Is 6th Edition too good?

[jonsgot]

I've been struggling with 6th Edition for a while. I've found it very hard to work out why. I'm painting like I was before, I like my armies more than I did before. The rules don't appear to be frustrating like 5th. Every game doesn't threaten to end as a draw like 5th, Close combat isn't over powering like 4th, The rules have depth (looking at you 3rd), The armies and rules aren't over complicated (2nd edition) and you don't need a Games Masters. The use of allies has opened up something like 40 odd combinations of forces for me to play with. So by all rights I should be gaming every night and enjoying the fresh air that 6th edition has brought, but I'm not. The last game I played was weeks ago and I haven't got one planned.

Is 6th Ed too good? Is it like a Ford Mondeo, it just works, but without the possibility you might not reach you destination (like a Mk1 Escort or an Alpha) the excitement has just gone? I hope not. Or is 6th a bit too much like 2nd where games take so long they are daunting and one side can once again wiping the fall with the opposition ending in frustration? I think I've only lost 1 game so far.

Or am I just having a off quarter and I just need to get a few more games in?

[bethor]

Its funny that you posted this. My buddies and I are all kind of in the same boat. I've been painting and modelling more since 6th edition, but when it comes time to play a game, we usually break out dust or warmachine. I think a lot of it has to do with time. We can play reasonably large games of either of them in less than 90 minutes.
We used to play 2000 point games of 40k in 2 hours or less. When you factor in rolling up everything and setting up terrain, our 1500 point games are taking longer than 2 hours, and when they are over we aren't in the mood to set up a next game.

I'm not sure what the issue is. I've never had the major complaints that others have had about 6th. It just doesn't have the spirit of an old 40k game.

[The Sovereign]

Lots of things I like this edition, but I wouldn't say it's too good. IMO challenge rules don't work, for instance.

[Kyban]

My biggest problem is the time, the games take too long and there are some unnecessary additions in this edition. The set up takes a while and I think people are still trying to get a handle on using the new rules quickly.


Lots of things I like this edition, but I wouldn't say it's too good. IMO challenge rules don't work, for instance.

What about the challenge rules don't you like?

[Dalleron]

I don't think that 6th edition is too good. It is better than 5th edition most definitely, but there is alot of extra stuff in the rules that don't need to be there. Things like mysterious objectives and mysterious terrain. I don't even want to go off on a tirade about random charges in wide open terrain.

[bethor]

I think the random charge length may be part of the soul suck to 6th. That and the random snap fire.
It's the randomness that hurts. It usually is just fine, put when you fail that important charge from 3.5", or you take 6 casualties from snap fire from dumb luck...it makes that 2.5 hours feel wasted, and the guy that won due to your charge dice coming up 1 2 doesn't feel like he beat you...it feels like the game beat you.

[Kyban]

I think the random charge length may be part of the soul suck to 6th. That and the random snap fire.
It's the randomness that hurts. It usually is just fine, put when you fail that important charge from 3.5", or you take 6 casualties from snap fire from dumb luck...it makes that 2.5 hours feel wasted, and the guy that won due to your charge dice coming up 1 2 doesn't feel like he beat you...it feels like the game beat you.

I definitely agree with this. I don't like having a lot of randomness, it detracts from any strategy the game has.

[ElectricPaladin]

I think that random charge length and premeasuring are the two things that most saved 40k for me.

Random charge length and overwatch makes charging into a very clear game of risk management. It's very tactical, and just in the way I like it. Do you want to get into close combat? Well... it's a risk. I don't think it adds a lot of randomness to the game - certainly not any more than failing BS or WS rolls! - but it does change the focus of the game. Assaulting isn't the sure-fire victory tactic it used to be. It's a risky proposition, potentially useful, but no longer the game winner.

[Kyban]

I think that random charge length and premeasuring are the two things that most saved 40k for me.

Random charge length and overwatch makes charging into a very clear game of risk management. It's very tactical, and just in the way I like it. Do you want to get into close combat? Well... it's a risk. I don't think it adds a lot of randomness to the game - certainly not any more than failing BS or WS rolls! - but it does change the focus of the game. Assaulting isn't the sure-fire victory tactic it used to be. It's a risky proposition, potentially useful, but no longer the game winner.

I like the premeasuring and the random charge length is fine if you're using it to shoot for a difficult charge with the risk of being shot without making it but there should definitely be protection from easy failed charges imo. When your 4" and fail a charge in clear terrain it just feels like a big kick in the shin from luck that your opponent had nothing to do with, but if you take the risk and pull of a big charge it's much more exiting and should be where the risk lies.

