6th Edition = Meh???

[the jeske]

The action and pleasure in a game are created by the players themselves and not the rules.

I dont know playing necron or IG against nids is very pleasurable. But then again the last study in eastern countries showed that our brain pleasure centers light up more , if something bad happens to someone else , then something good happening to use[because everyone knows this is just the start of stuff going down hill even more] .

I do understand the OP , game was in deed boring . telling him to hamstring himself or that his opponent makes error to make the game more "fun" isnt realy an option either . But then again playing a 5th ed army in 6th ed does suck too. if you can have/dont have a 6th ed SW army then your are not going to have as much fun as those that do [your still are going to get some fun, because SW are awesome even with bad builds].

Phrases like: "Parking Lots: Fixed" make for nice campaign slogans if you want to get elected to a city council position, but do nothing to explain how the game has improved.

+ its not even the truth . it was "fixed" for BAs and SW and normal SM . cortez can still make a viable list out of mecha, same with IG . necron got even more mecha then they were before 6th[atleast to me a not moving hard to break up parking from 5th ed , is very simiular to a flying hard to break up necron parking] .

the game improved a lot for good armies . double FoC , flyers[if you have them in your codex] , ally rules[specialy if your imperial and a lot of stuff is battlebrother] makes the lists even better . sometimes there is also nice synergy between units [even if GW didnt want that to happen] like epi+PMs+nurgle DPs. So the game did get better for those armies . Armies that can ignore night fight or that have character units is the same thing , game got better. But if someone though that his no marks only csm AL list will suddenly get better , because GW told us this edition is "for fun only" , then he is in for a world of hurt[and boring].

Putting objectives in the open forces your enemy to move as much as you do, making it not stupid but good for breaking up the enemies plan

because a shoting army is like totaly going to move closer to the all melee army to grab those objectives turn 2-3.

[magickbk]

It has been well discussed on the forums that 75% of tournament armies are one of three lists, one of which happens to be similar to what you play. The 6th edition changes specifically hurt your army, and from some of the information that came out from the Studio Open Day this was intentional by the designers, and that has to be a tough pill to swallow. From most other players' point of view, the game improved and became more balanced.

In 5th edition, I had the opposite problem with Tau. I once played a game where my opponent both got to deploy and go first, and was able to pin me in a 6" pocket between his marines and my table edge before I actually got to take a turn. I fought hard, and was almost able to squeeze out a draw, but the game was essentially impossible for me to win before I got to take my first player turn. Before I took my second player turn, the mission was impossible for me to win, I spent the rest of the game playing for that draw. This was a direct result of the mission deployment for one of the scenarios.

This is the internet, and people get mad fast, and get insulting faster. 6th edition hurt your army build, and it helped a lot of other armies. A new edition means adjustments for everyone. What people are trying to say, whether they are saying it the right way or not, is that you have to try new things, be they tactics, army list choices, philosophies, etc. It isn't fair to say the edition is bad because your 5th edition list didn't work well in 6th. It has only been a few weeks, and as someone who has played every edition back through Rogue Trader, I have to say that every edition had good and bad parts. When 3rd edition came out, none of my 2nd edition armies were even legal armies anymore, I had to add units just to play with the Force Organization Chart, which was a new and bizarre concept that some people hated, and others thought it brought certain armies in line.

If you want some specific examples of how something like the parking lot was fixed, then read through the forums. I'll use that as an example. Units in vehicles are now no longer scoring units. So, if a unit in a Chimera wants to hold an objective, they have to get out. They probably need to do it a turn early, in case the game ends via random game length. That disembarking means they will only be firing snap shots with heavy weapons, which makes the unit less effective for that turn. Also, since a vehicle can't move more than 6" and have a unit disembark, they can't hide behind terrain and go flat out to get next to an objective in the final turn. Are people still going to use parking lot armies? Of course. But they are going to have to do it in a new way. Those people are all probably pretty angry right now, because tank models are expensive and right now infantry looks better then it did in 5th edition.

And, BOLS really is a good place to discuss the game. The internet is going to be full of arguments no matter where you go, because that's what the internet is. Everyone has an opinion, everyone is allowed to express it, and no one has to be civil like they do if an angry person was standing in front of them.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I will say this much, over the course of a few turns, sure a few inches lost per turn has a major possibility of postponing an assault...but for the most part it wont. Usually when you end up getting close enough to assault your either barely within charge distance if you roll well (which in the old game you wouldn't have been able to assault due to a set charge distance) or you are only a few inches away (I have found I am rarely in the interim). At that point a few inches lost means very little, sure it can screw you once or twice, but its overall not a huge deal. Trust me on this, I play tyranid, and the changes had a major chance to screw over my assault heavy list, but for the most part they didn't. I am still able to get in and destroy people in assault, I just have to be more careful and do it more tactically, just requires a different mode of thinking.

