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.

I like 6th better than 5th overall, with the exception of the increased Psychic focus (not only the warlord traits). I think the Psychic abilities can skew against armies that don't have them or have no defences. I know they were in 5th, they just seem more powerful and prevalent now.

There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".

MarkCron wrote:

There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".

If you want a real-world wargame, go play Flames of War. 40k is about Heroic Sci-Fi, and as such, the guy with the power sword has every right to be the powerful one. As Lord Vader once said, "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Energy swords have a long and important tradition in Sci-Fi.

Let's see...

Luke defeated a huge monstrous creature with a stick (The Rancor)
Luke defeated a huge battle tank with a power sword & Meltabomb (AT-AT, in Empire)

My biggest beef in the vehicle category is assault walkers. They completely got the shaft as is. However the maulerfiend gives me hope for future codex releases. On the infantry side, the new tau seem to he the.final big nail in Tue coffin of assault armies. Still to early to tell though. What's really funny is the army with the best assault unit is one that is considered to be primarily a shooty army, that being necrons.

 Redbeard wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".

If you want a real-world wargame, go play Flames of War. 40k is about Heroic Sci-Fi, and as such, the guy with the power sword has every right to be the powerful one. As Lord Vader once said, "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Energy swords have a long and important tradition in Sci-Fi.

Let's see...

Luke defeated a huge monstrous creature with a stick (The Rancor)
Luke defeated a huge battle tank with a power sword & Meltabomb (AT-AT, in Empire)

If you read the novels in the Expanded Universe you can see those fancy sticks doing pretty freakin amazing things.

krazykishere wrote:
My biggest beef in the vehicle category is assault walkers. They completely got the shaft as is. However the maulerfiend gives me hope for future codex releases. On the infantry side, the new tau seem to he the.final big nail in Tue coffin of assault armies. Still to early to tell though. What's really funny is the army with the best assault unit is one that is considered to be primarily a shooty army, that being necrons.

I think Tau + allies is the nail in the coffin for assault-heavy armies. The most recent game I played was against Khorne Daemons, he basically took everything he could that wanted to get up close and personal as fast as possible. In the end, he managed to launch one successful assault against a Tau unit, and it was against a 9-man Fire Warrior squad. Every other unit on the board was shot down or ground into dust by Nob Bikers.

Edit: And just to clarify, the Nob Bikers intercepted three separate units from getting into close combat with the Tau over the course of the game, so they played a huge role in my victory.

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

Necrons are the army that were purposely built to sidestep or ignore much of what 6E nerfed for everyone else. Necron Mech works because everything is AV13 (as such, don't have to worry much about the multishot weapons that strip HP's from vehicles of other races and guns that can penetrate them are usually big enough that HP's don't often come into play), benefits from Jink, and their basic troop transport inexplicably warrants 4HP, on top having having some of the best methods in the game to strip HP's from opponents vehicles with Gauss weapons or generating huge numbers of S7 shots (that perform almost as well when Snapshotting, lending additional speed/durability to the army) to engage medium and light Vehicles, and they've got widespread access to flyers as dedicated transports (which also ignore the bad things about being a Flyer transport...)

So yeah, under those circumstances, Necrons are able to effectively play Mech armies very well in 6th, they do not however apply to any other army in the game unfortunately.

Peregrine wrote:

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.

They'd both pretty much deployed right up on the line as far forward as possible, the CSM player wanting to move forward as best as they could, the Necron player wanting to screen his other units.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

Or you had Scout and went second.

6th edition is fine. Anonymously whining about it on the internet is like trying to train a cat. It wastes your time and annoys the cat.

You can get first turn assault with storm boyz. Just deploy 24in away, move 12 with jumpacks, and you can move an addition d6 inches plus your 2d6 charge range.

 Redbeard wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".

If you want a real-world wargame, go play Flames of War. 40k is about Heroic Sci-Fi, and as such, the guy with the power sword has every right to be the powerful one. As Lord Vader once said, "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Energy swords have a long and important tradition in Sci-Fi.

Let's see...

