so what have the impressions been for the 6th edition - Page 3 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-04-12, 10:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Archon Dan's Avatar
Archon Dan's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,825
Reputation: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOGGLORD View Post
What's wrong with hull points?
Bare in mind, I'm a Necron player, so perhaps I should enjoy Hull Points. But vehicles in general seem too week. I found when using my Blood Angels I was just hoping for multiple Glances instead of pens. But others are making good points. The game has become more strategic and that is good. Mech and Assault based MSU will see a reduction in play for the most part. And with fewer vehicles in play, Gauss won't be so bad.

"Fetch me another plaything. This one seems to have broken." -Urien Rakarth

Space Marine- "This planet is ours, witch."
Eldar- "No ... This planet is theirs ..."
Archon Dan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-04-12, 10:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Pandora's Avatar
Pandora's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 160
Reputation: 3
Default

My only complaint has to be how people are reacting to Allies. It's an interesting concept but has great potential for abuse. Even here, people ask questions how to improve their armies against certain other armies. Or they ask how to make a balanced list. And inevitably, people respond by saying to take certain allies. That shouldn't be the default response, especially for lower point games.

Evil is like shadow. It hides in the tiny cracks, biding its time until the Light fades.
Pandora is offline  
post #23 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-06-12, 02:15 PM
Senior Member
 
neilbatte's Avatar
neilbatte's Flag is: Great Britain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: norfolk
Posts: 1,697
Reputation: 1
Default

I doubt that I'll get to make an informed opinion any time soon as most of the people at my club have lost interest in 40k since 6th even the powergamers and necron players,
Dystopian wars seems to be the new game of choice here so instead of getting the new rulebook I'll be getting a new fleet.
It's a shame really as the rules that I'd seen and the few games I got in were promising for my guard and I never really went tank heavy on any of my armies(to expensive)

<img src="https://www.heresy-online.net/daemons/adoptables/888.gif" alt="Broken Daemon Image" /><br><a
neilbatte is offline  
 
post #24 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-06-12, 11:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Ork Mad's Avatar
Ork Mad's Flag is: England
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neston
Posts: 187
Reputation: 1
Default

i like 6th edition, i love overwatch and the new wound allocation rules but if there was thing i could change it would be how all glances take off a hull point, it makes vehicles far too easy to kill. i think it would be better if a glance only took a hull point off on say a 4+

Ork Mad is offline  
post #25 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-06-12, 11:24 PM
Token Trans Mod
 
Zion's Avatar
Zion's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the internet.
Posts: 6,385
Reputation: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ork Mad View Post
i like 6th edition, i love overwatch and the new wound allocation rules but if there was thing i could change it would be how all glances take off a hull point, it makes vehicles far too easy to kill. i think it would be better if a glance only took a hull point off on say a 4+
With how cheap a lot of vehicles have gotten and how mech-dependent some armies have become I like the hull-point system. It makes you consider how much that vehicle really helps a unit. Plus it means you don't get stuck stun-locking a Landraider for 7 rounds because you keep failing to roll high enough to pen it.
Zion is offline  
post #26 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-07-12, 09:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Antonius's Avatar
Antonius's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cadian Battle Cruiser "Divine Wrath"
Posts: 359
Reputation: 1
Default

Thing is though, necrons lack standard infantry heavy weapons, like the missile launcher in a regular tactical squad. People think its OP that they can glance tanks, but other armies have readily available lascannons and meltaguns to one shot tanks anyway, but every other race' s troops except nids and tau have some form of antitank weapon.

General Antonius, Task force Iron Storm cmdr, Cadian 9th Mechanised Infantry Rgt.


WHAT, I CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN SIX MANTICORES!


