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.

kb305 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
The whole paper-scissors-rock nature of the game is pretty disappointing to me.

Fliers are hard countered into the ground by skyfire. Terminators get shat on by AP2. Tanks get reamed by lance and melta. Etc etc.

It's just like buying a dozen little papers and a dozen little rocks and pretending to play war with them. The real deal is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper IMO, and more balanced as well =/

That's how real war works though too. Your enemy designs something, you design something to counter it, and then they try and counter your counter and so on. It's just one endless game of rock, paper scissors.

and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

Point was that for a game it actually does something right when simulating war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kb305 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

kb305 wrote:
and then they built nukes that could destroy the whole planet. what is your point again? sorry but your argument is pretty irrelevant. it's a game.

and then America built Star Wars

didnt read all that but isnt that project generally regarded as a FAIL?

does the interceptor missile somehow suck up all the radiation too and sprinkle rainbows and butterflies instead?

IIRC the program was acually a bluff to get the Soviets to spend themselves broke trying to counter it.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
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.

But that is assuming the bullet hits the armour where it is supposed to. Some armour still leaves areas exposed. And even power armour has joints and weak points where someone might get lucky. It stands to reason that an Assault Cannon is far more likely to bring down a MEQ than a lasgun. Even though it might not be powerful enough to penetrate the the thick plates. With the old system that could be expressed by it having more shots, and those shots reducing the armour value more. With the AP system an Assault Cannon and a Lasgun are indistinguishable, which is silly, So they have to patch on a new rule 'rending' to make it work.

An Auto-Cannon used to do D6 damage, so no matter how tough a character is, if you beat their toughness, you do D6 wounds. However they got rid of damage... But then awkwardly fudged it straight back in as the special rule 'instant death'. But instant death isn't as good because again there is no scaling. The damage leaps from 1 to infinite across one point of toughness.

Also with regards to fantasy armour. Armour works differently depending on the weapon. Chainmail is almost impervious to sharp slashing weapons like swords and knives, but it's rubbish against blunt force weapons, and compounds the damage done by bullets. Having a one size fits all system is never going to be truly representative of a variety of weapons.

I think this is remembering things a bit rosily.

I'm not trying to say 2nd ed was better at all. It had a lot of problems (many of which are still with us in fact). But some of the mechanics worked well and were worth keeping. I really miss the wargear book, it was like a nerds wet dream to behold. Did damage values and sustained fire really slow down the game?. Top of my list for things that needed fixing would have been things like the turn order (all my units shoot first), the slowness of having to measure movement and range for every model. Targeting and cover has always been a bit shifty, and I've never been overly keen on morale checks at certain %. Yet these things have largely gone unchanged though every edition.

Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

1. I think Allies are the best thing to happen to this game. Not only does it allow you more opportunities to experiment and come up with new compositions, keeping the game fresh, they allow people to expand into new armies without having to drop a fortune, since you can buy a single troop and HQ and have a detachment you can legitimately field with your existing army. It's a great way to encourage army expansion, and I couldn't be more excited about it! I've started four new armies since 6th edition came out, and haven't had to deal with purchasing 1500 point forces for each one before being able to realistically show up with them to the games store.

2. I used to agree with you, but I've recently come around on this. While the random powers might seem at first like they take the focus off of tactics and put it onto luck, they actually force you to be MORE tactically minded, since you have to be able to adapt your tactics depending on what powers your psyker gets. The best lists are the ones that incorporate multiple roles for the psyker and/or his unit depending on the powers generated.

3. The ability to pick up fortifications as part of your force was something the game needed to have long ago. I look forward to seeing more rules focused around the armies that specialize in the use/destruction of fortifications.

4. For the most part, I agree. (For the most part.) Fliers are a mechanic I felt didn't need to be added.

5. Sorry, this point doesn't even sound like a legitimate argument. I don't think that the new Rapid Fire rules broke anything. Yes, it does afford new opportunities for Tau (although I don't think it makes Dire Avengers 'useless' by any stretch of the imagination) but it hardly makes them invincible.

