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.

So this is a rant, if you don't like reading monotonous rants kindly ignore this post, but I felt like I had to stress some points and ask for feedback from the community - especially from others who have switched from 5th to 6th edition and how they feel about the points below; I've spent some time dabbling with 6th and got some games in, and the only thing that I really like about the new edition are the warlord traits, the various special rules concerning things on the battlefield itself (terrain, rivers, forests, ammo dumps etc.), more standard missions than 5th edition had (6 vs. 3) and the secondary battlefield objectives.

Primarily, the following things make 6th edition a real mess for me:

1) Allies. The whole unfluffy chart (Grey Knights allying with Necrons, Black Templars with Eldar...), not to mention the ridiculous combos you can field, such as Space Marine armies backed up by 9 xv-88 broadside battlesuits with high-yield missile pods and skyfire, or Imperial Guard adding an Eldar Avatar as secondary HQ to tear up the enemy in close combat and whatnot. No thanks. There are some combos that make sense, like Eldar and Tau or IG and Space Marines, but you could technically already field these in 5th edition, you merely had to take 2 Force Organization Charts. Compared to 6th, that would mean 1 more troops choice and the permission of your opponent.

2) Psychic disciplines. Fluffwise, I liked how in 5th edition each psyker had his own set of powers that made sense. Now, in addition to that psykers can specialise all across the board, and you have those cards cluttering your table. Also, the fact that you have to roll for, and receive random psychic powers doesn't sit with me. It makes the game less tactical and more luck oriented.

3) The whole "buy your own terrain and bring it to the battlefield" concept. Oh and no, not just any terrain. That godawful looking aegis defence line is selling like hotcakes now because of the new rules.

4) Flyers. In 5th edition, as fast skimmers, they were already balanced. Now they got boosted to kingdom come just because GW wants them to sell. Remember when in the Necron codex, the Night Scythe and the Ghost Ark were competing with each other, but the latter only slightly winning because of its regenerative capacity? Well it's pretty one sided now, isn't it?

5) Speaking of one-sided, the rule that irks me most is the fact that rapid-fire weapons are now completely overpowered, rendering assault weapons useless ("but you can still assault with them" *slow clap*). Now you can move 6" and fire a bolter to its full range? That makes Dire Avengers useless. It also means that as a Tau player, I can spam Firewarriors and have them either advance, effectively having a 36" threat range (akin to costlier, stationary snipers!), or retreat and keep firing, denying advancing Space Marines or Guard to even get off a single shot, while they are being mowed down in turn. In 5th edition if I ran back with Tau Warriors I could only shoot at upto 6" from where I originally stood, while now it is 24". It just breaks the game and it doesn't surprise me that too many 12 year olds with their ultramarine armies were whining that their super soldiers cant shoot their guns at the enemy's face when they moved, so Mama GW fixed it for them.

6) The new ruling on power weapons. The fact that regular power weapons now only work upto and including AP3 means Terminators got that much of a boost. Back in 5th, Eldar Banshees (and regular Grey Knights and their Death Cult Assassins) were a unit to be feared. In 6th, Banshees are cannon fodder - T3, 4+ save, costs as much as a marine, occupies an Elite slot, needs a transport to be effective - all these weaknesses were remedied in 5th in that they could jump out of a stationary transport, move, fleet, assault and tear up a terminator squad in close combat, given they get to strike first and the termies have to rely on their measly 5+ inv. save to survive. The Banshees still need 5s to wound T4 enemies though, but they usually managed to do this with their plethora of attacks. Now in 6th, their power weapons are about as effective as a bunch of guardsmen in close comat against the same terminator squad. It was already bad enough that close combat termies carrying storm shields were boosted from 4+ inv. in CC to 3+ inv. even at range when the 5th ed SM codex came out (3+ inv. in cc would have been fair), but that was a long time ago and we've accepted it. But this...this is just wrong. If an AP3 weapon would reduce a 2+ save to a 4+ or something it would be fair...but nope.

The Banshees vs. Striking Scorpions debate is also now completely one-sidedly settled. In 5th, you had to choose between 3+ armor save, +1S, +1A and infiltration ability OR striking first in CC, completely ignoring armor saves, and having fleet-of-foot (move + run + assault) as well as the Exarch fielding a S5 power weapon. And even then the Scorps were slightly better since they didn't need a transport (infiltrate) and their Exarch could carry an armor save ignoring scorpion claw, albeit it struck last. But now the banshees are completely out of the picture. Especially with the 6th edition Eldar codex not beefing them in any way and in turn, making the Striking Scorp Exarch's Scorp Claw strike at normal Initiative.

While I agree that it does make artificier armor, sempiternal weave, iridium armor and such a viable choice (nobody would take them in 5th because you could get an iron halo or other inv. save granting equipment for your commander for about the same amount of points), it still makes power weapons (incl. ICs fielding them) nigh useless, given that everyone can field termies now and not have to worry about (almost) anything, except short-ranged demolisher cannons, plasma weaponry and single shot AT-weapons to take out termies while they still get their inv. save.

7) new codices now cost almost as much as the hardcover rulebook. Sure, they are hard back and in full color but does this justify their cost? Escpecially when you are collecting multiple armies, this drives the cost of just keeping up with the game really high. Other game manufacturers actually offer army books and such at reduced cost or sometimes even free, because their marketing strategy says giving rules to players will convince them of starting new armies. At the current price rate, if I were a new player I doubt I would field more than 2 armies simply because the cost for the rules alone discourage me.

8) supplements now cost as much as the new codex and you'll need to buy both if you want to use the supplement. Thankfully, supplements are crap in that they are 10% new rules and the rest only background, special missions or artwork / army showcase.

9) the new wound allocation rules. Your special weapon guy has to make a save for getting hit and failed it? Too bad, he is dead. While I agree that this makes *not* fielding special weapons, i.e. barebones squads, a sensible choice now (literally everyone would load up on special weapons and such in 5th edition), I still think that it takes the fun out of the game when you have to constantly keep your special weapon guys in the back ranks or risk it and lose them prematurely. There are already enough variables to worry about when playing a game of 40k, do we now also need to micromanage our miniatures' position within their squad at all times???

10) random assault charge ranges....seriously? Sure, this means the average assault range is 7" now, but still...I'd hate to roll snake eyes and watch my squad not only receive the mandatory overwatch barrage, but also get shot to bits in the enemy turn's shooting phase even though I didn't charge through difficult terrain at all. Assault armies already have a tough time by being forced to take the fight to the enemy halfway across the battlefield while the defending player gets to sit back and shoot at them, but now also being denied the charge AND being the victim of (multiple) overwatch? That's too much.

11) Challenges. Oh, how I hate these. This makes taking out Independent Characters and/or Monstrous Creatures who are characters in close combat next to impossible. Back in 5th edition, if my Space Marine squad had a sergeant with powerfist, the thought of being charged by a Wraithlord wasn't so bad - he would have to munch through 9 of my marines and all the while my sergeant would be able to wound it. Granted, if I had an independent character with a powerfist, then of course I would be forced to go to base contact with the Wraithlord to be able to deliver my attacks, and the Wraithlord could choose to directly attack me instead, but usually my IC would have access to invulnerable save wargear and would also be better in CC that the sergeant. Now in 6th, because the Wraithlord is a character, it can declare a challenge to my sarge and either make him useless in CC (if he doesnt accept it) or if he accepts it, insta-kill him because the 'Lord will strike before his Powerfist is able to. And without the sarge, the Space Marine squad is useless. So really....powerfists became utterly useless against ICs now, unless your own IC with an inv. save is wielding one. This just takes the fun out of the game when you know that you won't be able to kill enemy ICs no matter how hard you try, because against ranged fire they have Lookout, Sir! and against close combat special weapons, they can issue a challenge and take your sarge out with extreme ease. Thanks for ruining the game balance, GW. It's not like it was ever cheap to buy a powerfist for a ranged infantry squad, given that its use was so situational, but it was insurance against being charged by big bad guys, now there is no point to it at all.

