6th Edition = Meh???

[will44]

Okay, I've played a few games of 6th now, and setting aside the fact that the game moves slow as we all have to cross reference rules and figure stuff out, I find the experience to be mostly "meh" overall.

Playing an assault heavy space wolves army with thunderwolves and fenrisian wolves, I find the game rather boring. For example, last night I played a game with short table edge deployments and objectives. We rolled 4 objectives. My opponened placed one in a deployment zone, so I did the same. He placed a second in the same deployment zone as his first, and so I did the same. We now each had two objectives in our deployment zone.

With the changes to fleet, nothing happened unti turn 4 of the game. My opponent hung back. I slowly moved forward. I finally got into assault in turn 5. And the game ended because it was getting late.

And that's not the only game I've had go that way. Despite all the talk of big changes and chaotic stuff supposd to be happening, and narrative building, I find the game is very dull!

[magickbk]

I think a few games isn't enough to decided the edition is poor. I've only played one game of 6th, and it was a great game where almost every unit in the game on both sides saw at least one close combat, if not two or more. It is all in how you play, the terrain, the table size, army choice, tactics, etc.

You didn't mention what army your opponent was fielding in that game.

I noticed that in that side deployment mission, that certain table sizes, armies, and the way the sides deploy forces could end up a little weird. If that ends up being the case, you could always modify that deployment option for that group.

Either way, I think it is a little earlier to declare the edition meh. I'd say it will take until half way through the cycle to be able to compare it to the others.

[Mr Mystery]

Problem there is you and you're opponent positioning the objectives in a boring place..

[Wildeybeast]

Problem there is you and you're opponent positioning the objectives in a boring place..

I was going to say the exact same thing. That had nothing to do with mechanics of the game, you could have done that under 5th anyway. You perhaps want to look again at your approach to the game. For example, you could have stuck your second objective in his half of the table, to tempt him to split his army and go for it. If you are running an assault heavy army you are going to be moving up the board to him anyway so what do you lose?

[Phototoxin]

so you had a game where you had to look up rules due to it being new and thus unfamiliar, had mirrorred objectives and didn't fully finish it yet you think you are somehow justified in pronouncing that this edition is 'meh'.

I don't understand your logic.

[DarkLink]

With the changes to fleet, nothing happened unti turn 4 of the game. My opponent hung back. I slowly moved forward. I finally got into assault in turn 5. And the game ended because it was getting late.


Well, there's your problem.

If you enter into a drag race, and complain it's boring because everyone brought Prii* instead of something with a little horsepower, the problem is with you.


For one thing, Fleet doesn't prevent you from using Run on turns you're not assaulting. That shouldn't slow you down. Secondly, if you're 'slowly moving forward', and you've got a long ways to go, you might instead want to move quickly forward with your whole 12" move and Run. And fourth, outflank. Deepstrike. Be creative. The new edition promotes that sort of thinking.

Don't treat this like a tweaked version of 5th ed.



*plural for Prius, apparently

[xilton]

When playing friendly matches, the objective of the game is having fun and get action on that table. It's not a question of winning or losing even though winning is always more fun. Putting objectives far in your zone is a good bet you won't see much action for a few turns. Here we never put ay objectives far in the zones. If we have some, they are on the outside border of the zone giving you a small edge to it but still reachable by the enemy within 2 turns. The action and pleasure in a game are created by the players themselves and not the rules.

[will44]

boy, the trolls sure are biting today!

In my opinion, games that focus more on shooting are much more boring.

It's funny that someone talks about not taking any horsepower, when I was using cavalry units to move up the board. Yes, Fleet is different now, in a bad way. the total distance and average distance rolled have both gone down. BORING

And yes, objective placement abuse was possible in 5th, and not addressed in 6th, BORING. A few simple words like "no more than 1/2 the objectives rolled may be placed in a deployment zone" would correct that.

Overall, I don't see 6th addressing many of the abuses of 5th, and I don't see 6th opening the game up so that more than one type of play style is workable.

[Wildeybeast]

boy, the trolls sure are biting today!

In my opinion, games that focus more on shooting are much more boring.

