# Is 6th edition the best version of 40K yet?



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

So I have given it s good few games to settle in, and I have not faced any flyers yet so my opinion could change, but so far GW have played a blinder. I personally this is the best edition yet, and certainly blows the last 2 out of the water. Some parts still seem a bit clunky but as a general rule I like the way games are more cinematic and enjoyable. 

Take the game I played last night. This was the first time my 1500 point ork horde had taken to the table. Removing casualties from the front made it look like my opponents chaos forces were whittling down my forces (although not by enough as it turned out). Also the challenge rules I like, even with power claw nobs, who seemed to get lucky in this game and kill whoever challenged them, but even without this luck is would have looked good. The Chaos lord going head to head with mad doc grotsnik. The lord giving the doc 2 savage wounds before Grotsnik power claw snipped of his head. And the best bit of cinema. A whole squad of chaos marines deciding the quickest way out of a bastion would be to jump off the top. This killed 5 marines including the squad champion ( reminded me a bit of scene in 'The other guys' when the 2 officers jumped off the top of a building).

I won the game, more by luck and having more bodies than skill I think. But this does bring me onto another point. The scenarios are actually interesting. With only 2 kill point scenarios and the rest being objective based you would think they would be tricky to make different. But variable objective values, mysterious objectives and converting FoC areas into capturing units looks like there will be a lot of life in them. I also find the capturing/denying units refreshing. No more ramming a skimmer up to the objective contesting.

Now let’s see how they get on with the new codexes.


----------



## Archaon18 (Feb 17, 2012)

I really like how it's more tactically challenging. For instance, Typhus and a Termianotr Deathstar charged the Old' BR Warboss and a contingent of Nobz. 1 Klaw, 3 Choppas, as one was Crushed (Telekinesis). Then I challenged. It took about 5 minutes it make the desision. I think powers are also better, and it is a lot more cinematic.

The only downside I can see is how many codices are really out-dated so have lost a lot with the new rules, whereas others have gained. Just think about Tyranids. On one hand Stealers have been nerfed by the 'No outflank charge', but the Harpy can now survive past Turn 1, because of FMC rules.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

Although I've played it in Apocalypse, I played my first Standard 40K game in 6th Edition last night.
I loved it.
1,500 Points Craftworld Eldar against Codex Space Marines.
When I saw my opponent's army I thought I'd be hard pushed to win. 
The two particular changes in the rules that swung the game in my favour were firstly, having a flyer, a Phoenix Bomber that was unopposed. Secondly, rolling for Psychic Powers. Specifically Divination Powers.
Also worthy of a mention are the variable value Objectives.

And a big thank you to Golem Studio for the use of their facilities.


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

I'd agree with this. It's a great edition, but I am feeling a little OP using Necrons...


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I think a 50/50 mix of 6th and 5th Ed would be best of all. Keep Hull Points, AP2, Cover and casualty removal but get rid of allies, fortifications and stupid random crap like rolling for psychic powers, warlord traits and objective effects. Keep the rulebook psychic powers but balance them properly.

Add (better) secondary objectives to the 5th ed missions.

Job done.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Farseer Darvaleth said:


> I'd agree with this. It's a great edition, but I am feeling a little OP using Necrons...


yeah? i have switched to my orks since 6th hit. mostly because i could see the games being very one sided.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I havent played a game with this edition yet, but going by the reaction of the forums and the general lack of bitching and dare i say positive posts about the edition i would say yes its the best.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm waiting until there's a few Codexes out for it. 8th Edition Fantasy didn't kick off until basically after Vampires (4 Books in).

It fixed Orcs and Goblins into a fun, yet still competitive army, Ogres into a competitive army, Vampires back into competition, and reinvigorated the Tired old Tomb Kings (but they're still not competitive sadly; that's Fuckface, erm, I mean Cruddace for you), while Empire is now no longer "gunline or bust".

I hated 8th Edition at first, but gradually come to accept it as being the finest one around (yes, even more so than 6th!); and thats because of the Codexes.

When redundancies between the rules are lost from previous editions, and new units are adding in to take advantage of the new rules (Flyers, Chariots, FMC's, Jet Packs, rules bypassing Limitations, Deployment specials, rules which play to the use of allies specifically, new Fortifications (even if it's as simple as army specific weapons of the Icarus/Quad Guns), etc), the game becomes a lot more fun, especially when it points to all armies getting an update.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

So the ol' "Matt Ward fucked 8th Ed" is really just a crock of shite then?


