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'm back in the fold building an Eldar ghost army. I have yet to play a game, but looking forward to the first one.
It seems that many people are unhappy with the current edition, but is it really that bad? I look at the basics and seem to like what I see compared to the last time I played (4th I think). Objectives, defensive fire, shooting and maneuver being more important (it's the sci-fi...shouldn't be assault oriented). Granted, codex escalation and bad combos always pop up and I think the whole allies thing needs reworking to cut down on some of the abuse, but the system seems decent at first glance.
From what I typically see, a lot of people's issues with the shooting aspect could be resolved if they put a little thought into the terrain on the table. I never understood how 40K could look so good with the models and just be so horrible with terrain. make a table that actually makes sense, LOS blocking cover to allow assault troops to get closer without being blasted. Difficult terrain to force relevant checks, etc.

So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.

 Marzillius wrote:
As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far.

Seconded.

Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now. I think most of the problems that people have is how the rules could be exploited to allow a very unfair advantage.

Depends on what you want out of the game. If you want to play competitively it's a horrible system with ridiculous balance, bad rules, and no developer feedback. If you want to have some fun with your friends and don't care about your win percentage it can be great fun. If you enjoy painting and modeling it can also be very enjoyable. GW minis are really good (despite some complaints) and easy to assemble with quite nice detail. Plus the backstory is one of my favorites. I love how silly over the top crazy it can get some of the time.

It's still my main game but at this point that's more because it's what all my friends play. Would I get into 40k again? Maybe. It really all depends on what the people around me are playing at this point.

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be the negative guy, but actually learning a few non-GW tabletop games made me realize how much better organized things can be. I'm not one of the "GW haters" though. I still enjoy playing 40k, but I enjoy it because I'm playin it with my friends, and would probably enjoy that time equally much no matter what game we played.

I would just change one thing and that would be that I don't think models should be removed from the front, I think you should be able to choose.

bullyboy wrote:
So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

The usual.

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.
Lack of direction in the game.
Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,
Wound allocations.
Flyers very poorly implemented.
Lack of balance (always an issue)
Sloppy codex design.
Price hikes.
Lack of company support for the community.

Marzillius wrote:As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.

Debateable. I've seen more people drop 40k this edition than in fourth or fifth. I've seen other games like warmachine gut established 40k communities both here in the uk and back in Ireland. Then there are the gw financials - seems fewer and fewer are getting involved. It's a shame really...

By the way, Do you have any evidence for that claim that 'most people' think it's the best edition so far?

As for the rules being good, look at ymdc. debatable, at best...

SkavenLord wrote:Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now. I think most of the problems that people have is how the rules could be exploited to allow a very unfair advantage.

The fact the game can be exploited so readily and easily for such huge advantages is part of the problem for a lot of people, myself included.

bullyboy wrote:

So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

The core of the rule set is pretty good. There is perhaps some unnecessary fiddliness with too many random charts, but YMMV (and your group may kick them out!).

40k is not Magic, or a board game, or even like previous editions of 40k. You can't just pick up and play a game by the "basic rules." They don't exist anymore. You need to own your game.

It's not that bad. I mean, we spend months painting an army, we can spend 10 minutes setting up a game so we know what rules we ant to play and how we want to play them.

I really, really hate 6th edition. Not enough to stop playing, but yeah I'm not a fan. Hull points I hate, 6th ed wound allocation I hate, flyers and flying monstrous creatures should have stayed in the realm of Forge World, allies create all sorts of problems, all the supplements and mini-codices are just worthless chaff with a $50 price tag, random psyker powers, and the intention of the design studio to make everything ever made legal has just created a horrible mess of a game. I actually really miss the simplicity of 5th edition, but I'll acknowledge that it had its issues too.

The 6th edition rulebook is mostly good (hull points, pull from the front, 2d6 charges, etc, are all good). Psychic powers are a little too random with a d6, maybe subdivide into offense and defense powers and roll a d3 would be better.

It seems like the codices are where the problems show up, because they often retcon basic rules out of the army.

