Thoughts on 6th ed rule book

[Myu]

I've been going over both the rules and background sections of the 6th Ed 40k rule book and I'm thinking it's pretty awesome. Not a fan of random charge, but otherwise this thing is a beast. It's like I bought a collector's edition even though it's just straight off the self.

What do other people think of it? That's rules wise, layout, content etc. It's rare I've gotten 40k stuff that actually seems worth its crazy price so just curious if it's just me or other people like it too.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I actually do not mind random charges, it has been really intersting. It has screwed me over for an assault now and again, but overall no biggie. My only two gripes are that MC's lost the extra armour penetration, and fleet doesn't let me run and assualt, but even then those are only minor. Overall all my games have been fun, the cool new building rules and mysterious terrain and all that good stuff, it is just fabulous.

There are a few awkward rules, but overall the new edition has really breathed new life into the game for me.

[Wolfshade]

On the whole I like it. I like how it is shaken everything up and re-vitalised peoples playing. We are in a fresh and exciting time where the optimal net list isn't out there and with the re-release of codecii over the next few years we are getting something fresh and a spot light on the new "great and good".
As for the actual book itself I do like it, there are some minor errors in it rapis fire but how many people actually spotted it before it was announced and people then started to actively look for it. I do really like the big fold out pages, it is like the ones from the Apocalypse book only done better.

[Myu]

I like the fold outs as well. Some of the art in this book is pretty amazing. I also like the fleshing out of the background and the shear amount of content. So many pages of fluff!

I've only played a tiny game so far, but I'll be doing more over the coming months. It's very encouraging to hear such positive feedback.

[Lexington]

Loving the rules, myself. There's problems, of course (the much-loathed LoS abuse, etc), but there's a ton of scope here for different sorts of battles.

As for the book itself? Eh. It's...really big? It has a lot of things in it? There's exceptions, but the new art strikes me as lackluster, especially those full-page section introductions showing a single Marine, which manage to be cartoonish without anything in the way of style or pizazz. The background, like anything that comes from the Studio these days, varies between mediocre and unreadable. The definite bright spot, though, is the modeling/hobby section, which shows off some fantastic conversions, including a jaw-dropping Striking Scorpion Wraithlord. It's almost worth the price of admission all on its lonesome.

Overall, it's not much worse than 4th or 5th Edition as a book (the rules are much better), but it's a book without much spirit or vision to it. When you compare it to the sort of things GW used to be able to produce, tho - like the amazing 3rd Edition rulebook - it falls pretty flat.

[cranerat]

Still trying to read through all the changes but overall I haven't found anything I am not liking. The changes to vehicles (Hull Points) will be interesting to play out. Especially with super heavies with structure points. That seems to be easier to damage now with penetrating hits where before it took PH's to remove the structure points before it could actually be damaged (unless it was a destroyer type weapon).

Charges are interesting and I like the fact "Grenades" were brought back to be useful for other than affecting initiative in a charge. Overall I like the rule changes.

[DarkLink]

Overall, I think they took 5th and improved it in just about every way.

I don't like random charge length. Flyer rules are poorly implimented and balanced. Wound Allocation with Multiple Saves and Look Out Sir is very clumsy. Challenges vary between fun and extremely annoying. Some of the rulebook missions are very poorly balanced.

But aside from those specific items, 6th is better than 5th. And each of those problems could be fixed quite easily.

[uglytater]

Did anyone else wonder if they were going to see a revealing picture of a Sister of Battle with the fold outs?

This is my first full size rule book, I started in January and since 6th was coming out I just got the AOBR mini rule book to hold me over. I must say, for the 50 bucks it cost me (local store cut the price 20 bucks), I think it's awesome. It's a nice solid book, it is laid out in a way that I can find what I'm looking for. Maybe some day I'll read the 100 pages of fluff, who knows. I play Necrons, so I love the changes to random assault, having Death Company not be able to reach my wraiths was very nice. Some of the art is beautiful, some of it isn't my style, but that's fine, art is supposed to be unique and I don't have to like everything.

