Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

How would you like to see the metagame change for 6th ed?

  • Transports will become less appealing.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Tanks will become less powerful with movement/shooting.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Infantry will play an even more important role than currently.

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • People will favour foot-slogging lists over mech.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Special deployment will become an even greater factor (DS/Outflank/etc).

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • IC's will get some sort of massive boost.

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Less focus will be on IC's.

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Lessen the benefits of cover saves.

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • 4th ed wound allocation.

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • Other.

    Votes: 12 21.1%
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
948 Posts
Could someone please explain Metagame to me please?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,491 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Could someone please explain Metagame to me please?
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.



Basically, its the style of play that people prefer with the current ruleset.
For example, in 5th ed people generally run Mech armies due to the efficiency of vehicles, and people will run a lot of Melta weapons too.

The term "Local Metagame" generally refers to the style of play for your local playing group, which doesnt always represent the global metagame.
For example, your local playgroup may not use many vehicles, and so people will run flamers etc instead to counter them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,539 Posts
Personally I don't want the metagame to change. I like 5th edition. I like the emphasis on transports. I like that people are encouraged to take armies with a solid core of Troops. I like that it's dangerous for infantry, especially out in the open (it just makes sense, at least to me). I like that people tend toward taking a good number of anti-tank weaponry rather than how it was in 4th edition where you just took as much anti-MEQ weaponry as you possibly could.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
I would like to see them dull down cover and make it less appealing like making the cover save you recieve a 5+ instead of a 4+ or something like this, to stop those who just live to abuse it's rules.

Another thing I would love to see is Special Deployments in more armies - making IC's that allow certain units to do more or paying for more upgrades that allow a unit to either outflank or deepstrike or infiltrate or something similar to this.
 

·
blahblahblahblah
Joined
·
6,663 Posts
I voted other, because I would prefer a balance between all the above.

no 1 single thing would ever fix 5th into 6th, except an entire redo of everything single rule and every single thing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
I like everything thats 5th Ed. However they could do a better job in updating 5th Ed. Dexes. At least veer away from the simplfying 4th Ed Dexes like Eldar, DE, Necrons, SoB, and CSM and continue the more adaptable and customisable 5th Dexes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Special deployment will become an even greater factor (DS/Outflank/etc). I wish the game became more about on the field tactics. I have much more fun while playing the game then when picking my army lists. In fact I recently starting playing games against other space marines where we each had the exact same forces on each side so it was game purely on how you played on the field.
 

·
Drinker of tea...
Joined
·
2,277 Posts
I'm pretty happy with the way things are tbh. me and my mates had been playing true line of sight for years anyway, so glad that got made legal.

wish they'd just update all the really old codexs before they bring out a new edition anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
I haven't been playing nearly long enough to want to change anything. Yet.
Mid 2012 according to the latest Schedule Rumours..not that far off really.

Me, I don't care what they do rule-wise, there will be nerfs and buffs as per usual, and any major changes will no doubt have the knock-on effect that more/extra models are required to be purchased...so business as usual GW-style.:angel:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,242 Posts
As someone who likes footslogging armies personally and prefers infantry to tanks in general, I'd say that I want mech armies to become less powerful.

Of course some armies need mechinisation to work, Dark Eldar for example, so I wouldn't change that, but even so I remember back in 4th ed you'd see lots of armies footslogging. Eldar, Marines, Chaos Marines, all went for the walking option, now they're all in rhinos and wave serpents, so I'd like to see that toned down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,864 Posts
I also would like the mech aspect reduced. As E.Gary.Gygax once said: “If you introduce something into a game and everyone jumps on it right away and starts doing it, you can be pretty sure you’ve blown it.” and that is what happened with mech and melta lists.

I would not like the cover saves reduced since my pathfinders just enjoy playing in woodx/ruins/hill crests (maybe that should go) to gain 2+cover saves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
I love some of these responces. "I would not like to change what works for me but definatly want to change what works against me."

I quiet like the current rules set because to me its fairly realstic. Troops get into transports to get moved around (much like in real life) and tanks are reasonbly hard to kill. The idea that the "fast hard hitting space marines" shold be foot sloggers is nuts. No logical sense at all. And tanks should... well.. be tanky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I mostly agree with Stella on this one. Maybe not a complete rewrite of he old rules but more of rock paper effect were you can't just stock up on one super unit type and beat face, but have too instead take a little bit of everything to stay competitive. Oh and reintroduce unit limits on certin models. They are legendary and highly awe inspiring for a reason damnit! Not because they show up in the hundreds!
.
 

·
Pally-HO!!!!
Joined
·
1,417 Posts
I like how things are now, for the most part. The only thing I'd change is how effective mech lists are, and that's only because I don't want to buy any tanks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
I think tanks also need to be changed to actually act like a tank, I think no matter what if they move at top spped the main gun should always be able to fire, yes some are devestating but most armies have enough cheap anti tank guns and if not enough troops or resilient troops to take a cannon shell to the face anyway to then kill it next turn.

In response to this by JackalMJ - I love some of these responces. "I would not like to change what works for me but definatly want to change what works against me."

I play DE and enjoy my fragile army and enjoy the tactics it takes to keep them alive with so much cover now in the game though I can literally walk them up the board at 20 men strong and get to the other side with 12-15 of them still there thanks to a 4+ cover save rule that has been poorly written
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,978 Posts
I don`t have any major problems, but cover rules need to be a bit better defined.

A 4+ cover save just because you`re standing on a hill is bullshit.

Especially if said unit has the stealth rule. A friend of mine plays eldar, lives to exploit every rule he can and teach people the harsh way.

I want to see that stop.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top