Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I normally don't ask something this silly, but reading more and more about how 6th edition plays out, what works and what doesn't is really making me question whether the game is even fun enough to bother playing again. I started at the end of 2nd edition and stopped I believe towards the end of 3rd edition. 3rd edition actually was fun back then, although it was a radical change from 2nd and you had shooty armies being at a disadvantage due to the "Rhino Rush" tactic being used all over the place to get into assault.

All the threads I've been reading about 6th just make it sound like it's not fun at all. Things like a random charge move, having to remove models from the front (so you can't "hide" special/heavy weapons in the squad anymore and remove them last), most lists seeming to be light on the Troops and heavy on transport/vehicles, being able to buy your own fortifications as though it was a troop, people fielding superheavy tanks/things in a normal game of 40k and having that be perfectly legal instead of requiring opponent's permission, special characters being able to be fielded without permission, etc. all of this is really making the game seem like it's one big "If I go first, you lose. If you go first, I lose" type of game. Most army tactics I look at have big sections saying what wargear/choices are just bad and should never be taken (and sadly it seems most of the time to be the Troops, i.e. the core of your army), or it's things like you want to spam X cheap transport and be "that guy" (e.g. Eldar w/Waveserpents, Necrons w/Night Scythes) just to have a chance at winning.

Those might be extreme examples but the more I read about how 6th edition plays (I have not played a game, mostly due to not wanting to buy anything until I know I'd enjoy it) make it seem like it's just way less fun than I remember with all these additions that IMO have no place in the game (Apoc, Escalation, Strongholds or whatever else) and being encouraged to bring all the heavy units and none of the units an army would actually have.

So honestly, is 6th edition as unfun as it actually sounds? I can forgive the ridiculously-high prices for GW figures, I can even forgive them adding some big toys like the Wraithknight or Riptide, but I can't forgive the rules discouraging actual armies and encouraging spamming transports or special units.

OK, part of the problem is that you're reading about 40k on the internet, where people come to whine.

You can hide heavy and special weapons in squads, quite easily: Just don't stand them at the front of the unit.

Troops haven't been especially killy since the concept of 'troops' crystallised. They're still useful if you use them, but most of the time people on the internet decide that the only things worth even looking at are the alpha-strike units.

Transports are more useful than previously because you can't stun them any more, but they're more fragile because three glances will kill them (rather than just maybe if you're lucky). The internet has fallen in love with Wave Serpents (which I really don't get, they're not that powerful) and night scythes are the easiest way to get lots of fliers, which are defensively very powerful.

However, you don't have to go with any of those netlisting demands to have a viable army. The idea that there's 'conventional wisdom' is rather foolish - once you actually get good at the game, barring bad dice rolls you can win with pretty much anything.

Fortifications are a force org slot, you only get one of them.

The main problem here is internet hyperbole - everything sounds infinitely worse than it really is. Escalation and Stronghold aren't as commonly used as the internet likes to whine about because of the expense of the models involved.

In any case, yes, the game is fun. The rules don't discourage armies. Players discourage armies because they find other units 'better'. Also, you simple can't 'spam' heavy gear like baneblades even if you do have them - they're pretty much a one-per-army deal unless you're playing a dedicated Apocalypse game, which still has to be organised and arranged specially.

It's true that special characters are a lot less special, though.

Ultimately, the only way to know is to play a few games yourself. Borrow models if you don't have any of your old ones.

It is perfectly fun, and like all 'games', better and more enjoyable if you don't take it seriously. If you are wanting to compete at the top level, I agree the game does look boring, formulaic and full of people willing to argue the smallest point for the smallest advantage. However, if you're looking for a game where you get to use cool models, with a good enough ruleset, and just throw some dice and have a laugh, they don't come much better than 40k.

I may just be lucky, but I've never seen even a hint of a competitive army in my local area, and I don't know anyone who considers the game unbalanced or unfun. There may not be a causation for this correlation, but it seems likely. So long as you can find a group that takes the same attitude of playing for the story and the fun rather than just to win, you should easily enjoy it.

Also, no rules in the game 'encourage' you to play a certain unit or army, and providing you can find people who aren't going to exploit the handful of OP units and combos, you should really be able to play anything you like. The balance issues only really become an issue when you extrapolate them by bringing as many as possible of the unit in question. 1 Riptide or Serpent is not an issue, 3+ probably is.

Basically, enjoyment is inversely proportional to how seriously you take it. If you just play to have a good time with some mates, there should be nothing stopping you enjoying it.

^
^What both of them said. I realy can not expand on both without repeating alot.

People who whine on the internet like to whine instead of playing a game.
I play 2nd edition, I play 6th edition. I have fun either way because I have a good group of friends to play with.
2nd edition with some tweaks to wargear and ban on ubercharacters is fun.
We play 6th ed without the allies rule because it is stupid and leaves too much room for broken combos.

^^ what he said. This would be the best edition of 40k ever, if they took allies out. Allies are the dumbest thing to ever be introduced into 40k.

Honestly? Don't do it.

I'm enjoying 6th so far, best edition to date IMHO. Problem is, you seem to have jumped to a conclusion already, and little in 6th edition 40k will make you change your mind. What's worse, you'll search the game down to a comma for whatever confirms your bias - be it rules, prices or even models.

My advice - Try other games, and if those fail to meet your expectations, dump this miniature wargaming thing entirely. I've had friends leave 40k for the same reasons you state in your post, try to force themselves into FoW and Dystopian Wars, then drop the wargames scene for photography and affinity training, hobbies they found more fulfilling than pàinting dozens of expensive models only to waste a perfect saturday afternoon arguing with a nerd on a dimly-lit store over some obscure rules conflict.

It's a hobby, after all.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
^^ what he said. This would be the best edition of 40k ever, if they took allies out. Allies are the dumbest thing to ever be introduced into 40k.

Not to get bogged down in an argument here, but I do disagree with this. Allies do open up some truly horrific combos (both game and fluff wise), but like certain internal army setups that can do the same, you just have to rely on the integrity of the player and their respect for the game and setting not to so that. In the same way that you should be able to trust a casual player not to take 5 Serpents or 3 Riptides or a completely no-fluffy army, you should also be able to trust them not to have Grey Knights+Necrons purely for the power.

Banning allies for even those not going to exploit them is like banning Eldar because there's the potential someone will play Serpent Spam. Trust players not to exploit the game, and the chances are in a casual setting that they won't want to anyway.

If you can trust someone not to play Triptides or Serpent Spam, you can probably trust them not to abuse Allies.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
^^ what he said. This would be the best edition of 40k ever, if they took allies out. Allies are the dumbest thing to ever be introduced into 40k.

No. Allies are amazing. I love them.
6th edition is very fun. Just don't pay attention to the internet.

I actually think putting your lascannon dude in the very front and have all his buddies behind him die for him is really stupid. I enjoyed the game then however, but I think the current edition has nice rules too, which prevents illogical situations like that.

The rules don't encourage spam any more now than they have in the past.

6th edition is dynamite. I've been playing since 3rd, and I love it!

Wings of Purity wrote:
I actually think putting your lascannon dude in the very front and have all his buddies behind him die for him is really stupid. I enjoyed the game then however, but I think the current edition has nice rules too, which prevents illogical situations like that.

The way it was always explained was someone else would pick up the weapon. They old rules even explicitly stated that.

I still don't see why it's such a huge thing for you to put the heavy weapon at the front of the squad.

Seriously, the lascannon has three feet of range. An extra inch to make sure he has some meat shields in front of him is not going to break the game.

All the threads I've been reading about 6th just make it sound like it's not fun at all

the fun depends on the army . playing many may not be fun . But when you start blasting people apart with 4xD templates on a 36" move titan , or laugh at the opposing army as your ++2 baron or tzeench dudes avoid the fire from the whole opposing army or tar pit stuff only to hit and run on last turn and claim/contest multiple objectives . All in all if you can delete whole units no matter what your opponent does , then it is very fun .

It is fun! I have played since 1st edition, and each edition has its changes and challenges, but in the end it is a blast!

 bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
It is fun! I have played since 1st edition, and each edition has its changes and challenges, but in the end it is a blast!

Yeup
The Game Mechanics are not the issue. The only time I have not enjoyed it is when the group was the problem.

The internet is the type of place where people would complain about free alcohol given away in pubs.


6th edition is fun and it works well in the casual department. But when you stick several vastly different forces against each other, then there will be problems.

We have some TFG in our club. (Well, they only play at 1850pts, and they don't like to use objectives and sernarios.) And watching their Taudar and Cypher/Grey Knights/Inquisition fall to pieces under the unstoppable forces of SM and CSM was incredibly fun.

Moral of the internet, don't believe anything you read on it. Don't believe the haters, don't believe me, don't believe anyone!

6th edition is great, the only issue is the players who, with every edition, power game.

I play fluff army lists every game i play, i win some i lose some and i don't enter tournaments. All in all i have fun.

And yes, i have been playing since first edition. Each edition has strengths and weaknesses but all of them are good fun.

In 6th edition 40k, you don't play a game so much as you act as a biological dice rolling machine.

The term "fun" is subjective. All you can do is try a game and judge for yourself.

If you have the books and the models, go for it.

It all comes down to personal taste. Some people here love it. I don't. I played one game a couple months back and started selling off my stuff. Might seem like a gut reaction, but it was my first game since 5th ended, and I really didn't have fun. I wanted to, I pawed through the rules and thought a lot sounded fun, and when I sat down to play I was bitterly disappointed. It's not my game anymore, and I don't have the time to play as much, and I've found things I enjoy more (xwing, Mantic games, zombicide, legendary, FFG material). I don't miss it and don't enjoy the changes. You might. Who knows? Try a game before you decide. If you're still not sure, try another. But only you can decide-the Internet can't.

Depends, honestly. The vast majority of the time, it is fun, because most people run "fluffy" armies and don't really care about winning. There's a lot of room for improvement though:
1) Assault is poor. Like, really, really poor. It can get a bit stale honestly, but it's not too bad
2) Codex balance is poor. Tau/Eldar will waltz over you most likely, whereas Blood Angels and Orks will be tough to win with at all. It's frustrating and GW has shown nothing other than contempt for people who want this sorted.
3) The game rarely resembles the fluff at all. This is largely due to random tables with such hilarity as Typhus turning into a worthless spawn, entire Daemon armies just losing T2 to their own warp storm and no psyker/warlord ever having any form of foresight or planning, plus battle-to-battle amnesia.
4) The entire ally system and dataslate things, along with escalation and strongpoint assault are broken messes. Sure, they can usually be used in a fluffy way, but 90% of the time they aren't. Like, not even slightly.

Why is it still fun despite all these issues? Because people ignore them and play around them. See, if you just go in with an RTS "I want to win" attitude, this is not the game for you. I wish it could be, but it's not. Campaigns, small points matches and restricted list games are all very fun and will handily bypass all the garbage parts of 40k, other than assault.

Most of the lists you see online are not really run; they're theoretical attempts to do well. In tournaments, you'll see lists like them, but in pick ups it's heavily frowned upon to do more than use what you think is cool, at least in my area. So yeah, GW hates you, the consumer base hates GW but the game functions well enough to usually be fun IMO. Just don't expect any support from the creators whatsoever.

Has Peregrin already show around here? no. good, dont belive a s coming from that user and others, and more importantly, stay aware about the fact that internet is the subjectivity itself, only opinion, if you want facts go and get a borrow armie, play some games and then make your own opinion about the game.
As personal title i only can said the game is so fun to play, and like all, the problem is more in the way of the players than the game itself, a clear example we have the videogames, where always players whine about certain powerfun weapon, about the campers, about how the map benefit only a couple of type of players etc. etc. etc. and always the blame goes to the programmers.
The people hate the game and GW as people hate EA and theirs games in the same way, but still they sold games like hot bread

 anyeri wrote:
Has Peregrin already show around here? no. good, dont belive a s coming from that user and others, and more importantly, stay aware about the fact that internet is the subjectivity itself, only opinion, if you want facts go and get a borrow armie, play some games and then make your own opinion about the game.

You get the hypocrisy of advising someone to ignore someone else's opinion? You disagree, that's fine, but asserting someone else who disagrees is wrong, when they have every right to feel that way is really thin ice. Also, name checking specific users? That could be considered confrontational and breaking rule 1.

As personal title i only can said the game is so fun to play, and like all, the problem is more in the way of the players than the game itself, a clear example we have the videogames, where always players whine about certain powerfun weapon, about the campers, about how the map benefit only a couple of type of players etc. etc. etc. and always the blame goes to the programmers.
The people hate the game and GW as people hate EA and theirs games in the same way, but still they sold games like hot bread

Yeah, I'm not familiar, but have EA just posted a significant drop in growth? Is there substantial evidence that EA have been selling fewer and fewer units of their big name games for some time and have only just about been maintaining performance by cutting costs and raising prices?

The fact is, fewer people are giving GW money, there will be multitude reasons why, but to consider that one of them is not more people are finding the game is not fun enough to be worth the cash is folly.

GW has tried its best to suck any joy it can from this game. Why? Because you can't charge joy.

In my opinion your (and your opponents) attitude determines how much fun you have.
The rules and models and everything else are tools we use to have fun!

UnadoptedPuppy wrote:
In my opinion your (and your opponents) attitude determines how much fun you have.
The rules and models and everything else are tools we use to have fun!

Which is why a lot of people choose to play games with better rules, models, and everything else.

UnadoptedPuppy wrote:
In my opinion your (and your opponents) attitude determines how much fun you have.
The rules and models and everything else are tools we use to have fun!

Unfortunately, the rules are so varied in consistency and quality, that two players can both turn up in good faith for a game, and bring lists so widely divided in capability that one has nothing but a statistically unlikely chance of anything other than being trounced. While one can still have fun hanging out with people who's company you enjoy, one can enjoy the game markedly more if you feel you can at least compete.

40K works much better in a social gaming group, where everyone can come to some sort of accord as to what approach to take, but unfortunately the majority of us don't have the luxury of such a set up, and those of us who play in a much wider, more open environment, would likely find our enjoyment of the game massively enhanced by a ruleset that didn't allow for a disparity in attitude to facilitate such a huge divide in power level on the tabletop.

Pretty simple solution to this problem IMO. Go to your FLGS or find a friend and have somebody demo the game for you using one of their armies. Decide if you enjoy or hate 6th edition. Done and done.

Eyjio wrote:
Depends, honestly. The vast majority of the time, it is fun, because most people run "fluffy" armies and don't really care about winning. There's a lot of room for improvement though:
1) Assault is poor. Like, really, really poor. It can get a bit stale honestly, but it's not too bad
2) Codex balance is poor. Tau/Eldar will waltz over you most likely, whereas Blood Angels and Orks will be tough to win with at all. It's frustrating and GW has shown nothing other than contempt for people who want this sorted.
3) The game rarely resembles the fluff at all. This is largely due to random tables with such hilarity as Typhus turning into a worthless spawn, entire Daemon armies just losing T2 to their own warp storm and no psyker/warlord ever having any form of foresight or planning, plus battle-to-battle amnesia.
4) The entire ally system and dataslate things, along with escalation and strongpoint assault are broken messes. Sure, they can usually be used in a fluffy way, but 90% of the time they aren't. Like, not even slightly.

Why is it still fun despite all these issues? Because people ignore them and play around them. See, if you just go in with an RTS "I want to win" attitude, this is not the game for you. I wish it could be, but it's not. Campaigns, small points matches and restricted list games are all very fun and will handily bypass all the garbage parts of 40k, other than assault.

Most of the lists you see online are not really run; they're theoretical attempts to do well. In tournaments, you'll see lists like them, but in pick ups it's heavily frowned upon to do more than use what you think is cool, at least in my area. So yeah, GW hates you, the consumer base hates GW but the game functions well enough to usually be fun IMO. Just don't expect any support from the creators whatsoever.

 azreal13 wrote:

UnadoptedPuppy wrote:
In my opinion your (and your opponents) attitude determines how much fun you have.
The rules and models and everything else are tools we use to have fun!

Unfortunately, the rules are so varied in consistency and quality, that two players can both turn up in good faith for a game, and bring lists so widely divided in capability that one has nothing but a statistically unlikely chance of anything other than being trounced. While one can still have fun hanging out with people who's company you enjoy, one can enjoy the game markedly more if you feel you can at least compete.

40K works much better in a social gaming group, where everyone can come to some sort of accord as to what approach to take, but unfortunately the majority of us don't have the luxury of such a set up, and those of us who play in a much wider, more open environment, would likely find our enjoyment of the game massively enhanced by a ruleset that didn't allow for a disparity in attitude to facilitate such a huge divide in power level on the tabletop.

Exalted for truth. The most important thing is to agree on what 'version' of Warhammer your playing - some like to break the game and use fluff destroying power combos, some run pure fun or fluff lists, and others are in the middle somewhere. All are valid ways of playing, but if your not both playing the same Warhammer 40k, its gonna be a gak game for sure.