12) Drop Pod Assault. Granted, this was already introduced in mid to late 5th edition but now that Black Templars have FAQ'd access to it in 6th, as a BT player I can smell the ridiculous cheese half a mile away. For 35 points, guaranteeing that one of my 10 man Crusader Initiate squads will arrive as close to the enemy as possible on turn 1 itself? That's plain nasty. Especially since it means they only have to wither 1 turn of enemy fire instead of 2 (or 3 if the opponent got 1st turn!) before going into CC means Drop-pods are a MUST now in every assault oriented space marine army from 500 points all the way up to 2k or more. Granted, only half of the pods you have in your army benefit from the Drop Pod Assault, but since this is rounded up, 1 is all you need to make sure that at least one of your squads won't get hurt.

It gets even better when you drop-pod a venerable dread with a multi-melta next to the tank. That's a very good chance of getting rid of a 150+ point vehicle that would have made life hell for your guys if it could get its shots off. Once this is done, the drop-podded Dread can use its HF to fry infantry.

If the drop pods costed twice as much as they currently do, it would be fairer, but right now I don't see any point whatsoever in ever taking Rhinos for my BT army, since 6th edition doesnt allow me to assault on the same turn as I disembark, even if I didn't move the transport (back in 5th I would move out of cover 12" with the Rhino on my turn 1, then an additional 12" on turn 2 and pop smoke, and disembark and charge on turn 3. So even if the enemy went first, it would only give him 2 turns to take out the rhino (during one of which the rhino has a 50% chance to negate all incoming hits) either way making my guys more survivable than if they were footslogging.

13) All over again. And by that I mean - at the close of 5th ed, all armies had either updated 5th ed. codices, or 4th edition ones, with erratas and everything, as well as Planetstrike, Planetary Empires and Battle Missions to round off the 5th ed experience in terms of supplements. It felt complete. Done. Now that we are in 6th, you feel dissatisfied again because all armies need to get updated to 6th, not to mention that the new codices look and feel different to the old ones who had pretty similar layouts. First, there was a stream of errata that defined how many hull points vehicles of each codex etc. got and so on. Then, the actual new codices arrived (at huge costs, mind you). As a player of 6 armies (Eldar, BT, Tau, IG, GK and Necrons), it is really difficult for players like me to "keep up" with the progression of the game given that it is - at the end of the day - a hobby and not a collectible card game, but if you dont keep spending money to update your stuff, you get left out.

I wish GW would host in their stores - at least once a month or so - a game type for veterans where you could play previous editions with previous codices. Like a "5th edition veterans' night" or even a 2nd edition one if you really have retro rulebooks and such in your collection. The card game Magic the gathering does this with their vintage and legacy format, so why not 40k?

I dont like the fact that all your previous rulebooks can essentially be thrown in the bin or collect dust for all eternity once the new codices are released, and then it's the same deal all over again 4 years from now. That fancy hardcover £50.00 rulebook you just bought? Yeah, it will be useless in 4 years when the game gets updated again. And in terms of 40k gaming time, 4 years can pass quite fast. That's less than 12 games for some of us, if we manage to find time for a game every 3 months.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I wish GW would introduce a game type for veterans where you could play previous editions with previous codices.

Why do you need GW's approval to do this? If you have the books and appropriate models available there's nothing stopping you from playing a game with a previous edition of the rules.

 Sir Arun wrote:


I wish GW would introduce a game type for veterans where you could play previous editions with previous codices. Like a "5th edition veterans' night" or even a 2nd edition one if you really have retro rulebooks and such in your collection. The card game Magic the gathering does this with their vintage and legacy format, so why not 40k?

