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 don't agree on LOW not belonging in normal 40k. I honestly like seeing a centerpiece large model in some armies. Personally if i had the reigns at GW it would have been 0-1000 no LOW, 1001-2000 1 LOW, 2001+ unlimited LOW.
For the Imperial knight codex make armigers and a few new smaller knights as fast attack, heavy support, elite and HQs that are just those models but with commanders in them. Then add in knight vassels as troops and support for the knights.
I can really only go by my own experience with 6th (I have played ALL other versions and after trying 6th gave 7th a pass).
Yes, the "Kirby Years" were bad where it was all about the models and "pay to win" was a financial strategy for GW back then.
My main issue was that there were SO many areas for rules there was no way you could afford or lay your hands on them all.
I usually collected pretty much all the rules, that was the first time I completely gave up.
That was also the first time I cancelled my White Dwarf subscription.
It was a Vogue magazine of models and precious little substance: gaming truly did not matter or even the fluff.
I REALLY wanted to like 6th edition for one main reason: they tried to contain all the special rules into the BRB so then a commonized ruleset could be created.
But that was short lived as a "special snowflake" version of these rules would come out with each new model rules release.
We complain about "soup" now, this was when they introduced the various allies and how they play with each other, we started getting the special powers from one faction applied to others that made an unmanageable "cross-pollination".
I think that mess was largely the invention of "key words" to limit how much one unit can buff another.
The game when playing became insanely fussy.
I swear the biggest cause of the game bogging down was killing models "closest to closest" which made the placement of every bloody model "precious".
Nevermind the comedy of putting one model in front to "tank" for the squad.
Forget the vehicle points, I point to that above rule for being a pain in the rear to execute in the game, heaven forbid the "grouping" of the various wound shooting applied to these models... I almost needed a flowchart for that.
I usually like all games to some degree, I was VERY upset that I realized I completely HATED 6th edition no matter how hard I tried to like it.
3rd edition was OK but as we got into "3.5" with the various updates that was when it seemed to hit it's stride, the introduction of "apocalypse" was when the game exploded, anyone remember the deals for buying a single 3 vehicle kit as a good deal? They were doing it right.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
G00fySmiley wrote: I don't agree on LOW not belonging in normal 40k. I honestly like seeing a centerpiece large model in some armies. Personally if i had the reigns at GW it would have been 0-1000 no LOW, 1001-2000 1 LOW, 2001+ unlimited LOW. .
And flyers as well. Also I think some detachments should require certain specific taxes for HQs
G00fySmiley wrote: I don't agree on LOW not belonging in normal 40k. I honestly like seeing a centerpiece large model in some armies. Personally if i had the reigns at GW it would have been 0-1000 no LOW, 1001-2000 1 LOW, 2001+ unlimited LOW. .
And flyers as well. Also I think some detachments should require certain specific taxes for HQs
i would have agreed in 6th but I think now with flyers just being -1 to hit its not as bad as LOW. My main army is orks and since i can still hit on 6's i find I can deal with them. I do with GW would throw in a every army at least hits on 6's always rule though for those stacking -hit things, alternatively just say they do not affect flyers.
G00fySmiley wrote: There was battlewagon bash with nobs, nob bikers or kan wall backed by nobz. they were not a power house but were more a middle of the road power curve in 5th with their 4th edition codex mostly because of those wound shenanagins. Without it they would have been pretty much trash tier.
The 4e books were in reasonable shape at the start of 5th. 5e marines facing an ork battlewagon wall, chaos lash abuse, even 3e mech sisters would be a hard fight, but later 5e books really stepped it up - 5e marines against 5e GK wasn't really a fight.