6. The power weapon rules were a game-changer, I admit. But in a game system where we all knew going in that we were signing up for cyclical rules, there is always going to be an unexpected change or two with new editions. Now I admit that we have to adapt and change our tactics (I've had to relegate Vulcan away from his previous job as a character-killer to a troop weed-whacker, a job the new rules make him a little better suited to) but that isn't always a bad thing, and the added variety making power weapons no longer an all-or-nothing thing is something that definitely adds more than it subtracts.

7. Couldn't agree with you more. While the new dexes are awesomely put together, they are vastly overpriced. I would prefer the old, non-indexed, paperback codexes to the current offerings. I'll go you one better: with the ability to offer e-books at a fraction of the cost, I think it's ludicrous for GW to charge as much as they do for their online versions of the same texts.

8. ^ - Second verse, same as the first.

9. The position micromanagement you describe is indeed time-consuming, but it gets easier over time. I think this is vastly preferable to the silly way we used to do it, where the last guy alive is magically the guy the enemy would be most fervently trying to kill!

10. On the fence about this. It's something that makes Assault oriented armies a little less powerful than they used to be, which is hardly a bad thing. Personally, I think it forces you to give a little more thought to your moves and your charges, which leads to greater forethought, and a richer game. Overall, I like this change, although I too know the heartache of a snake-eyes charge roll.

11. I don't think challenges are that bad. It's been rare for me to see a situation where I received a challenge I had no chance to win, and where denying it screwed me over horribly. I admit it adds a new dimension to close combat, but again, I think it's a change that enriches the game.

12. Drop Pods are an unusual army, which means that they are hard to learn how to beat. Once you learn the appropriate tactics to fighting them, then a balanced list does just fine against them. This is one of those situations where inexperience creates a false perception of something being overpowered. Then again, I play Drop Pods, so I'm hardly impartial. Speaking of, if you're having that much difficulty against pods, feel free to PM me, I would be happy to provide any help I could!

13. Sorry, but a consistent rules cycle is pretty much required to maintain a miniatures company. That or a never-ending cycle of miniatures, ala Heroclix. And I vastly prefer the first option. The rules-cycle is slow enough in 40k to get several years out of your books, which is far better than you see in most games with cyclical rules (like Magic, for instance). In point of fact, we're getting consistent updates now, in a seemingly fixed schedule, which is better than what we used to get, so things are looking up! If we could get some meaningful FAQs, then I would be really stoked!

To sum up: the game is cyclical. Consistent rules updates lead to a game which is constantly being refined to be a better game. If, however, you prefer an older edition, there's no reason you can't just play that with your friends. In any event, I hope it all works out for you, one way or another.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

What exactly would be the point of that, besides a bit of extra effort in passing the dice back and forth? Rolling hit -> save -> wound is exactly the same as rolling hit -> wound -> save, except that now instead of just picking up your failed hits and rolling the rest of the dice to wound you have to count the hits, have your opponent roll saves, count the saves, then roll to wound.

 Jimsolo wrote:
1. I think Allies are the best thing to happen to this game. Not only does it allow you more opportunities to experiment and come up with new compositions, keeping the game fresh, they allow people to expand into new armies without having to drop a fortune, since you can buy a single troop and HQ and have a detachment you can legitimately field with your existing army. It's a great way to encourage army expansion, and I couldn't be more excited about it! I've started four new armies since 6th edition came out, and haven't had to deal with purchasing 1500 point forces for each one before being able to realistically show up with them to the games store.

The problem with allies is that it also lets you ally Tau with Tau, put the most powerful psykers in every imperial army, etc, and completely negates the design concept of having armies be good at some things and bad at others. Allies should have been left to casual/story games where you say "hey, can I play my Ultramarines with my Cadians?" like it was in 5th.

2. I used to agree with you, but I've recently come around on this. While the random powers might seem at first like they take the focus off of tactics and put it onto luck, they actually force you to be MORE tactically minded, since you have to be able to adapt your tactics depending on what powers your psyker gets. The best lists are the ones that incorporate multiple roles for the psyker and/or his unit depending on the powers generated.

So would you support things like random heavy/special weapons to add "tactics" to the game? Maybe even random unit sizes? Random special characters? And hey, you could even have different disciplines for weapons. IG could have 5/6 of their special weapons be grenade launchers, Ultramarines could choose a melta or plasma gun on a 2+, and Tau could just get railguns on everything and re-roll their heavy weapons.