They don't need to, though. You can do that all on your own! Grab a couple of friends who feel the same way, set up the board, and go nuts. The thing to remember is that it's a game - and as such, it's only subject to the rules that you and the people you are playing with agree to. GW supplies the framework, but the rest is what you make of it.

EDIT: I like to think I type pretty quickly, but apparently I can't compete with something that dives over 200 miles an hour...

"That godawful looking aegis defence line is selling like hotcakes now because of the new rules. "

I for one like that ADL. aesthetics wise.

If its there event, its there event.

Nothing is stoping you from playing a pickup game at there store with an older rule set other than the mananger.
Im fairly certain corporate couldn't care less. (have you asked them?)

I meant an event hosted at their store so you can meet new buddies who might also stick to an edition instead of updating every couple years.

The ADL thematically only fits to Guard and SMs. Every other army looks silly buying one for their troops at least in terms of aesthetics.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I meant an event hosted at their store so you can meet new buddies who might also stick to an edition instead of updating every couple years.

The ADL thematically only fits to Guard and SMs. Every other army looks silly buying one for their troops at least in terms of aesthetics.

So...how is that GW preventing you from doing it? Organize your own events.

As for the ADL, conversions?

Had to check the post date to see if this thread was necro'd. It's like travelling back in time.

I disagree with the OP on rapid fire weapons here. Rapid Fire weapons have been under-utilized for years because they were ineffective. They do not horn in on "assault" type weapons now that they are effective, and certainly do not make Dire Avengers useless, the RF gun is only getting one shot at over 12" ever versus the 2 shots of the Catapult (not to mention with Battle Focus you can typically match total range).

 Sir Arun wrote:
I meant an event hosted at their store so you can meet new buddies who might also stick to an edition instead of updating every couple years.

Honestly, why would you want to play in a GW store? Aren't there any good independent stores in your area?

And GW is never going to host that kind of event because GW stores are about selling you models and nothing more. If an "event" isn't directly leading to you buying something they're not interested, and an event with old OOP rulebooks is obviously not making them any new sales. If you want that kind of fun event you need to find a good independent store or organize a non-store gaming club.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I wish GW would introduce a game type for veterans where you could play previous editions with previous codices.

Why do you need GW's approval to do this? If you have the books and appropriate models available there's nothing stopping you from playing a game with a previous edition of the rules.

I had to kinda stop at that one too, lol.


As far as the gripes, I agree with some of them.

Flyers don't belong in 40K. The scale is too small. Right now, flyers "zoom" around the battlefield at ridiculously slow speeds, and yet still are arbitrarily nigh-impossible to hit for most units. There was a game for flyers. It was called Epic. Flyer rules are horribly done, but I get why they were added in... $$$

Allies were poorly executed. It isn't like Allies are a new thing in 40K. They're just bringing them back. And I like the theory because we used allies back in the day just fine. The execution has been... poor, and it allows for some pretty ridiculous combos, both fluff-wise, and WAAC-wise.

Challenges. Challenges are stupid. There is no argument with this.


Some aren't issues with the new rules, but the game system itself.

Power weapons, for example. It's not a problem with the rules for power weapons. It's a problem with the way armor saves are handled in 3+ Edition. No modifiers means AP is an all or nothing thing. The problem with Power Weapons being AP2 or better is it makes the power weapons way, way too powerful. AP3 makes the heavy armor way too powerful. Those of us who remember the old save modifiers remember back when power weapons were well balanced against armor. This is a ruleset issue, and there's no perfect way to do it.



Some of your gripes are ludicrous.

Rapid fire rules changes. Thank god for this. 40K was a joke when the guy on the battlefield with a rifle was the weakest guy out there. There was never supposed to be a huge gap between regular weapons and assault weapons, and more importantly, there shouldn't be. Having "Assault" as a trait is a minor advantage to a weapon, nothing more.