It's funny that someone talks about not taking any horsepower, when I was using cavalry units to move up the board. Yes, Fleet is different now, in a bad way. the total distance and average distance rolled have both gone down. BORING

And yes, objective placement abuse was possible in 5th, and not addressed in 6th, BORING. A few simple words like "no more than 1/2 the objectives rolled may be placed in a deployment zone" would correct that.

Overall, I don't see 6th addressing many of the abuses of 5th, and I don't see 6th opening the game up so that more than one type of play style is workable.

Are you sure you're not the troll? You moan about objective placement making the game boring when you admit to being the one putting them in boring positions. It wasn't something that needed addressing because GW probably think if people want a game where they sit at opposite sides of the board and trade fire-power, then let them do that with their objective placement. If people want to a massive meat grinder in the middle of the board, let them put their objectives there. It's not really abuse, it's about you making the game play how you want it to and GW giving you the freedom to do that.

[eldargal]

Politely pointing out that your complaints are baseless isn't trolling. In contrast you are coming accross like a petulent child, not someone with rationally composed criticisms based on a careful evaluation of how the games played out.

Shooting games being boring, your opinion, fair enough. Personally I feel that shooting and assault are much more evenly balanced than in 5th edition where assault was the undisputed king.

You weren't using the Run rule properly and complain about movement being slow. Your fault, not the rulesets. Personally I've found my Dark Eldar beasts are as fast as ever.

What you describe isn't objective abuse, it is simple unorginal objective placement on your part. GW can't force you to be creative.

Well let's see:

Problems with parking lot lists: addressed
Wound allocation: addressed
Weak shooting: addressed

Those are just three I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there were more.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Bent Assault armies: Fixed!

[will44]

To Wildeybeast: If my opponent is going to take advantage of the rules and put his first counter in a deployment zone, i'm not going to put mine in the middle of the board. I mean, I'm not stupid here.

How exactly am I using run incorrectly? fleet no longer allows you to run and assault. I didn't do that. So what did I do wrong? I moved 12 inches, then rolled to run in the first two turns, then had to hunt and peck so that I stayed in cover and couldn't run because I would have left my units out in the open to get destroyed by shooting. Where am I going wrong?

Fleet instead allows you to reroll failed charge distances instead of move, run and assault. Do the math. This isn't an upgrade people...

I don't see the problems you listed being addressed, wound allocation is still abusable, parking lot lists are still, well, parking lot lists and if you roll up the short table edge deployment, it takes that much longer to get there...

I don't see how these complaints are baseless.

[Rissan4ever]

RE Fleet: Fleet lets you reroll the dice when you're Running as well, not just for assaults.

RE Short Edge Deployment: 1/3 of your games are going to use this deployment, so plan for it. If your friends know you run lots of Thunderwolves, they're going to deploy as far back as possible to delay your assault. Instead of blasting 6th Ed. as dull because of this, try changing your army to adapt. Add some deep striking or outflanking units. Run some Wolf Scouts, Grey Hunters or Dreadnoughts in drop pods, etc.

RE Objective Placement: You've said that you'd be stupid to not put one of your objectives deep in your own deployment zone. However, since you're running an assaulty army, the LAST thing you want to do is put an objective deep your deployment zone. Your whole army seems to be constructed around rushing forward, so put your objectives forward of your lines. Since you're headed that way anyway, it should make holding them easier.

Adapt. Get creative. Stop whining.

[Mr Mystery]

To Wildeybeast: If my opponent is going to take advantage of the rules and put his first counter in a deployment zone, i'm not going to put mine in the middle of the board. I mean, I'm not stupid here.

How exactly am I using run incorrectly? fleet no longer allows you to run and assault. I didn't do that. So what did I do wrong? I moved 12 inches, then rolled to run in the first two turns, then had to hunt and peck so that I stayed in cover and couldn't run because I would have left my units out in the open to get destroyed by shooting. Where am I going wrong?

Fleet instead allows you to reroll failed charge distances instead of move, run and assault. Do the math. This isn't an upgrade people...

I don't see the problems you listed being addressed, wound allocation is still abusable, parking lot lists are still, well, parking lot lists and if you roll up the short table edge deployment, it takes that much longer to get there...

I don't see how these complaints are baseless.