[oink]

The randomness has really brought 40K back to life. It has brought in an element of being in the right place at the right time as well as a new type of strategic play (risk management). This is much better for the game than before (which was basically simple math) because you have lots of variables to weigh up.

Everyone used to love talking about mathammer and working out average rolls needed to be able to kill something... yet those same people seem to baulk at random movement and no longer bother about the "average" they used to hold so dear! If they did they'd simply be exclaiming that they can now charge 7-8 inches instead of only 6!

There is a lot of good in this edition, but yes a lot of the new stuff wasn't really ironed out. I suppose for the most part we should expect that. The rules that are good and work well didn't get like that overnight - we've gone through several editions of ironing out those creases!

The trouble for us though, is that there have been enough changes to make the game play very differently, and it can be a struggle to adapt. It's certainly not always a quick process for everyone.

[ElectricPaladin]

I like the premeasuring and the random charge length is fine if you're using it to shoot for a difficult charge with the risk of being shot without making it but there should definitely be protection from easy failed charges imo. When your 4" and fail a charge in clear terrain it just feels like a big kick in the shin from luck that your opponent had nothing to do with, but if you take the risk and pull of a big charge it's much more exiting and should be where the risk lies.

I dunno. I don't see it as any different from when your WS 6 super-bad@ss misses with all five of his attacks. Sh^t happens. I expect that we will see more Fleet and Jump Infantry options in all codices. Dedicated assault units will generally either have a way of quickly reaching the enemy (ie. Fleet, Jump Infantry, both?) or lack it, and have that be a defining tactical weakness that is compensated elsewhere in their profile (ie. terminators with their good armor and invulnerable saves, but lack of fleet). Want to make sure you reach the enemy? Bring that kind of unit.

Want a game that's wholly predictable? Play chess :D.

[bethor]

My issue is that 40k has always been a game of lots of dice rolls. So that 10 shots or 20 shots or 40 attacks or what have you, when rolling each three times (to hit, to wound, to save) makes for a pretty decent scatter and predictable results.
Shooting armies still work perfectly well. Shooting armies are dull (for me, and for my opponent), and can't give the mass casualties assault can.
Random charge hurt because it is a single dice roll. Its still on two dice, and over the course of a game it will still average out. Of the 40ish 6th ed games i've played, I can recall ten-twelve times when the game has been decided by irregularities in the dice when it comes time to put skull to cleaver. People can ***** about random terrain or random objectives, but they have only been a deciding factor in 1 game.

[Kyban]

People can ***** about random terrain or random objectives, but they have only been a deciding factor in 1 game.

The problem with them is it's more to keep track of and slow the game down with very little effect on the game, but I'm glad they don't have much of an effect (though we rarely use them at my FLGS).

[The Sovereign]

What about the challenge rules don't you like?

I don't like them because they overly benefit the assaultee instead of the assaulter, when overwatch, unit equipment, and the tactical sense to avoid placing your squishy unit in a position to get assaulted already exist. IMO there isn't much benefit to assaulting with a CC character now.

[DarkLink]

GW has taken the same approach to 6th ed that seems to have driven everyone away from Fantasy. When in doubt, make the players roll a bunch of dice for no reason, to little effect.

The wound allocation rules are a good example. Even with the significant improvement from the FAQ, the combination of mixed armor and Look Out Sir can cause the shooting phase to take twice as long as it would under a better set of rules, and in the end you still just end up taking the same number of saves. The rules just bog the game down unnecessarily.

There are enough rules like that in the game to slow down the game significantly. Individually, rolling for random charge, random psychic powers, random warlord traits, random Chaos Boons, random objectives, random terrain, random this, random that, etc, are not a problem. Stacked on top of each other, you spend a lot less time actually playing the game and a lot more rolling dice and looking up stuff on charts.

On top of that, GW has continued with their lack of regard for well balanced rules, and while they've improved their efforts to cover loopholes they still lag behind there. So many of their rules are open to interpretation with no clear answers and no FAQ or Errata for months, I have to actively avoid running into rules arguments in basically all of my games. And if you're facing someone who gets nit-picky over the rules, God help you.

And none of this is immediately obvious. They're all subtle little changes that don't matter individually, but added up lead to lower quality gameplay. And it's not to say that 6th is all bad. Overall, 6th is an improvement over 5th. But GW has persisted in ignoring the subtle things for so long that a lot of people, in my experience, are getting tired of 40k, just like so many people got tired of Fantasy, and are moving on to Warmachine and other games.