6. The power weapon rules were a game-changer, I admit. But in a game system where we all knew going in that we were signing up for cyclical rules, there is always going to be an unexpected change or two with new editions.

Which is incredibly bad game design. Changes should be made because they improve the game, not because it's time for changes. And power weapons were change for the sake of change. They add pointless complexity to the game and nerf a long list of units for no good reason.

I think this is vastly preferable to the silly way we used to do it, where the last guy alive is magically the guy the enemy would be most fervently trying to kill!

At least that system worked in a very straightforward and unambiguous way instead of generating constant arguments about which model is 0.0000001" closer or having the even worse stupidity of barrage sniping. At least with "last guy to die is always the melta gunner" you can imagine that fluff-wise the melta gun is the most valuable equipment in the squad so when the gunner dies someone else picks it up and continues to shoot.

11. I don't think challenges are that bad. It's been rare for me to see a situation where I received a challenge I had no chance to win, and where denying it screwed me over horribly. I admit it adds a new dimension to close combat, but again, I think it's a change that enriches the game.

Challenges are bad because they assume that every army is made up of noble warrior heroes who love to show off in honorable duels. My IG don't care about your challenge, if you're stupid enough to lower your guard to issue one we'll just pretend to accept and stab you in the back. If challenges had to be in the game at all (and they really didn't, most of the time they're just a way to keep a character out of combat) there should have been an option to dishonor the duel and kill the idiot issuing the challenge.

To sum up: the game is cyclical. Consistent rules updates lead to a game which is constantly being refined to be a better game.

Which would in theory be a good idea, but GW isn't refining the game. They just keep introducing change for the sake of change and adding more pointless rules to the bloated mess.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

What exactly would be the point of that, besides a bit of extra effort in passing the dice back and forth? Rolling hit -> save -> wound is exactly the same as rolling hit -> wound -> save, except that now instead of just picking up your failed hits and rolling the rest of the dice to wound you have to count the hits, have your opponent roll saves, count the saves, then roll to wound.

Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

Overall Sir Arun, I’d say we think alike!

1) Allies ~ not a bad concept, but implemented rather poorly. Steps all over both the fluff and the “balance” in one fell swoop.

2) Psychic Disciplines ~ not fond of this change either, though it could have been done to make it OK. The random element makes it ridiculous (same for Warlord traits). I for one was glad 3rd Ed. dumped the ponderous Psychic Phase of 2nd. I want a sci-fi feel with a bit of magic sprinkled in, not fantasy with, oh yeah, guns. Unfortunately the outlook is grim.

3) Bring your terrain ~ not a bad idea but again poorly implemented with an eye for the almighty cash grab. Simpler chunks of terrain (perhaps 10 points for say 6” of razor wire) would be much more sensible and useful.

4) Flyers ~ I get it, another cash cow. Don’t hate the idea of an occasional flyer but the rules are a joke.

5) Rapid-fire rules ~ gotta disagree with that one, but my group of players is thinking of boosting the stormbolter to 3 shots at half range for what it’s worth.

6) Power weapons ~ I don’t hate the changes and see some merit, but as a group my fellow gamers felt the changes didn’t justify the added complication, especially having to re-tool so many models. This in itself isn’t a game-breaker, until GW changes the rules again that is. Like you, I run 6 armies.

7) Book costs ~ these will grate with almost everybody, but it’s not so much the cost as it is the limited shelf life and questionable quality of what is written inside. After so many changes for change’s sake, why continue riding the roller coaster?

8) Supplements ~ no opinion here as I have no desire to ever purchase one.

9) New wound allocation rules ~ yes, they suck. But 5th Ed. sucked even harder. I prefer something based on 4th Ed. where the owning player removes the models, but with a better option for the attacking player to occasionally allocate hits.

10) Random assault range ~ I’ve read many attempts to defend this stupid aspect of the game with many unconvincing arguments. Some prefer it; that’s fine. I don’t.

11) Challenges ~just like the random (a powerful theme with 6th Ed.) assault range, this topic has also been bolstered with arguments with their foundation in sand. Instead of the “cinematic” effect GW pretends to crave we have sergeants challenging bloodthirsters to single combat. Yeah, right.