Luke defeated a huge monstrous creature with a stick (The Rancor)
Luke defeated a huge battle tank with a power sword & Meltabomb (AT-AT, in Empire)

I don't have a problem with power swords, halberds, maces etc. I have a problem with dinosaurs being able to make their buddies stronger. But as you say, not real world. My point was that the increased reliance on Psychic powers in 6th compared to 5th.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
6th edition is fine. Anonymously whining about it on the internet is like trying to train a cat. It wastes your time and annoys the cat.

Sorry people decided to come to an internet discussion board dedicated to discussing tabletop games and discussing said tabletop game...and annoying the cat that purposefully chose to click on and engage in said discussion.

HP are a tricky one tbh, and I can see it from all angles.

Firstly, Lower-end AV units with few hull points are pretty shafted. The whole point of APC/ transport style units is to allow infantry units to cross the battlefield, relatively safe from small arms fire; NOT necessarily to allow them to cross the battlefield faster. The UK army uses infantry transport vehicles like the Mastiff to allow soldiers a relatively safe way to move about in a hostile zone. Current transport rules in game don't accurately reflect this. In fact, such vehicles are a liability, as they more often than not become a prime target for First Blood.

Secondly, Higher-end AV vehicles with more hull points get a pretty decent boost. To even glance a AV 14 vehicle, you need str 8, and to strip off 4 HP, you need to have a significant amount of it, not accounting for lucky rolling.

The problem lies not that Low av is weak and high av is strong, per say, but that the gap between them is very very wide. At this point, I am seeing very very little AV 10- 12 LAND vehicles getting played. That's a huge indication there is something wrong with that "group" of vehicles.

Perhaps. Light, Heavy and Superheavy need to come into the BRB as defined rules, each giving different buffs/ nerfs and making light vehicles usable again. Perhaps giving a cover save modifier, or a more pronounced speed modifier ect.

 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.

How so? At least means >/=, not >.

24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.

Additionally, on the subject of light/heavy vehicle debate, heavier vehicles generally require weapons of such high S to hurt that their AP will be 1 or 2, and as such have a much higher chance of being destroyed before they hit their HP threshold than lighter vehicles, so HP's often play less of a role, though admittedly it still requires only about 18 lascannon shots to average 4 HP's on a Land Raider and 27 to average 1 Explodes Result.

As an addendum:

It'd be one thing if vehicles had HP's to match the chance of a destroyed result, but as is so often the average number of shots required to remove all so much HP's is lower than the average number of shots required to average a single destroyed result, meaning that between the two, vehicle lifespans are reduced to half or less than what they were before.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How so? At least means >/=, not >.

24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.

Because you can't measure with perfect mathematical precision. Either you will be one atom-width under 24" (in which case the deployment is illegal), or you will be one atom-width over 24" (in which case you're too far away to assault even with perfect dice).

That is a point however beyond which normal wargaming will care about as the measurements available and care of the players usually does not extend that far. Theoretically, it's possible, most people play it roughly as such with leeway for the fact that we aren't ultra-precision laser-assisted measuring devices.

 Peregrine wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How so? At least means >/=, not >.

24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.

Because you can't measure with perfect mathematical precision. Either you will be one atom-width under 24" (in which case the deployment is illegal), or you will be one atom-width over 24" (in which case you're too far away to assault even with perfect dice).

Not to mention any ripple in the terrain causes additional movement as the movement is terrain following. Unless you play on glass or another perfectly smooth surface, you will not be in range by this factor alone. :-P


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, except for Jump/Jet/Jetbike units. >.<

 Peregrine wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How so? At least means >/=, not >.

24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.

Because you can't measure with perfect mathematical precision. Either you will be one atom-width under 24" (in which case the deployment is illegal), or you will be one atom-width over 24" (in which case you're too far away to assault even with perfect dice).

So the default is to assume that a perfectly legal move is illegal because of measurement error? I think it's fair to ask your opponent, "Is that unit deployed 'on the line'?" and treat the units, both intentionally deployed 'on the line', as being exactly 24" apart in game terms.