[Defenestratus]

I definitely agree with this. I don't like having a lot of randomness, it detracts from any strategy the game has.

I completely embrace the randomness and find that it makes for a more interesting, unpredictable game.

[rtmaitreya]

Even with the significant improvement from the FAQ, the combination of mixed armor and Look Out Sir can cause the shooting phase to take twice as long as it would under a better set of rules, and in the end you still just end up taking the same number of saves. The rules just bog the game down unnecessarily.

There are enough rules like that in the game to slow down the game significantly. Individually, rolling for random charge, random psychic powers, random warlord traits, random Chaos Boons, random objectives, random terrain, random this, random that, etc, are not a problem. Stacked on top of each other, you spend a lot less time actually playing the game and a lot more rolling dice and looking up stuff on charts.
.

This. This with lash whips and cherries on top. You win the internets today for nailing 6th.

That said, it is so much better than other editions, we are playing and having fun. We do some simplifications to speed up game play, and rarely do random objectives, etc.

RTM

[DWest]

For me, I like the random charges, since I've always found the assault phase to be the messiest part of the game anyway; back in 3rd edition I rolled up about 1000 points of an enemy army in 1 turn w/ a mounted Chaos Lord (remember the good old days of sweeping advances causing new combats?), while conversely in 5th I had Lemartes and 5 Death Company w/ 2 Power Weps jump on 5 Tactical Marines w/ 0 Power Weps, net result: 2 dead Death Company. Likewise in 6th I've had my Death Company stop for tea n biscuits 3" away from Broadsides, and rolled boxcars for a charge distance with a Defiler to go make friends with an Eldar Farseer all by his lonesome. I'll take spectacular luck one way or the other over having my dice roll just enough below average that my Marines feel like Fire Warriors and the game rules feel simplified to "put away 2d6 models per phase".

As far as terrain set-up goes, while I know this won't work for everyone, what we commonly do in my local group is once we've decided what we're playing, we bug a 3rd person to throw terrain on the table while the players unpack and take care of last-minute needs. Otherwise, if that's not an option, I'll commonly set the table and then let my opponent pick sides. We've really done away with the randomly-rolled terrain since there's a strong "confirmation bias", at least with me and my buddies: Every section which gets a '1' rolled gets one *big* piece of terrain, and every '3' ends up with 3 small pieces, so that it works out about like it used to, just with the added time-sink of pretending you're obeying the dice.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I'm having a great time. I have no idea what it means for something to be "too good" or indeed for this to be a complaint.

[Animus Silvanna]

Holy crap I can not begin to express my discomfort along the others here that hate the random charge length over open terrain. I definitely feel like I get beat by the game and not my opponent nowadays. I have had so many times Paladins in position to just wipe a squad and roll the double one when they are like 4 inches away and being like... this would not happen in real life. Your telling me that The Emperor's finest would stop be cause someone sprained their ankle in the charge against their most vaunted "Great Enemy" Get the hell outta here. I think the game feels very less heroic in the sense that my actual Hero who has survived an endless lifetime of war gets to not pick who he wants to kill in CC cause of challenges. Im pretty sure that if one of my Justicars was challenged by a lowly lowly guardsmen SGT he would scoff and ignite him with his mind bullets and continue to butcher his heretic buddies. As for everything else i belive they over complicated simple process like everyone else has pointed out, shooting (look out sir), terrain placement, random everything under the sun. I enjoy a certain extent of randomness. Such as my reserves not coming in when i want them to thats fine. But when I start losing miniatures cause the damn forest I walked by is full of some kind of super bugs that can go through power armor? or the mission objective that I set down blows up for no reason? It really does feel like I am losing to them game cause thats free kills my opponent neither earned, planned for, or deserves.

EDIT- also I think pre-measuring also killed the game a bit. I just dont like the fact that now you get to expertly position your anything to be just inside of shooting range or something like that or getting to measure how far you should move to make sure your not charged.....-.-

[ElectricPaladin]

EDIT- also I think pre-measuring also killed the game a bit. I just dont like the fact that now you get to expertly position your anything to be just inside of shooting range or something like that or getting to measure how far you should move to make sure your not charged.....-.-

For me, pre-measuring brought the game to life. I'm relatively new to wargaming, and I was so d@mned sick of losing games because I was playing against some old-school expert who's been playing long enough to eyeball every d@mned thing. Goodness knows, with his enormous collection, years of tactical experience, and encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, he's got enough advantages over me. The fact that I was less good at eyeballing distances and it made me lose games was infuriating. It seems like it's a stupid skill. I'd rather reread the rules, try a new army list, or build and paint up a new unit than spend my time learning to eyeball stuff. It's just not fun.