I'm facing NECRONS
Antonius is offline  
post #27 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-07-12, 03:46 PM
Senior Member
 
mynameisgrax's Avatar
mynameisgrax's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Freehold, NJ
Posts: 1,175
Reputation: 4
Default

I think 6th edition 40k is similar to 8th edition Fantasy Battles, in that it's a very good game as long as players don't abuse the more exploitable aspects of the game. In fantasy it's spammed 'super units' (hydras, flamers of Tzeentch, cannons/mortars, Chaos Warriors, etc) and powerful magic cast with irresistible force. In 40k it's allies and flying transports.

As long as everyone plays balanced forces and focus on having a good time, then both are great games. You just might want to stay clear from 'competitive' players and tournaments.

The first casualty of war is neither innocence nor truth.

The first casualty of war is always subtlety.

mynameisgrax is offline  
post #28 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-07-12, 04:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Sethis's Avatar
Sethis's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alston, Cumbria
Posts: 4,190
Reputation: 58
Default

Bad Points:

- Fliers
- Random Psy Powers
- Secondary Objectives
- Warlord Traits
- Random Terrain
- Purchasable Terrain

Good points:

- Hull Points

...

Um.

Despite that, I don't "hate" 6th or anything. I just think they kinda broke the fundamental rule of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". 5th was fine, or would have been with a few tweaks. I think 5.1 would have been a much better choice, but there's no way GW would ever have done that so wishing for it was pointless.

90% of people think they are above average.

Statistically Improbable. Psychologically Inevitable.
Sethis is offline  
post #29 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-07-12, 04:54 PM
Rattlehead
 
MidnightSun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
5th was fine, or would have been with a few tweaks. I think 5.1 would have been a much better choice, but there's no way GW would ever have done that so wishing for it was pointless.
There's always Project: Biomorph for friendly games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethis View Post
Bad Points:
- Random Psy Powers
You can just stick with your Codex powers, you aren't forced to gamble with rulebook powers.

I like Hull Points. It's now damn-near impossibru to suppress vehicles, which is always a good thing. Leman Russ, Fire Prisms, any gunline tank got better with Hull Points, and I do love me a Leman Russ. It also devalued Grey Knights, which I suppose needed to happen.

Midnight

Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #30 of 30 (permalink) Old 08-07-12, 04:57 PM
Senior Member
 
ntaw's Avatar
ntaw's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 6,323
Reputation: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Commander Solus View Post
Maybe it's a ploy by GW to get us to buy other armies...?

I quite liked your point, Grogbart, about artillery and aircraft being "off" the table, so to speak. It's frankly unrealistic that so many aircraft would all be crowded into this tiny area; it's probably just less than a squared mile for a 4x4 board. Quite how so many planes could not crash and still perform combat duties... it's odd. I agree with you that the aircraft should be miles up, and circling around, fighting a separate battle for air supremacy. The tabletop player should spend points on fliers which then don't feature as models but instead give you the chance to use an airstrike as you've got extra fliers pinning your opponent's down to give them a chance to slip away and bomb the battlefield. This assumes, however, that the battle is large enough to warrant air forces overhead for both sides, so perhaps might make stealth missions seem a little odd; but then that could be a scenario restriction of no air support.

Same for artillery; they should be a long-range bombardment call-in, not a front-line tank. A very interesting idea indeed.

Perhaps an expansion could have that... *really* strategic warfare where what you send out to each battle comes from a total roster, and air support isn't used on the table but instead to bring in an airstrike, and artillery similarly. Maybe I'll write some rules up and publish them somewhere...

EDIT: Only problem with that for GW is; no flier or artillery models. No money.
If the battlefield was a squared mile I could ride my bicycle around it in about 5 minutes. Fliers are just as realistic in the game as skimmers, that they have to start in reserve, can only turn in 90 degree arcs and can leave the board to loop around and come in the next makes a lot of sense. It was pretty dumb for some of the larger flyer models to be just hovering over the battlefield with all the fluff behind the game. Also, if you are playing a 6x4 board and get to deploy using the short table edges, your basilisk guns will be very different units. If we could all only ever use units for what they're best at there'd be a lot more ties.
ntaw is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome