Is 6th Edition too good?

[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]

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.