Now, I can focus on the stuff that's fun. Seems like an improvement to me.

[rtmaitreya]

I was one of those grognards guessing "26 and 3/4 inches on top of your sargeant's head", and I tell you it was a valuable skill. I love pre-measuring, however, as it eliminates to much of the crap of extended TIME spent trying to finagle tiny angles and quarter inch guessworks of movement. I wish everything were sped up better than they were, and that's the direction we were going with the heretic rules.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

also I think pre-measuring also killed the game a bit. I just dont like the fact that now you get to expertly position your anything to be just inside of shooting range or something like that or getting to measure how far you should move to make sure your not charged.....-.-

Why shouldn't you be able to, we are in the year 41,000ish, they have advanced range finders, why shouldn't they know how far away their enemy is. Hell in all of the stories alone space marines have advanced readouts in their helmets, and we can rangefind almost instantly with modern technology.

[Occam]

Your comment does not compute. Nothing is never, ever, 'too good' for me.

[Denzark]

I find it odd that almost every comment with a negative slant (too random, too long, needs polish etc) also states the game is better. Personally I find the slant from Mech and Assault to Gunline/shooting hard to grip, but then I was playing assault armies.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I find it odd that almost every comment with a negative slant (too random, too long, needs polish etc) also states the game is better. Personally I find the slant from Mech and Assault to Gunline/shooting hard to grip, but then I was playing assault armies.

It was difficult to adjust for me as well, I ran primarilly trygons and hormagants, and did very well at that. It was an interesting adjustment to got to a more shooty bug army. Now I have a good mix of assault to shooty, but much more shooty than I used to be. It is a lot of fun and I can do some funny and fun stuff this way with the new edition anyways.

[eldargal]

I don't think that 6th edition is too good. It is better than 5th edition most definitely, but there is alot of extra stuff in the rules that don't need to be there. Things like mysterious objectives and mysterious terrain. I don't even want to go off on a tirade about random charges in wide open terrain.
Why shouldn't they be there? You don't have to use them if you don't want to, they are hardly integral to the game. They are there for fun and to help people make theme boards/terrain.

I don't understand the problem with random charges either (and I play assault armies). History is replete with examples of failed charges because one force made contact to late and suffered too much fire, or misjudged the terrain or what have you. It's a nice bit of realism that helps diffuse the all-powerful assaults of 5th edition.

[Denzark]

No thats fair EG, I don't care about that the random charge. I don't like not being able to charge out of Stationary vehicles though, that has made a difference to my play style. Yeah yeah, adapt and overcome and a' that but even so.

[Psychosplodge]

Is 6th Ed too good? Is it like a Ford Mondeo, it just works, but without the possibility you might not reach you destination (like a Mk1 Escort or an Alpha) the excitement has just gone?

If you can't get excited in a mondeo you're driving it wrong...

[Deadlift]

If you can't get excited in a mondeo you're driving it wrong...

Front wheel drive, large company car from ford. Dude it has to be one of the most boring cars ever built ;) sure you can give it some beans, but its no real wheel drive German car which I have always had more fun in.

On topic, I really like 6th edition. But then it suits my style of play. I love the shooting aspect of the game and the new psychic powers I really dig too. Unfortunately my regular group of gamers are getting a bit bored playing my Vanilla marines, which I like to castle up. So I'm going to switch my tactics to something different. But I can see Tau being super awesome next year. Maybe too awesome :o

[Denzark]

You're so right deady. Tau will be the new IG for a bit. I foresee more anti tank than guard (rail guns etc) and a brutal flyer. We will all say the flyer is undercosted for its abilities.

[Psychosplodge]

Front wheel drive, large company car from ford. Dude it has to be one of the most boring cars ever built ;) sure you can give it some beans, but its no real wheel drive German car which I have always had more fun in.


It's just cause when you don't give it the boot they're like a giant comfortable armchair...

[Lost Vyper]

For me, the 6th is better. Pre-measuring and the randomness works for me. As EG said, you don't have to use Mysterious objectives etc. We assemble the table together just as we want and try to make it as even for both sides as possible. But fe. if the deployment happens to be Vanguard, it´s a whole new ballgame :)
Plus, we have had a new player, JUST because the 6th ed. allows pre-measuring and the challenges.