Wound allocation. It's back to where it makes sense. If your guy with the special weapon is in a vulnerable spot, he's going to die. If you're charging at the enemy and get hosed down, the guys in front are going to die first. Duh. Do you need to micromanage your mini positions? Yes. Good lord, it's a war game. And 40K is ridiculously simple. If you can't handle that, well, uh, maybe you need to play checkers.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Wound allocation. It's back to where it makes sense. If your guy with the special weapon is in a vulnerable spot, he's going to die. If you're charging at the enemy and get hosed down, the guys in front are going to die first. Duh. Do you need to micromanage your mini positions? Yes. Good lord, it's a war game. And 40K is ridiculously simple. If you can't handle that, well, uh, maybe you need to play checkers.

No, it really doesn't make any sense. Even conscripts can figure out things like "ignore the guy in terminator armor tanking all your shots and shoot the guy next to him that's aiming a lascannon at your tank". You have the absurd situation of all of your troops being expert marksmen that can always hit the one fingertip of the closest model that is poking out from behind cover instead of taking shots at the model slightly farther away that has half its body out of cover. And then of course you get the stupidity of barrage sniping, where a Basilisk is a better sniper weapon than an expert sniper with a rifle. Or of blocking LOS to all but one model in a squad with spare transports so that everyone gets to snipe the single target model out of the squad.

As for micromanaging, no, it doesn't make sense. Nitpicking the exact placement of every model would make sense in a skirmish-scale game where there are only a few models on the table and all of them are separate "characters". It doesn't make sense in a 40k-scale game where units matter and models are just parts of units, and where you have potentially hundreds of models on the table. When you have to measure precisely to see which model is 0.1" closer (and then argue about it) just so you can see which meatshield takes a wound, or obsess over whether the melta gun is in the exact perfect spot to avoid taking a wound, the system is broken.

In short, the current wound allocation system is the worst of both worlds. As a "realistic" method it's just stupid, and as an abstracted method it's tedious and overcomplicated.

Wall of text crits YOU for 50,000 damage!

Seriously, if you want to play 5th edition play 5th edition. Heck, house rule with your friends and change what you don't like.

If you want to get others to play with those rules, run a tourney and use that ruleset.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I dont like the fact that all your previous rulebooks can essentially be thrown in the bin or collect dust for all eternity once the new codices are released, and then it's the same deal all over again 4 years from now.

Tell me about it... I spent years trying to collect all the 2nd edition codex books, I was just waiting on Codex Squats for my collection to be complete. But instead we got 3rd edition. Which made all my books, all my cards and press outs from WD, My whole Squat army that I'd had to lovingly build mostly via mailorder , and a good few of my other miniatures. All obsolete.

I've only bought one codex book since then (now also obsolete of course), and that was about 50% copy and paste from my 2nd edition book. I certainly won't be making that mistake again.

I find the whole revamps a little ironic. RT was a great skirmish game, with a whole universe of room for creativity. 2nd edition really polished that into something more balanced and accessible, without loosing the RP touch. 3rd edition was an unnecessarily reckless oversimplification of the original game, which I believe failed to address almost all of what really needed fixing. Since then they seem to be slowly adding back all the stuff they cut from 2nd ed. Things like Overwatch and now Psychic cards. I wish they would do more. The old save modifiers and damage dice made much more sense, and had a much better armour/weapon balance gradient for shooting and CC. The AP system isn't as good, and when you throw in stuff like rending, instant death, eternal warrior, etc... and having a whole different system for CC, It probably ends up being more complicated.

I agree with the flyers one and the challenges nonsense. The rest I think is just a progression of complexity in the rules and the specific abstractions used to represent damaged caused during the conflict.

Personally I think the randomness associated with psychic powers does lead to a more tactical experience as you have to be able to work your force in different ways depending on the precise buffs gained on psykers. This compared to the strategic challenge from the previous edition when choosing powers was a fundamental part of list building. Additionally psyker buffs are only a small part of the game (except for Eldar I guess, but my understanding was that they do it a bit differently anyway).

 pretre wrote:
Had to check the post date to see if this thread was necro'd. It's like travelling back in time.