As an example, rough terrain was always the best way to protect your infantry against flanking forces of bikers and jet bikers, forcing them to take dangerous terrain tests. Now, they can take armor saves against those tests, which is fine, but in codex Space Marines, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and probably others, every one of their bikers can just ignore difficult terrain (no test, no armor save). And instead of limiting armies to a few core anti-cover weapons (usually close quarters flamers) most armies have lots of ignore cover weapons.

Every problem I've had comes from players.

It's the best edition so far. It has huge balance problems, but they are limited to certain lists you usually won't run into.

It depends on who you play with more than other editions. If you know the people and have good communication, you can pull all kinds of fun games.
But unlike the other editions, if you don't have an understanding with the other player, the chance of having a really crappy game is even greater. You might bring your ork army and find yourself up against a wryven heavy IG army that tables you in two turns. No chance of winning =/= fun.

The core ruleset is the best out of all editions. There are still a lot of rules debate but just comparing previous editions this is the best so far.

The problem is in 6th, GW has also introduced a lot of additions like dataslates, FAQ, formations, lord of war, fortifications. So unless you communicate with your opponent what type of game you are expecting your enjoyment can go from an exciting game to worst game ever!

I would compared to a car race. In most races, such as NASCAR, formula 1, even street races there are some type of rule and regulations. You can't bring a NASCAR to a formula 1 event and vice versa.

Currently GW's model to sell more minitures has altered the rules so that you can basically bring anything you want to a game. Given the game has a win/lose model some players will take advantage and bring WAAC/unfun lists. If you like this rules model where basicly anything goes you will enjoy 40K.

Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

It is 50-50 for me compared to 5th edition. Many things are better, some things were simplified, however they added lots of small stuff which starts to annoy after a while: minor special rules which you tend to forget like Soul Blaze, Hammer of Wrath, Precision shots etc, too many rolls when you start a game (Warlord traits, Psychic powers, Mysterious terrain & objectives etc). It just feels like it's a draft of a ruleset which was not streamlined enough in a playtest. Probably because it was not properly playtested...

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

What about my poor underpowered Tyrannofex?

He's got 6 wounds and a 2+, he can even get superior versions of IWND.

But nobody loves him.

Because his guns all suck and he's terrible in assault.

And costs too much.

And my old armor shell Tyrants and Carnifexes weren't that bad.

:(

 Kain wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

What about my poor underpowered Tyrannofex?

He's got 6 wounds and a 2+, he can even get superior versions of IWND.

But nobody loves him.

Because his guns all suck and he's terrible in assault.

And costs too much.

:(

That's a problem with his killing power effectiveness, though, isn't it? I miss the days when taking high strength AP3 guns wasn't list suicide.

Yes, 6th edition as it stands now really is as bad as the internet makes it out to be. It suffers from poor written and bloated rules, gak poor internal/external balancing, blatant money grabs and badly executed concepts. Escalation could have been alright if they had nerfed or removed ranged D-strength weaponry. It unfairly punishes people who enjoy playing vehicles while giving Eldar another broken unit.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Some people claim internal balance issues inside books, to which I will point at them any game with a roster of units as large as that, or large itself similar to in 40k, some people claim external balance issues between Dexes being more powerful, but this is more a case of how good/bad internal balance is in both Dexes for pretty much all armies, as even the Dexes seen to be the most weak can create powerful lists to counter lists from the "stronger" Dexes. Thus it becomes more of a measure of how many play styles/competitive lists each Codex can churn out in relation to others.

Vehicle rules are balanced fine, the issue is with the vehicles themselves. Things like Razorbacks are too weak and their firepower too mediocre, plus they're costly.

Monstrous Creatures are admittedly a bit absurd, maybe, just maybe balanced if we look at the rules skeleton, but when we get things like Riptides they're potentially game-breaking. I don't think we should ever be seeing MC's with consistent 2+ saves, ever.

Flyers are fine. People failing to compensate for them yet still I feel no sympathy for given the massive increase in AA options since the 6th Ed drop.

The rules on Battle Brothers need a revision, though if you're not playing tournaments/highly competitive games you won't be seeing much of the weaker side of them.

Each and every single way of getting 2+ invulnerable saves with re-rolls needs to be ripped out of the game and never seen again.