[ElectricPaladin]

I don't understand the problem with random charges either (and I play assault armies). History is replete with examples of failed charges because one force made contact to late and suffered too much fire, or misjudged the terrain or what have you. It's a nice bit of realism that helps diffuse the all-powerful assaults of 5th edition.

Thank you for phrasing this so eloquently. I agree 100%.

[dfer74]

The problem is when you shoot you don't have an extra step to see if you can shoot or not like assault armies do. Assault units are not getting a price decrease with the increase of effectiveness of shooting in the edition.

While 6th is slower and is better then other editions they dropped the ball. They should of did what they did in 3rd and black list EVERY unit and do appropriate costs for them. Sure the faqs were good but not enough to rebalance with the new edition rules.

My friends wanted to play this game and I came back to play with them. My background coming back from Privateer Press and other miniature games shows they made good steps but are lacking. I almost wish they would let someone outside of GW do their actual rules and playtest. So we could get a more balanced fun game.

[ElectricPaladin]

I think it's odd that Games Workshop gets unfavorably prepared to Privateer Press's games. Honestly, at the moment, I enjoy 40k more than I enjoy Warmahordes (which I also, for the record, do enjoy).

Privateer Press's games aren't particularly fast for their size, they just play at a smaller lavel). They aren't well balanced (and I'd know, I play Cygnar - the blue-headed stepchild of the game, at the moment - and Everblight - possibly the second most awful faction, at least at one point). They're even less tactical than 40k, with much of the focus being placed on fielding the broken-est combo and having the basic competence and the luck to pull it off before the other guy.

Overall, I think that Privateer Press's games suffer from too little randomness. If I bring lightning-tossing Cygnar and you bring lightning-immune Circle, I am probably going to lose. End of story, fun game, see you later. If you bring foot nids and I bring mech Tau, it's not a sure thing. Certainly, it's going to be an uphill climb for me - I'm playing Tau for lizard's sake! - but I have options. I can play for objectives and run out the clock. I can get lucky with warlord traits, use terrain to my advantage, and hope you get unlucky with charge distances. That makes for a more fun experience, overall.

[Archon Charybdis]

The problem is when you shoot you don't have an extra step to see if you can shoot or not like assault armies do. Assault units are not getting a price decrease with the increase of effectiveness of shooting in the edition.

You also don't get an opportunity to make your full shooting attacks in your opponents turn the way you do in close combat. Close combat was definitely overpowered compared to shooting last edition, and while I think it's swung a bit too far the other way, I think most of the changes have been good.

[imperialpower]

I am enjoying playing 6thED and don't really have any issues with the game, the random charge adds a bit more risk and tactics, my freinds and I always pre measured weapon ranges anyway and as for adding too much random stuff like warlord traits and powers ect I just turn to my opponent and say can't be bothered useing any of it, the game can be as simple as you want it to be at the end of the day.

[JMichael]

Agree with Eldargal (as usual), but we need to realize that the game board as setup is still a representation of a real field. Are we really fighting on perfectly mowed and maintained grass fields? Or 'ruins' that only have debris in scattered spots?
Remember that an actual battle field will be riddled with difficult terrain (perhaps enough to make you watch your step) and traps. Not to mention dodging the incoming Snap Fire (or even just the threat of it).

I do not play assaulty armies, and while sometimes my opponent feels jipped when their 20 guants or Daemon Prince failt he charge, I breathe a sigh of relief!

[DarkLink]

Go up to the mountains sometime. Anyone with a modicum of athletic ability will be able to run all over the place without tripping over their own feet every other step.


Why shouldn't they be there?

The problem is implimentation and balance. I can't tell you how many games I've played or seen where one player got the 1-2-2 Scouring objectives on their side, while their opponent got the 3-3-4, or where it was Big Guns Never Tire against Imperial Guard with multiple Russes and Medeusa/Basilisk/Manticore on Hammer and Anvil deployment where the IG player's Warlord trait was the Move Through Cover and Stealth (Ruins) on his entire army on a board with nothing but Ruins, or some similarly one-sided terribly balanced mission. Or a mission where one player gets, say, reroll 1's to hit or skyfire on all of their objectives while the opponent gets exploding objectives.

Saying 'you don't have to play them' is a very localized thing. People may be fine ignoring stuff in the rulebook where you play, but I've been to plenty of places that insist on doing everything straight out of the book, and it's not worth arguing over whether or not you're going to use mysterious objectives. They're poorly implemented and don't really add much other than extra stuff you have to keep track of.


It's a nice bit of realism that helps diffuse the all-powerful assaults of 5th edition.

In 5th, shooting was still more powerful than assault. You could get by without any real assault in your army other than maybe a throwaway tarpit/speedbump unit, but it was effectively impossible to get buy without a lot of shooting. At the very least, you had to be able to pop vehicles to be even remotely competitive. Assault was good, but it wasn't a requisite like shooting was.

Then, they nerfed multi-charges, allowed basically everthing to rally so that if you broke a unit in assault it could run and still live, nerfed Pile-In (and made it slower and more complex), introduced Challenges which make everything but nasty deathstar units more vulnerable and thus less effective, removed No Retreat wounds so it's much, much, much easier to tarpit assault units with units like Ork Boyz, and completely removed the ability to assault out of a vehicle.

Assault was nerfed from decent (but not as good as shooting), and for what reason? Assault wasn't overpowering, it was worse than shooting was.

And I don't play 40k for its realism, I play it for how fun it is (or don't play for how not-fun it can be). If I wanted everything to be completely and utterly random, I'd go to a casino. And while you may not see the problem, and while it may not be a huge problem in and of itself in each specific case, I know a lot of 40k players that are annoyed by the sheer level of randomness in 6th. You can't handwave that off. You may not mind, but a lot of people do.

[Dalleron]

Why shouldn't they be there? You don't have to use them if you don't want to, they are hardly integral to the game. They are there for fun and to help people make theme boards/terrain.

I don't understand the problem with random charges either (and I play assault armies). History is replete with examples of failed charges because one force made contact to late and suffered too much fire, or misjudged the terrain or what have you. It's a nice bit of realism that helps diffuse the all-powerful assaults of 5th edition.

I don't recall ever having used mysterious terrain and such. It seems like a waste of time to roll more dice and keep track of what scenery and terrain do through out the game. Our gaming group has even gotten as far as rolling the dice for warlord traits, then picking the table, as more often not, it is of no use.

Sure history is filled with many occurences of this and that, but we are talking about a game, not history. This edition to me seems to be GW over correcting issues from past editions. I would not be surprised if the game swung back into the favour of assaults and vehicles in the future.

[Pendragon38]

I really like 6th edition, for example played a 1,500 point game last friday against SW with BA for allies. he foot slogged his whole list which was a bad mistake on his part. He got wiped clean of the board and I took zero casualties to my Tech marine list. At the end of the game I asked why he didnt take any long fangs or tanks/dreads he said he was relying on his flanking troops to wipe out my HQ and 2 squads of troops and anything else that got in his way. sad to say it back fired for him.

Perry

[Animus Silvanna]

Why shouldn't you be able to, we are in the year 41,000ish, they have advanced range finders, why shouldn't they know how far away their enemy is. Hell in all of the stories alone space marines have advanced readouts in their helmets, and we can rangefind almost instantly with modern technology.
Well none of that matters if we were basing rules off of the books then for one the good guys would almost always win, I would be able to shred anything to bits with bolters, Grey Knights would be able to destroy legions and legions of demons. The game would pretty much be ridiculous then. Its really just my personal belief (which I stated) being an old Dog of war that commanders make mistakes and distance definitely can be one of those mistakes, It adds to the fog of war for a battle as we are not supposed to have the God-like overview of the battlefield. Now I don't get to punish someone for not moving far enough away but trying to stay close enough to maximize his shots on my little plastic warriors

[Psychosplodge]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d51526954dce727b2439dea6bd777bb1/tumblr_mfb1h1mIPn1rqwjemo1_500.jpg


Brilliant...

[dfer74]

Why are my warlord traits random? If I want to build an infiltrating army I should be able to spend 10pts and do it. I guess I can buy a special character and get that choice but I feel most special characters are unbalanced. Let me have a choice. I have options to build my guy has I choose for weapons, armor, etc, let me buy my warlord trait as well. Completly missed the mark here.

Why is it so hard to set every army to a zero state and then release codex's to get them updated to 6th?

Warmachine/Hordes has way more complexity then 40k. You usually do not lose in the list building phase of the game unlike 40k. Also, why they have two list tournaments so in case you run into a circle player. Each of the armies are all playtested and balanced against each other. Unlike balancing against one codex that 40k says it does but we all know there is not done. Flames of war has over 23 armies per time period and is balanced. Its not hard just have to care.

Actually 6th edition takes longer with the change of rules then it use to.

