Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - View Single Post - Fixing Sixth. What d'you think??
View Single Post
post #11 of (permalink) Old 03-06-14, 04:36 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
moshpiler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: greece
Posts: 228
Reputation: 2

Wowee shot down in short order! Lets see then

Originally Posted by Fallen View Post
Most of my grief with 6th actually stems from the codexs and how poorly built they are internally.
Yeah this is fair enough and we will get to the codecies in time but most of the fixes will either be small army wide changes (we're gonna make marines a few points more expensive across the board), fixing individual units either way or a bit of both.

Originally Posted by Jonny B View Post
I like the idea of some of these (although not read them all yet) but others aren't great; a bike would be able to spin in any direction, you've seen them in the movies right? And I don't even use bikes so would like my DA mate to suffer this but I don't agree with it.

May I ask, how many armies/races have these been tested on? Would they hurt some more than others?
Mostly small games so far (1000-1500) with only a few armies and not actually using all these rules, mostly the cover, psychic, walker and weapons ones.

That's a fair enough point with the bikes, I just always thought it a bit silly how maneuverable they were for their speed, especially considering they move in squads. If you watch any movies with cavalry movement, they can't exactly just stop and pivot on the spot or else chaos would reign. In the end though it's not that important a change and could easily be left at that

Originally Posted by humakt View Post
I have not read all the rules, but after going through the first post I think this would basically destroy any army based on assault. If you charged a unit of say 10 marines, maths hammer would say you get 20 shots, of which maybe 12 hit. You reroll those and still get 8 hits. Against the shorter charge range you propose and the general lower armour of most horde armies you will need to get very close to ensure a charge is going to work.
Yeah I didn't think about it that way, a lot of these changes were intended to tone down shooting in favor of melee but I never ran the math on that one. Thought it would be good to have armies suffer an equal amount but I guess the way it work would be that lower BS armies would suffer the most. This one is a doozy I wanna have a solution that penalizes all BS values equally, maybe -2 BS or -1 BS and re roll hits or how about BS2 and then the re rolls with normal BS?? Is this all too much???

Originally Posted by Mokuren View Post
Most of the problems that come from 6th edition derive from awful codex balance. Tau and Eldar are a whole metric above everyone else and GW assured they're not going to make any other codex on that level, which means they've just been officially crowned kings of 6th edition and there's shit you can do about it. Better shelf your inferior armies and wait for 7th to come around.

Less dramatically, though, I already listed my own gripes about sixth edition and your rules... Don't really address any of them, and just add more rules for the sake of having more rules.

If you want to make sure assault gets a buff, don't make defensive grenades even stronger than they are currently and make sure that difficult terrain is a lot less of a "you lose" button you can hide behind: a daemon prince assaulting fifty billion conscripts hiding behind a single toe-tall pebble gets to roll 3d6 drop highest for its charge distance and attack at Initiative 1 because it doesn't have assault grenades. Yes, Move through cover is completely and utterly useless for all of this. Want to know the fun part? Beasts and bikes are actually not slowed by difficult terrain, even during a charge (so no 3d6 drop highest) but they better have grenades or they're OH NO INITIATIVE 1 too.

Start by fixing that. Then move on to fixing the way Eldar just spam jetbikes and win all objective-grabbing based missions and you can't do anything at all about it. Then we'll talk.
Yeah I guess the normal rules for defensive grenades are pretty ok? How about making assault into cover incur an initiative penalty equal to the cover save (-1 I for light cover etc.)?

Last edited by moshpiler; 03-06-14 at 04:47 PM.
moshpiler is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome