I'm pretty sure I don't really like 6th edition.

Yeah, I'm not feeling it. Any game that requires a crapload of house rules and unwritten rules to make the games fair and/or balanced smacks of laziness, and a lack of forethought on the part of the game designers. I don't like spinning a narrative. I like testing my skill against another player. 6th edition does not accomodate this. Most games I've had were over before they started, one way or the other. I either knew I was going to win or lose and there wasn't a lot of game to be had. Sometimes it was because of a lack of balance in the armies' power levels, others the ridiculous scenarios that went from concept to published with no playtesting. Also not a fan of fliers - at all. Good for Games Workshop's bottom line, bad for the game. Perhaps my perception is clouded because I've been playing a lot of Flames of War lately. That is a fantastic, well-balanced game that rewards good generalship. Every scenario and army matchup presents unique challenges and learning opportunities. My interest in 40K is currently at an all-time low, and I've been playing the game for 25 years.

Does anyone agree with me? I'd love to hear from someone who is really enjoying 6th edition also. What do you like about it? What do you think the improvements are over 5th edition? I like the new wound-allocation rules, and that is about it

I've been feeling the exact same way for the last couple of months. I've been kinda hoping it was just part of the winter blues, but I don't think it is. I just have zero desire to play the game and am finding it harder and harder to pick out things I like about the new rule set. And I find it frustrating because I own mountains of stuff (which, lately, I've even put serious thought into selling )

I don't even like the new wound allocation rules. I just hate the idea of a character tanking all the shots.

I just ordered a Dropzone Commander Army. Just sayin'.

Personally, I've been enjoying 6th. Wounds have been making more sense to me, saves get rolled faster for the most part, and I don't have to worry about Land Raiders/Monoliths being these big, untouchable bricks any more due to the advent of hull points. Pissed me off to no end in 5th that someone could just park a Raider in front of my army and just be "sup", with no meaningful retaliation from my end as it just plowed through my army. I like the fluff spinning, too, though not much has been happening in my matches as of late.

Kill Points and Bases being halved in there frequency of missions was nice, too, along with the tie breaker objectives. Old style Dawn of War just disappearing didn't hurt, either. Night fighting just makes more sense to me now, rather than dice simply saying "nope, not even going to let you try". Snap Fire brings some nice utility, too.

I am not feeling it either. Moreso than ever before, I feel discouraged to play games. I had planned to go hard in this next league but now I am contemplating shelving my armies and dropping out of everything for the better part of 2013. I don't know if it is because of the new rules or something else.

Missions, I like better. I hate overwatching. It added a phase to an already slow game, and so many armies/units reroll their misses, making it even slower. Fliers, bah. Once again vehicles getting a boon and monsters getting a stink. Too many exceptions to universal rules. Warlord traits are cool but just another bonus to forget about in the heat of battle. Wound allocation got better and worse.

Same here. To tell you the truth, it's not even 6th really, though that has changed my view on gw.

It's just the simplification, the cost really. And chaos.

Seeing that flying chaos engine for $79.99... That's stupid.
I have tonnes of 40k stuff, an little to no energy to play it.
Most games feel like rock/paper/scissors.
Grey knights kill this, this kills grey knights, necrons are broken etc etc.


Getting into a different game really gives you perspective.

I've spent 80 bucks on infinity, for a full faction.
I like the rules, I like the idea that its not about how many expensive figs you buy, but about how you play.

I like the concept of the different types of missions, but the execution was horrible. They are just so unbalanced. Why does GW have to rely on their tournament players to come up with balanced scenarios? Why not consult them in the first place? And you're spot on with the wound allocation. I like the concept of nerfing the wound-allocation shenanigans which were stupid and no fun, but Ryan is right. Now you can have characters tanking wounds which is a new kind of stupid and no fun. But hey, you can get around that by utilizing the pinpoint accuracy of barrage weapons. WTF? I agree with Scott M. about the warlord traits also. They make a long game longer, are not balanced at all, and I usually roll a crap one and just forget about it anyhow. One of my many complaints about fliers is that they take no skill to use. Just put it where you want and fire away! It's a dumbing down of the game similar to the dumbing down of videogames we've seen over the last decade. This is the sort of stuff you get when a company is trying to please its shareholders rather than its customers.