So you had to apply tactics. And that's now a bad thing? Moving from cover to cover because you otherwise risk losing your knee caps is a good thing. How much terrain were you using ? Did you do the D3 per 2' square like the rule state? You can't blame the rules for a lack of terrain in *your* collection.

[Corvus-Master-of-The-4th]

Firstly you aren't thinking tactically. Putting objectives in the open forces your enemy to move as much as you do, making it not stupid but good for breaking up the enemies plan... Rather than him going, "well I am gunna sit here because those objectives aren't in my reach", it's a mind game... Sort of.

Also, the fleet rules are a million times better, because you can more reliably move 18 inches with infantry then ever before, because you can re-roll... Granted the 6 inches isn't guaranteed, but the fact you can keep a high score and re-roll the low is super beneficial!

Also Wound allocation will always be abusable... But no where near as bad as 5th, as it's far more easy to make mistakes that leave you at risk. Also Parking lots... Suck balls, considering that glancing will strip anything down, making Rhinos real easy meat for things like your big wolves :)

[will44]

So you had to apply tactics. And that's now a bad thing? Moving from cover to cover because you otherwise risk losing your knee caps is a good thing. How much terrain were you using ? Did you do the D3 per 2' square like the rule state? You can't blame the rules for a lack of terrain in *your* collection.

Did I say anything about terrain? Eldargal accussed me of using run incorrectly. I illustrated how I used run.

here is the math for those of you who don't get how Fleet got nerfed

Used to be Fleet was : 6' + d6' + 6' = 15.5' on avg with 13' guaranteed (assuming normal charges not through cover).
vs
Non-fleet normal : 6' + 6' = 12' guaranteed.

now it's

6' + 2d6' (with reroll) = 14.722' on avg with only 8' guaranteed.
vs
Non-fleet normal: 6' + 2d6' = 13' avg 8' guaranteed.

you see how 14.7 and 8 are less than 15.5 and 13, right????

[Thebasementgamer]

Fleet changing has very little effect on how quickly you get into combat. Also, if there was no action until turn 4 how did you run out of time to finish the game?

It sounds like you set yourself up to have a "meh" game just so you could come here and put up a mopey post.

[will44]

right, because I got up yesterday and said "hey, I know, let me ask my friend if he wants to play a game of 40K, then make sure it's a sucky one so I can ***** on the internet about it."

And how exactly does moving less NOT effect how quickly you get into base to base contact with an enemy model? If I used to be able to go 13 inches, and now I only go 8, doesn't that mean I get into base to base one round later? Seriously, do you even think before you type?

A) this isn't my first 6th edition game, and not my first boring one.

B) sometimes things like traffic and spouses saying "are you done playing in the living room yet?" can cause a game to start late and have to end early.

not a single person has presented a coherent sentence, let alone argument, about how 6th has improved the game and made it exciting. Phrases like: "Parking Lots: Fixed" make for nice campaign slogans if you want to get elected to a city council position, but do nothing to explain how the game has improved.

And bashing me and my views certainly doesn't lay out an argument for what makes 6th exciting.

To think, I was telling people to post here recently cause it seemed like a cool place to discuss the game...

[Iyandagar]

So far I have played 6games using 6th edition rules. My overall feeling so far is that it is a nice change up. Lots of little tweaks that have changed the dynamic of the game. So far I have only run my Orks and every game has been a blast. Little things like my Lootas being able to move and fire, saves them from being a static unit that invariably gets drop podded and knocked into next week.

My Dakkajet and Blitza Bomma tearing across the battlefield with Ride of the Valkyries playing, and not getting immediately gunned down is brilliant. I never field a KILL ALL list, as I tend to like arduous models/units and just run them for the sake of it.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion Will44, hopefully you will encounter a couple of fun games soon as I genuinely have little or no gripes about this iteration of the game.

[Iyandagar]

Arduous should read various, pesky sausage fingers...

[the jeske]

The action and pleasure in a game are created by the players themselves and not the rules.
I dont know playing necron or IG against nids is very pleasurable. But then again the last study in eastern countries showed that our brain pleasure centers light up more , if something bad happens to someone else , then something good happening to use[because everyone knows this is just the start of stuff going down hill even more] .

