save, with the 'vehicle' unit type limiting what kind of bubble effects can affect them (to stop medics giving them FNP or psychic powers giving them Endurace) and stopping things like Poison affecting them. That would have opened them up to small arms fire vulnerability, but T7 base for all vehicles would have kept it at 6's to wound for small arms.

Short of that system, I'll take hull points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Assaults can happen quite often turn 1

Sure, if your opponent is cheating.

 -Loki- wrote:
Sure, if your opponent is cheating.

Or just going second, and you moved forward at all.

Actually, that would be a great idea. Scrap AV in favor of T and more HP. For example, a land raider could be T10 and have 6 HP.

It would be hurtable by S7 instead of just 8+, but if you threw on more wounds, it would be fine. Plus, you couldn't ever get instantly destroyed by a single meltagun blast.

The fact that monstrous creatures are insanely better than heavier vehicles doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't mind hull points so much. I wish they just had multiplied them by 2.

IMO the solution to vehicles was to use hull points, but make all but the lightest vehicles (Sentinels, etc) have more of them. Make it so that hull points are the insurance against rolling nothing but 1s for damage and permanently shaking/stunning a tank into uselessness every turn but never actually killing it, not a primary method for killing vehicles.

-Loki- wrote:

I'm not saying it's a good system, merely that I find it great over the old system. I've been on the other side, watching Railgun shot after Railgun shot bounce off a Predator while my friend grimaced and I cackled with glee.

We've all been there, but how's that different than watching that last Marine sergeant make 12 saves in a row? Conversly, I've sat there and watched 7 of my 10 tanks explode turn 1 when equally horrid luck occurred for my side.

Honestly, vehicles should have just been given toughness, wounds and an armour save, with the 'vehicle' unit type limiting what kind of bubble effects can affect them (to stop medics giving them FNP or psychic powers giving them Endurace) and stopping things like Poison affecting them. That would have opened them up to small arms fire vulnerability, but T7 base for all vehicles would have kept it at 6's to wound for small arms.

Short of that system, I'll take hull points.

I much prefer the older system, again, the problem was largely with a couple transports more than anything else. What we've got now is essentially the worst of both AV and T systems, where the Vehicle Damage table can be largely ignored if desired (though is still present in case one gets "lucky") and just focused instead of taking off the vehicle "wounds", and of especially once a vehicle's down to its last HP then the qualitative component of AT (super high S and low AP) can be kissed goodbye as its no longer really necessary, you just need to meet that AV value, and the vehicle gets no Save really to try and respond with.

Most vehicles now feel partially like dead weight, as is, lacking saves bar whatever they can try and finagle for cover, they're just way too easy to take down, and the vehicle CC rules are laughably "gimme" for anything assaulting a tank. Generally, if its got grenades, don't bother rolling in most cases for tanks assaults as it's usually a forgeone conclusion, it's easier for a Tac Squad to kill a Flat Out moving HoloFalcon or moving Leman Russ in CC than it is to kill 2 opposing Marines in CC, and Tanks can't even overwatch.

Barring cases of very small numbers of models (like super depleted squads of like 3 guys) initiating an assault, I can count on one hand the number of vehicle assaults I've seen fail to destroy the vehicle on the first round in 6E.

This is on top of Vehicles inexplicably being the only unit type unable to even contest objectives (even if they have an embarked scoring unit), while stuff like MC's and Artillery can hold/contest.


There's a reason why ground vehicles are becoming rarer and rarer. One needs only to peruse the Army Lists section to see how few non-flyer vehicles are taken, usually those that are offer some sort of singular unduplicatable ability (e.g. S10 railguns for Tau, ordnance tanks that can hide for IG) or have major HP mitigation. Seeing tanks in Eldar armies is almost unheard of these days for instance.

Sure, if your opponent is cheating.

Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.

 Vaktathi wrote:
last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.

Players should discuss things like this before a game. When I was younger I played Tyranids alot and would often let my opponent know that I concidered measurements "at" not "in".

Sometimes I'd just give them the suggestion of deploying at least one inch away from the deployment edge just incase.

I felt it was easier to just let them know ahead of time rather than dealing with complains and judgement calls.

 Vaktathi wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

I'm not saying it's a good system, merely that I find it great over the old system. I've been on the other side, watching Railgun shot after Railgun shot bounce off a Predator while my friend grimaced and I cackled with glee.

We've all been there, but how's that different than watching that last Marine sergeant make 12 saves in a row? Conversly, I've sat there and watched 7 of my 10 tanks explode turn 1 when equally horrid luck occurred for my side.

Honestly, vehicles should have just been given toughness, wounds and an armour save, with the 'vehicle' unit type limiting what kind of bubble effects can affect them (to stop medics giving them FNP or psychic powers giving them Endurace) and stopping things like Poison affecting them. That would have opened them up to small arms fire vulnerability, but T7 base for all vehicles would have kept it at 6's to wound for small arms.

Short of that system, I'll take hull points.

I much prefer the older system, again, the problem was largely with a couple transports more than anything else. What we've got now is essentially the worst of both AV and T systems, where the Vehicle Damage table can be largely ignored if desired (though is still present in case one gets "lucky") and just focused instead of taking off the vehicle "wounds", and of especially once a vehicle's down to its last HP then the qualitative component of AT (super high S and low AP) can be kissed goodbye as its no longer really necessary, you just need to meet that AV value, and the vehicle gets no Save really to try and respond with.

Most vehicles now feel partially like dead weight, as is, lacking saves bar whatever they can try and finagle for cover, they're just way too easy to take down, and the vehicle CC rules are laughably "gimme" for anything assaulting a tank. Generally, if its got grenades, don't bother rolling in most cases for tanks assaults as it's usually a forgeone conclusion, it's easier for a Tac Squad to kill a Flat Out moving HoloFalcon or moving Leman Russ in CC than it is to kill 2 opposing Marines in CC, and Tanks can't even overwatch.

Barring cases of very small numbers of models (like super depleted squads of like 3 guys) initiating an assault, I can count on one hand the number of vehicle assaults I've seen fail to destroy the vehicle on the first round in 6E.

This is on top of Vehicles inexplicably being the only unit type unable to even contest objectives (even if they have an embarked scoring unit), while stuff like MC's and Artillery can hold/contest.


There's a reason why ground vehicles are becoming rarer and rarer. One needs only to peruse the Army Lists section to see how few non-flyer vehicles are taken, usually those that are offer some sort of singular unduplicatable ability (e.g. S10 railguns for Tau, ordnance tanks that can hide for IG) or have major HP mitigation. Seeing tanks in Eldar armies is almost unheard of these days for instance.

Sure, if your opponent is cheating.

Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.

As someone who repeatedly gets facerolled by the infamous Necron Av13 wall of doom list, mech is in no way even remotely dead.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.

That was either cheating (moving too far), or at least a major mistake. You have to deploy at least 24" away, and if you're even one atom-width over 24" you're not in charge range.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.

That was either cheating (moving too far), or at least a major mistake. You have to deploy at least 24" away, and if you're even one atom-width over 24" you're not in charge range.

I'd like to know who is getting first turn assaults off, because I've yet to see one happen. Even using the sideways vehicle trick (start a vehicle sideways, pivot, move up 6", jump out 6", assault) it'd be a hell of a thing to pull off.

On topic:

So far, I'm pretty happy with 6th Edition. I do have a couple of gripes, though. For one, the random terrain is utter trash. I've actually been in a game where one side had 9 pieces of terrain and my side had 3, and it wasn't very fun. Thankfully, I've never seen anyone (aside from that one time) actually use those rules, so all is well. As others have said here, I'm sure, I also think the Warlord traits are kinda pointless, just because so many of them are incredibly specific. I seem to always get the ones that are totally useless for my army, like my Warboss getting Furious Charge in the enemy deployment zone or my Rune Priest getting Counter-Attack in his own.

The other thing that I'm not too happy with is the changes to vehicles. I get that they were pretty powerful in 5th, what with the ability to soak up damage like crazy, but I think they were overbalanced towards the weak end in 6th. I'm not even concerned about the hull points, really, because I still tend to take out vehicles with a single penetrate that blows the thing sky-high (but I also usually shoot them with meltas, so there's that). What really bugs me is the fact that things can't assault out of vehicles that aren't assault vehicles. I mean, is running out the hatch of a Rhino that hasn't moved really so jarring that the unit inside can't charge an enemy?

I do have to say that the one thing that I'm really thrilled about with 6th is the allies rules. I love being able to take them, simply because with a lot of armies, it allows me to cover a specific weakness by bringing in a second army. My current favorite is using Tau allied with a single Warboss and a 10-man squad of Nob Bikers, a unit that I have yet to see wiped to a man. In the last game I played, the Bikers intercepted a squad of Bloodletters, a squad of some Khorne cavalry unit (No idea what they're called), and a Bloodthirster - and they came out with a whopping two casualties. I just love the ability to build stronger, more survivable lists thanks to the allies rules.

TL;DR: I love 6th!

I've been playing since 2nd edition and every version so far has had its problems.

Yet every version has in equal measure fixed problems from other editions.

IMO 6th edition 40K is the exception.

There's a few improvements: pre-measuring, overwatch and random charge range for instance (although the latter could be a little less random).
But these are overshadowed by a mass of unneeded and poorly executed "improvements" and new additions (e.g. wound allocation, psychic powers, warlord traits, hull points challenges, flyers).

Overall, I think that 6th edition tried to move into several different directions at once, a lot of new additions feeling more at home at a skirmish level game while trying to increase the scale game.
It the end it feels like a conglomeration of rules that doesn't do anything particularly well.