P.S. Just saw Paz's post. I agree with you on the Chaos also. I don't play Chaos and I was offended by the new book. I felt bad for all of the CSM players. A bad book has a ripple effect that hurts the game as a whole. I've heard good things about Infinity.

@ Scott R. Which faction did you get? How much was it?

I got a PHR army deal. It was 170gbp's whatever that equals in real money I don't know. Couldn't even tell you how many points it plays out to. I just liked the minis and want to try something that should work on this scale.

I'd consider trying a new game but lack of funds. Also another little Maxwell coming into the world in 3 short weeks.

Maybe I'll try to get back into D&D. Not 4th edition, mind you. I'm not that drunk.

170 GBP is about.... 275 in monopoly money?

I get where y'all are coming from. Playing without a flyer feels like handicapping yourself a lot pf the time.

I don't HATE 6th, but I feel they went too far.

Anybody up for a 40k 5.5 discussion?

I decline comment as I need to maintain my image as an exceptionally positive person.

I don't mind it.

The mission variety is nice. I'm not a big fan of triangle deployment though.

We haven't, for the large part, been following the rules, which may be colouring our judgement.

I think there's a lot of fun here to be had. A good player and a well written list will still rue the day more often than not. The new wound allocation has a bunch of different minutia, it's the overall speed and ease to mess up the rules that I have a problem with there.

I don't think any of us have played enough games to really pass judgement. I would argue that it's a higher quality game than 5th edition though. The games I've played have been a lot more entertaining then 5th edition was.

If anyone played the 6 flyer necron list around here, I might think differently.

I'm kinda in the boat of just hating flyers. hard to find a reliable way to deal with them and they can ruin your day if you don't prepare for them. the challenge system is a bit odd but the worst part in my eyes is all the nerfs to assault when it wasn't overpowered to begin with.

Maybe a bunch of us get together for beers at BP and try to hash out some scenarios and house rules?

i think it would benefit people alot more if the next league was done at a smaller size, say 1000pts. everyone here's been playing a long time, and they wanna use all their heavy hitting high-point value toys, and the result is the problem new kids have to the game; we're playing games at too large a force for us to properly learn and memorize all the new game mechanics. 6th didnt make minor, easy to learn tweaks to the game like 5th did. it made it a whole new game with a different way of playing it altogether. everyone needs to slow down and come at this like we did when we all started 40k, and play smaller armies for a while, possibly a good year's worth of league play, so we learn the new play style. It'll also make it easier for everyone to get a game in at the den with the new rules without worrying about running out of time. not everyone has their own in-house table, with a roomie, or close neighbor that plays 40k as well; we should take the time to re-learn the game like it's the first time all over again, since essentially, 6th is making it that way for everyone.

new players just starting out at the release of a new edition always have it easier, cause they learn with smaller armies, instead of having to forget a load of stuff from the previous edition while playing bigger armies.

Mike S's right on. One problem with that though is everything in the Chaos book costs so many points that it's kinda hard to write a 1000pt list with any synergy in it.

Things I like:
- the challenge mechanic
- USR's transferring to units
- Large number of objective based missions putting emphasis on "Troops"
- Side points (First Blood, Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker) | I think the sign of a good game is when all 3 of these matter)
- New difficult terrain mechanic

Things I'm not a fan of:
- Triangle deployment
- No assaulting out of a stationary vehicle
- Discrepency of Power between books like Grey Knights and Necrons over Chaos, especially with Chaos being new

--

I don't think Flyers break the game... except for 2 of them (Scythe and Vendetta)

that I agree with most of your points mark. 2
Quibbles...

What is it you don't like about triangle deployment?