12) Drops pods are too accurate, but in my experience they haven’t been OP.

13) Recycle, rinse and repeat. Yes, it’s the GW model in making money. So many argue that it the only reasonable thing for a company to do. To some degree that is true, but it seems to me GW is trying to expand its customer base at the expense of its oldest adherents. This may make some sense in the shorter run but I think after time it will cost GW in other ways and their market share will dwindle. In fact I think their allies rules actually harmed GW’s most precious commodity – their IP. We will see, I guess.

There are other things about GW’s rules I could gripe about but I just wanted to address your rant.


YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

Rolling dice isn't being engaged, it's just making me do the work to resolve your attacks. In fact, I'd prefer it if GW replaced saves with a roll to beat a save (with the same odds of stopping a wound) so I can go get lunch while you take your turn. I'm not making any meaningful decisions either way, so why not just let each player have a break between turns?

Now, if you want meaningful engagement you need to get rid of the IGOUGO system, but we all know that will never happen.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

Rolling dice isn't being engaged, it's just making me do the work to resolve your attacks. In fact, I'd prefer it if GW replaced saves with a roll to beat a save (with the same odds of stopping a wound) so I can go get lunch while you take your turn. I'm not making any meaningful decisions either way, so why not just let each player have a break between turns?

Now, if you want meaningful engagement you need to get rid of the IGOUGO system, but we all know that will never happen.

Honestly I don't see a different system working as well at 40k's scale as IGUGO, and I guess we just see things differently on what counts for actually being an active part of things.

 ansacs wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

and then they try and counter your counter and so on

40k is lacking this aspect of the arms race. Weapons get better, but defenses do as well - in 40k, the weapons got better, then all the scientists shrugged their shoulders and went to lunch for 10,000 years

Waveserpent and shield eternal...there I proved that wrong. Defense are always more costly than more offense, that is pretty realistic actually.

No you didn't, you pointed out one tank that got a shield, unlike the other 99% of units in the game which did not. When weapons evolve, defenses evolve too, but 40k did away with the latter and turned the wars of the far future into "who can bring the most guns"

 Dakkamite wrote:
No you didn't, you pointed out one tank that got a shield, unlike the other 99% of units in the game which did not. When weapons evolve, defenses evolve too, but 40k did away with the latter and turned the wars of the far future into "who can get the most recent balance mistake"

Fixed that for you.

I agree with the original poster on everything except rapid fire. Rapid fire NEEDED a boost. I really miss 5th...

I only dislike TWO things about 6th ed.

1. The rules.
2. The codices.

I have played 3 games of 6th ed - one each with my 3 armies. They all ended the same way (v necrons). Tabled in turn 2.

It's not the game I want to play anymore. It was never going to be the game I always played (there's never been one of them), but it has spent a long time as my "other game" - now that other game has fallen to Firestorm Armada.

 chromedog wrote:
I only dislike TWO things about 6th ed.

1. The rules.
2. The codices.

I have played 3 games of 6th ed - one each with my 3 armies. They all ended the same way (v necrons). Tabled in turn 2.

It's not the game I want to play anymore. It was never going to be the game I always played (there's never been one of them), but it has spent a long time as my "other game" - now that other game has fallen to Firestorm Armada.

Necrons are a 5th edition book, so the problem with that is with the 5th edition codices technically.

 amanita wrote:
Overall Sir Arun, I’d say we think alike!

5) Rapid-fire rules ~ gotta disagree with that one, but my group of players is thinking of boosting the stormbolter to 3 shots at half range for what it’s worth.

Funny you should bring that up. My local group is thinking of adding a new universal rule for space marines. Would go something like - Stand and Deliver - any nonvehicle space marine that did not move in the movement phase and is equipped with a bolter, bolt pistol, stormbolter, heavy bolter, hurricane bolter, or assault cannon may fire an additional shot. Space marine dreadnoughts also gain this rule. So bolters could be fired 3 times in a round, a hurricane bolter on a centurion/dreadnought would give 9 shots. Help make up for the perceived weakness in space marine tactical squad shooting.