*checks his back yard for the Delorean* "Nope, still there."

Yeah, this seems like an odd rant what... a year and a half in? I did the same double-take on the OP date.

I always hear people screaming to go back and play old editions, but then I'm told that the older editions weren't even that great. I started in 5th edition, and quit when 6th dropped, I suppose I missed the good editions. Nothing stopping you from playing an older edition.

As for all the other stuff, that's pretty standard anger. But Flyers was the #1 on my list for why I quit playing. Now they aren't quite so bad, but early 6th? Get out of here.

In a world of space heroism, i think challenges work well.
its not really that complex, and you can make great stories out of it. lol my scout Sergent managed to punch a DP to death yada yada.

Flyers though i agree.

as well random psychic powers.

Since everyone is complaining. My one complaint in this game is the over abundance of high LD all around. as well ATSKNF and fearless and stuff.

It makes great ideas like pinning worthless. and psychic powers almost guaranteed.

I can't really agree with much of your hate. I've played 4th, 5th, and now 6th Edition and find 6th to be the best of the lot. Is it perfect, no, but I think its the best I've seen.

Yes, the allies matrix is poorly written, but allies are a great idea. I wish most of the Battler Brothers besides some of the core Imperium books and Supplements were Allies of Convenience instead, it'd fix alot.

Terrain choice is good, but GW needs to be better about spelling out how much LOS blocking terrain is critical for good games.

Flyers were a huge mechanic change, and IMO not the best implementation but as the edition moves and grows it seems to be coming into it own and Flyers are less king than they were.

Old Rapid Fire rules sucked, seriously.

Blanket ignore cover on Powerweapons was just bad. I'm not a fan of the AP system in general, but I see this as a relative improvement for CC.

Everyone hates the cost of the books.

Wound allocation is good, much more tactical. I agree, challenges aren't great, but I've seen much much worse.

40k is ever evolving and changing, that is a good thing for the game. Of course, much of that is driving by sales and profit, but hey, its the beast we've got and for the first time I've ever seen we are going to have every army updated in a single edition, with supplements. IMO, that is pretty impressive and a huge improvement over the past. I'd prefer refinement and balancing before moving on in editions with reprints or extensive erratas, but that is too much to ask for.

If you only play one game every three months, maybe this isn't the game for you. And you can alwasy play an older edition with your friends, or house rule things as you please.

 Flinty wrote:
I agree with the flyers one and the challenges nonsense. The rest I think is just a progression of complexity in the rules and the specific abstractions used to represent damaged caused during the conflict.

Personally I think the randomness associated with psychic powers does lead to a more tactical experience as you have to be able to work your force in different ways depending on the precise buffs gained on psykers. This compared to the strategic challenge from the previous edition when choosing powers was a fundamental part of list building. Additionally psyker buffs are only a small part of the game (except for Eldar I guess, but my understanding was that they do it a bit differently anyway).

The only problems with the current randomly generated psychic powers are:
1. GW wussed out and half-arsed the whole thing... Just bring back the Psychic Phase please.

2. Divination is God-tier because only SW's can reliably stop Blessings. Hence why GW should have just brought back a full-on phase for casting/dispelling powers.
Conversely, Pyromancy is so laughably worthless it isn't even funny anymore, while Biomancy spam on MC's is again reaching into OTT levels of way too good.

3. Power generation should work like Spell generation in Fantasy. (ie: no doubling-up on non-Primaris powers unless you have rule like Loremaster which gives you knowledge of the entire spell lore, or else your model/unit has a set spell/s list)
Good-bye to the above problems of facing 3-4+ MC's all toting Ironarm, or multiple Tzheralds throwing 4+ invulns everywhere, or half a Slaanesh army gaining Invisibility, etc...

