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.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Are we really arguing about atom-widths of being over 24" or whatever?

The point here is that you can't measure that precisely, so if a player claims a "successful" charge that would have required him to measure with atom-width level precision to be legal it's safe to assume the "success" is based on illegal movement and/or deployment.

Pretty sure theres a universal wargaming rule called "give an inch" aka, don't be a douchebag, which I believe firmly overrules micron-specific charge distances.

I'm pretty sure there's a universal wargaming rule called "claiming an extra inch is cheating".

"Give an Inch" means you allow your opponent roughly an inch of imprecise measurement over the course of a game, and don't be anal about microns and other stupid gak that adds nothing to the game.

In this case you _know_ you deployed at least 24" away from each other (in fact the rules require you to). So 'give an inch' should go the other away... always assume you're more than 24" apart.

 Dakkamite wrote:
"Give an Inch" means you allow your opponent roughly an inch of imprecise measurement over the course of a game, and don't be anal about microns and other stupid gak that adds nothing to the game.

Or I can just expect them to measure properly instead of allowing them to gain extra distance when we both know they gained extra distance. I'm not going to insist on measuring every single distance to the nearest 0.00000000000001", but if my opponent tries to claim a distance that could only be true if there was extra movement involved I'm going to tell them to push their models back to the correct distance and stop trying to cheat.

 Shandara wrote:
In this case you _know_ you deployed at least 24" away from each other (in fact the rules require you to). So 'give an inch' should go the other away... always assume you're more than 24" apart.

Sure. I'm 100% referring only to the Microns gak. I've never even mentioned assaults in the first turn before this post.

With regards to that, if we each choose to place our models exactly on the edge of our deployment zone, the "give an inch" rule would dictate that the microns be disregarded. You wanna try and get my dude within your 24" shooting range? Cool, he's now within 24" charge range. Personally, I'd give someone the millimetre on top of that, because I'm not a witch. But thats just me, others are free to play how they like.

If you'd deploy exactly on the 24" line the microns would be disregarded and you should assume you were more than 24" away.

Logically and practically that's the only solution that would conform to the rules of deployment. Any error in measurement should be in that direction, rather than giving a benefit completely opposite to the rules.

 Dakkamite wrote:
With regards to that, if we each choose to place our models exactly on the edge of our deployment zone, the "give an inch" rule would dictate that the microns be disregarded.

Except there is no "give an inch" rule. You don't get to claim extra movement/assault distance just because you don't like the fact that accurate measurement would mean that you fail.

You wanna try and get my dude within your 24" shooting range? Cool, he's now within 24" charge range.

Of course. The exact same thing would apply to shooting: if you have a weapon with 24" range you will not be in range of a model deployed in your opponent's deployment zone unless one or both models has moved closer before declaring the shot (and any claim of "successfully" measuring range would be ignored). Likewise, if you have moved forward and established that you are now within 24" a move + assault distance of 24" would be sufficient even if a model has been "accidentally" moved backwards out of range.

 Sasori wrote:
I find it more enjoyable than 5th, and I think the armies are much better balanced against each other, than they were in 5th.

That being said, it does have it's issues. Such as the large nerf to assault, the dominance of flyers early on (which is being fixed as time moves on) and a few other things.

Overall, I'd say positive experience for sure.

While some armies are balances, Necrons are not. Immortal spam and anti-all vehicles makes them boring to play against. I swapped away from my parking lot armies but I do still enjoy 'some' armor, however, with how easy it is to nuke vehicles (especially for Necrons) it seems more advantageous to just throw bodies onto the table rather than tanks. While I enjoy some aspects of 6th I hate being forced to field 'x' rather than 'y' because X is competitive and Y is absolute crap.

I wish certain aspects of chaos had been fixed. Plaguedrake and Nurgle all over again.

 Jstncloud wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I find it more enjoyable than 5th, and I think the armies are much better balanced against each other, than they were in 5th.