Having personally sticked with it a long time and not having actially shifted to another edition since I began, can't say that it's undeniably bad since i've nothing to compare it to. However a few oddities, to me, could not slip unnnoticed:
Duels, which din't always make sense depending on what you're at blows with, and unleashed an ungodly amount of despair when making an entire squad of orks fall back to a chaos lord all of its own, said chaos lord forced to only kill a single IG sergeant instead of wreaking havoc and not getting tied with the littlr, harmless guards, straken being litterally useless due to his initiative stat making him a trophy to anything with init 4 and more...
Flyers: we rapidly toned them down by shifting the 6+ to hot into -1, because it otjerwise became a auto win button when heldrakes started rampaging invincibly though your hole army.
Allies: we dislike it in my group because of the feel it has got to play versus a list of several armies, but we pretty much ignored it altogether.
Close combat: just ridiculously beaten down to unglodly uselessness by the rules.
I personnaly don't mind the random psychic powers or warlord traits, in fact we are mostly regarding it an interesting uncertainty to take in account and to adapt to. Unpopular opinion, but after all, why not?
All that said I've always played within a group of more or oess like minded friends and pals, so my experience of the matter is very specific to the way we play.
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
I feel like 6th was decent. 7th quickly became a shitshow of broken formations and possibly the WORST codex geedubz has ever gak out - 7th ed orks, which is why I remember it being awful.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
2019/12/06 19:07:33
Subject: Re:Why do so many consider 6th edition bad?
morganfreeman wrote: 6th edition destroyed melee as an army strategy. It was only revived with immaculate deathstars in 7th.
6th had the strongest melee DS in 40k history, the Eldar, DE, Harlequins, could double move, hit and run, Stealth, Banshee mask, run and charge, couldnt be shot at outside of 2D6 range, and had X amount of 4++ 2 wound models that were used as wound shenanigans (Shadowseer, The Baron, Farseer/Autarch, 1-5 Beastmaster, And 15-25 Khymeraea beasts, or some RWF's for Rending).
Sure it was a 800pts unit, but you couldnt kill it and it would kill 1-2 units a turn + always where it needed to be, it was literally impossible to get away from.
I played it only twice and decided i would never do that again. By far the worst thing i have seen in 40k, worst than the Apoc crap that could shoot 6 Void missions (the ones that stayed on the table) at least that was funny.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:07:50
Hull points and tissue-paper vehicles. Flyers and knights and super-heavies in normal games. 2D6" charge distances + Overwatch. Random psychic powers and warlord traits. Challenges. Invisibility. Jink. Allies. Formations. 20 pages of special rules that grant other special rules that grant other special rules. Horrendously balanced codices. Snap shots. Casualties from the front.
All of this stuff basically destroyed the game and set off the current meta-chasing arms race we're stuck in. 7th was an attempt to fix it that failed. 8th is another attempt to fix it, but from a completely different direction. It too seems to be failing.
This has been brought over a lot of times already, was this this much of a problem? I've never tried without them but comparing to bolt action where you do face a binary dead/alive case (plus potential crippling damages), I've always felt it was a but rough to either never ever even scratch the paint of the tank or on the contrary set it in flames with a single hit, and as such I figured out the hull points are an okay solution to mitigate the potential godlike invicibility of an armoured vehicule.
That's just my reasoning, I don't claim to be right.
40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.
"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.
2019/12/06 22:10:29
Subject: Re:Why do so many consider 6th edition bad?
morganfreeman wrote: 6th edition destroyed melee as an army strategy. It was only revived with immaculate deathstars in 7th.
6th had the strongest melee DS in 40k history, the Eldar, DE, Harlequins, could double move, hit and run, Stealth, Banshee mask, run and charge, couldnt be shot at outside of 2D6 range, and had X amount of 4++ 2 wound models that were used as wound shenanigans (Shadowseer, The Baron, Farseer/Autarch, 1-5 Beastmaster, And 15-25 Khymeraea beasts, or some RWF's for Rending).
Sure it was a 800pts unit, but you couldnt kill it and it would kill 1-2 units a turn + always where it needed to be, it was literally impossible to get away from.
