News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 6th edition; The state of play  (Read 6670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
6th edition; The state of play
« on: September 28, 2012, 07:52:14 AM »
So now we've had quite a few weeks to experience and play 6th edition how about a reflection on what the changes have meant so far? How have the changes altered how you build your army?

Overall, I feel the game has shifted somewhat towards mobile firepower, and assaults being either planned as a finishing off, or to keep units tied up, no more is it an automatic "might as well."

Transports and vehicles were possibly one of the biggest news items on release. I've found that I like the new rules, and I'm a big fan of using vehicles. Consider the upsides, regular vehicles are faster thanks to flat out, no longer will a single glance silence a fire support tank for a whole game, and losing random weapons instead of choosing makes them more resilient on that front.

The flip side is you can wear then down, consistent attention won't see vehicles survive, the era of using them as mobile bunkers is over. This perhaps favours a more aggressive use of transports, drive then while you got them!


Wound allocation, ok, GW had to issue a patch to fix whole units of characters looking out for each other. But by and large it works, and fixes the problem of unique wound models carrying a wound each.
The concern remains for using re-rolls and 2+ saves to repel fire from a whole squad, but I've not seen any combinations that make it worth employing. Space Wolves manage a 'god mode' for one round of combat, so-so effectiveness. And the eldar based options I find to be uninspiring compared to more conventional options.

I'll throw things open at this stage for other opinions, either on my initial points here or any others you guys can think of. I do ask people try to avoid the "my army is ruined; I hate GW" style though!
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2012, 08:33:12 AM »
Well my army is a little ruined, but I don't hate GW.

My general feeling regarding 6th edition is: good, but not quite well thought out enough. The recent round of FAQs has gone a long way to correcting the more glaring omissions in the rulebook, but it's kind of alarming that they released the book with so many errors unspotted.

I agree that transports have been corrected to how they should be: tough, but very killable. Gone are the days of 5th edition when someone would set up a car park across the table and obliterate your force with near-impunity. Gone are the days when every list MUST be designed with as much anti-tank equipment as physically possible. It's a good thing. The one thing I would say is that I feel that things are going to be pretty unbalanced until a good volume of armies get new books released. I'm looking in particular at Necrons, since as things currently stand they are a little too good. I'm sure GW tried to write them as balanced for the new edition, but quite frankly they failed there. They're not the only army who have this issue, but they are the worst ones for it. I think we've got a situation similar to Fantasy brewing where people initially think the new books are crap because they are much more balanced than the latter books of the last edition.

Wound allocation I think is pretty good. It gives both players more say in the situation. A player being fired at can, if he survives a round of shooting, rejig things to keep his more important guys alive, and place models carefully to prevent the important guys getting picked off first. They can go for the 2+ save unit leader taking everything on the chin, but I haven't seen it work out too well so far.

Those are my initial thoughts, more later as the story develops
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2012, 09:01:43 AM »
I enjoyed the game that I played against Benis, although I didn't manage to test out as many of the new rules as well as I would have liked.

I agree with the comments about it's good to see the end of the car park mechanised lists.  I never used the infamous DAVU, but many other Eldar players seemed to, and thankfully the way in which the rules now work makes that a pretty ineffective option.  I really like the fact that scoring units can't just hide in vehicles to claim objectives.

I also really like the fact that they've developed the missions section.  The one dimensional nature of the missions was, in my view, the greatest failing of fifth edition, and didn't make for many interesting games, so this is a very positive step forward.

I have a few concerns with how some of the rules have been written.  As I had feared, the rules for flying monstrous creatures are excessively complicated, and they have too many options.  In my view, GW did go over the top here.  I also still have reservations about flyers, as I think that they belong in Epic.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2012, 09:15:05 AM »
My experience so far as been positive. I love that shooting now isn't the poor cousin to assault, which means I can pull the Tau out of mothballs and try playing balanced, flexible games instead of ridiculous one-trick lists. I think the vehicle rules are fine and that vehicles still seem to work, but aren't monstrously overpowered in the way that they were.

I haven't had much experience with Flyers yet, so I'll reserve judgement until I face them. Flying Monstrous Creatures are concerning, in that it was hard enough to kill a Hive Tyrant before, and now he's pretty much guaranteed to mess you up unless you've got a big assault unit that can take him or you happen to be fielding antiaircraft stuff.

On a side note regarding flyers: I'm concerned that AA and flyers will cancel each other out a bit too neatly. One Quad Gun with Intercept seems to mean either death or evasive action to almost any flyer that shows up, which means the flyer is neutralized one way or the other...which means you and your opponent shelled out a lot of points that now, suddenly, are completely worthless to both of you. I don't know that I like that set-up, but the game seems to be pointing itself that direction. If guys start bringing tons of flyers to the table (*cough* Necrons *cough*) isn't everybody just going to bring tons of Flakk missiles (eventually) and then...well...the game ends on Turn 2? For my money, flyer spam lists are going to the bane of this edition's playstyle, much like the old Razorspam of 5th edition. Time will tell, though.

Generally I've enjoyed my games. I think the terrain set-up, mysterious objectives and terrain, and warlord traits are a bit of a waste of time, but otherwise no major complaints.

Offline Killing Time

  • Infinity Circuit | I put out on the first date | Tarrin's Sullied Cunning Stunt Double
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3691
  • Country: wales
  • Brevior saltare cum deformibus mulieribus est vita
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2012, 09:37:52 AM »
In general I think I share many of your views on this edition.

I really like that balance seems to be the order of the day, and I hope that the threat of anti-aircraft fire will maintain this balance over the rise of flyer spam as being the power list of tournaments everywhere.

Wound allocation is a big plus for me.
It makes the most sense of any attempts to address it over the course of the game as a whole. I also like precision shots giving you a little more chance to winkle out special weapons from a squad.

So far I'm really just getting used to how the missions play, and how my army needs to deal with the various scenarios.
Luckily the new rules seem to fit very well with my preferred playstyle of dedicated mechanised/mobile firepower, so I'm not having a huge amount of adjusting to do on that score.

Early days yet, but overall I'm so far very happy with the changes.

Offline Arquarian

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Country: 00
  • all is dust...
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2012, 09:47:59 AM »
I do think the the game has opened up a lot and although it's good to comment now I think it maybe still a little early to fully comment. For example I'm yet to see certain aspects of the game such as allies of fortifications as a regular features in games in my area.


Vehicles are an interesting point. I think we saw many people abandoning vehicles in the early days of 6th due to the perceived ease at which they can be stopped however I think that with the new rules the target priority in a much bigger issue here now.  Do I shoot to take out the predators or do I stop the rhino rush?


One thing you haven't covered Hym is flyers and their impact on the game. Like allies they are yet to influence the game on a regular basis and so I don't think as yet they're having as much of an impact but I think in the future all armies will have to include a way of dealing with the aerial aspect of the game. This aspect has certainly pushed me to look at my army lists. I think flyers will be a must address issue in 6th. Not having a flyer or a way to deal with flyers will put you at a seious dissadvantage against an opponant who takes one (or more).  The concern about flyers is justified but like I said its still VERY early days yet. We're only just about to see the first 6th ed Codex. We will only be able to consider this point when we have more evifence of the direction taken by GW in thie field.


All in all I like the way the game works. I think it has a better feel to it.

There are always going to be those nightmare builds exploiting some small loop hole in the rules but I think  by now we now who these people are and how to deal with them.

 

Offline Shas'Oink

  • Sky Ray Pimp Daddy | Infinity Circuit | Ban me, I dare you! | The Fallen didn't fall, they were pushed. | Winner of the 2008 40K Online Longest Title Competition, awarded again with oak leaves, five years and running | Now with O:nkling! | Axe
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10824
  • Country: england
  • 87% sure I'm straight
    • oinks overambitious terrain project(s)
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2012, 09:52:50 AM »
On Flyers one quad gun will do well to cancel out one flyer. But this is where the concern with Necrons comes in. For example, my necron army has 4 night scythes in it without even breaking a sweat... I can fit so many more in if I wanted to... but I actually saw what was happening and decided to return some un-opened boxes of scythes in favour of alternatives.

I've faced off against a quad gun... which done a good job of hurting one of my flyers... but then was immediately neutralised by other flyers. The one good thing I've noticed was that the toughness value & good save of quad guns makes them far more interesting than if they were given an AV value...

I will say that whilst flyers can have a big impact, I have actually found that they are actually quite tricky to use. Oh, and that basically the game really shouldn't be played on a 4x4! the ones with "hover" are a bit easier but zooming flyers require a lot of forward planning and guesswork to make sure that when your flyer gets to a spot, it'll have the target it wants. With that in mind though, a person does not necessarily need to shoot flyers down, they can manouvre to get the flyers out of the game.