That being said, it does have it's issues. Such as the large nerf to assault, the dominance of flyers early on (which is being fixed as time moves on) and a few other things.

Overall, I'd say positive experience for sure.

While some armies are balances, Necrons are not. Immortal spam and anti-all vehicles makes them boring to play against. I swapped away from my parking lot armies but I do still enjoy 'some' armor, however, with how easy it is to nuke vehicles (especially for Necrons) it seems more advantageous to just throw bodies onto the table rather than tanks. While I enjoy some aspects of 6th I hate being forced to field 'x' rather than 'y' because X is competitive and Y is absolute crap.

This. Unless it's a flyer, cheap enough to be utterly expendable, or AV14 or AV13 skimmer, largely vehicles are just too easy to kill and grow rarer and rarer on tables as time goes on.

I played my first game of 6th yesterday, having last played 3rd. Huge improvement. Just everything is better than third. I don't know when or how the rules evolved, and obviously haven't encountered any of the crazy exploits/arguements that always exist, but at 1000 points the game was clean, fun, fast, and enjoyable.

I agree with peregrine. There's alot of lose cheating douchebaggery that comes along with this game.

another bad one is I notice alot of people alter the direction of scatter dice slightly to gain advantage.

I have seen fist fights over the argument being had on here. It is silly in the extreme. This is a game; not actual war. The only thing at stake here is one's pride. If you want to be out of range of a 24" range gun (as an example) then deploying back a half (or quarter, etc) an inch guarantees it. Done. If it is so close that you are arguing microns roll a D6. That simple.

I am reminded of a game I had a few years back where someone argued seriously with me that a unit could move up to 5.999999999................................. inches and fire, but not 6" exactly and fire.

Apparently common sense is not so common.

On-Topic: 6th hurt my favorite phase of the game (combat) a lot as well as hurting my favorite combat units (wyches). Regardless of that fact I still find it one of the more balanced editions I have ever played. It is fun.

40k players are probably the worst wargamers on the planet when it comes to accurately moving models.

I think it's a shame that it's no longer possible to take down supersonic aircraft with a cavalry charge. The idea of doing that is just so preposterous that I loved it being part of the game.

Guided A.A. grot missiles needs to happen. Or a gretchin doom-diver straight into the cockpit or engine. Most cost-efficient way to take out expensive enemy aircraft.

Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.

Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.

Michael J Young wrote:
Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.

Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.

MC's are too powerful?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Michael J Young wrote:
Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.

Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.

MC's are too powerful?

He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.

I think it is a huge improvement! I actually bought both the 4th and 5th edition rules, but neither of them made me want to play the game. Come sixth and all of a sudden I got myself a whole new army!

Most issues I have with 6th edition are game balance problems for competitive play. For hobby/collecting, storytelling and "friendly" games I think this edition is awesome. There is SOO much you can do with it as the rules support almost any scenario you can imagine out of the box! I haven't been this enthusiastic since I started out with RT all these years ago! If only I had the same amount of time to waste...

 Kain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Michael J Young wrote:
Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.

Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.

MC's are too powerful?

He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.

Considering that I play chaos, the only MC I have access too are greater daemons (good!) and Chaos daemon prince (bad!). It's a mix for me.

Though the DP did get good now that there is less S10 tau now.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Michael J Young wrote:
Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.

Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.

MC's are too powerful?

He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.

Considering that I play chaos, the only MC I have access too are greater daemons (good!) and Chaos daemon prince (bad!). It's a mix for me.

Though the DP did get good now that there is less S10 tau now.

Ah yes, Oldsides. "Pop goes the t5er!"

 Kain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Michael J Young wrote:
Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.

Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.

MC's are too powerful?

He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.

I cannot recall any situation in which an MC would have preferred to be a walker, under any edition, especially when it comes to combat between the two. Last editions issues with MC's wasn't with the MC rules themselves but rather most MC's being painfully overcosted following the disgusting hilarity of MC's capabilities in 4E that really were taken care of largely by the new terrain and combat consolidation rules.