I do understand the OP , game was in deed boring . telling him to hamstring himself or that his opponent makes error to make the game more "fun" isnt realy an option either . But then again playing a 5th ed army in 6th ed does suck too. if you can have/dont have a 6th ed SW army then your are not going to have as much fun as those that do [your still are going to get some fun, because SW are awesome even with bad builds].



Phrases like: "Parking Lots: Fixed" make for nice campaign slogans if you want to get elected to a city council position, but do nothing to explain how the game has improved.
+ its not even the truth . it was "fixed" for BAs and SW and normal SM . cortez can still make a viable list out of mecha, same with IG . necron got even more mecha then they were before 6th[atleast to me a not moving hard to break up parking from 5th ed , is very simiular to a flying hard to break up necron parking] .

the game improved a lot for good armies . double FoC , flyers[if you have them in your codex] , ally rules[specialy if your imperial and a lot of stuff is battlebrother] makes the lists even better . sometimes there is also nice synergy between units [even if GW didnt want that to happen] like epi+PMs+nurgle DPs. So the game did get better for those armies . Armies that can ignore night fight or that have character units is the same thing , game got better. But if someone though that his no marks only csm AL list will suddenly get better , because GW told us this edition is "for fun only" , then he is in for a world of hurt[and boring].




Putting objectives in the open forces your enemy to move as much as you do, making it not stupid but good for breaking up the enemies plan
because a shoting army is like totaly going to move closer to the all melee army to grab those objectives turn 2-3.

[magickbk]

It has been well discussed on the forums that 75% of tournament armies are one of three lists, one of which happens to be similar to what you play. The 6th edition changes specifically hurt your army, and from some of the information that came out from the Studio Open Day this was intentional by the designers, and that has to be a tough pill to swallow. From most other players' point of view, the game improved and became more balanced.

In 5th edition, I had the opposite problem with Tau. I once played a game where my opponent both got to deploy and go first, and was able to pin me in a 6" pocket between his marines and my table edge before I actually got to take a turn. I fought hard, and was almost able to squeeze out a draw, but the game was essentially impossible for me to win before I got to take my first player turn. Before I took my second player turn, the mission was impossible for me to win, I spent the rest of the game playing for that draw. This was a direct result of the mission deployment for one of the scenarios.

This is the internet, and people get mad fast, and get insulting faster. 6th edition hurt your army build, and it helped a lot of other armies. A new edition means adjustments for everyone. What people are trying to say, whether they are saying it the right way or not, is that you have to try new things, be they tactics, army list choices, philosophies, etc. It isn't fair to say the edition is bad because your 5th edition list didn't work well in 6th. It has only been a few weeks, and as someone who has played every edition back through Rogue Trader, I have to say that every edition had good and bad parts. When 3rd edition came out, none of my 2nd edition armies were even legal armies anymore, I had to add units just to play with the Force Organization Chart, which was a new and bizarre concept that some people hated, and others thought it brought certain armies in line.

If you want some specific examples of how something like the parking lot was fixed, then read through the forums. I'll use that as an example. Units in vehicles are now no longer scoring units. So, if a unit in a Chimera wants to hold an objective, they have to get out. They probably need to do it a turn early, in case the game ends via random game length. That disembarking means they will only be firing snap shots with heavy weapons, which makes the unit less effective for that turn. Also, since a vehicle can't move more than 6" and have a unit disembark, they can't hide behind terrain and go flat out to get next to an objective in the final turn. Are people still going to use parking lot armies? Of course. But they are going to have to do it in a new way. Those people are all probably pretty angry right now, because tank models are expensive and right now infantry looks better then it did in 5th edition.

And, BOLS really is a good place to discuss the game. The internet is going to be full of arguments no matter where you go, because that's what the internet is. Everyone has an opinion, everyone is allowed to express it, and no one has to be civil like they do if an angry person was standing in front of them.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I will say this much, over the course of a few turns, sure a few inches lost per turn has a major possibility of postponing an assault...but for the most part it wont. Usually when you end up getting close enough to assault your either barely within charge distance if you roll well (which in the old game you wouldn't have been able to assault due to a set charge distance) or you are only a few inches away (I have found I am rarely in the interim). At that point a few inches lost means very little, sure it can screw you once or twice, but its overall not a huge deal. Trust me on this, I play tyranid, and the changes had a major chance to screw over my assault heavy list, but for the most part they didn't. I am still able to get in and destroy people in assault, I just have to be more careful and do it more tactically, just requires a different mode of thinking.