Having said that, I think that currently new armies will dominate as they gain access to interesting weapons and flyers that were not possibilities before. Currently some armies have literally no air cover whatsoever, and this puts them at a huge disadvantage when fighting against flyers.

I really like how play is these days. But then I have usually played in this manner of mobile firepower with final combat support so the changes in rules probably haven't hit my style as much as some other people.

Aside from that I agree that the expanded missions will keep interest going longer. And they pave the way for more interesting additions (ie: white dwarf missions) which explore different avenues... immediately you can probably think of a mission where elite choices are scoring... or where the entire game happens under cover of night...

I am not too keen on some things, such as mysterious objectives, but for the most part I have played games where both players have agreed to ignore that (at least for now)... I DO like the idea of terrain (and objective) effects and the potential to apply them on a case by case rather than "mysteriously"... for instance, using the rules for lava for rivers painted like that, or the various woodland rules applied to specific types of modelled terrain.

I am a little surprised that there were some glaring holes in the rules though. For example, that GW managed to "forget" to tell us that flying monstrous creatures have skyfire!?

Offline Benis

  • 77 Shades Of Decay | Lazerous Penguin | Death to the Emperor with a Pulse!
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: se
  • Getkilling
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 10:13:26 AM »
There are very few of the changes or additions that in my opinion isn't positive: the missions are a great change, introduction of snap fire and all the areas that takes place in is great, how vehicles work is great (although a chance to shake or stun on glancing hits wouldn't have hurt) and I find allies to be mostly a nice addition although the table could probably have been less generous.

I do have a problem with flying monstrous creatures which are both unnecessary complicated and a bit hamstrung. They should have simply made a system that worked pretty much the same for both monstrous creatures and vehicles when it came to flying instead of the half-and-half they have done now.

All in all though the changes have been very positive and made the game a lot more dynamic, allowing for more variations and in general a lot more entertainment. Certain races do suffer a bit from the shift from close combat but hopefully this will be solved with close combat units dropping a bit in points and in general a lot more emphasis on shooting when their codex comes around this edition.

Offline Benis

  • 77 Shades Of Decay | Lazerous Penguin | Death to the Emperor with a Pulse!
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: se
  • Getkilling
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 11:30:01 AM »
I guess here it comes down to preferences but I would like to see the close combat heavy armies (Orks, Daemons, Tyranids) to be a bit more balanced towards shooting, Orks are quite alright as they are but the other two could do with more ranged options and capacities simply because, to me, armies that focus too strongly on close combat are quite boring to play against and shooting is the prime attack function of 40k and that is in my opinion proper. All armies should have at least medium capacity in the game's most important phase.

Of course they might be able to introduce a radical different approach to close combat come Codex: Tyranids but I somehow I doubt it. It is probably possible to also introduce some nifty extra rules for Tyranids when it comes to close combat to put them in a better position towards this edition's changes (mass fleet, ways to ignore overwatch, offensive grenades etc.) but I still find the armies with the best spread of capacities over the phases to be the most fun to both play and play against.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 11:33:50 AM by Benis mit Kater »

Offline Arquarian

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Country: 00
  • all is dust...
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 11:45:34 AM »
 I hesitate to agree with you Benis because you're asking to change the character of the army as a whole. As Killing "Drinking" Time says Orks, Nids and the like are supposed to be CC orientated.

Let’s not forget there are ways of making these bad boys a bit more shooty but I think it’s important to keep the character of the armies. As a long-suffering Eldar player I can attest to the erosion of battlefield character. If we go down this path you also run the risk of creating several bland army lists whose only difference is the paint job.

I certainly enjoy the challenge of building all comers lists, which can deal with small elite armies, heavy mechanised armies and of course hordes of Orks, IG conscripts or Nids.
 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 11:47:53 AM by Arquarian »

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2012, 12:31:41 PM »
Flyers I didn't touch on, I'm a bit undecided about that really. In some ways the danger of spam seems high but with the rumours that the new codexes get flakk missiles up the wazoo to I think flyers may end up being too fragile for taste in tournaments.