Would go something like - Stand and Deliver - any nonvehicle space marine that did not move in the movement phase and is equipped with a bolter, bolt pistol, stormbolter, heavy bolter, hurricane bolter, or assault cannon may fire an additional shot. Space marine dreadnoughts also gain this rule. So bolters could be fired 3 times in a round, a hurricane bolter on a centurion/dreadnought would give 9 shots. Help make up for the perceived weakness in space marine tactical squad shooting.

So a DA land raider crusader with a dakka banner would be doing 20+shots per turn at max range , after movment ?

I agree on most points, however I don't think Drop Pod assault is too powerful. You can always reserve your juicier targets to deny melta alpha strike. AP3 power weapons don't bother me either, since Terminators are still kinda crap.

What is starting to gripe me has nothing to do with 6th per say, but rather the nature of the game as a whole. Or more precisely the turn-based nature. With the amount of dakka newer armies are able to dish out the first turn is just way too important and can decide the outcome of the whole battle more often than not.

Sure a IGUGO system would change the nature of the game dramatically, but that would also make the game more engaging and not so heavily dependant on getting the first turn. Now it's mostly just a matter of idling while your opponent does his thing.

I also hate that I roll too many 1's, hopefully GW will buff my luck with dice.

My main complaint with 6th is that they never took the opportunity to overhaul the turn system.

Player A moves all their units, then shoots with everything, then assaults, while Player B does little but roll saving throws and yawn. Then they trade places.

Epic Armageddon did things much better with this approach:

Player A picks a single unit and moves / shoots / assaults with it

Player B picks a single unit and moves / shoots / assaults with it

Player A picks a single unit and moves / shoots / assaults with it

etc...
Then when all units have been used, a new turn begins. There was also the option to use 2-3 units in a row in a combination attack, but it came with a risk, making its use a tactical gamble.

That allowed for much better strategy as your try to predict and counter each move, helps keep both players engaged in the game and the whole process generally flows smoother.

It also vastly reduces the impact of a shooting-heavy army getting first turn and wiping out swathes of units before they're even used.

I did not know about this you-go-I-go system in Epic.. of course I also do not know anything about epic. That does sound like a cool way to do things... but again it would add another degree of complexity to a game that is driving complexity beyond reason.

I watched a game of War Machine the other day, and I couldn't believe how simple the mechanic seemed compared to 40K. From another thread, I may have to retract a statement. I MAY be able to learn another game and like it...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Basic addition and subtraction is complicated?

But yes, I would just prefer something besides straight: Either you pen, or you don't, otherwise we get issues where Berzerkers are supposed to be really good in CC, are pretty terrible at it.

Unless of course they bring back weapons that -1/-2 saves again.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Basic addition and subtraction is complicated?

But yes, I would just prefer something besides straight: Either you pen, or you don't, otherwise we get issues where Berzerkers are supposed to be really good in CC, are pretty terrible at it.

Unless of course they bring back weapons that -1/-2 saves again.

Adding and subtracting isn't complicated (for some) but I've seen enough to know that people have a hard time keeping all the rules in their heads as is, and it'd only get worse with adding something like that.

Maybe if the game got a major overhaul.

I've been playing 40k since 3rd edition. I've never really been bothered by any particular edition. I have looked at each edition since then as having some good and some bad rules and then next edition the process repeats. The rules need to be changed every few years or so in order to keep the game fresh and interesting. I just take the good with the bad each edition. The way I look at it is the glass is both half full and half empty at the same time. Here are the points in this edition that I both dislike and like:

Dislikes:

1) The dominance of shooting in the game. I would prefer a nice balance between shooting and assault. I play both types of armies, so I'm not just whining about my BA assault marines. I play Tau and find shooting with them to be incredibly effective and footslogging troops have very little chance to get across the board in this edition. Flying MCs are a different matter though.

2) Sergents and challenges. I don't like the fact that squad sergents can be challenged. I would prefer that challenges were something left to HQ characters. This is compounded by the fact that most basic squads are reduced to only the sergent having access to specialist combat weapons.

3) Closest model taking the wound. Don't really like this. Too easy to kill off specialist weapons. You can position your guys all you want but if your opponent gets precision shots then those specialist guys are dead.