Magickbk made good points on parking lots, if they want objectives to win, they have to get out of vehicles which makes them very vulnerable. They cant book it across the board in transports and pile out last minute to get a quick and easy victory, they have to work for it.

As for your mentioned game above, a few changes to your own tactics could really help you speed the game up a lot, such as better placement of your objectives. As an assault heavy army I never put my objectives in my own deployment zone, because when all is said and done, by the end of the game I am rarely ever in my own deployment zone. I want to make their side a living mess, and as I get in there with my assault troops, I want them to be fighting for those objectives, I wanna make their day a living hell, its my job in fact.

For the most part the people in this thread aren't trolling you they are commenting on your views, and placing their own opinions. There were a few yes, but your statement seemed like everyone was calling you an idiot because your game went poorly, which most of them have not. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are calling you an idiot, nor are they bashing your views, they are just disagreeing and they feel like commenting.


You want a coherent sentence/argument for why 6th has improved the game, sure I will give you a short little stint of that. The entire dynamic of the game has changed, making most games far different (especially some of the new missions which are very interesting so far, I love the relic one) than they ever were in 5th edition. With new rules like mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, and the new deployment types, its a totally different game. Sure in some cases this causes it to be not as much fun, but overall a change in dynamic is a lot of fun and is very exciting. It makes us think in new ways, and try out new things in a game, so we aren't just repeating the same old monotony. That last bit is very important, because frankly the new feel has breathed new life into the game. Sure we have to make adjustments, we knew that from day one, this happens every edition. If we avoided playing or creating new editions for fear of it possibly getting worse, we would have never been in 4th edition, much less 6th.



tldr...The game isn't really that meh, all you have to do is try playing it in new ways and you should be able to find fun in it. Don't play it like its a different 5th edition, look at it with new eyes.

[Admiral Kenaris]

Wound allocation: addressed


While not being a supporter of the premise of this thread, what exactly was wrong with wound allocation and how was it fixed?

[eldargal]

In 5th you could distribute wounds accross units with different equipment to prolong the life of each model. So if you inflict 9 wounds on a ten wound squad you end up killing no models. Things like Biker Nobs and GK terminaotrs became extremely hard to kill as a result. Now with wounds being allocated to the closest model until it dies, two unsaved wounds are enough to kill a Biker nob or whatever, meaningyou can begin to degrade their combat effectiveness much more rapidly.

[the jeske]

two unsaved wounds are enough to kill a Biker nob or whatever, meaningyou can begin to degrade their combat effectiveness much more rapidly.
you forgot to add with a 50% of that happening because all those multi wound units that were the problem are characters now so get a +4 LOS! roll. In fact for some units like the paladins the change was good because now they dont have to buy upgrades/gear they never wanted , but had to buy for wound allocation . now they can just go hammers and halabards with an optional staff dude for challanges.

[eldargal]

A 50% chance is still a hell of a lot better than a 100% chance. Not that it will stop people whining about it.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

A 50% chance is still a hell of a lot better than a 100% chance. Not that it will stop people whining about it.

some people will never be happy until you fix the "problem" 100%

[DarkLink]

Honestly, I think the combination of LOS and the way they handled Multiple Saves is worse than last editions wound allocation, not because it's more powerful (it isn't, not even close), but because it bogs the game down so much. It takes four or five times as long to roll saves for a complex unit like Paladins with an attached HQ, because you have to do one save at a time and one LOS at a time and repeat over and over again.

Removing closest to closest is a big improvement, though. Honestly, 4th had the best system of the last three editions. Just roll dice, and pull models.

[Wildeybeast]

To Wildeybeast: If my opponent is going to take advantage of the rules and put his first counter in a deployment zone, i'm not going to put mine in the middle of the board. I mean, I'm not stupid here.

I think these responses clearly address my point.