I threw two stormtalon into a trial by fire in the the 40ko tourny and half the games they where great, the other half they where rubbish. But on reflection if I had spent those points on typhoon speeders (ie, the ground based equivalent) I think they would be more or less the same. The speeders can hang back to snipe while airplanes have to run into whatever situation they're looking at and hope snap fire protects them.... Different kinds of survivability.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Arquarian

  • Infinity Circuit
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Country: 00
  • all is dust...
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2012, 12:34:18 PM »
I think you hit the nail on the head in that in my opinion this is the closest the game has come to recreating a perceived future Sci-Fi reality.  By going down the cinematic route I think GW have done themselves proud in delivering this current rule set.  I saw Dread the other night and I came out of it thinking that that's exactly how I imagine an Arbites Judge should be. I then started thinking about how this would act out on the table top.

Yes there are of course exceptions and flaws but it is such a big job to do overhaul the entire core rules in the the first place so I think we can excuse GW for not getting everything perfect straight away.  I think we also have to give them credit for getting the FAQs out relatively quickly.  As for the more obvious mistakes re,  O:nks comments about Nid flyers and Skyfire well, I think we've all know that GW has had a proof reading problem for a while now.


Quote
What I'd like to see is each successive codex working within this framework to produce armies that have true individuality alongside a game-wide balance.
Matt Ward take note!


On a more serious note, well said.  I believe keeping the character of the armies is important.  I'd like to see an overall strategy of how the races sit in the 40K universe. Where by the armies all have their own traits / specific advantages / disadvantages 40K universe as a whole. E.g. GK being anti daemon. Guard being good at wars of attrition and therefore possibly bertter against the Eldar. The Eldar being psychically powerful and tricksy, this is all off the top of my head But I thikn you can see where I'm going with it.  What I don't want to see repeated is with every new codex all other army lists seem to pale in to significance. Codex creep is the one lurking nagging thought in my head getting me to quit the hobby (actully the cost too but that's a different point)  of course this will all come out in due time.


To answer some of Hym's questions directly: How has this altered the way you build your lists. Well for mow my Eldar are in the box. My Chaos Marines however, are finally comming out of the box! I'm looking forward to the new codex and seeing how my old 4th Ed codex Chaos army can be bent and shoe horned into the 6th ed rules. A new challenge.

As for my (space marine) Minotaurs army. I'm takeing a completely new look on things. Flyers and anti-flyer capabilities are on the agenda and yes, mobile firepower with mop up assualt units are my strategy for now.



Offline Nemo vas Varya

  • Ork Yoof
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 633
  • Country: us
  • Keelah se'lai
  • Armies: Imperial Guard, Eldar, Dark Angels, and High Elves
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2012, 12:39:13 PM »
The only downside to 6th has been Necron flyer spam in my opinion. In the exception of one player, the top 10 at the local tournament scene are running Necron flyer spam. (The exception is a female Eldar player who competes with the power of cuteness and boobs.) OF the next set of 10, 8 of them are IG who spam Hydras and routinely beat the Necrons, but lose to everyone else.

Flyers seem to have been meant for never more then one or two, but with the ease in which IG and Necron can drop 9 (IG) or more (Necron) is just disastrous. While it is nice to see a new local tourney favorite then mech guard and Blood Angels, I could beat the Mech Guard and Blood Angels. The Necron flyer spam becomes to much, and with the ability to pick up crons and drop em whereever while flying ensures they have the past end game point grab move, and should never not end the game with line breaker.

One of the Necron guys puts almost all of his grunts on the ground turn one, turn two his flyers scoop them up and he runs around flying until turn five when suddenly he drops his dudes on objectives and there isn't much you can do about it. Most boring game to play, because it is just move to objectives, try and crap them all, and take snap shots at flyers. You're hoping that something goes wrong and he can not contest an objective, or you get lucky and manage to kill his flyer with the HQ to gain slay the warlord. I look forward to Flakk missiles, all I am going to say.
Tali: Shepard! Want a drink?

Shepard: So… how are you getting drunk, anyway?

Tali: Very carefully. Turian brandy… tripled filtered and introduced into the suit through this… emergency induction port.

Shepard: That’s a straw, Tali.

Tali: Emergency. Induction. Port.

Offline Blood Hawk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Stuff
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2012, 01:53:47 PM »
I generally I am really enjoying 6th ed so far.  By the time they were previewing 6th with the online teaser video and whatnot I had actually began to get a little bored with 5th, and I had been playing other games such as CCGs on the side.  6th ed defiantly has got me back to focusing my attention entirely on 40k again.

Only problem I have 6th so far is flyers, and the fact that flying defense for most armies entails either a quad gun or spray and pray for the best is a problem.  It is only worsened by necrons players and air force armies, but luckily most people here don't play those armies.

Things they added like warlord traits and mysterious objectives I am kinda meh on, sometimes they lead to something more interesting or useful in the battle sometimes not.  I think warlord traits have a lot of potential to be rather interesting, even if the charts in the main book are somewhat last luster and with my luck rolling warlord traits so far i always am getting something completely useless or the outflank one which I never end using.  So I am very much looking forward to what the chaos codex's warlord traits look like.

Doesn't work if the entire unit is wiped out from the first combat they get into. All that does is encourage your opponent to run into them with stuff he doesn't mind losing, or is fairly confident he won't lose in too great numbers (hi GK Terminators/Paladins!) and then he doesn't have to worry about them and can focus on taking out the other stuff. It basically means that you have to run Tervigon spam to keep spawning more gaunts to replace the ones you lost, and I don't agree that any unit in any codex should be a must-take.
Dude they are gaunts, they are dirt cheap horde units.  Hell you can get them for free sometimes.  If you invest minimal pts into something you should expect minimal results.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 01:56:38 PM by Blood Hawk »

Offline Locarno

  • Ork Boy
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6488
  • Country: 00
  • Could I interest you in a small bribe?
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2012, 04:49:56 AM »
Kind of off-topic (or at least focused on one element), but I don't get this focus on assault grenades. The same thing applies with khornate daemons, and whilst, yes, I'd love them to have them, I'd argue differently;

~ If every army has assault grenades (which, if daemons and bugs get them, they pretty much do), then why bother with the assaulting into cover rules at all?

~ The whole 'defending a barricade' thing is sufficiently iconic that the rule of cool says it should stay in and therefore have a game effect. Equally, if I'm buying an aegis line, it should do something whether I face an assault army or a shooty army.

~ Striking last for one round of combat isn't inherently a big deal. Where chuckles (quite rightly) points out that it is, is for units which will strike first in subsequent rounds, essentially increasing the number you lose before you get to start killing things.

~ This is true in several parts of the rules, though. A pure assault force charging at a gunline can now experience an extra turn of fire (as rapid fire weapons can shoot at full range whilst falling back), plus a not-quite-extra turn of fire from overwatch.

~ This doesn't make assault grenades a 'must have' in my view. The problem with not having them, boiled down to its basic level, is "I have lost N extra dudes before I get to attack in round 1". Is it not therefore workable to allow the squad to be N dudes bigger for the same points cost?

~ This works better in my mind as, depending on the scale of cost drop, it (a) covers off the problem of overwatch and moving rapid fire, and (b) the biggest losers of the new ruleset (purestrain genestealers) are due a points drop anyway for not being able to charge from infiltrate or outflank. Their costing more than marines doesn't make sense anyway - tyranids and warrior daemons are, as noted, supposed to be this massive, slavering horde...


Most of the rest is fine. Yes, all right, overwatch casualties coming from the front can in theory stop a charge, but with fleet-rerollable 2D6" charge you get a few inches further on the charge anyway. Precision shot is largely pointless against an army with few special weapons or squad leaders, and whilst krak grenades hurt, being able to challenge power-fist wielders and step on them in person more than makes up for it. The AP3/AP2 close combat thing is largely irrelevant as most tyranid armour-piercing close combat attacks go through anything anyway.


Stories to read....
Songs of Earth
The Will to Survive Series

Tervigon Army List:
Games Played: 35
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2685

Offline Draggo Blacksun

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Country: au
  • The never ending crusade will, umm.... Never End!
  • Armies: Black Templar 6000+ pts, Soon SOB 1500 pts
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2012, 09:04:09 AM »
Well so far ive played 6 games of 6th ed... Pure BT's no fortifications or allies (I'll get back to these in a minute). Over all I'm a bit Meh! about it, I mean some of its good ( I.E. random assault range, overwatch, snap fire). But some of its bad in my opinion ( I.E. Hull points, Casualt removal, Out flank, transports). I will clarify these statements, but first back to fortifications and allies.

In theory the Idea of placing fortifications in your deployment is great. A structure that you know is yours and usually has weapons attached to it. Who could want more... Well me for one... Its great but its static. Once you've placed too bad, you can only use its guns (if it has any) to shoot at anything thats stupid enough to get into its LOS. Oh and any thing it can shoot at can generally shoot back. Meaning that it wont take long for that nice structure you sacrificed points in your army for to turn into a pile of rubble. The only benefit I can see to a static structure like whats available in the rule book, is for armies that like to shoot from static positions (Guard, Tau).