I am happy with the book, and hope it gets lots of use before its replaced in 4-6 years.

[Hive777]

Uglytater and I are in the same spot--I also started with things in January and waited for 6th to drop before getting into playing. I'm glad I waited, as the 6th edition rules are quite well-presented, and the rest of the book is hugely fun to read.

I love the random elements in the new rules set. It reflects the reality that on a battlefield, not everything goes according to plan and sometimes the terrain itself is a hindrance (or a help, in some cases). It introduces a blissfully chaotic element to a very structured system.

Ditto on the random psychic powers and warlord traits, which easily reflect the fact that sometimes intelligence about the other side is faulty, nonexistent, or purposely misleading. Sometimes you have to adapt quickly to unexpected conditions. Sometimes you show up with just the thing you need. Sometimes you're screwed.

Things like this are actually make the games both more realistic and more in line with the narrative aspect of the game. In terms of realism, it shows that no commander can absolutely control the battlefield or predict everything that will happen or be needed in a fight. On the narrative side, it reflects those moments of tension where a group of characters suddenly have to deal with changed and/or unanticipated conditions; maybe they win, or maybe they lose, but it adds flavor to the story.

[DarkLink]

Nothing about 40k is even remotely realistic, the randomness even more so. If you think random is realistic, then go ahead and try out 7th (http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/22/40k-humor-rumors-of-7th-edition/);).

I mean, seriously, how does Outflank even make any sense? " 'Ok, guys, I want you to sneak around and outflank them'. 'Which way, sir?' 'I don't know, just flip a coin. Or better yet, roll a dice. But don't tell me which direction you're going, I like the suprise'."

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Nothing about 40k is even remotely realistic, the randomness even more so. If you think random is realistic

Realism is the wrong word. Verisimilitude (believability, "realness" or maybe "truthiness") is really what we're dealing with.

Nothing's more realistic than random chance, though. You're familiar with the adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy? A more accurate version would be that no plan survives contact with reality. You do the best you can to set things up to your advantage - but out there on the front lines, your intelligence might be faulty. The enemy might have moved suddenly. Your plan might have leaked. A crucial road is blocked. A crucial road is impassable. A crucial road in fact never existed. The enemy's positions were elaborate bluffs. There's a spy in your ranks.

Your men are exhausted and just don't fancy it. It snows. It's the wrong kind of snow.

(I have to admit to enjoying a version of Outflanking where there were leaves on the line and my guys had to get the Replacement Rhino Service from Taunton)

There's a million and one random variables that decide whether I walk to the shops successfully today (although it's very likely that I will make it unscathed, it is not certain!). Why should it be any less on a chaotic battlefield in the far future with Annihilation Guns firing around every corner?

Embrace chaos :) it's What The Universe Is Really Like~

[DarkLink]

The far greater flaw with assault, however, is that while people are carrying guns there's little reason to close to hand to hand combat. Even if you're a mere foot or two away, you can still just shoot them. The idea that the rules put so much emphasis on assault in the first place lacks verisimilitude.

And in this particular case, verisimilitude is little more than a fancy word for realism. There's little functional or appreciable difference here.

The point is, 40k is not some sort of simulation. Verisimilitude is not a measure of quality, nor of how fun the game is. Some people happen to like random charge lengths, and some do not. I do not, because I strongly dislike getting massively screwed over because I rolled poorly on 2d6.

