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.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Weren't there complaints at the end of 5th that the game was getting boring though?

I found 5th Edition boring as hell from beginning to end.

I think the reason for that was that there weren't enough changes from 4th to 5th. Don't get me wrong the game changed enough to change the gaming meta, but a lot of the rules stayed the same in my opinion with just small tweaks here and there.

For instance they may changed the vehicle damges tables, but all in all it was still the same mechanic with slight tweaks. 6th edition however added the concept of hull points which shook things up a bit more.

I actually started in 3rd Edition and really enjoyed it. I enjoy sixth also. Why do people say 3rd was so bad?

I enjoyed 3rd but then I am a Blood Angels player, so being able to assault from vehicles after it moved 18" up the battle field was in my favour. I think 3rd was good because it was the last edition where assault was dominant.

@DarthOvious

I found CC to be very dominant in 5th ed with GK everywhere with their power weapons and BA assault squad spam with tons of melta and power fists to kill tanks then kill the squishy inside along with cron wraithwing and lychguard. The only shooty army I could think of was IG because even SW had GH squads for counter assaulting things that got too close to long fangs and takibg pot shots with meltas

 A GumyBear wrote:
@DarthOvious

I found CC to be very dominant in 5th ed with GK everywhere with their power weapons and BA assault squad spam with tons of melta and power fists to kill tanks then kill the squishy inside along with cron wraithwing and lychguard. The only shooty army I could think of was IG because even SW had GH squads for counter assaulting things that got too close to long fangs and takibg pot shots with meltas

Once again, I still have no idea people think this. 5th Edition was a Mech Edition where assault often couldn't scratch the paint of vehicles, with melta being the only thing that really could kill vehicles reliably, while IG dominated with shooting, along with Razorback armies with Shooty dreadnoughts.

CC was rather okay in 5th, but couldn't compare to the shooting mech, it's why Tyranids were pretty awful.

Then 6th happened and CC became near useless with the exception of certain deathstar builds.

Meqs were crazy good.

 A GumyBear wrote:
@DarthOvious

I found CC to be very dominant in 5th ed with GK everywhere with their power weapons and BA assault squad spam with tons of melta and power fists to kill tanks then kill the squishy inside along with cron wraithwing and lychguard. The only shooty army I could think of was IG because even SW had GH squads for counter assaulting things that got too close to long fangs and takibg pot shots with meltas

I still think 5th edition was more shooty than assault. Common lists usually ran multiple small units in Razorbacks. The Razorbacks shot at things and the small units claimed objectives and wiped up what was left in combat, but the main damage was done by the shooting. Even the BA players were taking this over DoA. It was commonly thought that Razorback spam was more effective that BA jump pack spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Once again, I still have no idea people think this. 5th Edition was a Mech Edition where assault often couldn't scratch the paint of vehicles, with melta being the only thing that really could kill vehicles reliably, while IG dominated with shooting, along with Razorback armies with Shooty dreadnoughts.

CC was rather okay in 5th, but couldn't compare to the shooting mech, it's why Tyranids were pretty awful.

Then 6th happened and CC became near useless with the exception of certain deathstar builds.

Agree with this.

That's because razor spam WAS more effective than DoA. I ripped apart so many DoA lists in 5th. Remember that plain old plasma totally negated FNP in 5th. 5th was a shooting edition. Anyone who says otherwise has never chased around the mech needing "6s" to hit them.

Agree that 5th was more shooty than assault, and that 6th nerfed assault except for mainly certain deathstar builds. Nids weren't bad because shooting was better than CC - nids were bad because their dex was poorly written/edited/playtested. Even with core rules that favour shooting, the nid dex could have ensured that point costs/stats/unit rules, etc, allowed the army to be effective at CC. Just look at the trygon tunnel - a first read of the dex told most people that this ability that I have to pay for would be useless, or that lictors would be useless - having to pop out of hiding, say Boo! while flinging a dinky weapon and wait to be pasted/countered before they could do what they were supposed to do.

With nids coming out soon, I hope they find a way to make all the units decent choices that work and that many have a reasonable chance to get into close combat - to work around some of the nerfs 6th has made to combat and the nerfs they had in the current dex (like assault only units such as hormagaunts and stealers losing their initiative when assaulting into cover).

Challenges, another poorly done mechanic, is another thing I would like to see nids be able to ignore with no penalty. Ideally challenges would just be errata'd away - of course wont happen.

And the Allies thing is a mess and an obvious money grab. Wait for 7th edition when GW removes allies from the rules so that people, with partial armies, may be encouraged to buy the rest of the models for a stand alone army. Allies could always be done among friends anyways but when you allow certain groups to ally you will get the nasty combos to exploit both dexes. Warhammer 40K has steadily become Wallethammer 40k.

 Ventus wrote:
Agree that 5th was more shooty than assault, and that 6th nerfed assault except for mainly certain deathstar builds. Nids weren't bad because shooting was better than CC - nids were bad because their dex was poorly written/edited/playtested. Even with core rules that favour shooting, the nid dex could have ensured that point costs/stats/unit rules, etc, allowed the army to be effective at CC. Just look at the trygon tunnel - a first read of the dex told most people that this ability that I have to pay for would be useless, or that lictors would be useless - having to pop out of hiding, say Boo! while flinging a dinky weapon and wait to be pasted/countered before they could do what they were supposed to do.

Nids still had great assault in 5th. Even with the shoddy rules. That said, assault still sucked. Not as badly as now, but it still sucked. Also, I have never marked a Trygon tunnel. Despite using 2 in every game I played in 5th and 6th.

Allies bar none is the worst thing about 6th. Destroys balance by letting every army shore up its designed weak points.

Martel732 wrote:
That's because razor spam WAS more effective than DoA. I ripped apart so many DoA lists in 5th. Remember that plain old plasma totally negated FNP in 5th. 5th was a shooting edition. Anyone who says otherwise has never chased around the mech needing "6s" to hit them.

I completely agree. Who can forget parking a Land Raider with a minimal assault squad in it on top of an Objective. 5th would have been so much better if units would have had to get out to score objectives.

It was a shooting edition, less so than 6th, but make no mistake, it was a MSU Mech Shooting edition.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Weren't there complaints at the end of 5th that the game was getting boring though?

I found 5th Edition boring as hell from beginning to end.

I actually started in 3rd Edition and really enjoyed it. I enjoy sixth also. Why do people say 3rd was so bad?

Assault was ridiculous in 3rd (Pac-Man rules). Only somewhat better in 4th (Locked instead of re-assaulted on sweeping advances). in 5th, they got it right and it became a very good game. I really enjoyed 5th. Matt Ward single handedly necessitated the coming of 6th edition though. And 6th has been fun as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Col. Dash wrote:
Allies bar none is the worst thing about 6th. Destroys balance by letting every army shore up its designed weak points.

I agree. Allies was a serious miscalculation. it isn't going anywhere now, but I won't lie: if i could wind back the clock, that's what I would dump. Most of my armies don't use them and i haven't played a single fortification since 6th Edition came out. Ever. Not that I don't see the value. Obviously i do. But it feels contrived that you should have this roaming BASTION or what have you all the time. Or the incongruity of Tau and Space marines fighting alongside one another. It's just sort of...

 Zagman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's because razor spam WAS more effective than DoA. I ripped apart so many DoA lists in 5th. Remember that plain old plasma totally negated FNP in 5th. 5th was a shooting edition. Anyone who says otherwise has never chased around the mech needing "6s" to hit them.

I completely agree. Who can forget parking a Land Raider with a minimal assault squad in it on top of an Objective. 5th would have been so much better if units would have had to get out to score objectives.

It was a shooting edition, less so than 6th, but make no mistake, it was a MSU Mech Shooting edition.

Hmm, maybe my meta was just vastly different then the outside world back then, but in 5th if you weren't spaming mech you were spaming CC units or some mixture of both. Whenever I faced parkinglots it was always followed up with a mosh pit of cc regardless of who I was playing bar IG because they more or less just died right away in cc. Whenever I faced a shooty army they kind of just fell apart since the shooting didn't have too huge of an impact at least when when I was observing/playing but maybe that was because of the night fighting cheese that was crons

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:So you want the most successful game in the market to adopt a core mechanic that already bankrupted two competing companies/games?