Speaking of the rule book.... lets talk about allies and the ally matrixs... the only thing that makes any sence to me in the ally matrix is the universal hatred of the nids. Some of the combinations, makes me think how can they even justifiy fluffwise some of theses pairings. While other "no brainer" pairs are not what you would think( i.e. Being allies of nessecity, when they should be battle brothers or at worst allies of conveinece). Oh and lets not forget these allies come out of your armys allotment of points. Its true that there is some benefit to having alles in you army. Case in point a shooty army needs some cc help. Call in an allie and the reverse is also true. But even at the battle brother stage there usefullness is very limited.

The points I do like about the 6th ed. The random assault range, Ive found it to be only marginally of use, because I still plan out my movemets to make sure I still with in the old rules 6" assault range. So that when My opponets have done the new overwatch rule and ive lost troops because of it. I've still got a good chance of getting the unit into the assault. And as for over watch, On the rare occasion where I'm not the one doing hte assaulting, I have found it to barely useful. I do understand the idea behind it, It's just seems to be less usful than what you would expect. But then again I'm putting real world expectations into a Sci fi "game". The new rule that I do like the best and in my oppinon makes the most sence is the snap fire rule. Most of the armies have trained to use heavy weapons, so It makes sence when the time calls for action the guy firing the heavy will be able to act. maybe not as well as if they had time to line up a shot. But damn it, a lot can be said for spray and pray.

Its getting late and Im getting tired so I'll just summerise the bad points of 6th ed.

Hull points... Good idea... terribly executed, Vehicals are now too soft. Even the mighty LR and the monolith, are laid low with greater frequnecy thanks to the hull point system. (simple solution: each 2 hull point loss increase the damage result by 1 on a pen) stopping the whole being glanced to death as my transports have suffered in nearly all my games.

Casualty removal... the guys in front get shot first... I get that. But what I dont get is the unit firing is firing all their guns at the same guy in front... that dont make sence (simple solution: Say a sqd of 5 is hit with 7 wounds, the ones in front still take the hits, 2 each then one for each of the rest, now make the saves.)

Out flank... The whole purpose of this is to Attack your enemy from an unexpected direction... Now with the new rules its a case of heres another unit to shoot at. where as with the old rules it was a case of 'you put your home objective defender/ artillery unit/ HQ command deep in a corner of your deploymet zone so I could not get at them. Well SURPRIZE!' 

Transports... Alright I get it, there not front line assault vehicals...but, If you have patietntly weathered the storm of shots while stationary and not been glanced to death, you should be rewarded. and allowed to assualt from a transport. I'm just saying.
For Sigismund, Dorn and..... FOR THE EMPEROR!
8th ed record
                                W / D / L
Black Templars         1 / 1  / 3
Sisters of Battle          2 / 0 / 1

Offline Locarno

  • Ork Boy
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6488
  • Country: 00
  • Could I interest you in a small bribe?
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2012, 10:17:09 AM »

Quote
Hull points... Good idea... terribly executed, Vehicals are now too soft. Even the mighty LR and the monolith, are laid low with greater frequnecy thanks to the hull point system. (simple solution: each 2 hull point loss increase the damage result by 1 on a pen) stopping the whole being glanced to death as my transports have suffered in nearly all my games.

Thing is, I think it's the point - being able to kill things with glancing hits, I mean. From the improvement of grenades against walkers and monsters, to the glancing-hit-death, it's a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of times unit X is immune to anything the enemy army can throw at it.

I'm open to debate about how many hull points big tanks should have, but I like the mechanic. Mostly because whilst the tank may die sooner, it fights at full effect until it does - glancing hits no longer turn you into a stunned-and-shaken box.

Equally, the other big thing is taking away the 'no chance to react' situations - charging out of a transport, charging from outflank or charging from scout or infiltrate - regardless, they've gone. You always get a chance to do something before you get flattened, and I quite like that. If it really bothers people, assault or open-topped vehicles are available to almost every army that is realistically going to want to charge someone (I think only eldar don't get one or the other).
Stories to read....
Songs of Earth
The Will to Survive Series

Tervigon Army List:
Games Played: 35
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2685

Offline angel of death 007

  • Dreadbash Warboss | KoN Veteran
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
  • Country: us
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2012, 01:03:12 PM »
I really like the aspect that troops cannot use a vehicle anymore as a scoring bunker.  I thought that was really weak in 5th and disagreed with the concept.

