# 6th too H:FY?



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Maybe its just me, but this edition seems to be WAY too H:FY! for me. In 5th, things were called what they were, and everyone got a decent portion of the book. Sure, humans got more, but this edition is ridiculous. If you added every single page on Xenos together it wouldn't be half as big as the parts on the Space Marines, IG, or CSM. I don't expect xenos to be the biggest part of the book, hell, they never really were, but this edition seems to sidelined them in the fluff massively. Xenos are part of what makes the galaxy so terrifying, knowing there's not just one threat, but dozens, and they all want to eat/shoot/assimilate/disintegrate/enslave and torture/harvest humanity.

I mean, for fuck's sake, the part on Chaos is called "The Greatest Threat". Most xenos only get a single page for themselves in the fluff section. ONE. PAGE. Though I can't say one specific human army didn't get totally reamed with a one-pager in the book either...

So, how long before the summary of the 40k fluff becomes "Good Humans versus Bad Humans"?

NOTE: H:FY! means "Humanity: Fuck Yeah!" and is usually used as a derogatory term when someone in a sci-fi or fantasy setting goes on and on about how humans are the besterest.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I can not figure out what H:FY means....


----------



## Obinhi (Dec 30, 2008)

Humanity: Fuck Ya!


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

I wouldn't of cared if IG had only 1 page dedicated to it personally....the BYB could be just a book that contains the actual rules for all I care.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

lol honestly haven't gotten to the fluff yet. just going over the rules and codexes again and again to make sure i understand the rule changes. 

pretty sure it will annoy me though. i only play xenos and never found the space marines that interesting. however.... huge gaunts ghosts fan... so lots of imp fluff might be okay.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

That is actually what I wanted ultimately, the book is absolutely colossal but only like the first fifth of it is rules. The rest is about the imperium and how jawesome Space Marines are.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. I don't need to be sold on my race any more, I have the codex that flips the tables and has all the fluffy bits I need for them. I would have preferred they used that space for more fortification datasheets.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I read thru the fluff on first go thru the book. Beyond that the sections with miniatures and battleboards has had more draw to me than the fluff section.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Sothot said:


> Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. I don't need to be sold on my race any more, I have the codex that flips the tables and has all the fluffy bits I need for them. I would have preferred they used that space for more fortification datasheets.


This. Robot brofist!

I hate looking at the models in the book. The models are gorgeous, amazing really. Thats the problem, I feel like a complete amateur looking at their painting, and it wrecks my self-esteem for an hour or so.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I get the opposite, I see them and go, I need to paint more and improve.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

MEh, this is why I didn't buy the book, and will not buy it until I can get a cheap starter mini version. The new book is just too much SPAAACE MUHREENNNN!

Some of the battles they made are pretty amazing though. That space battle is like omg titties.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

scscofield said:


> I get the opposite, I see them and go, I need to paint more and improve.


me too. it has worked too. sadly, my favorite army now looks like the ugly army as a result.


----------



## SavageConvoy (Sep 21, 2011)

I hated the part about "The Greatest Threat" 
But I just let it slide that it was probably some metaphor for fear and confusion.

I just want a slim book with rules. "How do I handle a multi charge? Let me just pull out my 5,000 page book. Let's see... Fluff, fluff, pictures, pictures, more fluff, Ultramarines cure cancer...... Oh here is the one page I was trying to find. Just what I need in a rule book, 10% dedicated to useful information."


----------



## Obinhi (Dec 30, 2008)

SavageConvoy said:


> I hated the part about "The Greatest Threat"
> But I just let it slide that it was probably some metaphor for fear and confusion.
> 
> I just want a slim book with rules. "How do I handle a multi charge? Let me just pull out my 5,000 page book. Let's see... Fluff, fluff, pictures, pictures, more fluff, Ultramarines cure cancer...... Oh here is the one page I was trying to find. Just what I need in a rule book, 10% dedicated to useful information."


Come now, that is unfair. The first part is all rules, no real fluff other then flavor text, then comes nearly 200 pages of fluff, and then you have the last 30 or so pages that sum up the game quite nicely. As for flipping thru all of them pages, that is what the index is for.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Still want a slim mini book with just rules, no bs.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Thats what you get in the mini brb from the starter sets... oh wait.

As for all human, well what else should they fill it with in its place?


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Add more:

-Fluff about not-humans
-Battlefield pictures
-Missions
-Battle reports

Fun fact. In every single picture that contains more than one army, one of the armies will invariably be human.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

more missions would have been good.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I would like to see more new, original artwork for all races, not just Space Marines. They are still using that old artwork from 10+ years ago for Sisters of Battle, and while I like it, why should I buy a book which doesn't contain much of anything new for the armies I actually like.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

That was like the Apocalypse book; I asked the store manager if I could get a discount seeing as I only needed two pages in the book. His head promptly exploded DOES NOT COMPUTE
I do feel bad for Sisters, maybe you'll get a nice finecast (re)release someday soon?


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Arcane said:


> Some of the battles they made are pretty amazing though. That space battle is like omg titties.


This......

My jaw fell completely off my head when I saw some of the battlefields they created.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Iron Angel said:


> Add more:
> 
> -Fluff about not-humans
> -Battlefield pictures
> ...


*Long story short:* I'd vote for a third option, an extra helping of xenos, not a deluge of them.


*Long story long:*
Xeno-Fluff: Here's the problem: The entire game is written from the standpoint of humans, always has been, probably always will be. And to be certain its not a bad thing. Even in the codices of other armies it is often written from the outside, from the human perspective. Now should they include more fluff info on those other races? Sure! But it will necessarily be based largely on the human element - if for no other reason than all of us reading it are human. 

However I don't think that shouldn't devalue those little vignettes narrated by say, an Eldar about to kill some Orks or fork over the booty to some daemon. But for instance they can't really write from Tyranid perspective very well. It would end up sounding entirely too much like cookie monster goes to war, "Om nom nom *stab!* om nom nom *sneak* om nom nom *shoot!*" etc.

- Battlefield pictures: Aces! More please. The more dynamic miniature set-ups the better. They're inspiring both to the gamer in me and the painter/hobbyist, and are usually awesome.

- Missions: I presume you mean rules for missions. I've been playing off and on since the early 90's, and no matter what missions have been included, most people I have come across just want to play a stand up fight. Often because the other missions are poorly designed, unbalanced, or stupid. Not all but every editions has more than a fair number of stinker missions.

- Battle Reports: this is an absolute impossibility. You might wishlist it, but anything other than the most generic game (e.g. not a game worth reading about) comes dangerously close to creating dissonance between the main rulebook and the codices. During any given edition what, about half the codices get rewritten, maybe more? Which threatens to lock the writers into certain models, fluff, rules, etc. How strange would it be if the battle report in the rulebook followed one set of paradigms but a year later that same army plays significantly differently?

Battle reports are a non-starter from a corporate marketing perspective. And that is also not a bad thing. By not having any long form/written battle reports the authors can focus on the rules, the fluff, and showcasing models. Sure models change and get converted. But that is a lot less confusing than a 'conversion' of the rules. A new player who reads the rule book and sees a battle report with an army playing out in a certain way SHOULD be able to expect that is how the army plays - if it has been rewritten in the interim, that is likely not the case. Besides battle reports are better off in white dwarf anyway; being periodical is the perfect way to produce that sort of narrative tied to a particular rules set at a specific time without unduly tying the writers to it.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Kreuger said:


> Battle reports are a non-starter from a corporate marketing perspective. And that is also not a bad thing. By not having any long form/written battle reports the authors can focus on the rules, the fluff, and showcasing models. Sure models change and get converted. But that is a lot less confusing than a 'conversion' of the rules. A new player who reads the rule book and sees a battle report with an army playing out in a certain way SHOULD be able to expect that is how the army plays - if it has been rewritten in the interim, that is likely not the case. Besides battle reports are better off in white dwarf anyway; being periodical is the perfect way to produce that sort of narrative tied to a particular rules set at a specific time without unduly tying the writers to it.


If they made the battle report necrons vs grey knights there would be no chance of the codices changing before the next edition I think.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Eleven, I think you are probably right. But I suspect GW wouldn't want to use those codices. Not that they aren't good or current, but on further consideration they would probably want the battle report to include their most iconographic armies typically orks and vanilla space marines. 

To be fair, GW might be trying to expand that mental/marketing recognition foot print further. It looks like the new starter set is Dark Angels and Chaos, and Chaos while very striking isn't the most recognizable part of 40k. If they are making a concerted effort to raise the visibility and profiles of the xenos and 'bad guys' then I could be wrong.

All of that said I think they end up having to choose from a matrix of codices that are new enough to not change, and identifiable enough that they represent that spirit of the game to new players.


----------



## DanoNecrono (Apr 15, 2012)

Iron Angel said:


> That is actually what I wanted ultimately, the book is absolutely colossal but only like the first fifth of it is rules. The rest is about the imperium and how jawesome Space Marines are.


