6th Edition = Meh???

[will44]

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

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

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

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

[magickbk]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mystery]

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

[Wildeybeast]

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

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

[Phototoxin]

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

I don't understand your logic.

[DarkLink]

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

Well, there's your problem.

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


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

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



*plural for Prius, apparently

[xilton]

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

[will44]

boy, the trolls sure are biting today!

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

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

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

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

[Wildeybeast]

boy, the trolls sure are biting today!

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

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

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

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

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

[eldargal]

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

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

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

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

Well let's see:

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

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