Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - Reply to Topic
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Thread: 6th too H:FY? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-21-12 04:26 PM
Veteran Sergeant The game has always been human focused.

We're humans. Makes the Imperium easy to identify with for the majority of players. That's why Spess Mahreens sell more models than every other army.

Let's just be realistic here. Dating back to Rogue Trader, the Space Marines, with the Imperium second, has been the focus of the game. Everything else exists for Space Marines to blow up. I mean, it's certainly a fact you don't have to like, but I don't see any trend in 6th that makes it any more human-focused than the previous editions. The Xenos are the antagonists of the setting. Even though the Imperium's forces and agencies aren't really "good guys" in the traditional white hat, saves the day sort of way, they're still the humans. The "us" of the future, and thus they're going to be the protagonists.
07-20-12 10:38 AM
humakt I have found the news rules on the whole, a refreshing approach by GW. The emphasis is now on a more cinematic approach to the game. Charging has been nerfed, but the challeneg rules are great and make for much more interesting close combat phase. I dont expect my power claw nob to survive against a tooled up cahos lord, but he could. And if he does it would look awesome on the battlefield!

Some things need getting used too, but play a dozen games before you call the game good or bad. Also adjust your army to take advantage fo the new rule set. I know this is going to be hard for nids, but everybody else will have something to bring to the party.

Mysterious objective also means you get some fun things happening. Like a unit could use the skyfire rule. Random i know but could still be useful.

Back on topic though. Yes 40k is human centric and always has been. I would be surprised if it was not. Its much easier to get people to relate to the human perspective and also its much easier to write form this point of view. Maybe it would have been good to look from the Eldar of the Ork point of view, but they have no central structure making it more difficult to describe thier organisational structure except from a very high level which they have more or less done in the BYB.

Codexes always flesh this out, and with the prospect of much weightier dexes there is hope this will be the case.
07-20-12 01:44 AM
lokis222 intresting.
07-20-12 12:26 AM
Zion
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmagine View Post
Math time
12 +d6 = 15.5 average.

6 +2d6 reroll one or both:
6 + 4.75x2
6 + 9.5 = 15.5 average.

If charging 9- 13 inches or less, you are now less likely to make your mark than the 100% chance you had before. However, you'll only go 8 inches 1/1296 times. a statistical non factor.

10 inches will happen 1/648.
11 inches 1/324.
12 inches 1/167
13 inches 1/83.5

31 in 1296 times, you will fail to go 13 inches.
or in more comprehensible numbers, about 1/41 times.
this part is a nerf.

HOWEVER!!! it's a little one. roll double ones on twin linked, and that's about your odds.

now for the real meat of it. lets look at that magical 15.5 number that is the average for both charge distances.

the old way: you will achieve that distance 1/2 of the time.

the new way: you will achieve it 3/4 times.


Don't try to make a 17" charge. ever. Other than that, you should be fine.
I knew the new method couldn't be that bad!
07-20-12 12:17 AM
emmagine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post
The fleet is a nerf

12+d6 is higher on average than 6+rerollable2d6

It's also a relative nerf. The average threat range of fleet units went down while their maximum remained the same. For non fleet units, their average range increased slightly while their maximum range increased massively.
Math time
12 +d6 = 15.5 average.

6 +2d6 reroll one or both:
6 + 4.75x2
6 + 9.5 = 15.5 average.

If charging 9- 13 inches or less, you are now less likely to make your mark than the 100% chance you had before. However, you'll only go 8 inches 1/1296 times. a statistical non factor.

10 inches will happen 1/648.
11 inches 1/324.
12 inches 1/167
13 inches 1/83.5

31 in 1296 times, you will fail to go 13 inches.
or in more comprehensible numbers, about 1/41 times.
this part is a nerf.

HOWEVER!!! it's a little one. roll double ones on twin linked, and that's about your odds.

now for the real meat of it. lets look at that magical 15.5 number that is the average for both charge distances.

the old way: you will achieve that distance 1/2 of the time.

the new way: you will achieve it 3/4 times.


Don't try to make a 17" charge. ever. Other than that, you should be fine.
07-15-12 03:09 AM
scscofield Fleet allows you to alter your 2d6 assault roll, I doubt they will change the points costs of those units for this reason alone.
07-15-12 03:07 AM
Eleven
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zion View Post
TL;DR: This isn't 5th Edition. Stop using 5th Edition metrics on 6th Edition. And PLAY the game a LOT before you say something is nerfed. Seriously, just because you THINK it looks bad on paper doesn't make it look bad on the Table. That's a common truth for a lot of armies too (like the Sisters who got a LOT of flakk when they came out but prove to be more solid than forseen).
This is said alot (and often by people that know what they are talking about), but it also gets taken out of context like in the above.

Fleet is different in the 6th edition and is not to be compared to 5th you're right....except when it is in a 5th edition codex.

In the 5th edition codices, you are paying a premium of points for an ability that is supposed to make you greatly faster than your opponents. In fifth, fleet meant that unless something went wrong, you would be the one charging against non fleet opponents. However, in 6th, it is easily plausible to have your fleet units out ranged by none fleet units (something that was simply impossible in 5th), and yet you are still paying the points for a unit that is no longer effective.

Luckily, I don't utilize anything that has fleet (except for eldar, but i'm shooty), so it doesn't hurt me. But all of the armies with lots of fleet units are no paying inflated prices for a unit that is only marginally faster than any generic unit.

That's why they are complaining. In the new 6th edition codices, I'm sure we will see the price of fleet units adjusted because fleet isn't very good anymore. Well, we can hope but alot of times GWS doesn't seem to understand the balance of their own game.
07-15-12 03:02 AM
Eleven
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokis222 View Post
your right TL:DR

jist seems to be, if you don't play power armor, non-assault armies, buy new models.
I can simplify this for you even further. If you are playing tyranids, lol.
07-14-12 05:08 AM
Serpion5 During fifth, I played firepower based armies. Even my nids and orks were built around long ranged warfare.

So now, I see people crying nerf over the new rules and I laugh.


Now, on topic, I have always believed xenos to be underrepresented. But that is the way I have come to expect gw to do business. The previous necron codex was a huge letdown for instance, being mostly from the Inquisition or Mechanicus' perspective. The current one was better, but still seems to be less than it could have been.

The BRB is and has always been a rulebook first and an Imperial Propaganda tome second. I didn't expect any different and as such I wasn't disappointed.
07-14-12 04:20 AM
Zion
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokis222 View Post
your right TL:DR

jist seems to be, if you don't play power armor, non-assault armies, buy new models.
Thanks for not reading and missing the points I made in the FAVOR of the non-power armored close combat armies (like them not being affected by disembarking thanks to either not having vehicles or having open-topped vehicles) and the fact that many of them has bonuses like Fleet that make their charges more effective.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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