Failing to wound with a bunch of attacks is one thing. Having such a close game that it comes down to one, single critical role, such as your last attacks with a powerfist to see if you can clear an objective or something similar, is another. Both are random, but in a good way. You feel like you've had to work for what you've earned

Random charges are just annoying. They're always there, they're always extremely hit or miss, you can't really mitigate them, and they can easily cost you entire units or even the game. It's random, but in a way that arbitrarily punishes the player for rolling poorly. That's annoying and frustrating, and annoying and frustrating is bad for any game. I can live with it, but for this reason I don't like it as a design decision.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

There's a world of difference - nothing in 40k is realistic, because the real world doesn't have undead killer robots or an actual hell tearing reality apart every so often. And as you rightly say, it doesn't have a lot of close combat (any more - although nailed clubs, grenades and knuckledusters were the favoured equipment of trench raiders in WW1, and are honestly still used today in certain situations).

But what it aims for is precisely verisimilitude: that IF we had a situation where all this stuff was real (gengineered supersoldiers with weaponised chainsaws!) and doomsday devices, then THIS is how it might play out. It's intentionally outrageous, but the intention of the rules is that it all works as a mixture of narrative and gameplay on the tabletop.

The rest, we can agree to disagree. :) To put my cards on the table, I'm a narrative gamer. I like painting and telling stories more than anything. 6th added in a bunch of things I really appreciate, and I'm having a lot of fun with it. It sounds like you are too, despite disagreeing with some of the decisions, and that's fine too. :D

[DarkLink]

If you want verisimilitude, there are a number of historical games for that. You could probably expand those rules to match 40k. But those are simulation games, not wargames.

Aside from the genetically engineered psychic supersoldiers, essentially nothing about 40k is even remotely realistic. Armies do not march, then pause to shoot, then run into assault carefully in that order. 40k's morale system is completely detached from reality, aside from maybe pinning. Armor penetration, shooting, and assault attacks are completely abstract and have nothing to do with how actual ballistics or hand to hand combat work.

40k is not a simulation game. It's an abstract game with arbitrarily defined rules and conventions based on fun rather than realism.

Though, funnily enough, the weapon AP system is actually pretty accurate. AP is pretty similar to how real bullets are either stopped by armor or penetrate that armor. To hit, to wound, and saves are completely imaginary, though.

[Hive777]

Apologies for a poor choice of words--didn't mean to open a can of worms. However, that can o' worms has connections to dramatic theory, which I studied in college. Here's a perspective based on what I remember from studying Aristotle's Poetics:

Strictly speaking, verisimilitude isn't the measure of how "realistic" something is. In terms of literature and dramatic theory, mimesis is the term generally used to describe the degree to which a representation accurately reproduces that which is real. Verisimilitude is related to mimesis, but has some fundamental differences. Verisimilitude generally refers to the unity of the work's elements (language, imagery, etc.) and the degree to which that unity allows the audience to temporarily suspend their disbelief while viewing/reading/etc.

In that sense, the Cap'n and Darklink are both correct. 40K is arguably possessed of a very low or nonexistent degree of mimesis. On the other hand, it arguably contains a high degree of verisimilitude. Its world (fluff, narrative, etc.) and mechanics (rules and systems for playing out games) are not realistic, but establish conventions which allow the player to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy playing the game.

Any "realism" in the game would more accurately relate to the way in which the game is consistent to itself and presents a cohesive gaming experience. In that sense, I would have to correct myself and say that the random elements enhance the verisimilitude of the gaming experience. By nature, those same elements would actually reduce or eliminate the degree of mimesis it contains (since those elements do not and cannot reproduce a world which we would know as "natural" or "real" in the sense of reproducing what we commonly refer to as reality).

As an aside, this same argument (Verisimilitude, Mimesis, and an art work's degree of "realism") has been going on throughout several thousand years of literary and dramatic criticism. I'm sure that when the Dark Millenium actually hits, they'll still be arguing about it.

[Damocles8]

If you want verisimilitude, there are a number of historical games for that. You could probably expand those rules to match 40k. But those are simulation games, not wargames.