I played it only twice and decided i would never do that again. By far the worst thing i have seen in 40k, worst than the Apoc crap that could shoot 6 Void missions (the ones that stayed on the table) at least that was funny.
So still based around a group of deathstars that could be caused by a combination of character stacking, Allies nonsense, and ridiculous psychic powers. Yes, things like Beaststar, Screamer Bombs, and DA/SW Super Friends were probably the most "powerful" individual melee got, but I can guess the reason most people consider melee at it's weakest during 6th and seventh was because anything outside those select few was dead weight.
I'm also pretty sure Beast Star was still hard counted by Imperial Knight's stomp attacks.
This has been brought over a lot of times already, was this this much of a problem? I've never tried without them but comparing to bolt action where you do face a binary dead/alive case (plus potential crippling damages), I've always felt it was a but rough to either never ever even scratch the paint of the tank or on the contrary set it in flames with a single hit, and as such I figured out the hull points are an okay solution to mitigate the potential godlike invicibility of an armoured vehicule.
That's just my reasoning, I don't claim to be right.
the problem was that vehicles could be gradually degraded both by the damage table and HP's, except they had so few HP's and no save that it wasn't very gradual...and they could still be insta-killed to boot. Having the two overlapping kill mechanics just didnt work well, and the implementation of HP's was really poor in and of itself.
It also didn't help that vehicles were the only units that had to care about facings and arcs, making their functionality really poor relative to other unit types (barring flyers and skimmers)
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
This has been brought over a lot of times already, was this this much of a problem? I've never tried without them but comparing to bolt action where you do face a binary dead/alive case (plus potential crippling damages), I've always felt it was a but rough to either never ever even scratch the paint of the tank or on the contrary set it in flames with a single hit, and as such I figured out the hull points are an okay solution to mitigate the potential godlike invicibility of an armoured vehicule.
That's just my reasoning, I don't claim to be right.
Well there were two problems: one conceptual and one practical.
The conceptual issue is that making tanks just big multi-wound models made them less special. In my opinion and experience, it was really fun that that most shots would do nothing, but you could knock out a tank with a single shot from the right weapon--or a very lucky shot from a middling weapon. It made tanks feel like tanks. Their armor felt like it made a huge difference. You would never even think of wasting Heavy Bolter shots on most vehicles other than light Ork buggies and the like. Even Autocannons were a big risk to shoot at heavy tanks. You would probably do nothing at all. ...You know, like real tanks!
The implementation issue was HPs were bolted onto the existing damage system, meaning that suddenly there was an additional way to kill a tank, and the new method (stripping off hull points) was really really easy because each could be removed with a mere glancing hit. This made even heavy tanks much weaker than monstrous creatures and even some hero models. The bottom line is that if you're going to make tanks into multi-wound creatures, you need to ensure their durability by either giving them a lot of wounds, or make it really hard to knock off each wound. 6th edition did neither.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/12/07 05:10:00
Orks didn't get a codex and we were stuck with 4th edition. Then I remember 7th edition... where I lost a cc battle of 30 ork boyz vs 5 Necron snipers.
Honestly, it was about 5th-6th edition the game moved away fom being a fun army builder rpg you played with your friends and became a nightmare casual game that emphasised maximum profits, tailored unbeatable lists just for winning and is when GW became ugly. Also I remember the whole ultrasmerf lore getting out of hand.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/07 06:05:39
Though, I do have to genuinely say the OP is the first time I've read someone go postal on Cityfight.
Yeah, right? That struck me as odd too. I found Cityfight to be a pretty great 40k mod.
Serious? It was the butt of so many jokes in our group with it's record-breaking logical stretches in the name of simplification.
If you have a sniper on top of the Empire State Building, and there's a guy with a pistol on the ground touching the wall, he could plink the sniper from where he was standing. Absolutely mind-bending nonsense.