False causal attribution is hilarious.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Some Black Templars players have been unwilling to let go of the fact that they no longer have their own book. But the wording is very clear.

You complain about false casual attribution when you attribute motives to people in a dismissive manner in the thread, when you're wrong to boot. The statement in the allies matrix doesn't matter, because Codex: Space Marines tells us on page 78 that any older publications that refer to Codex: Black Templars (i.e. the Rulebook Ally Matrix) instead refers to Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chatper Tactics. This has been pointed out to you multiple times and you've not refuted it, and yet you keep claiming that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Codex: =][= doesn't list Black Templars making it kind of clear that they have to use SM ally rules it seems.

Indeed. The Codex: Black Templars has been rendered obsolete and no longer exists in terms of the active ongoing ruleset. So when page 113 of the BRB says "Find the row of the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix", a player who uses the Black Templars chapter tactics for his Space Marine detachment has to choose the Space Marines entry, because that is the codex he is getting the rules for his primary detachment from.

kb305 wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

kb305 wrote:

I never said that. id like a more balanced game, no more hard counters. everything should be atleast somewhat effective against everything else.

yes i'm well aware that second edition also sucked, all youve highlighted is that they couldnt write rules back then either. i remember the cyclone missile launchers, vortex grenades and other stupid crap of that edition clearly.

this is what im thinking off the top of my head if you must stay with a D6 system (which i would also get rid of right away):

krak missile: -3
plasma: -2 (since it's not quite as good now you can get rid of gets hot)
lascannon: no save
melta: no save
bale drake flamer: -2
power weapons: -2 or maybe -3
autocannon: -1
bolter: nil (maybe give it some other minor special rule to make up for this fact since it's supposed to be a more powerful weapon)
lasgun: nil

But hard counters ARE a form of balance. How many war games don't have some form of hard counter for various unit types? I'd much prefer specific hard counters that make you choose between anti-armour, anti-infantry, or anti-air before the battle, as opposed to armies just being able to counter any unit with any other unit (which makes for an incredibly dull game). Again, the problem here isn't with the core rules, its with the individual armies. Some armies are designed as a form of hard counter to other armies, and thus makes the game more difficult for those armies being countered.

A modifier system is far more flawed than the AP system, as it makes weak armour more powerful and makes strong armour less so. With your system, an autocannon shell (which is designed to penetrate light tanks) can potentially bounce off an IG troopers flak jacket....and you feel this is a BETTER system? To me, AP combined with To Wound rolls is a more simplistic AND realistic approach as opposed to modifiers.

The only modifiers that should be brought back into the game are To Hit modifiers brought on by cover. To me, if I go through the trouble of getting my unit into cover, the difficulty doing damage to the unit should be on the opponent, not my ability to roll a save. This would also help heavier armoured units because they can actually get benefit from cover for all incoming fire, not just that which negates their base armour. While I certainly understand WHY GW went with the cover save system (how do you determine To Hit modifiers when only a portion of the unit is in cover), I feel it could use some work. Maybe give an extra type of save in the same way as FNP. You get hit/wounded, take your normal armour save, and then take your Cover Save (if necessary).

No, hard counters and terrible game balance make for a dull game. many of the match ups are so bad why bother unpacking the models. If even the bad lists had atleast a fighting chance it would still be worth playing. Having counters to stuff is fine, currently its more about broken/overpowered units. A hard counter to 80% of the game isnt a hard counter anymore, it's just broken/unbalanced game design.

Actually if you bothered to read my modifiers it was actually a buff to strong amour. power armour now gets a 5+ against plasma, bale drakes and power weapons.
the guardsman gets what, save on a 6 vs an autocannon? I hardly think that's going to break the game.

No, you made it stronger against AP2, everything else you left it as is or made it weaker. With your system, autocannons, heavy bolters, shurican cannons, and other mid-AP high rate of fire weapons that should get a -2 modifier are going to chew through marines. In a modifier system, everybody would just switch to those types of weapons for everything (just like they did in 2nd edition), so then we'd be right back to square one.