RE Objective Placement: You've said that you'd be stupid to not put one of your objectives deep in your own deployment zone. However, since you're running an assaulty army, the LAST thing you want to do is put an objective deep your deployment zone. Your whole army seems to be constructed around rushing forward, so put your objectives forward of your lines. Since you're headed that way anyway, it should make holding them easier.

Adapt. Get creative. Stop whining.


Firstly you aren't thinking tactically. Putting objectives in the open forces your enemy to move as much as you do, making it not stupid but good for breaking up the enemies plan... Rather than him going, "well I am gunna sit here because those objectives aren't in my reach", it's a mind game... Sort of.

[the jeske]

A 50% chance is still a hell of a lot better than a 100% chance. Not that it will stop people whining about it.

+ there is a draigo and a libby/inq in termi armor tehre adn thsoe get LOS!. in the 5th if someone put 10 saves on dude , then the 10 saves may have not killed anyone in a paladin unit but at least the wound were there . now they come off a single dude who is closest [with FnP in the case of nobz and paladins] till he loses 2 [and that is not counting LOS! attempts after wound 1 is lost by him].


Honestly, I think the combination of LOS and the way they handled Multiple Saves is worse than last editions wound allocation, not because it's more powerful (it isn't, not even close), but because it bogs the game down so much
so very true.

[Mr Mystery]

+ there is a draigo and a libby/inq in termi armor tehre adn thsoe get LOS!. in the 5th if someone put 10 saves on dude , then the 10 saves may have not killed anyone in a paladin unit but at least the wound were there . now they come off a single dude who is closest [with FnP in the case of nobz and paladins] till he loses 2 [and that is not counting LOS! attempts after wound 1 is lost by him].

so very true.

No. Hold on. I think you just confused the hell out of me.

5th Edition. 10 wounds are distributed around the unit in such a way that no one can actually be killed off.

6th Edition. 10 wounds are rolled for save. Unless there is a character. Assuming Nobz, let's say there are 3 Biker Nobz closer to the firing unit than the Warboss. As it would take 6 failed saves, roll 6 dice to start with. If they all fail, remove the three Biker Nobz. Then roll one 'look out sir' for each other dice. Put those bounced to the unit to one side to be rolled in a moment. Next roll the Warboss saves.

10 wounds will now kill stuff, rather than merely wounding. Whereas you seem to have made the assertion that NOTHING will die, because you said it wouldn't???

[joescalise]

I like 6th, brings back some of the old rules with the new. it does take a little longer, but that is just because it is new. plus with forgeworld now I think 6th is going to be even better

[the jeske]

6th Edition. 10 wounds are rolled for save. Unless there is a character. Assuming Nobz, let's say there are 3 Biker Nobz closer to the firing unit than the Warboss. As it would take 6 failed saves, roll 6 dice to start with. If they all fail, remove the three Biker Nobz. Then roll one 'look out sir' for each other dice. Put those bounced to the unit to one side to be rolled in a moment. Next roll the Warboss saves.
only biker nobz are characters. So it looks like this. roll one dude check if he is closest , then my opponent decideds if he is LOS! or not . this is not the simple case of WG in termi armor in a squad of+3 sv dudes who either eats all the bullets or tries LOS!.

[Mr Mystery]

only biker nobz are characters. So it looks like this. roll one dude check if he is closest , then my opponent decideds if he is LOS! or not . this is not the simple case of WG in termi armor in a squad of+3 sv dudes who either eats all the bullets or tries LOS!.

You raise a fair point. Comepletely forgot they are characters. I shall consult my rulebook! Reading it, it seems no different to the previous gameyness as before, just with a different mechanic.

Looking up who else count as characters, I now have a deeper respect for Paladins and Wolf Guard. That's a lot of potential Precision Strikes. Ditto Royal Courts for my Necrons!

[magickbk]

I don't understand the complaints about LOS in 6th. In 5th, if the warboss was in front of a unit of 10 nob bikers, you have to kill all 10 before any wounds get to the warboss, unless the player chooses to put them on the warboss.

In 6th, that warboss in front gets every wound allocated to him. For every wound, you can either decide to attempt his save, or try LOS to take the save on another model. If all the saves are the same, you could roll them all at the same time, and then try to LOS on each one in turn until there are no wounds left to allocate to him or there are no nobs left to try to LOS the wounds to.