This has been brought over a lot of times already, was this this much of a problem? I've never tried without them but comparing to bolt action where you do face a binary dead/alive case (plus potential crippling damages), I've always felt it was a but rough to either never ever even scratch the paint of the tank or on the contrary set it in flames with a single hit, and as such I figured out the hull points are an okay solution to mitigate the potential godlike invicibility of an armoured vehicule.
That's just my reasoning, I don't claim to be right.
In addition to what's been said about durability, there's another point to be added: Vehicles were the only unit that could be degraded as a default of their existence.
Damage charts didn't exist, but since any Penetrating hit got a special hitstun effect of some kind on top of the base damage, it was entirely possible for there to be 3 possible results from a penetrating hit that effectively destroyed the tank in question. (If you're running a transport, a 3, 5, or 6 on turn one meant that the boys inside would have to walk. For shooty vehicles, being shaken, stunned, or having the main gun destroyed was almost as bad as death.
In previous editions, this wasn't as big of a deal because penetrating hits were rare and scary, and represented your only possible chance at death. (For vehicles like Land Raiders, even a Lascannon only scores a penetrating hit 1/6th of the time.) When this is on top of stripping your wounds, though, it becomes really difficult to justify the cost of most vehicles unless they were severely undercosted otherwise.
2019/12/07 08:48:13
Subject: Re:Why do so many consider 6th edition bad?
Talizvar wrote: I can really only go by my own experience with 6th (I have played ALL other versions and after trying 6th gave 7th a pass).
Yes, the "Kirby Years" were bad where it was all about the models and "pay to win" was a financial strategy for GW back then.
My main issue was that there were SO many areas for rules there was no way you could afford or lay your hands on them all.
I usually collected pretty much all the rules, that was the first time I completely gave up.
That was also the first time I cancelled my White Dwarf subscription.
It was a Vogue magazine of models and precious little substance: gaming truly did not matter or even the fluff.
I REALLY wanted to like 6th edition for one main reason: they tried to contain all the special rules into the BRB so then a commonized ruleset could be created.
But that was short lived as a "special snowflake" version of these rules would come out with each new model rules release.
We complain about "soup" now, this was when they introduced the various allies and how they play with each other, we started getting the special powers from one faction applied to others that made an unmanageable "cross-pollination".
I think that mess was largely the invention of "key words" to limit how much one unit can buff another.
The game when playing became insanely fussy.
I swear the biggest cause of the game bogging down was killing models "closest to closest" which made the placement of every bloody model "precious".
Nevermind the comedy of putting one model in front to "tank" for the squad.
Forget the vehicle points, I point to that above rule for being a pain in the rear to execute in the game, heaven forbid the "grouping" of the various wound shooting applied to these models... I almost needed a flowchart for that.
I usually like all games to some degree, I was VERY upset that I realized I completely HATED 6th edition no matter how hard I tried to like it.
3rd edition was OK but as we got into "3.5" with the various updates that was when it seemed to hit it's stride, the introduction of "apocalypse" was when the game exploded, anyone remember the deals for buying a single 3 vehicle kit as a good deal? They were doing it right.
Quoted all this to say, yes I do remember the Apocalypse bundle boxes and I loved them. I picked up a few of those boxes while they lasted. I may be forgetting one but I picked up the 2 Tau Boxes and the one marine battle company box, with a discount over the discount. Was fantastic.
2019/12/07 09:50:33
Subject: Re:Why do so many consider 6th edition bad?
morganfreeman wrote: 6th edition destroyed melee as an army strategy. It was only revived with immaculate deathstars in 7th.
6th had the strongest melee DS in 40k history,
Spoiler:
the Eldar, DE, Harlequins, could double move, hit and run, Stealth, Banshee mask, run and charge, couldnt be shot at outside of 2D6 range, and had X amount of 4++ 2 wound models that were used as wound shenanigans (Shadowseer, The Baron, Farseer/Autarch, 1-5 Beastmaster, And 15-25 Khymeraea beasts, or some RWF's for Rending).