I've said it before, there is nothing wrong with the current AP system, the issue is with the individual armies having access to far to much AP2. AP2 should be limited to a handful of weapons, and the vast majority of those should be heavy weapons. You want to fix they system, make rending and all plasma weapons AP3.

I agree; I think rending, grav and plasma should be AP 3. Leave single shot melta AP 2. And maybe kick the poor "krak" rocket up to AP 2. And bust the Riptide down to 3+ armor that can become 3++ if it nova charges. Make 2+ armor mean something.

 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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed

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.

The only thing bad about the new fortifications is how poorly the rules are written, otherwise they offer a great deal of protection to an edition where shooting recieved massive boosts.

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?

They where only "OP" when 6th started and basically no one had the means to deal with them, now flyers are pretty much balanced and if they are ruining your game, then I'd seriously question your competance as a plastic general.

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.

...Not sure if troll? Are you mental? Seriously, rapid-fire weapons where gak in 5th and the former rules made no sense. Also, Ultramarines whining? xD Space Marines(almost every army actually) played a mech play style, so rapid fire almost never handicapped them. In fact, those armies that got buffed to kingdom with rapid fire are those exact armies you play.

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.

Because the old power weapon system was OP maybe? So you are okay with having commissars slaughtering Terminators with little to no defence, while the Terminators has to chew through 20+ wounds to kill the guy with the power weapon... yeah.. no.. The new power weapon system is tons of better and allows for more customization. Have a model with tons of attacks and you want it to deal with horde? Mace is your friend. Got high WS and S? Go for the sword. Can you handle being the one striking blows at I1 and need to hunt TEQ's? Get the axe. Do you have acces to hit&run? Get your jausting fetish on and grab a lance!

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.

Agreed

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.

Again, not sure if troll... The supplements are there for mostly fluff and supplements are crap? What? xD
Farsight Enclave? Inquisition? Imperial Fists? Heck, even Black Legion made CSM somewhat more competetive.

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???

Okay, now I have to question your incompetence. I'm sorry, but 40k isn't won by shooting, it's won by movement, deployment and target priority. If you fail at such a simple and basic thing as movement and placing models, then I suggest you play checkers or yahtzee if you just wanna roll dice. Now that premeasuring is allowed, you have no excuse to not have your special weapon in range of your target and 3-5 bodies in front of the guy with the gun.

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.

I hate the current overwatch system.

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.

Again, a L2P issue. You do realise that you cannot challenge or get challenged if you cannot strike any blows? This means if your sergeant is more than 3" away from engaged battle at the start of the combat, before any blows are struck he can't issue a challenge and can accept one. Have your sergeant stand in the back of your blob, tell your oponnent to eat gak when they declare a challenge, move your initiative step and fight with no penalty. I admit that this sometimes is easier said than done but still.

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.

Yeah... No.. Drop Pod lists sucks.. Hate to break it to you.. And 70 points drop pods? What? xD
Also, if you ever drop a dread then for God's sake, atleast make it an Ironclad.

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.

And what exactly is it that prevents you from hosting an event at your house, call some friends and play your beloved 5th?

 Sir Arun wrote:
Indeed. The Codex: Black Templars has been rendered obsolete and no longer exists in terms of the active ongoing ruleset. So when page 113 of the BRB says "Find the row of the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix", a player who uses the Black Templars chapter tactics for his Space Marine detachment has to choose the Space Marines entry, because that is the codex he is getting the rules for his primary detachment from.

No, he'd read the note on page 78 that tells him to replace "Codex: Black Templars" with "Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics". As "C:SM you BT CT" is more specific than "Codex: Space Marines", that's the one he'll be using. He's still using the allies chart for the Codex he's playing, it's just a subsection of it created by the Designer's Note on page 78.

Think of it this way: he's not using the allies chart for Codex: Black Templars, he's using the allies chart for Codex: Space Marines with Black Templars Chapter Tactics, just the way the Codex (which overrules the BRB) is telling him to do.