There is the whole separate discussion regarding long assault vehicles that permit the controller to turn it after deployment, gaining inches, moving, then disembarking 6" and charging 12" without a problem.

First turn charges can happen without breaking the game.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
So the default is to assume that a perfectly legal move is illegal because of measurement error?

No, the default is to assume that if an opponent claims a charge that is only possible if both players are able to measure with precision far beyond what is actually possible (and both players choose to do so) then the charge fails because any "success" is merely the result of moving too far in the movement phase and/or mis-measuring the assault distance.

It's no different than measuring out 30" between models at deployment and then having the opponent try to claim 12" movement + 12" charge for a successful charge. It doesn't matter how much you wave the tape measure around and claim that you successfully charged, it was impossible for you to do it legally and there's no obligation to accept the extra distance you somehow managed to get.

I think it's fair to ask your opponent, "Is that unit deployed 'on the line'?" and treat the units, both intentionally deployed 'on the line', as being exactly 24" apart in game terms.

No, it's fair to actually measure 24". Nothing in that story suggests that the two players both agreed to be exactly 24" apart, and the charged player has every right to point out that it's impossible to make that charge without breaking the rules.

There is the whole separate discussion regarding long assault vehicles that permit the controller to turn it after deployment, gaining inches, moving, then disembarking 6" and charging 12" without a problem.

Possibly, but that's not what happened here.

generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision, and the game rules tell you not to get into such sillyness.

Generally, if both units are set up on at the edge of their deployment zone directly opposite each other, 24 inches of movement+charge will make it.

That's not unreasonable, any greater level of precision quickly turns a game of plastic toy soldiers into something nobody wants to bother with.

 Vaktathi wrote:
generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision

Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision

Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).

While technically true, this level of semantic interpretation in a game involving little toy soldiers will probably not lead to happy outcomes for both parties involved.

By this criterion, not even casino dice are fair and balanced. Precise as they are, they are not machined to perfect tolerances. Do you always accuse your opponents of using biased dice?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


If you read the novels in the Expanded Universe you can see those fancy sticks doing pretty freakin amazing things.

I believe the stick he was referring to was the bone inside the Rancor's enclosure, considering Luke didn't use a light-sabre at that point (and kind of incorrect, since the "stick" merely enabled him to defeat the Rancor with the almighty door - but that's just nitpicking).


I do agree with the sentiment that 40K is a science fantasy game, and should be treated as such. It's not about realism, it's about badassing kicking other badasses in the ass with big fething weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision

Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).

Normally people would assume that if Unit A is set up at the limit of their deployment zone and unit B is set up on the opposing side at the limit of their deployment zone, they're assumed to be 24" apart, and that a 12" move and a 12" charge should get unit A into combat with Unit B.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
6th edition is fine. Anonymously whining about it on the internet is like trying to train a cat. It wastes your time and annoys the cat.

Sorry to go off topic but you do know that cats can be trained right? They can do tricks and even be trained to use a toilet.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision

Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).

You sure sound fun to play against.

 Redbeard wrote:
You sure sound fun to play against.

Yeah, it's so little fun when you actually measure distances accurately instead of letting people have extra movement distance. Because charging from 24" away usually means that someone measured generously and took an extra half inch of movement distance to get into charge range.

This thread was an excellent way to subtly cause chaos and mayhem.

8/10 to OP. Well done sir/madam

 Peregrine wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
You sure sound fun to play against.

Yeah, it's so little fun when you actually measure distances accurately instead of letting people have extra movement distance. Because charging from 24" away usually means that someone measured generously and took an extra half inch of movement distance to get into charge range.

Unless everything was measured accurately in the first place (ie deployment) and you moved up the full amounts and measured properly for distance. Or if your opponent is not an dill weed


Or if you use stormboyz.


lol dill weed....

I like sixth for the most part. There are a few annoyance's. I wish fleet still granted an initiative bonus. My orks are having a hard time of it.

I do think busting out a micrometer to measure distance is a little over the top. If somebody's that close I'm not gunna through a fit about it and just call it good.