And flyers.... The scythe and vendetta are by far the worst, but they all break the game to a point. You have armies whose only defense vs a flyer is allies or an aegis line. This is not like not preparing for av14.,this is like having nothing that deals with av12.,I am feeling hugely railroaded with flyers. Like you HAVE to take them regardless.

the only qualm i see so far with triangle deployment is its a pain in the arse to setup cause there's all the measuring and placing your dice in a line to let you know where to stop. havent seen any other problem with it apart from that. but, there's always gonna be a Dawn of War style deployment some wont like; this'll prolly be the new one just cause there's more effort involved to figuring out the deployment line.

it sucks they reduced how far a vehicle can move and deploy troops now; no more 12" scoot n' shoot makes me sad panda. just seems weird they'd force you to only move 6" and deploy.

on a positive though, 6th rules and the 30K marine army lists play rather nicely, but that wont help those of you that dont play a marine force.

Triangle deployment doesn't "turn me off 40k" or anything, but here's why it's my least favorite.

- the meatiest parts of your deployment zone don't line up.
- the corners of the deoployment zone are narrow, which can be awkward
- a 2 foot wide line, corner to corner cuts out more deployable board space than the other two deployment styles
- heavily reduces the effectiveness of infiltrators, scout moves, and outflank moves somehow magically all at the same time (this might be because I'm a bad player though)
- time spent measuring deployment zones

Lore Weaver wrote:Triangle deployment doesn't "turn me off 40k" or anything, but here's why it's my least favorite.

- the meatiest parts of your deployment zone don't line up.
You are quite correct, your biggest deployment spots are a good 36" apart.
- the corners of the deoployment zone are narrow, which can be awkward
agreed, this effextively cuts off both ends of your DZ
- a 2 foot wide line, corner to corner cuts out more deployable board space than the other two deployment styles
Yes, its more but not as much as you think. Assuming a 4x6 table.
H&A: 1152sq in No Mans Land
DoW:1728sq in NML
Triangle: 1765sq in NML
combined with your second pointm its going to seem a LOT smaller.
- heavily reduces the effectiveness of infiltrators, scout moves, and outflank moves somehow magically all at the same time (this might be because I'm a bad player though)
So bad you won last league? Less room to deploy means less effective infiltration and scout. Forcing deployment predominately to one side makes outflank less effective. You are correct.
- time spent measuring deployment zones

bah, I will repeat myself here. 21.5" by 14.5". Remember these folks. You will spend a lot less time on set up.

This is helping. I've found myself wondering after games, "Why wasn't that more FUN?" and I can't nail it down. Its not one big thing. Its a LOT of small things.

I like 6th for the most part and agree with Mark H in that I don't think anyone here has played enough to establish a legit opinion on the matter. It's by no means perfect but is better than 4th, which in my eyes was the worst edition since I started (tail end of 2nd).

I think GW got a little caught up in a group think attitude of ignoring tourneys and forgot that most people, regardless of competiveness level, want a balanced rule set. I will say that to me a "balanced rule set" does not mean there can be no randomness or variety. I think we as a community have been a little too quick to decry all the changes as "too random". Some of the most entertaining games I've had in the last year or two were heavily influenced by silly random things happening (i.e. mysterious terrain giving a unit an unexpected benefit that allowed them to do something they shouldn't). Sometimes this stuff will cost you a game, but in the end I think it makes people more flexible/adaptable and will result in better generalship overall.

Flyers are currently a little over-the-top but that will likely only last till Dark Angels come out with there new Dark/Shadow/Lion Missiles that will reroll misses, pens and damage results against anything with Scythe in the title...

I like the new Chaos book, and hope that new releases will follow its trend of having units be middling and that there will not be such obvious choices in each force org slot. I think that build diversity is will be key in 6th as it is the edition of zany stuff.

It hurts my brain to say this twice in the same post but I have to go with Mark on this one and say that we need to give it a little more time.

Mike

miv305 wrote:
It hurts my brain to say this twice in the same post but I have to go with Mark on this one and say that we need to give it a little more time.

That wasn't so hard, was it? The Chaos book is interesting, because of my last 5 games, all 5 of which being losses, all 5 of those games were fun and interesting. It's like Super Meat Boy, never before have I had so much fun losing.

personally I like there are more events in games you can look back on and laugh (or cry over).