6th is the best in a long time, buck up buttercups.

That being said, over watch when wall of death and 4+ demon flames was worst.

Stormbreed wrote:
6th is the best in a long time, buck up buttercups.

That being said, over watch when wall of death and 4+ demon flames was worst.

I sometimes wonder if I've got a copy of rubbish 6th ed rules and codexes whilst everyone else has the good ones. My 6th ed seems to be malfunctioning.

Why I hate 6th ed in a Nutshell:

All the changes were something mech IG players would whine for every time I steamrolled them with Tyranids.

Aedeagus.

Bartali wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
6th is the best in a long time, buck up buttercups.

That being said, over watch when wall of death and 4+ demon flames was worst.

I sometimes wonder if I've got a copy of rubbish 6th ed rules and codexes whilst everyone else has the good ones. My 6th ed seems to be malfunctioning.

Have you tried unplugging it and plugging it back in?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Why I hate 6th ed in a Nutshell:

All the changes were something mech IG players would whine for every time I steamrolled them with Tyranids.

Aedeagus.

Erhm.. Didn't 6th nerf the gak out of Melta-vets + Chimera spam, mech lists and cover? But then again, I figure that the fleet nerf, overwatch and nerf to cover must have been hard on the Nids.. I hope the upcoming update will work out for you, I could use something else than Eldar, Eltau, Tau or Taudar.. >_>

Zewrath wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Why I hate 6th ed in a Nutshell:

All the changes were something mech IG players would whine for every time I steamrolled them with Tyranids.

Aedeagus.

Erhm.. Didn't 6th nerf the gak out of Melta-vets + Chimera spam, mech lists and cover? But then again, I figure that the fleet nerf, overwatch and nerf to cover must have been hard on the Nids.. I hope the upcoming update will work out for you, I could use something else than Eldar, Eltau, Tau or Taudar.. >_>

1) The outflanks Nerf
2) The Fleet Nerf
3) Random assault distances (with no help from move through cover)
4) The Multi-assault nerf
5) The introduction of a unit which I cannot fight with anything other than one model. (Fliers)
6) Challenges (Tarpit my Character MC's)
7) loss of Armourbane on MC's, forcing me to rely on smash attacks
8) Overwatch

Then, when you consider I also had a DE army focused on Haemonculi coven and Wyche cult,

9) No assaulting out of Webway portals
10) Remove casualties from the front
11) The FNP nerf
12) S4 explosions from open-topped transports
13) No assaulting out of transports that moved
14) No more "MISSILE BARRAGE!" from my Razorwing
15) Power Weapon Nerf

Plus, y'know,

16) Random Everything

And as you can imagine, I am not exactly a fan of 6th ed. The New Tyranid Codex rumours are actually getting me interested in GW for the first time in over a year.

All DE transports are open-topped. Open-topped are assault vehicles. Move 6", disembark 6" and assault 2d6 and DE transport are now faster than ever.

Zewrath wrote:
All DE transports are open-topped. Open-topped are assault vehicles. Move 6", disembark 6" and assault 2d6 and DE transport are now faster than ever.

5th ed-

Move 12"

Disembark 2"

Run d6"

Assualt 6"

Threat Range of 20+d6'

As opposed to 6th ed's 12+2d6 with a re-roll.

So fifth average of 23.5"
sixth average of 19"
That's a 4.5" difference.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So fifth average of 23.5"
sixth average of 19"
That's a 4.5" difference.

Which is actually pretty significant. Also, minimum assault distance has dropped from 21" to 14", a loss of 7". maximum distance has also fallen by 2", before you factor in the models killed in overwatch. It might not sound like much, but it is a big difference to a fragile assault army.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So fifth average of 23.5"
sixth average of 19"
That's a 4.5" difference.

Which is actually pretty significant. Also, minimum assault distance has dropped from 21" to 14", a loss of 7". maximum distance has also fallen by 2", before you factor in the models killed in overwatch. It might not sound like much, but it is a big difference to a fragile assault army.

I wasn't disagreeing, I was just trying to give people an idea of the change.