6th is the least gak edition since the mistake that was 3rd came out. I can only hope that 7th will be even less gak when it comes out.

My main gripe with sixth is how needlessly complicated the rules are. The book basically lists a ton of rules and then the exceptions to that rule. Then the codices tell you further exceptions to the rule and how to override other exceptions. On top of that, you have to memorize in which case an exception is valid and if there is an exception to that.

For example, the save system. You get your basic save but there are weapons that deny you it. Fair enough, not all armor is equal. But not so fast! There is the cover save which kinda makes sense since walls can save you. Though how a concrete wall will save you from a shot that went through termie armor is anyones guess. Okay, so you have the wall of safety but there are guns thatll wreck your wall and ignore cover. Which weapons do that is sort of strange. On top of that, these guns can somehow shoot better at night since night fighting provides a cover save. But not so fast! You can only shoot out to 36 inches. Okay. Well if your armor wont save you and the wall wont then your shields will! And nothing can stop that! However, if your shields dont work you can always just pretend you didnt feel it. But no so fast! Weapons that are strong enough will make you realize that hurt. Why that wasnt obvious before is a question best left unanswered.

And then you get to apocalypse.

 Zagman wrote:
I can't really agree with much of your hate. I've played 4th, 5th, and now 6th Edition and find 6th to be the best of the lot. Is it perfect, no, but I think its the best I've seen.

Yes, the allies matrix is poorly written, but allies are a great idea. I wish most of the Battler Brothers besides some of the core Imperium books and Supplements were Allies of Convenience instead, it'd fix alot.

Terrain choice is good, but GW needs to be better about spelling out how much LOS blocking terrain is critical for good games.

Flyers were a huge mechanic change, and IMO not the best implementation but as the edition moves and grows it seems to be coming into it own and Flyers are less king than they were.

Old Rapid Fire rules sucked, seriously.

Blanket ignore cover on Powerweapons was just bad. I'm not a fan of the AP system in general, but I see this as a relative improvement for CC.

Everyone hates the cost of the books.

Wound allocation is good, much more tactical. I agree, challenges aren't great, but I've seen much much worse.

40k is ever evolving and changing, that is a good thing for the game. Of course, much of that is driving by sales and profit, but hey, its the beast we've got and for the first time I've ever seen we are going to have every army updated in a single edition, with supplements. IMO, that is pretty impressive and a huge improvement over the past. I'd prefer refinement and balancing before moving on in editions with reprints or extensive erratas, but that is too much to ask for.

If you only play one game every three months, maybe this isn't the game for you. And you can alwasy play an older edition with your friends, or house rule things as you please.

This guy pretty much summed it up for me. The only thing I would add in are random charge ranges are stupid. Give a set amount and be done with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
My main gripe with sixth is how needlessly complicated the rules are. The book basically lists a ton of rules and then the exceptions to that rule. Then the codices tell you further exceptions to the rule and how to override other exceptions. On top of that, you have to memorize in which case an exception is valid and if there is an exception to that.

For example, the save system. You get your basic save but there are weapons that deny you it. Fair enough, not all armor is equal. But not so fast! There is the cover save which kinda makes sense since walls can save you. Though how a concrete wall will save you from a shot that went through termie armor is anyones guess. Okay, so you have the wall of safety but there are guns thatll wreck your wall and ignore cover. Which weapons do that is sort of strange. On top of that, these guns can somehow shoot better at night since night fighting provides a cover save. But not so fast! You can only shoot out to 36 inches. Okay. Well if your armor wont save you and the wall wont then your shields will! And nothing can stop that! However, if your shields dont work you can always just pretend you didnt feel it. But no so fast! Weapons that are strong enough will make you realize that hurt. Why that wasnt obvious before is a question best left unanswered.

And then you get to apocalypse.

and that is just 1 mechanic of this lovely game!

If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

Yet further complicating a game that some people complain is already too complicated....