Sure it was a 800pts unit, but you couldnt kill it and it would kill 1-2 units a turn + always where it needed to be, it was literally impossible to get away from.
I played it only twice and decided i would never do that again. By far the worst thing i have seen in 40k, worst than the Apoc crap that could shoot 6 Void missions (the ones that stayed on the table) at least that was funny.
Dude, you even quoted the bit about immaculate death stars.
Yes. 6th and (to a greater extent) 7th edition had melee death stars. They exclusively came in the form of one pretty deadly unit stacked with multiple attached characters for aura effects, often times from allies, and then immense psychic support (also usually from allies). These deathstars were utterly lethal, and would solo armies on their own.
Note that I said melee as an army strategy.
What that means is that the various codex which are designed to be melee focused, with shooting more as a support element, were a gak show. Stuff like Nids, Space Wolves, Orks, demons, ect, all suffered heavily. It also meant that Codex' which were meant to be flexible and go choppy or shooting, with the non-focal element playing support - various shades of Eldar, crons, most marines, and spikey marines - would be hugely disadvantaged if they focused on the chop.
Again, the exception to this is immaculate deathstars. Yes, you could stick Drogo + 3 other named characters from other Imperium books into a unit of paladins to have perma invis with multiple 2++ rerollable save tanks and 4+ FPN and tear it up.. But if you wanted to run a Grey Knight's list which chopped gak, but didn't have a superfriends deathstar, you were going to get creamed.
Meanwhile, Tyranids didn't have the needed powers or allies, so they only had one strong unit in their entire codex. Orks didn't have access to the right psychic powers (or much of a psychic phase to speak of.. nor allies...), so they got their faces pushed in by just about anything that looked there way. Most shades of marine were only useful for a specific character or two they could contribute to the super-friends deathstar, at least until they got Gladius and Girly-man. Chaos was left eating gak off the floor.
Meanwhile, the Never-Allowed-To-Be-Weak-Brigade of Tau and Eldar (not dark) got to gak all over everyone with the strongest codex' around my miles. And in the case of Eldar, even draw from a diverse pool of allies to dump mountains of salt into the already festering wounds.
We're talking about an edition where non-deathstar melee was so awful that Ork Boys would inflict more casualties from range than in melee. Where bringing a PK on your nob was almost always seen as a waste of points because the unit would either get wiped out before it closed the distance, or your nob would get challenged out; and wind up using his 25 point powerfist to pump a lone IG sergeant, or get cut down by anyone semi competent at melee due to being I1 with a 6+ save. 4+ if you paid points for it.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and that reminds me of Precision Shots. Where shooting was given the ability to single-out particular models in units, so you could snipe out the threats before they got to grips.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/07 10:03:19
Though, I do have to genuinely say the OP is the first time I've read someone go postal on Cityfight.
Yeah, right? That struck me as odd too. I found Cityfight to be a pretty great 40k mod.
Serious? It was the butt of so many jokes in our group with it's record-breaking logical stretches in the name of simplification.
If you have a sniper on top of the Empire State Building, and there's a guy with a pistol on the ground touching the wall, he could plink the sniper from where he was standing. Absolutely mind-bending nonsense.
Did you actually play with terrain that tall, or did you just make this up to break your immersion? What rule is this referring to, anyways, not measuring vertical distance? It's been a while since I played it.
Never had the pleasure of 6th edition but only Rogue Trader and 3rd edition...
...but 40K has certainly had some serious changes since I last played. I like the more flexible detachment system but there is one change since 5th edition I detest regarding Tyranids - a Warrior brood are no longer an HQ or Elite choice, now demoted to being a mere troop unit. The Prime somewhat fixes this, but an awkward purchase decision because you need another warrior for the remaining two - might as well go for 3 warriors and a Broodlord. If going for a supreme command detachment, then the warriors make a lot of sense as the elite choice simply because of their synapse ability, keeping with the detachment's purpose.