I honestly remember more people whinging about Fish of Fury than my Carnifex and Hive Tyrant spam in 4e.

Fish of Fury was, along with Eldar, one of the Invinci-skimmer armies. I'd be willing to bet you likely never saw a single Chimera under 4E unless it was used as terrain

But in 4E, the consolidation into new combats and terrain rules often meant MC's never really got a chance to be shot at in many games (especially flying MC's) because they could hide behind area terrain and then hide in combat and move from combat to combat with relative ease. They resolved those in 5E but then the Tyranid book largely upped their cost as well halfway into 5E, which wasn't an issue with the core rules but with the nid book itself.

That said, I still can't think of an instance where I'd rather have Walker status than MC status in almost any edition unless my opponent has nothing but a ludicrous number of S3/4/5/poisoned shots and nothing higher

 Vaktathi wrote:
Fish of Fury was, along with Eldar, one of the Invinci-skimmer armies. I'd be willing to bet you likely never saw a single Chimera under 4E unless it was used as terrain

But in 4E, the consolidation into new combats and terrain rules often meant MC's never really got a chance to be shot at in many games (especially flying MC's) because they could hide behind area terrain and then hide in combat and move from combat to combat with relative ease. They resolved those in 5E but then the Tyranid book largely upped their cost as well halfway into 5E, which wasn't an issue with the core rules but with the nid book itself.

That said, I still can't think of an instance where I'd rather have Walker status than MC status in almost any edition unless my opponent has nothing but a ludicrous number of S3/4/5/poisoned shots and nothing higher

Venom spam dark Eldar makes my TMCs cry.

They can yeah, but I haven't seen them on a table in a while either AV10 HP2 doesn't make for very long lifespans.

I would like to see the return of area terrain rules from 4th edition.

Prescience should not be a Primaris power (it should also cost two points).
Objective counters should not be allowed to be set up in deployment zones.

Other than that I'm very happy to play sixth edition.

Like

Flyers
Wound allocation better than 5th
Overwatch
Pre-measuring
Fortifications
Hull points [think glances should take off a point of armour and only pens reduce HPs though]
Different ways to score VPs [First Blood etc.]

Dislike

Not being able to assault from non-open top vehicles or from reserve
Random charge range
Warlord traits

Really don't like

Look Out Sir! [my biggest pet hate]
Challenges [nothing wrong with the concept but there should be no penalty for refusing]
The amount of USRs which leads to lots of stop n flick
Randomness for randomness' sake - been put off collecting my Daemons army by having to roll on a table at the start of each turn

Kind of sums it up really - some improvements to 5th but a lot of backward steps as well for me. Can't say I'm having any more or less fun than I did with 5th, although the games seem to take a lot longer in 6th but with fewer draws. Seems like they were so close to coming up with something brilliant which is what I find a little frustrating. Looking forward to 7th edition...

on the whole i think the game is an improvement over 5th, its a little inconsistent in areas, and its main issues are the fact that its badly written as has been the case a lot of the time with GW books, and compounded by the fact that a lot of the army books were written for previous editions.
i guess GW can get away with it somewhat by the fact the basic mechanics are the same as they were in 3rd edition (move, shoot, assault). movement distance, weapon ranges and the basic methodology are all the same.

What sets the edition apart is the changes to vehicles, and vehicle damage (a change for the better) the addition of overwatch, and the somewhat increased randomness of certain abilities (psychic powers). im not so sure how i feel about the psychic powers being random.

I still get the feeling the game is stuch in the void between being a skirmish game, and being a true army based game. 3rd ed was all about shifting the focus of the game away from characters (who in 2nd ed dominated to a ludicrous degree) towards the units themselves, and while the game still requires you to have strong units, and the units themselves play a big part, each edition brings in more special characters, who are more powerful, it seems like they are slipping back towards herohammer 40k in increments.

I like 6th edition, but its far from a perfect system