Let's be honest, not everyone will like anything GW does.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

I wish we could do away with the AP mechanic in favor of a Save modifier mechanic.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Then take Invulnerable Saves after armor.

 Zagman wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If 7th edition returns to 2nd edition save modifiers, I will happily cheer. I miss those modifiers so...

I wish we could do away with the AP mechanic in favor of a Save modifier mechanic.

AP1 could be save -5
AP2 could be save -4
AP3 could be save -3
AP4 could be save -2
AP5 could be save -1
AP6/- would be save -0

Then take Invulnerable Saves after armor.

I'm sure that would not cause any more complaints about the game at all.

Oh wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not against the idea, but I just know we'd hear so much complaining it's not funny.

Plus Stormshields would need to be more than double their cost then.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
My main gripe with sixth is how needlessly complicated the rules are. The book basically lists a ton of rules and then the exceptions to that rule. Then the codices tell you further exceptions to the rule and how to override other exceptions. On top of that, you have to memorize in which case an exception is valid and if there is an exception to that.

For example, the save system. You get your basic save but there are weapons that deny you it. Fair enough, not all armor is equal. But not so fast! There is the cover save which kinda makes sense since walls can save you. Though how a concrete wall will save you from a shot that went through termie armor is anyones guess. Okay, so you have the wall of safety but there are guns thatll wreck your wall and ignore cover. Which weapons do that is sort of strange. On top of that, these guns can somehow shoot better at night since night fighting provides a cover save. But not so fast! You can only shoot out to 36 inches. Okay. Well if your armor wont save you and the wall wont then your shields will! And nothing can stop that! However, if your shields dont work you can always just pretend you didnt feel it. But no so fast! Weapons that are strong enough will make you realize that hurt. Why that wasnt obvious before is a question best left unanswered.

And then you get to apocalypse.

I feel that most of that is really a symptom of the mechanics being oversimplified. On the face of it the shooting rules are easier than they were in 2nd ed. They got rid of to hit modifiers, armor modifiers, damage, sustained fire dice etc... because all that stuff was complicated. But unfortunately a lot of it was kind of necessary to accurately describe weapons, and how something like an Assault cannon differs from a lascannon. So they have to add in extra rules and exceptions to make it work again. Which I think actually made the game more complicated, because before the rules were complicated, but they were largely consistent and intuitive, now they seem to inconsistent and messy.

Second edition was consistent and intuitive? Yikes.

 pretre wrote:
Second edition was consistent and intuitive? Yikes.

Well 3rd was an unorganized mess that was rushed out the door to try and make 40k "tournament compatible". We can still see the ramifications of that mess, so in a way it might have been somewhat?

Because practically everything had at least a -1 armour save in 2nd edition, to all intents and purposes Marines had a 4+ or worse save. They were also twice the points they are now leading to them generally being outnumbered 3 to 1, unlike the current 1.5 to 1.

Generally 2nd edition consisted of buying as many mooks with guns as possible, and shooting the enemy to death before they got close. Guardians with shuriken catapults (S4, -2 save, 1 sustained fire dice (0-3 shots) 24 inch range) were brutal.

The AP system as it stands now is roughly akin to how modern body armour actually works, either the armour is rated to stop the bullet, in which case you get a save, or it goes straight through, in which case you don't. The armour modification system in fantasy, where strength modifies your save, is probably a fair representation of how a blunt instrument affects armour made of steel plate or steel rings.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Second edition was consistent and intuitive? Yikes.

Well 3rd was an unorganized mess that was rushed out the door to try and make 40k "tournament compatible". We can still see the ramifications of that mess, so in a way it might have been somewhat?

I think this is remembering things a bit rosily.

3rd was rough at the start but was good towards the end. But 2nd being all 'consistent and intuitive' not so much. A better skirmish game than 3rd? Sure.

3rd and 2nd really aren't comparable. They are different games entirely. IMO, 40k had 'the skirmish years' Pre-3rd and 'the wargame years' post-3rd.