In playing 6th I think some parts of the game have sped up a bit.   Overwatch is an interesting add on.  I am still getting used to the whole wounds and how to make that go a bit faster as in the games I have played it really seemed to slow the game up a lot.   

I am mixed on shooting.   I like that it is more important now, which thinking in the distant future it probably would be, however, model placement is a lot more important.  This makes movement phases take a bit longer.   All in all I like the idea of lone survivors and being able to mark a certain model for an accomplishment.   With the new rules it makes it so the sergeant or nob won't be the only one left standing in all circumstances like before. 

I like that they brought the vehicles down a bit from their god like status in 5th.  Some vehicles are super fragile but I guess sustained firepower would have a tendency to take out a tank so it isn't totally out of the realm of possibilities.

Flyers I like as they add different possibilities to the game.  A whole army of flyers would be a bit much, IMHO.  But an army taking one or two of them is ok. 

Fortifications, I was a little opposed to at first, but having played many a time in a tournament in a fully or mostly open board lacking cover, the option to take your own cover with you and having to pay points to do so I don't feel is a bad idea.

On the bad side is allies.   Reminds me of the days of guard and grey knights all over again.  It leaves many tournament organizers on the fence as the staple 2000 points now is either 2000 points with allies or 1999 +1.   I think as players become more experienced with 6th edition they will manipulate allies in a bad way.  For GW it allows them to sell more codex's and now at $50 a pop, why not.    For the gamer it allows them to take different armies that they like and combine them.  Makes it good for those who like to collect.  So there is a good side to it.  However for tournament play I think it shouldn't be an option.  I always liked Apocalypse for fielding allies and in a fun game I could see it.  For a competitive game I think there are too many potential problems.

I still think overwatch should have been more of an option rather than a given.   Either shoot in your shooting phase or put the squad on overwatch, basically holding a position or an area with guns at the ready.  Allowing you to shoot at an enemy target when it moves into your firing range.  The idea of shooting in your shooting phase and then shooting in your opponents assault phase seems a bit much.  Luckily it is on a very modified BS which makes overwatch far less effective.  If you had an option to go on overwatch or not, I think it would add more strategy to shooting.

I like hull points but a better method might have been that once your hull points have been exhausted, every hit counts as a penetrating hit, kind of like wearing the armor down or blowing it off.  Shots to the now exposed areas have a potential to do more damage.  This would give vehicles a possibility to be more fragile then they were in 5th yet make them a little harder to shut down. 

Offline 29+12

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Country: 00
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2012, 03:27:38 PM »
Call in an allie and the reverse is also true. But even at the battle brother stage there usefullness is very limited.

Are you serious?? It means every army has access to at least 8 troop units and allows those with weaker troops to limit their exposure to them and take resilient ones instead! It opens so many doors and the only penalty is that it raises your min HQ count.

Offline Partninja

  • Warlock
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2731
Re: 6th edition; The state of play
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2012, 05:26:39 PM »
Many games into 6th now (including the FAQ). I have to say I am liking most of the changes, but some I do not. Overall it's much better than 5th

Things I don't like:

1) Disembarking - If a vehicle didn't move, I should be able to get out and assault. I really do not see the need for this change. ALL other aspects I can agree or live with the change.

2) Flyers - I feel the rules are very clunky for a standard game. It may just be me, but the way you have to use them, makes them not very viable for me. I'm probably going to ebay my stormraven and go back to a LR.

3) Challenges - I like and don't like these. Mostly with how they are implemented. Most of the time a challenge is an annoyance and a nuisance more than it is fun. Again, I'm probably biased as I use more supportive HQs as apposed to ones that are good in CC. Most of the time in the case of various squad leaders it ends up just being a trade of dead Sergs for both sides. Very underwhelmed with this rule.

4) Closest to farthest - I under stand the logistics, but in previous editions it was explained that when a dude died, another squad mate picked up his special weapon since everyone knew how to use it. I don't get why this idea had to just disappear. Making sure you have models placed just so bogs the game down in my opinion. It makes more sense for vehicle squadrons, but not so much for infantry.

For better or for worse, the game is in a better place than it was.

 


Powered by EzPortal