4) Don't like not being able to assault from vehicles. They should try and strike a nice balance with this instead of a no you can't or yes you can type of answer. i.e. You can do it but put a limitation in place. I remember one person suggested a difficult terrain test when trying it.

Likes:

1) Allies. I actually like the ally system. It helps you build up a new army. Although I will admit some grumbles about some of the combinations.

2) Psykers. I like the idea of psychic disciplines. Its a bit rubbish that you can't choose your powers but overall I like the system in most part. It only makes sense that there should be some core abilities that psykers would be able to perform across the board. Yes some species of psykers will be able to do some things that others can't but I think this is nicely represented by codices having powers for unique armies in addition to the rulebook ones.

3) Hull points. I actually like these. Sure its easier to glance some vehicles to death but its also a bit more difficult to instant kill a vehicle with one shot. I think its a nice balance to things. I didn't like the fact that a glancing shot could blow up a vehicle in the past. Its a lot better that it takes several glancing shots to do it.

4) Special rules. I like the fact that the game is getting more special rules. It makes units more unique and individual with different capabilities. Some people say it makes the game more complicated but as far as I am concerned this isn't meant to be an easy game. It should be complicated and appeal to adults as well as children.

Actually about hull points, it might've been better had they added say, more hull points.


Say with 3-4 being the bare minimum (for say like Dark Eldar open topped AV10 vehicles)

With about 10+ for land raider types.

Walkers being about 6-8 due to needing to be durable to defend the person inside, and having to protect it in melee combat.

Etc.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

What exactly would be the point of that, besides a bit of extra effort in passing the dice back and forth? Rolling hit -> save -> wound is exactly the same as rolling hit -> wound -> save, except that now instead of just picking up your failed hits and rolling the rest of the dice to wound you have to count the hits, have your opponent roll saves, count the saves, then roll to wound.

Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

One issue with the Hit - Save - Wound system would be that it will potentially slow the game down due to different Armor Savees and AP. If I shoot at a Grey Hunter Squad with a wolf guard terminator in it with 10 Hot shot Lasguns. Say I roll 5 hits and there are 2 Grey Hunters in front of the wolf guard. How do I resolve this. Since I get no save on the Grey Hunter do you then roll wounds until you make 2 then I remove those guys then I start making saves on the terminator....

As for the UGOIGO system. The issue with the Epic system is that it greatly favors MSU builds, as they can move fodder units to force the opponent into moving all their units prior to moving their key units.

As for the OP

1.) I like allies more than I dislike them. I do think they could have been better implemented. Perhaps even remove a lot of the battle brother mechanics, but I think they make the game more varied.

2.)Psychic disciplines: Mostly like them because it prevents armies from really getting screwed with bad psychic powers (see 5th Ed Dark Angels as an example), I might have prefered if you spend points on them as it would better balance the system, but for the most part it is fine. Also randomness makes it harder than point buy to achieve broken combos.

3.)Fortifications are fine more or less. I do wish though that they had more for other races.

4.)NO real issue with Flyers, they have really been toned down as the edition progressed.

5.)Rapid Fire Change was needed. The old rule where if I backed up I could no longer shoot you was dumb, and really hurt armies like Tau because they could not effectively run from assault armies.

6.)I'm not a big AP fan in general (if my gun can blow up a land raider why would it not go through a marines power armor...), consistency is better overall. The larger issue was needing to rearm models to use the varied weapons.

7.)I feel like the cost for quality is fine...but I do wish they offered a lower cost (and quality alternative) similar to the old dexes....maybe even go with just rules and shortened fluff or something (a gamers edition if you will.)

8.)Supplements are a good idea...not sure they have taken great advantage of it yet but I like the possibilies here.

9.)Wound Allocation is tricky any way you do it. I'd rather see closest model if in question controlling player chooses.

10.)Random Charge range....indifferent to this one. I used to hate it but most of the time it is ok. But you really need fleet to be great at assaulting. I think I would have prefered something like a constant Value +D6" could be initiative + D6 or 6+d3 or something. Overall I think adding back the movement stat would be good for the game in this respect.

11.) Challanges are dumb, I think there are ways they could work, I'd prefer to just see a penalty for refusing challanges (maybe strike at I1 or something) than not striking at all. IT essentially makes Wraithlords kill hordes of orks who can never win because of challenging out the power klaw.