Also, Phil Kelly should never write another Dex again, not after Codex: Wave Serpents and Codex: Rune Priests/Grey Hunters/Long Fangs in 5th. Anyone that doesn't think Wave Serpents are overpowered are lying through their teeth. They'd still be broken even without the flexibility of choosing between the effectively infinite range D6+1 S7 ignores cover part or the 2+ ignore penetrations feature, because both are incredibly stupid and have invalidated entire armies.

What about my poor underpowered Tyrannofex?

He's got 6 wounds and a 2+, he can even get superior versions of IWND.

But nobody loves him.

Because his guns all suck and he's terrible in assault.

And costs too much.

:(

That's a problem with his killing power effectiveness, though, isn't it? I miss the days when taking high strength AP3 guns wasn't list suicide.

You'd think the T-fex would make for a great bullet sponge, but most people realize he's essentially overpaying for what a guard player can do better and more cheaply on more mobile platforms. So his durability rarely comes into play because he's just flat out ignored. He's a sad little thing.

The Tyranid MCs compared to everyone else's are just so...underwhelming.

I mean our 500 point heirodule biotitan can get punched out by a Wraithknight for half the points or get his brains splattered by Darnath Lysander in assault.

The problem is that a lot of these fixes end up punishing the likes of Bloodthirsters and Carnifexes for the excesses of the Riptide and Dreadknight.

Deadnight wrote:

bullyboy wrote:
So, in your humble opinion, step back from the annoyance of some of the "stars" for a moment and think about the ruleset by itself....what don't you like?

The usual.

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.
Lack of direction in the game.
Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,
Wound allocations.
Flyers very poorly implemented.
Lack of balance (always an issue)
Sloppy codex design.
Price hikes.
Lack of company support for the community.

Marzillius wrote:As far as I've seen, most people (including me) think that 6th edition is the best one so far. The rules really are very good, it's a vocal minority that's making all the fuss.

Debateable. I've seen more people drop 40k this edition than in fourth or fifth. I've seen other games like warmachine gut established 40k communities both here in the uk and back in Ireland. Then there are the gw financials - seems fewer and fewer are getting involved. It's a shame really...

By the way, Do you have any evidence for that claim that 'most people' think it's the best edition so far?

As for the rules being good, look at ymdc. debatable, at best...

SkavenLord wrote:Personally, I actually enjoyed 6th more than 5th. I loved the fortification system, the psyker tables, and how melee weapons had profiles now. I think most of the problems that people have is how the rules could be exploited to allow a very unfair advantage.

The fact the game can be exploited so readily and easily for such huge advantages is part of the problem for a lot of people, myself included.

The evidence would be all the polls on Dakkadakka and other warhammer related sites about which edition was best. 6th was always the most chosen answer, and if I remember correctly the Dakkadakka poll had almost 3000 answers.

I've been playing since 3rd, and this is my favorite edition.

nice replies so far. I won't address each poster individually but just make comments on certain aspects I found interesting..

Rules are clunky....yeah, I can see that. Simplicity is a wonderful thing in rulesets. I like FOW for that reason, keep the mechanics simple as long as the end result represents what you were trying to achieve.

Special Rules...way over the top. Everything has a special rule so now, it's no longer special, it's just more rules. One thing I don't like about certain rules is that a fundamental rule is developed, then a plethora of troop types come out with a special rule that negates the fundamental...that's bad rules design.

2++ reroll saves....yeah, should never exist, period.

Wound allocation...I find this unnecessary. Allocate hits throughout unit and take saves from there. Let owning player allocate who gets hit first (with some exceptions for mixed saves etc).

Flyers..our group doesn't use them, so no problem.

Random psyker rules...I have no issue with this otherwise the same one would be used over and over.


One thing that I'm not impressed with (but I understand it's part of GW's marketing strategy..always has been), is the constant inclusion of new units, that were never mentioned in fluff before. And IMHO, some of them are just plain ridiculous. The Ravenwing were always appealing to me with the bikes/Attack bikes/land speeders. Now I see several Rw flyers, land speeders on steroids and other silliness, it never ends. And guess what? They all come with special rules.

Luckily for me, our group comes from FOW where we have always discussed certain elements before games, so this will carry over into 40K. Realistic terrain (not random blobs), mission objectives, "sensible" allies (if we use them at all)

Yes it is.