Can you still play some games with wound allocation? Yes. Are they as bad as 5th? No. Why? Because you have to allocate wounds to the closest model and then save and LOS from there. No more hiding in plain sight.

[Mr Mystery]

One of the main points about it is that it can slow down the game. Which is a valid concern where units are comprised solely of characters.

However, there is now less incentive to get gamey with it, as you don't need to keep wargear etc different for any reason other than sheer variety (I'm struggling to get my thought process correct now, so this may be a bit confusing!). Before, you'd equip your 10 Nobz differently so you could get clever with wound allocation to keep them alive. But now, LOS does most of that for you, as you can arguably keep everyone alive but wounded if you take full advantage. It's just going to take a while.... So say I've got a 10 strong Nobz unit, 5 with Klaws, 5 with Big Choppas. As they cost more, I want to keep the Klaws alive. Simplest way to do this is to move them to the back of the unit, and let the Choppas go up front. As I'm wanting the Big Choppas to die first, there is little point in me bouncing units around the unit.

[DarkLink]

The combination of Multiple Saves and Look Out Sir, or even just one of them on their own, is extremely awkward. You literally have to roll once dice at a time, and LOS means that for every save you have to roll two dice, plus make a potentially game changing tactical decision.

In a better implemented system, you would simply roll a handful of dice and pluck models. One bulk roll, and you're done. Quick and easy. The basic wound allocation system in 6th accomplishes this. Multiple Saves and LOS fail this litmus test horribly.

[Mr Mystery]

The combination of Multiple Saves and Look Out Sir, or even just one of them on their own, is extremely awkward. You literally have to roll once dice at a time, and LOS means that for every save you have to roll two dice, plus make a potentially game changing tactical decision.

In a better implemented system, you would simply roll a handful of dice and pluck models. One bulk roll, and you're done. Quick and easy. The basic wound allocation system in 6th accomplishes this. Multiple Saves and LOS fail this litmus test horribly.

Assuming that people put their characters deliberately in harms way. I dunno about anyone else, but my characters tend lurk middle to rear of any squad, and the middle ground is only when I'm likely to face incoming fire from multiple directions, and I can usually avoid that with blocking units etc.

[the jeske]

Assuming that people put their characters deliberately in harms way. I dunno about anyone else, but my characters tend lurk middle to rear of any squad, and the middle ground is only when I'm likely to face incoming fire from multiple directions, and I can usually avoid that with blocking units etc.
did you miss the part where we were focusing on character units ? nobz , paladins , WG, chaos termi champions [or chosen out of the new dex] , each new dex will get those [just like they will get flyers and own psy powers to roll on ] and each such unit slows the game down a lot.

[DarkLink]

And even units like, say, grey hunters led by a wolf guard in terminator armor can be very complex and awkward to manage. Those roll-one-die-at-a-time situations happen a lot, even with those units and even if your opponent isn't intentionally putting the terminator up front. You still have to follow the rules, and the rules are awkward and overly complex when multiple saves and/or LOS come in to play.

[Mr Mystery]

And even units like, say, grey hunters led by a wolf guard in terminator armor can be very complex and awkward to manage. Those roll-one-die-at-a-time situations happen a lot, even with those units and even if your opponent isn't intentionally putting the terminator up front. You still have to follow the rules, and the rules are awkward and overly complex when multiple saves and/or LOS come in to play.

Again I feel it's being over stated.

For instance, today I played against Blood Angels, and had a rather nasty unit of 6 Death Company, with Astorath and Lemartes in it. I shot it. I shot it *a lot*. And I totally smashed it apart over two turns.

Initial barrage of firepower caused 7 wounds, and closest were three of the DC, and then Lemartes. So we batch rolled 3 wounds, killing one of the DC. So after that we batch rolled two, killing a further one. It's as complicated as you want to make it. The nexts unit shooting was being resolved on Lemartes, as he was closest. As he has two wounds, we batched roll two at a time, no need to one at a time at all.

You could make those saves one at a time, but then I could do all my rolls to hit one at a time.