12.) Drop pods are a non-issue you just need to learn to play against them.

13.) GW needs to make money some how, that is either by changing rules or adding models. I have no issue with updates.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I agree with the original poster on everything except rapid fire. Rapid fire NEEDED a boost. I really miss 5th...

No, it didn't. Back in 5th I had to decide between Heavy Gauss Flayers and Tesla Weapons. Or Pulse Rifles and Pulse Carbines.

Now, everybody is kicking themselves in the nads for having modeled their guys with Tesla or Carbines instead of the vastly superior Rifles.

In the previous edition, rapid-fire weapons were the only type of trooper weapons that had comparatively long range (only outranged by snipers). There was a reward for sitting back and shooting. If you started moving, you joined the club of 12" assault weapons like my Guardians' Shuricats. And snipers, who had longer range, lost everything if they moved, so it was balanced.

I dont see anyone complaining in 6th that snipers are just as "bad" as back in the previous edition now, do I?

I like the fact that 6th edition has introduced Snapshots when you move with heavy weapons and such.

 Sir Arun wrote:
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:

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I agree about the unfluffiness of the Allies chart. I am not against allies because it adds some spice to the game and opens up cool scenario possibilities such as traitor guard or Planetary force under Tau control, two brother chapters fighting side by side.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I am also a little bummbed but I can live with it...in general. What pisses me the most is the Ultramarines librarian. Access to ALL disciplines, re-rolls for his powers and a bunch of other rules? And Eldar the master psychic race has...not even half of that. Still not having psychic powers in a reliable manner makes it hard to build a list around a power in particular or a concept.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I think it adds some flavor to the game. Not sold on the Skyshield but bastions and ADL? Sure. As for being godawful looking, my Eldar ADL is pretty spiffy. I will just agree to disagree.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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?

At first I was a bit bothered but now? Not so much. As Codex come out with valuable ways to combat flyers they can become a risky investment. I think it adds a different tactical element and evolves the game into having to consider a different aspect of your strategy.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

Honestly this is a delicate question. From playing the first days of 6th with my Space Wolves I would get cut down chasing my opponents. The SM needed the boost but not the Tau. And Dire Avengers should have had their range upgraded to 24" to be on par with Bolters. My humble opinion.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I have mixed feelings on the terminators. On one hand there was little reason to take them in the past because whatever could cut down a regular SM would cut down a Terminator. Why pay the extra for a save you won't get to use? Making all power weapons AP3 was not a bad thing. SOME should have remained AP2 to maintain usefulness. Banshees being one. I died a little bit when the new Eldar Codex came out and the Bashees were nerfed and now next to useless. Striking Scorpions afre finally useful or more useful. Can't say I am disappointed as they are one of my favorite aspect. If the Banshees had an Exarch power that allowed them to charge out of a vehicule they would have been useful but now...they are good for painting practice.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I fully agree

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I fully agree

 Sir Arun wrote:

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???

I somewhat agree. Sometimes it would take ages for the guy top decide which model to take out.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

My Wolves took a big blow from that. Hell they took a big blow from all the assault nerfs. Not assaulting out of an immobile vehicule, not assaulting from reserves. And yes Tau combined overwatch is a pain.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

I am not against challenges and actually like the mechanic. It is fun and fluffy though sometimes severely one-sided. What I hate is the 2+ Look Out Sir. That over-protects already powerful characters.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

Nasty yes but almost a must considering all the other nerfs to assault. We learn and adapt out strategies.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

Well this is the cycle of the game you chose. Not much I can say or do to change that. That's less than 12 games for you but for some of us 4 years is 200+ games. I hope that 6th ed will last a while.

Breng77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

What exactly would be the point of that, besides a bit of extra effort in passing the dice back and forth? Rolling hit -> save -> wound is exactly the same as rolling hit -> wound -> save, except that now instead of just picking up your failed hits and rolling the rest of the dice to wound you have to count the hits, have your opponent roll saves, count the saves, then roll to wound.

Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

One issue with the Hit - Save - Wound system would be that it will potentially slow the game down due to different Armor Savees and AP. If I shoot at a Grey Hunter Squad with a wolf guard terminator in it with 10 Hot shot Lasguns. Say I roll 5 hits and there are 2 Grey Hunters in front of the wolf guard. How do I resolve this. Since I get no save on the Grey Hunter do you then roll wounds until you make 2 then I remove those guys then I start making saves on the terminator....