The "fabulously-expensive-bookstore-of-london-town" crap thats going on with the rule books is not doing the game many favours. I assume thats something introduced around 6th edition? Don't get me wrong, a bit of fluff is nice, but looking at the Craftworld codex - its about 60 pages of fluff, and hard back. Going back in time(or just reaching across the desk)...3rd edition Codex Eldar is not even 50 pages and softback, and very affordable and practically weightless, easier to flick through as well. Abridged softbacks make a lot of sense here, and would probably help ease the annoyance of "too many books" if they were easier to access and more affordable. Leave the deluxe hardbacks for the Black Library.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: This has been brought over a lot of times already, was this this much of a problem? I've never tried without them but comparing to bolt action where you do face a binary dead/alive case (plus potential crippling damages), I've always felt it was a but rough to either never ever even scratch the paint of the tank or on the contrary set it in flames with a single hit, and as such I figured out the hull points are an okay solution to mitigate the potential godlike invicibility of an armoured vehicule.
Tanks were basically just more expensive monstrous creatures without half of MC special rules, no armor save, dumb gun restrictions, and other nonsense that made them basically useless (like only needing to be hit once with weak weapon for stunned/shaken result to cease mattering for a whole turn, or once with strong to explode/wreck when MC could only be killed wound by wound). Even GW writers knew how terribad vehicles were, which is why they made several new models in their pet Eldar/Tau armies MCs even thought they had no business being them, just to make them more OP. Because clearly dreadnought which is mind controlled like second body is more lumbering and stiff than open cockpit Tau walker controlled by keyboard, eh?
A.T. wrote: 5e marines against 5e GK wasn't really a fight.
I see this bandied about a lot, but I played SM vs GK a lot and never had problems. Never. Not only GK were much shorter ranged than SM, they had zero long range AT (besides rifleman dreads, and these couldn't compete with massed Razorbacks, never mind Predators), and were super fragile for their costs. Very expensive per wound, low access to ++. TH/SS Terminators could literally walk through half of GK army killing them with ease. Ironclad dreads just blended them. Really, if you had any problems with GK, you either faced far better player, had terrible SM army, or refused to use your strong points against their weak ones, then complained GK are OP.
Irbis wrote: Really, if you had any problems with GK, you either faced far better player, had terrible SM army, or refused to use your strong points against their weak ones, then complained GK are OP.
I can only speak to the personal experience of shelving my daemonhunters after a couple of GK games due to running over my opponents. Of course going from 3e daemonhunters to anything was always going to feel like playing on easy mode.
6th edition has been my favourite so far. I started at the end of 5th and was playing Eldar with their ancient codex before they turned into the power house of 6th and 7th. It felt humbling. Not a huge fan of the current edition as it stands right now. It started off better. The nerf to the psychic phase and the rule of 3 really gutted my Eldar list, and I basically quit after that. Looking at getting back into it now with my fledgling Chaos forces.
...that big sanction stamp of APPROVAL means it's OFFICIAL. No, I don't have to ask you for permission. D-cannons win games.
2000+
2000+
2019/12/07 18:33:20
Subject: Re:Why do so many consider 6th edition bad?
I started in 2nd edition, and while I never even got my head around all those rules (I'd argue most people played with about 80-90% of the rules, they were so in depth), the move to 3rd soured me. I played because my buddies did, but the game's attractions wore off.
3rd-7th edition were all built on the same skeleton, so when I returned after a long hiatus I found I was still unimpressed with 7th. 8th was a nice change but has now worn out its welcome for me (in a different fashion, but worn out all the same).
I never played 6th, but imagine I didn't miss anything.
Havn’t Read the thread but as I recall free stuff. If you have the money to buy 10 razorbacks then fielding a SM demicompany was amazing. That meant one army would have about 500p more then the opposing army. Same issue for many armies, 6ed really limited the lists to what would get you the most free stuff
His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary.
7000 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
2000+
2000+ 