Magickbk made good points on parking lots, if they want objectives to win, they have to get out of vehicles which makes them very vulnerable. They cant book it across the board in transports and pile out last minute to get a quick and easy victory, they have to work for it.

As for your mentioned game above, a few changes to your own tactics could really help you speed the game up a lot, such as better placement of your objectives. As an assault heavy army I never put my objectives in my own deployment zone, because when all is said and done, by the end of the game I am rarely ever in my own deployment zone. I want to make their side a living mess, and as I get in there with my assault troops, I want them to be fighting for those objectives, I wanna make their day a living hell, its my job in fact.

For the most part the people in this thread aren't trolling you they are commenting on your views, and placing their own opinions. There were a few yes, but your statement seemed like everyone was calling you an idiot because your game went poorly, which most of them have not. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are calling you an idiot, nor are they bashing your views, they are just disagreeing and they feel like commenting.


You want a coherent sentence/argument for why 6th has improved the game, sure I will give you a short little stint of that. The entire dynamic of the game has changed, making most games far different (especially some of the new missions which are very interesting so far, I love the relic one) than they ever were in 5th edition. With new rules like mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, and the new deployment types, its a totally different game. Sure in some cases this causes it to be not as much fun, but overall a change in dynamic is a lot of fun and is very exciting. It makes us think in new ways, and try out new things in a game, so we aren't just repeating the same old monotony. That last bit is very important, because frankly the new feel has breathed new life into the game. Sure we have to make adjustments, we knew that from day one, this happens every edition. If we avoided playing or creating new editions for fear of it possibly getting worse, we would have never been in 4th edition, much less 6th.



tldr...The game isn't really that meh, all you have to do is try playing it in new ways and you should be able to find fun in it. Don't play it like its a different 5th edition, look at it with new eyes.

[Admiral Kenaris]

Wound allocation: addressed


While not being a supporter of the premise of this thread, what exactly was wrong with wound allocation and how was it fixed?

[eldargal]

In 5th you could distribute wounds accross units with different equipment to prolong the life of each model. So if you inflict 9 wounds on a ten wound squad you end up killing no models. Things like Biker Nobs and GK terminaotrs became extremely hard to kill as a result. Now with wounds being allocated to the closest model until it dies, two unsaved wounds are enough to kill a Biker nob or whatever, meaningyou can begin to degrade their combat effectiveness much more rapidly.

[the jeske]

two unsaved wounds are enough to kill a Biker nob or whatever, meaningyou can begin to degrade their combat effectiveness much more rapidly.

you forgot to add with a 50% of that happening because all those multi wound units that were the problem are characters now so get a +4 LOS! roll. In fact for some units like the paladins the change was good because now they dont have to buy upgrades/gear they never wanted , but had to buy for wound allocation . now they can just go hammers and halabards with an optional staff dude for challanges.

[eldargal]

A 50% chance is still a hell of a lot better than a 100% chance. Not that it will stop people whining about it.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

A 50% chance is still a hell of a lot better than a 100% chance. Not that it will stop people whining about it.

some people will never be happy until you fix the "problem" 100%

[DarkLink]

Honestly, I think the combination of LOS and the way they handled Multiple Saves is worse than last editions wound allocation, not because it's more powerful (it isn't, not even close), but because it bogs the game down so much. It takes four or five times as long to roll saves for a complex unit like Paladins with an attached HQ, because you have to do one save at a time and one LOS at a time and repeat over and over again.

Removing closest to closest is a big improvement, though. Honestly, 4th had the best system of the last three editions. Just roll dice, and pull models.

[Wildeybeast]

To Wildeybeast: If my opponent is going to take advantage of the rules and put his first counter in a deployment zone, i'm not going to put mine in the middle of the board. I mean, I'm not stupid here.

I think these responses clearly address my point.

RE Objective Placement: You've said that you'd be stupid to not put one of your objectives deep in your own deployment zone. However, since you're running an assaulty army, the LAST thing you want to do is put an objective deep your deployment zone. Your whole army seems to be constructed around rushing forward, so put your objectives forward of your lines. Since you're headed that way anyway, it should make holding them easier.

Adapt. Get creative. Stop whining.

Firstly you aren't thinking tactically. Putting objectives in the open forces your enemy to move as much as you do, making it not stupid but good for breaking up the enemies plan... Rather than him going, "well I am gunna sit here because those objectives aren't in my reach", it's a mind game... Sort of.