When first getting into the 40k scene this is exactly what turned me off of any Space Marine army period. I've always felt that GW pushes the Space Marines on people and it drives me nuts.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Kreuger said:


> **snip**


I think Kreuger hits the nail on the head completely. 40K is all about humanity and it's struggle between itself and the constant threat of other races (some who insist they know what's best (Tau), some who will push you in front of a bus if it suits their needs (Eldar), some who will push you in front of a bus and then drive said bus over you (Dark Eldar), some who just make a mess of everything and want to fight more than anything else (Orks) and some who want to use planets as a galactic drive through (Tyranids)) who are neutral at best, and hostile at worst to humanity.

That isn't to say that it couldn't use more Xenos stuff in the book, but I definitely don't want to see it being more Xenos than everything else.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Who cares where GW put the emphasis in the rulebook, xenos still have the most OP armies in both 5th and 6th, with necrons and darkeldar being probably the most represented armies in many areas as they have the easiest access to powerful lists.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

neilbatte said:


> Who cares where GW put the emphasis in the rulebook, xenos still have the most OP armies in both 5th and 6th, with necrons and darkeldar being probably the most represented armies in many areas as they have the easiest access to powerful lists.


:laugh:

Oh wait....you're serious aren't you? 

:laugh:

Seriously, "most powerful build"? Sure some older armies aren't as strong right off the bat, but it doesn't mean they can't win or can't be effective. I've yet to beat Venomspam Dark Eldar, but I've yet to lose against them with my Sisters, and according to internet wisdom I should lose every time.

Build your army to be a solid all-comers to play the missions. If you can't beat a specific build (especially an internet list) you probably just need to rethink how you approach your army and how you play it.


----------



## Nilador (Jun 29, 2012)

With all the new rules for shooting and limitations on assult i feel the game is starting to lose its shine of fun and is starting to look like GW is cutting fun to max out on profits. Thats the main problem i've been dealing with besides building up and army designed for assult and close quarters


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Uh, what? What limitations?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Iron Angel said:


> Uh, what? What limitations?


Probably the loss of infiltrator and outflanker assaults.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Fluff: Not a single fuck was given


----------



## Nilador (Jun 29, 2012)

Zion said:


> Probably the lose of infiltrator and outflanker assaults.


Don't forget defenders shooting in a charge, charge 2+ units no attack bonus, issuing challenges, look out sir, power weapons ap3+, and a few other things that i'd have to look up really half the book i disagreed with and saw as a fantasy mini me


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Overwatch:
They hit you on 6. Also, they can only do it once a turn. If you are that worried about it, throw multiple units at them. 6th looks much more MSU-friendly.

Multi-assaults:
Don't multi-assault. The entire purpose of this rule is to prevent the broken conga-line tactic some particularly numerous armies can employ.

Challenges:
If someone is issuing a challenge, or accepting one, they are probably a CC character themselves. At worst, you now have to fight their character one on one instead of dogpiling him. At best, you just prevented his character from massacring your unit. If you really do build for CC, this is a godsend. The ability to take out the enemy general without interference? Yes please.

AP3 power weapons:
There isn't a lot in the game with a better save then 3+. The few exceptions are Terminators, Meganobz, Necron ICs, and a couple others. Everything else is power-weapon chow. For dealing with the previous threats, get some AP2 CC weapons like a Power Fist or something.


----------



## Nilador (Jun 29, 2012)

still don't fly with me I play GK and fight hord armies on the regular:hits on 6 still run on numbers, challenges are used to prevent me from attacking, charging multi-units is to save myself from being charged, look out sir works against me as much as it helps me, and power weapons are ment to be the bane of armor 2+ or otherwise some armies cant get powerfist or hammers so that effectivly screws them over. Really i see problems created more then fixed with this ed. i'm waiting for the new FAQ to be released now


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Can I have your stuff?


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

Power weapons were far too godlike before, they have been nerfed. On the bright side, your paladins are immune to them now. Whats to complain about?

And LOS hurts you as much as it helps you, you say? Sounds like you are breaking even.

Was wondering when the GK players would start bitching about their army no longer being auto-win any more, and how they actually have to think about a list for more than the fifteen seconds it takes to write "paladins+psyflenauts" on a piece of paper. I feel really bad for GK, I really do. Now they have to come up with a strategy more complex than "Move towards the enemy". Poor GK.


----------



## Nilador (Jun 29, 2012)

i'm not going to get into a bitching contest with you point is this i see more problems then things to make the game fun for any of my armies and don't see 6th gen in my future games for a while


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

this went off topic. however, i agree with the grey knight player. the new rules are pretty bad when it comes down to it. assault got wreaked (see nids, dark eldar, orks...), multiassault got wreaked (see dark eldar wytches. i feel bad for my friend's army. it was not typical dark eldar spam and is now pretty much useless) shooting got better (yay marines and necrons) flyers are scaring people (yay sales). magic is better (yay tyranids... :shok: yeah i know how fucked is that) vehicles are worse (yay tyranids... boo everyone else.)

instead of balancing the game; they just made new problems. the worst part is that it looks like gun lines are back. with all the mind numbing boredom that entails.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

lokis222 said:


> this went off topic. however, i agree with the grey knight player. the new rules are pretty bad when it comes down to it. assault got wreaked (see nids, dark eldar, orks...), multiassault got wreaked (see dark eldar wytches. i feel bad for my friend's army. it was not typical dark eldar spam and is now pretty much useless) shooting got better (yay marines and necrons) flyers are scaring people (yay sales). magic is better (yay tyranids... :shok: yeah i know how fucked is that) vehicles are worse (yay tyranids... boo everyone else.)
> 
> instead of balancing the game; they just made new problems. the worst part is that it looks like gun lines are back. with all the mind numbing boredom that entails.


Now how many games is this based on, or is this just based on hersay and the 5th Edition rules?

I think people forget that when an edition changes the way the game plays changes. 6th is not the same 40K game people played in 5th, and with it brings a restructuring on how you view an army.

I think there is a lot more balance in this edition that people think, they're just too busy looking at only what they see as negatives.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Zion said:


> Now how many games is this based on, or is this just based on hersay and the 5th Edition rules?
> 
> currently, rules and a few play tests.
> 
> ...


personally, i was on the fence with a new edition because of the problems with 5th and 6th has not helped with that. warhammer remains the monopoly of wargames.

my thoughts.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I find it absolutely wonderful when people say "gunlines are back, hide yo wyches, hide yo nobz, and hide yo pallies cause they overwatchin' errybody out here" because on overwatch you hit on 6 and that's way too powerful, and then at the same time talk about how hitting flyers on 6 is completely underpowered and impossible. Which is it? Is hitting on 6 good, or bad? From my experience, overwatch doesn't do a whole lot unless A: You have several high-powered guns that only need one wound to go through to do lots of damage and have a high enough Strength to reliably wound if you get a hit through, which is rare, B: You have a colossal mob that can torrent like no other and put out a quantity of shots in the several dozens, once again, not especially common, or C: You can re-roll all your failed to-hit rolls. Overwatch is a nice add-on but its not a game-breaker for assault armies.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

overwatch did not wreak CC. it is overwatch combined with fleet being wreaked, combined with random charge distances, combined with removed from the front. that, when taken together, have severely hurt CC armies.

edit: and add to that no bonus for assaulting multiple units.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

lokis222 said:


> overwatch did not wreak CC. it is overwatch combined with fleet being wreaked, combined with random charge distances, combined with removed from the front. that, when taken together, have severely hurt CC armies.
> 
> edit: and add to that no bonus for assaulting multiple units.


Fleet actually makes your random charges better, but I guess you consider it a nerf when everyone gets the same threat range instead of specific armies.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Zion said:


> Fleet actually makes your random charges better, but I guess you consider it a nerf when everyone gets the same threat range instead of specific armies.


And also when you have odds of not making it into CC in the first place through no fault of your own, when before you could plan charges that were sure to arrive.

You certainly can roll good averages with fleet, but there is still the fact that some 20% of your charges are going to stall even if you need a very low number, leaving you on the board to be shot to hell.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Zion said:


> Fleet actually makes your random charges better, but I guess you consider it a nerf when everyone gets the same threat range instead of specific armies.


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.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

It, by itself ,is small. It is in combination with every other antiCC rule an issue.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sephyr said:


> And also when you have odds of not making it into CC in the first place through no fault of your own, when before you could plan charges that were sure to arrive.
> 
> You certainly can roll good averages with fleet, but there is still the fact that some 20% of your charges are going to stall even if you need a very low number, leaving you on the board to be shot to hell.





Eleven said:


> 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.


I'm going to point something out though: it's no worse than a Fleeting unit that was charging a unit in cover in the same turn they ran (and seeing as this is where I usually saw objectives, or units that were now huddling in a crater where a vehicle used to be, this was a common thing I've seen before). You fix this by being close, the same way you fixed charging into terrain before. Can you fail? Sure, but with how DANGEROUS some assault units are to your average unit (5 Incubi and an Archon removing whole squads of Marines a turn anyone?) this makes the assault phase less likely to complete nuke portions of someone army effortlessly.

While I'm at it I'm going to make a comment about some of these other "nerfs".

_Not able to get bonuses for charging multiple units_: Honestly this just means you concentrate your charges instead of stringing out and hitting two separate units to pull both off objectives. This is still a tactic you can do, you just don't get bonuses for doing it anymore.

_No charging the second you hit the board_: Having been hit by Snikrot in a multi charge on turn two, I can understand why this is annoying and can understand why GW did this, but if you were outflanking Genestealers it wasn't common that you got them into combat the second they hit the board just because people knew they where coming (since you have to announce Outflankers and Deep Strikers when you deploy). I think the only armies that REALLY got hurt by this are White Scars. They had the speed to make that outflank manuever very useful, now they'll likely outflank melta to just mess up your tanks instead.
_
No charging first turn from Infiltration_: Anyone who tries to tell me the Warboss sling shot WASN'T an incredibly dumb tactic probably used it ("Let me throw my expensive HQ choice into the enemy line first turn so he'll die in the next turn!" Yeah, that was a feasible tactic the first time someone did it, but with the number of vehicles out there he'll likely just hit a vehicle and then be shot to death.). I've never seen Infiltrated Genestealers but that was because if they didn't get turn one they would be killed pretty quickly. Really all this does is keep you from over extending your army early and getting killed early on.

_No assaulting the turn you step out of a non-Open Topped Transport/Assault Vehicle_: Doesn't affect Dark Eldar, or Tyranids or Orks in Open-Topped vehicles (everything but Orks in Battle Wagons with 'ard Case upgrades). The armies that got hurt by this tend to wear power armor, or play regular Eldar (who are two editions old and have a LOT of other issues anyways) so I don't know why the majority of the Xeno players are complaining about something that didn't nerf them (seriously, the ones who complain about this usually play an army that either doesn't use vehicles, or has open topped vehicles.

_Overwatch_: Armies that benefit from this are all over the board (Orks, Tyranid Termagaunts/Gargoyles/Tyrannofex (Heavy 20 anyone?), Dark Eldar with Splinter weapons, Eldar with Shuriken Catapults, Firewarriors, Blob Guard, Marines....you get the idea). Basically if you can get more than one shot when you shoot, this is something that helps you. It doesn't benefit shooty armies, but any unit that gets to shoot. The ones who can't tend to be blenders in and of themselves so they don't need the extra killing power. I'm sure there is a lot of Marine players out there who wish they could have shot a unit of Death Cult Assassins before their entire squad vanished in a single assault phase.
_
Anything Else I'm Forgetting_: 6th Edition didn't nerf the assault based unit, it readjusted how much damage an assault unit could do in a turn. The amount of killing assault units could do in a turn was borderline insane towards the end of 5th Edition, and one of the most frustrating things you can end up doing is having to pick up an entire unit of models before you can even swing. It's even worse when you get multi-charged, a unit gets wiped out, the other unit breaks from the massive penalties and then was wiped all without even an armor save being allowed because you were hit with Power Weapons.

Pure assault armies are probably not as viable anymore but that's not a bad thing. You just can't base your army on being a big "fuck you hammer" that tears whole units off the board every turn and instead have to balance between firepower and close combat power to make an army more effective.

Here's the general place where I sit on this: the game is more balanced from the elite power weapon-wielding assault units who were becoming more common towards the latter half of 5th Edition. 6th Edition asks you to take risks, be more balanced in how you design a list and not just rely on breaking your opponent's head in during the assault phase. Is there a level of randomness? Sure, but most pure assault units have a way to mitigate this anyways. 

Really I'm not seeing the reason for the complaints beyond maybe the Flyers (something that I've seen come up as something people wanted brought in from Apoc on occasion), and I don't really see those as money grabbing schemes as most of the 5th Edition books already had a Flyer in the books (many of which where being actively played as skimmers when they were basically WORSE), and even then I can't agree that the complaints because we have cool models that are finally good.

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).


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

your right TLR

jist seems to be, if you don't play power armor, non-assault armies, buy new models.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

lokis222 said:


> your right TLR
> 
> 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.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

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. :taunt: 


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.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

lokis222 said:


> your right TLR
> 
> 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.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Zion said:


> 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.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Fleet allows you to alter your 2d6 assault roll, I doubt they will change the points costs of those units for this reason alone.


----------



## emmagine (Jul 19, 2012)

Eleven said:


> 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.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

emmagine said:


> Math time
> 12 +d6 = 15.5 average.
> 
> 6 +2d6 reroll one or both:
> ...


I knew the new method couldn't be that bad!


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

intresting.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

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.


----------



## Veteran Sergeant (May 17, 2012)

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.


----------