Aside from the genetically engineered psychic supersoldiers, essentially nothing about 40k is even remotely realistic. Armies do not march, then pause to shoot, then run into assault carefully in that order. 40k's morale system is completely detached from reality, aside from maybe pinning. Armor penetration, shooting, and assault attacks are completely abstract and have nothing to do with how actual ballistics or hand to hand combat work.

40k is not a simulation game. It's an abstract game with arbitrarily defined rules and conventions based on fun rather than realism.

Though, funnily enough, the weapon AP system is actually pretty accurate. AP is pretty similar to how real bullets are either stopped by armor or penetrate that armor. To hit, to wound, and saves are completely imaginary, though.

You really don't know half of what you're talking about do you? How can you put real ballistics in this game (windage, elevation, distance, gravity)? It's impossible short of computer simulations, that goes for armor penetration too. Abstractions are required in a table top game, simply because you can't add every modifier to a single shot, let alone a squad shooting. Random charges are more realistic than "everyone gets 6" charge range!" Why? You can't figure in fatigue, morale (to that extent), individual vs unit training (far easier to operate on your own than part of a team), and random events (ah a bird **** in my eye!), but they happen.

The AP system isn't accurate, a more accurate system would be something similar to Fantasy, yes body armor will stop certain caliber of bullets, but some it won't, the armor degrades with each hit (you are not supposed to use a vest that has been hit with a bullet before). The fact that a str 7 ap 4 weapon will ALWAYS allow a Power Armored individual their full save, but has the same effect against a str 3 ap - weapon shows that the AP system is flawed.

[DarkLink]

Within the context of drama, then verisimilitude would be more appropriate. I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm literally saying nothing more than '40k is not realistic'. Not that it lacks verisimilitude (though in the context of what I'm talking about verisimilitude has the definition of 'how close to truth is this'), not that it lacks mimesis, simply that 40k is not realistic. It's not a simulation, it's an abstract game.


You really don't know half of what you're talking about do you?

Oooh, great way to open up.



How can you put real ballistics in this game...

There are games that do it. You look up the angle of the tank's armor and the angle of the shot and so on. But you're completely missing the point of what I'm talking about. You're saying it's not realistic to try and make the game realistic. That's literally exactly the same thing I'm saying.

Earlier, someone said that they liked random charge length because it was 'realistic'. My point is that it is not. My point has nothing to do with dramatic tension or anything like that. If you want realistic, rolling 2d6 is not it. You need to keep track of the model's morale, their wounds, how far they've moved and how much weight they're carrying and how quickly they've done it. But there's no nuanced Stamina statistic here.

Trust me. If you want to learn about how morale and a combat load can affect battlefield mobility, go to Amazon and track down "The Soldier's Load and The Mobility Of A Nation". Written in 1950, and extremely enlightening.



The AP system isn't accurate, a more accurate system would be something similar to Fantasy, yes body armor will stop certain caliber of bullets, but some it won't, the armor degrades with each hit (you are not supposed to use a vest that has been hit with a bullet before).

You're right and you're wrong.

You're incorrect that Fantasy is more realistic than the AP system, in that armor does not really get 'partially' penetrated. Either the bullet is stopped by the armor, or it isn't. There's very little in between. Even if the armor absorbs 90% of the bullet's energy, the bullet still penetrates and the last 10% can result in serious injury. The only question is, does the bullet have enough energy to penetrate the armor, or does it. That's exactly how the AP system works, abstractly.

And if you don't think that's how body armor works, go look up body armor ratings. Body armor is rated based on what bullets it can stop. Any bullet smaller than the rating will (barring defects) be stopped by the armor. You might still break a rib, but you're not going to die, and in the adrenaline of combat soldiers and Marines often report not realizing they've been shot. And if the bullet is bigger than the armor rating, you're going to need a medic. The AP system is a reasonable abstraction of how actual armor penetration works.