[ElectricPaladin]

Why are my warlord traits random? If I want to build an infiltrating army I should be able to spend 10pts and do it. I guess I can buy a special character and get that choice but I feel most special characters are unbalanced. Let me have a choice. I have options to build my guy has I choose for weapons, armor, etc, let me buy my warlord trait as well. Completly missed the mark here.

The one piece of randomness that I could personally do without is the warlord traits. I would very much like to pick it. In part, it would avoid the disappointment of a completely useless warlord trait. In part, it would help me build character into my army, which would be fun and cinematic. My army isn't just led by a librarian, it's led by my librarian who is a master of logistics! It would be neat.

In the codices to come, I'm hoping for more unique warlord traits for special characters, as well as some option for at least some HQ options to get to pick, rather than role.

That said, it isn't a game-killer for me. Just a missed opportunity for something awesomer.

[jonsgot]

I've been reading the feedback with much interest. I must confess the variance of the random charge does baffle me. I would have though D6+I would have been a much more realistic measure, and involves no more adding up (maybe one for 7th ed). I can't say I've found random charge to be as bad as I thought. Although charging through terrain, even with fleet is a bit far out.

I like the penalty for multiple charge - It encourages people to keep combat simple.

The Randomness 6th doesn't phase me either 40k has always been random, I've got it no worse than my opponent.

My biggest bug bear with 40k is still making the toughness rolls before armour saves (I know it doesn't really matter)

I'm still not sure why 6th isn't grabbing me though, maybe it has nothing to do with the rules.

[Animus Silvanna]

I like the penalty for multiple charge - It encourages people to keep combat simple.

The Randomness 6th doesn't phase me either 40k has always been random, I've got it no worse than my opponent.

My biggest bug bear with 40k is still making the toughness rolls before armour saves (I know it doesn't really matter)

I'm still not sure why 6th isn't grabbing me though, maybe it has nothing to do with the rules.

I think for me it just feels like GW wanted to micro manage things that didn't need to be managed that way and other things they really dropped the ball on. I think most notably despite everything, I hate how slow the game is, everything is pretty much adaptable even though i may not like how it works, But overall I like to get like 4-6 games in a day and now thats not possible especially at the point level I love (2k points). *sigh* although i haven't really been in a regular gaming circle for going on 7 months now i fear what it will be like jumping back into the pool, will it be cold or warm idk...

[Kevin48220]

If I can add my $0.02 to this discussion: I am coming to 40K totally fresh, so I've had a chance to experience the rules with no prior experience of playing under 5th edition (or any other version, for that matter). I've played around 6-7 games at this point, usually at the 1500 point level.

I don't know if I can answer the "too good" question, as I don't have a basis for comparison. However, I will say that for a new player, the game is damn fun. I've found it very accessible and flavorful. I like the random elements of the scenario setup and the random things that happen in the course of the game. It does add a dash of realism (i.e., you can't predict everything that will happen, or what you'll need in all instances) and keeps things from being too predictable and boring.

If anything, I think it's the exact opposite of micro-managing. If you micro-manage, that implies that everything, down to the last detail, is being scrutinized and carefully planned out. The random element of 40K seems to be anything but that--it's more like purposeful entropy. It's intended to upset plans, create weird deployments, and force the game into unpredictable patterns.

I've played enough miniatures games that didn't have any random setup elements, and there was nothing more boring than watching the same guys take the same terrain pieces and place them exactly where they did last time. And then put their miniatures in exactly the same setup, or close enough to it to let them play their list in the same way. Random elements--random missions, deployment areas, and the like--forces the game out of that pattern. Similarly, random charge distances, scattering blast templates, unpredictable teleportation events, and the like also keep the game from being too static in the way it plays out. I actually find that very refreshing and enjoy it as part of the game.

I'm not saying this to discount any problems people have with the random elements, or any other parts of the new rules set. I can understand how radical change--particularly if it creates an adverse effect for your army--is upsetting. I just wanted to point out that for us newer players, these "changes" are not changes; they're just how the game is played.

[Nabterayl]

I have to say that I like the random objectives and random terrain a lot, simply because they can be bad. A position that seemed strong can turn out to be very weak, and I think that's a good thing for the reasons Kevin48220 says - particularly since the game allows players to choose the terrain in their deployment zone and the terrain they fight over regardless of the terrain setup model being used. That undercuts a player's ability to be a dick by choosing a battlefield that works in their favor, and promotes the kind of tactics that I want 40K to be about but rarely see discussed - the ability to adapt to a situation as it unfolds, rather than the ability to plan your way through a situation with known parameters.