This is the single worst edition of 40k. The wheels have come off the wagon with DLC all over the play and zero FAQ support.

The core rules are a mess and contradictory. 40k, what do you want to be? Necromunda or Apocalypse? We have rules for flyers side by side with rules for challenges and individual power weapons whilst wanting to have huge battles. The latter parts would be fine were 40k still on the scale it was in 2nd ed. But it isn't.

Balance has been thrown out the window and has gone up to levels other editions never even dared to go (even the tail end of 3rd was not as bad as this) with allies just crapping over all the background and are just there to get the best combo possible.
GW might as well have taken a piss over every page in the rulebook so the stick of their contempt runs foetid quite literally through every page.

5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative". They made far too many changes to the game that are simply unilateral. Change for the sake of change.
The development of the game moves sideways, not forward as a result. My biggest bugbear being wound allocation. Yes, it needed tweaking (but only then only a handful of units could abuse it, for the most part it was fine) not completely overhauling into a system that is more appropriate for a game the scale of Warmachine and not 40k where some factions can run armies into the triple figures.

So, all in all 6th IMO is an unplayable hippy dippy mess of a cash grab masquerading as a wargame.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Psychic powers, warlord traits, assault ranges, the whole bastard daemon codex.

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Random psychic powers...

Random charge distance...

Random warlord traits (so my commander has a different set of abilities today than the dud yesterday... Yeah, there's forging the narrative)

Mysterious terrain...

Basically, 'choice' replaced with 'roll on table x' because gw aren't interested in balance, viable options across the board or playtesting to fix things.

Is Warhammer 40k really that bad?

This question determines where you play. If your local scene has completely dissolved and is playing other skirmish games, or nothing at all, then yes. If you still have a dedicated group of either complete lackadaisical players or complete competitive players, both enforcing a type of meta game through spoken (or unspoken) army composition, then you're probably still having some fun.

However, you have asked the wrong question. I still enjoy the concept of 40k; of Eldar and Space Marines and Battle Nuns and Orks all in space! The real question is:

Is Games Workshop really that bad?

Yes.

You have a company that has flat declared any of it's customers as walking wallets. We have documented records of them saying, during the Chapterhouse court case, that the favorite hobby activity is buying Games Workshop product.

You have a publicly traded international company retreating to it's Ivory Tower, closing off all public communication and support channels, cutting corporate staff left and right, marginalizing any form of game support, all while charging the highest prices in the industry for gaming material, hobby supplies, and models.

This is a company that stated the move from metal to resin was a cost-savings generating position that resulted in a higher cost per model to the end consumer. This is without discussing the huge loss of quality that opened many eyes to the concept: "Games Workshop does not make the best models in the industry." The resin line is proof if this.

They have the largest competition ever to date. They have a declining market share. They have reduced sales volumes with profits held up through cost cutting and price increases. They have reported one bad financial report and we are waiting for the end of fiscal year report within the next month or so. The company has all but dropped diversity putting all their eggs in the Warhammer 40k basket. As a business, they are doing everything wrong in operating a sustainable publicly traded company.

If you want some actual discussion from someone more accredited than my research, start here:

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

It's a 13 part series on how Games Workshop is not looking good. Who this gentleman is and what his credentials are can be found on the first page. Plus, he sells a great product in the minis scene too. I recommend it.

Until Games Workshop shows that I am more than a walking wallet, I will be forgoing purchases. I have been since the December to Remember event. The same expenditures for one 40k army have given me a three armies in three different skirmish games. Two of which I've been supported by company supported volunteers who aid in the growth and development of their communities.

Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

Deadnight wrote:

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Random psychic powers...

Random charge distance...

Random warlord traits (so my commander has a different set of abilities today than the dud yesterday... Yeah, there's forging the narrative)

Mysterious terrain...

Basically, 'choice' replaced with 'roll on table x' because gw aren't interested in balance, viable options across the board or playtesting to fix things.

I don't see random psyker powers as a bad thing. Charge distances is probably problematic, will have to see. Warlord Traits didn't exist when i played so adding something in, even if random, is not that big of a deal. A commander would not be a good commander if he didn't have a wide range of tactical prowess.

Overall, 'm not buying that randomness is rampant in this ruleset, and isn't the reason for the hostility of many players.