Where Fantasy has some bearing is that Strength and AP are essentially the same thing. This is more realistic. Not completely so, as there are other factors involved, but generally the more kinetic energy the bullet has the better penetration it has. There are other factors. FMJ rounds, steel core rounds, etc, have much better penetration than hollow points or soft lead rounds. So realistically, AP would be the same thing as Strength. But you would still get the all-or-nothing armor save of the AP system.

So don't talk crap about who knows or doesn't know anything.

As to armor degradation, we're going back to my points above. This isn't a simulation.



The fact that a str 7 ap 4 weapon will ALWAYS allow a Power Armored individual their full save, but has the same effect against a str 3 ap - weapon shows that the AP system is flawed.

No, again, if a round is below the power threshold required to penetrate the armor, it's stopped. If it is above it, then it penetrates. As I mentioned, there is a bit of a false dichotomy between Strength and AP, but the basic principle that AP in reality is for all intents and purposes all-or-nothing remains.

[Bean]

Having done a little research into terminal ballistics, I would point out that, even if body armor doesn't stop a projectile, it can still significantly reduce the probability that the projectile will be effective. When it comes to non-explosive, ballistic projectiles (bullets, basically) penetration depth and fragmentation are, by a wide margin, the most important factors contributing to the likelihood of incapacitation. Fragmentation depends on a bullet's composition and velocity, while penetration is a factor of velocity, mass, and deformation (though this basically also boils down to composition and velocity). More-over, fragmentation only really occurs at very high velocities--it's not a routine factor in, for instance, handgun wounds at all.

Even if a round penetrates a piece of armor, then, it will certainly have lost velocity, and it will likely have deformed as well. Its fragmentation profile may be changed (it may well not fragment at all) and its penetration depth will, routinely, be significantly reduced. All in all, body armor reduces the probability of incapacitation significantly, even for projectiles that penetrate it.

Of course, very few of the weapons in 40k are firing bullets or bullet equivalents, and we basically have no data on the manner in which explosive bullets, lasers, or plasma weapons interact with body armor.

So, by a realism standpoint, I'd have to say that Fantasy's system is the more accurate. The armor will either stop the bullet or not, but even armor that doesn't stop the bullet may well slow it down enough to prevent a wound--this is represented, at least to a degree, by the modification of armor saves.


From a verisimilitude standpoint, though, it's really impossible to say. We just don't know how most of the 40k weapons would actually interact with the 40k body armor, and there aren't good real-world precedents to draw on for too many of them.


A more accurate system, for projectile weapons that we understand, anyway, would take into account the firer's general accuracy, ability to specifically target weak points in the target's armor, ability to specifically target the target's vital areas (central nervous system, major blood vessels, basically) the coverage and rating of the target's armor, any degradation the target's armor had already suffered, the weapon's mechanical accuracy (in some situations, though certainly not all) the projectile's penetration depth (which the armor's rating would affect) and any factors, such as projectile size or fragmentation that might increase the likelihood of it striking a vital area (which the armor would affect in some cases, though not in others.)

I've actually sat down and written out such a system, before, but it's hopelessly clumsy for a wargame, and still, at best, a very broad-strokes simulation.

Realism, even verisimilitude, is not necessarily a good goal for a game. While I would certainly do both 40k and fantasy's hit/wound/save system differently were I writing them, they're not that bad as is--not because they make much sense (they don't, really) but because they work pretty well, don't take too long, and add some interesting mechanics against which decision-making can find traction (which, really is the primary goal of any game system).

[Damocles8]

Within the context of drama, then verisimilitude would be more appropriate. I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief. I'm literally saying nothing more than '40k is not realistic'. Not that it lacks verisimilitude (though in the context of what I'm talking about verisimilitude has the definition of 'how close to truth is this'), not that it lacks mimesis, simply that 40k is not realistic. It's not a simulation, it's an abstract game.



Oooh, great way to open up.



There are games that do it. You look up the angle of the tank's armor and the angle of the shot and so on. But you're completely missing the point of what I'm talking about. You're saying it's not realistic to try and make the game realistic. That's literally exactly the same thing I'm saying.