[Kevin48220]

I agree. I think that stressing adaptation/improvisation is a major thrust of the rules set. I've had a couple of games where there were objectives that I knew I couldn't accomplish for one reason or another. It forced me to really think about the objectives I could meet, and to focus my play on denying objectives to my opponent, rather than just playing out the strategy I'd thought of when making the list.

On that level, I think it's also realistic. Some armies show up better prepared than others, some have terrain advantages. Sometimes you show up with a knife at a gunfight. But, that's not a guarantee of a loss. Weird stuff happens on the ground. It's one of the things I really like about 40K, as opposed to other model-based strategy games I've played before. I've had random things totally go my way, and not; ditto for opponents. The issue is not whether or not something unexpected takes place; the issue is how you adapt to it and whether or not you can use it to your advantage.

In that, I think 40K's random/entropic elements actually make it much more "real" than any other strategy game I've played. It reflects the reality that you cannot control every element going into a battle, nor can you control everything that happens on the ground.

Seriously, I hope they put in rules for weather.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

As has been said prior in here it is all about risk management, and being able to adapt in the face of adversity. I love things like mysterious terrain, and mysterious objectives, it makes the game far more interesting than "go in this direction, shoot these guys, and assault, hope you get the objective but once you do its hard to get off of it." That last bit always seemed to be an issue in many games, best you could do was contest for a tie most of the time if you ever got behind. The new edition brings in a lot more risk, and thus a lot more risk management, and really tests a person's ability to adapt to a situation. I have had games where I couldn't have a chance at winning because of what the dice threw at me, or I have had that one thing I needed given to me at the last moment, or I have had even games. It throws up the standard, and forces you to change on the go, instead of just coming up with your basic strat when you write the list and never have to change from it much.

[Aspire to Glory]

I like the random aspects. I'm a casual player who games for the fluff and theme.

IMO "math hammer" gutted the heart of the game.

Anything that makes the outcome a little more dramatic is a good thing in my book.

[Slacker]

I find it amusing that those 3" assault charges that fail over open ground that everyone complains about should happen just about as often as those miraculous 12" charges. I do think that charging through difficult terrain is a little to harsh, even fleet has a hard time balancing out that sometimes.
I haven't won many games of 6th edition, but all the games I've played have seemed to be fairly close and interesting games. I also don't mind the game taking longer al long as I'm having fun playing it.

[DarkLink]

IMO "math hammer" gutted the heart of the game.


Poor balance gutted the game, and is still a problem. Mathhammer was merely a mechanism to facilitate that. 6th ed fixed a few of the major balance issues, which is singlehandedly the reason I like 6th better than 5th. 6th opened up the playing field significantly, and it wasn't any of the random elements that did it.

[Anggul]

Anything that makes the outcome a little more dramatic is a good thing in my book.

I really don't think the mighty warriors and deadly aliens tripping on their own feet at the climactic moment of the battle classes as 'dramatic'. Over-randomness doesn't make the game more fun and dramatic, it makes silly things that just aren't right fluff-wise happen. It would be fine if there was at least some kind of minimum.

Generally my games of 6th have been great fun, but it does suck for both sides when something daft like failing a 4" charge happens. It isn't fun for the guy rushing gloriously into combat with you, and it isn't much fun for you seeing the opponent's troops completely screw all immersion and somehow fall flat on their faces, only to be gunned down by your troops and leave you with a pretty hollow victory.

'I won because he failed to run at me from a few feet away' has got to be the worst war story ever.

[Animus Silvanna]

I really don't think the mighty warriors and deadly aliens tripping on their own feet at the climactic moment of the battle classes as 'dramatic'. Over-randomness doesn't make the game more fun and dramatic, it makes silly things that just aren't right fluff-wise happen. It would be fine if there was at least some kind of minimum.

Generally my games of 6th have been great fun, but it does suck for both sides when something daft like failing a 4" charge happens. It isn't fun for the guy rushing gloriously into combat with you, and it isn't much fun for you seeing the opponent's troops completely screw all immersion and somehow fall flat on their faces, only to be gunned down by your troops and leave you with a pretty hollow victory.

'I won because he failed to run at me from a few feet away' has got to be the worst war story ever.

Couldnt agree more, There is nothing fantastic or strategic about super over random rules its just makes you have to give a deep sigh out loud. Really the only thing i hate about 6th is flyers (mostly just cause they are annoying but meh) and the charge rule. everything else is damn peaches and cream and i can get over. Well i guess really i get over it every time i play anyways cause i still play... LoL But GW is getting closer to balance.