It doesn't really slow things down much in most cases, just like it doesn't know for mixed saves. Easiest fix would be take the majority save, or a change to wound allocation (like it always picks off the basic troopers first because even if it killed a guy with equipment his buddy just picks it up, dusts it off and away they go).

It's not like the current system isn't a bit too complicated as is anyways.

I wouldnt have so much of a gripe with the new codices (as they do look great, now that I own a couple) if it werent for GW STILL filling them with bucketloads of spelling mistakes.

I mean...seriously. Ever book from the bookstore has less spelling mistakes in its...what? 350 average pages, than a 140 page 6th edition Codex.

It's really hard for me to understand why GW still doesnt have the sort of professional editors needed to proofread their books, especially when this isnt some niche Black Library publication, but an official army codex bought and played by tens of thousands of people across the world. At £30 you'd think they would see to it...


And finally, a small (personal) gripe I have with the 6th ed BRB is that it is filled with doodles reminiscent of the 80s grimdark Rogue Trader art. I preferred the cleaner look of the 5th edition rulebook, that wasnt framed with weird spidery doodles on every page, but had a nicer, cleaner, more modern and neat gothic theme.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I wouldnt have so much of a gripe with the new codices (as they do look great, now that I own a couple) if it werent for GW STILL filling them with bucketloads of spelling mistakes.

I mean...seriously. Ever book from the bookstore has less spelling mistakes in its...what? 350 average pages, than a 140 page 6th edition Codex.

It's really hard for me to understand why GW still doesnt have the sort of professional editors needed to proofread their books, especially when this isnt some niche Black Library publication, but an official army codex bought and played by tens of thousands of people across the world. At £30 you'd think they would see to it...


And finally, a small (personal) gripe I have with the 6th ed BRB is that it is filled with doodles reminiscent of the 80s grimdark Rogue Trader art. I preferred the cleaner look of the 5th edition rulebook, that wasnt framed with weird spidery doodles on every page, but had a nicer, cleaner, more modern and neat gothic theme.

I spent nearly $500 on textbooks for the semester and they're all full of spelling errors (and sometimes actual errors too), so really it's not just GW. Just about every book I've ever read had at least a few errors in there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the save sytem I want to see it moved to after the hits are rolls. Roll to hit, roll to save vs anything with the best save you can (so ap would still work the same) roll to wound. Only real other change is Rending would need to lose the AP value or make the target reroll successful saves or something to balance it out a bit.

What exactly would be the point of that, besides a bit of extra effort in passing the dice back and forth? Rolling hit -> save -> wound is exactly the same as rolling hit -> wound -> save, except that now instead of just picking up your failed hits and rolling the rest of the dice to wound you have to count the hits, have your opponent roll saves, count the saves, then roll to wound.

Mostly reflects armor better than the current system does, and it engages both players more since you don't have to just sit and watch while they roll and reroll dice and then tell you how many saves to roll. It doesn't really change the odds (and if it does, it's not likely much) but keeping both players engaged is always a good thing, is it not?

One issue with the Hit - Save - Wound system would be that it will potentially slow the game down due to different Armor Savees and AP. If I shoot at a Grey Hunter Squad with a wolf guard terminator in it with 10 Hot shot Lasguns. Say I roll 5 hits and there are 2 Grey Hunters in front of the wolf guard. How do I resolve this. Since I get no save on the Grey Hunter do you then roll wounds until you make 2 then I remove those guys then I start making saves on the terminator....

It doesn't really slow things down much in most cases, just like it doesn't know for mixed saves. Easiest fix would be take the majority save, or a change to wound allocation (like it always picks off the basic troopers first because even if it killed a guy with equipment his buddy just picks it up, dusts it off and away they go).

It's not like the current system isn't a bit too complicated as is anyways.

Majority save is a terrible idea as it makes better saves on characters irrelivant, and by making it alwasy basic troopers you nerf the ability for a better save to tank wounds etc....I could see maybe just letting the controlling player choose but it seems overly complicated.