Earlier, someone said that they liked random charge length because it was 'realistic'. My point is that it is not. My point has nothing to do with dramatic tension or anything like that. If you want realistic, rolling 2d6 is not it. You need to keep track of the model's morale, their wounds, how far they've moved and how much weight they're carrying and how quickly they've done it. But there's no nuanced Stamina statistic here.

Trust me. If you want to learn about how morale and a combat load can affect battlefield mobility, go to Amazon and track down "The Soldier's Load and The Mobility Of A Nation". Written in 1950, and extremely enlightening.



You're right and you're wrong.

You're incorrect that Fantasy is more realistic than the AP system, in that armor does not really get 'partially' penetrated. Either the bullet is stopped by the armor, or it isn't. There's very little in between. Even if the armor absorbs 90% of the bullet's energy, the bullet still penetrates and the last 10% can result in serious injury. The only question is, does the bullet have enough energy to penetrate the armor, or does it. That's exactly how the AP system works, abstractly.

And if you don't think that's how body armor works, go look up body armor ratings. Body armor is rated based on what bullets it can stop. Any bullet smaller than the rating will (barring defects) be stopped by the armor. You might still break a rib, but you're not going to die, and in the adrenaline of combat soldiers and Marines often report not realizing they've been shot. And if the bullet is bigger than the armor rating, you're going to need a medic. The AP system is a reasonable abstraction of how actual armor penetration works.

Where Fantasy has some bearing is that Strength and AP are essentially the same thing. This is more realistic. Not completely so, as there are other factors involved, but generally the more kinetic energy the bullet has the better penetration it has. There are other factors. FMJ rounds, steel core rounds, etc, have much better penetration than hollow points or soft lead rounds. So realistically, AP would be the same thing as Strength. But you would still get the all-or-nothing armor save of the AP system.

So don't talk crap about who knows or doesn't know anything.

As to armor degradation, we're going back to my points above. This isn't a simulation.



No, again, if a round is below the power threshold required to penetrate the armor, it's stopped. If it is above it, then it penetrates. As I mentioned, there is a bit of a false dichotomy between Strength and AP, but the basic principle that AP in reality is for all intents and purposes all-or-nothing remains.

Have you ever been shot wearing a bulletproof vest? If you're shot with the maximum rated round for the vest you're wearing, odds are you won't be doing much after being hit, or anywhere near effective.....and you better not be shot again, it won't stop it.

[DarkLink]

But you're not dead.

And I've heard plenty of reports of military personnel who were shot and never even realized it. I recall one particular one where the guy had an IPod on the way out, then got hit by an ambush or something. Driving back, he went to pull out the IPod, and found a bullethole in it that had been stopped by his armor. Others felt like they got knocked off their feet, but were able to recover and get back into fight even if it hurt like heck. It runs the whole gambit, based on the round and if it was a ricochet and what range it was fired at and if it had to penetrate a Humvee door or some first.

Whereas even a bullet that's almost but not quite been stopped can kill, or take you out of the fight. Body Armor still helps, but there's still a chance that a fragment hits you in a vital organ or something. As Bean pointed out, your chances of living are a whole lot better if body armor absorbs the impact, but if a bullet penetrates then it becomes a crapshoot. You're left praying that the bullet lost enough energy and got deflected to somewhere devoid of vital organs and that there's minimal cavitation or hydrostatic shock or any of the other nasty things that bullets can do.

Nor did I say the AP system was perfect. I just said that, compared to 40k's other rules, the AP system is actually a pretty reasonable, if still very simple or abstract, approximation of terminal ballistics.

[Bean]

According to Dr. Fackle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler)r, though physiological responses (pain, shock) to a gunshot wound are capable of incapacitating a victim, this sort of effect is highly unreliable, and doesn't correlate with training or exposure to violence to nearly the degree that most are inclined to imagine.