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

i have had a lot of fun with 6th and to be perfectly frank, i was on the verge of quitting 40k if they messed up this edition.

that said, there still hasn't been time for a full shake down of everything and as such, we can't be too sure what ways people are going to find to exploit the rules. 

also, wounds to the first model or models with similar saves can really bog the game down and there have been a few times that i have gotten very impatient.

overall, love the game again and look forward to playing. so i am very happy with 6th.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> So the ol' "Matt Ward fucked 8th Ed" is really just a crock of shite then?


Depends what you want from the game, and which of the reasons for 8th Edition being flawed you perceived: for example, the magic phase is too random to form a consistent element of a pre-game strategy, so people who want to play tactical genius against tactical genius still see a flaw.

Personally I like the randomness of 8th Edition WHFB and feel it adds well to 6th Edition 40K as well.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

@Magpie - Nope. At the time of release he did.

He broke several armies into a near unplayability at release, while several were enhanced to brokeness. It was also a complete departure from any edition I've played yet. It took about 50-60 games to lose the whole "Blob and go" play style, and stopping the urge to just drop 6 dice on a single spell.

When you come from 6th Edition, where essentially if you deployed badly with a static army, without luck, you were fucked, but it evens up the power of shooting armies, magical barrages, etc.

There are still some retarded occasions, like Dwarfs moving quicker than cavalry, movement counters, and skirmishers are basically pathetic unless used as suicides/unit drops/redirects, but on the whole, 8th Edition armies are now finally beginning to take advantage of the new core rules (such as Ogres Immunity to Stomp, while putting out there own for example), then they're coming into their own.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

I like it, it's definitely more realistic. I'm not sure about the pre-measuring thing... but apart from that it's pretty intuitive. Like 5th esentially made official what we we doing in 4th anyway (true line of sight for one), 6th has done the same again and adding flyers gives a new dimension to play with.


----------



## Hellados (Sep 16, 2009)

Rev pre measuring makes sense because they would know if they were in range of xxx unit or xxx unit before they shot right?

May I hazard a guess that people haven't worked out how to make broken lists yet? Also the randomness makes this harder and flyers are pretty expensive so it's not like many people have gone out and brought 7-8 extra Valks or 9 Stormravens, fighters etc


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

TheReverend said:


> I like it, it's definitely more realistic. I'm not sure about the pre-measuring thing... but apart from that it's pretty intuitive.


I still feel like im cheating when I pre-measure things....after so many years of it being an illegal move and acquiring the skill to judge crucial distances without a tape measure.

All in all I love 6th....and hell my main opponent is 4 flyer necrons and LF/TWC spam SW. The random elements make the game enjoyable (I say this as a daemon/csm player so it's nothing new). I haven't messed around with allies much or fortifications at all, nor do I intend to. The warlord traits are abit wonky, most being useless, some being 'meh' and about 1 per tree being WTF WHY IS THIS ALLOWED. An example of the randomness having a huge impact on the game was a recent one vs. space wolves, where my home objective was the exploding variety, and his home objective was the one that gives him twin linked (and his long fangs sitting ontop of it)...ontop of my warlord having furious charge in the enemy deployment zone, and his wolf lord on TWC being a scoring unit. Not much you can do about stuff like that so I can see people's frustration but you're supposed to have fun, right? 

:headbutt:


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I forgot about warlord traits. Cant say I have ever got one I liked or needed.

And flyers are another thing I have not come up against yet. I suspect my light anti armour force will have problems unless I get myself some form of dakka jet, but that seems very unsnakebite.

I suspect Necrons dominance will not last longer than a year when we get a few other races having new 'dexes.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Vaz said:


> @Magpie - Nope. At the time of release he did.


So he wrote it with a mind to what was coming later and so as the whole game system was updated the more it began to fit with what he wrote. Further shows the crock in my book.

I take Dave's point tho' and agree whole heartedly that 8th in WHF changed the nature of the game in a similar manner to how 6th has changed the focus for 40k. For the better in my opinion but I can see how others enjoyed the previous game for what it was might not like the new direction. 

There don't seem to be too many in that camp around here tho'?


----------



## OpTi (Aug 29, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> So he wrote it with a mind to what was coming later and so as the whole game system was updated the more it began to fit with what he wrote. Further shows the crock in my book.
> 
> I take Dave's point tho' and agree whole heartedly that 8th in WHF changed the nature of the game in a similar manner to how 6th has changed the focus for 40k. For the better in my opinion but I can see how others enjoyed the previous game for what it was might not like the new direction.
> 
> There don't seem to be too many in that camp around here tho'?


Thats because they've already left, those fantasy players are now playing WM&H and the 40k players aren't sure what to make of it yet and are busy revising lists.

The thing is for the most part the main rules have been fine just needing a few tweaks here and there, it's always been codex balance thats been the problem. We were looking at the codex's yesterday and the nonimperial codex's except necrons just feel rather meh atm and don't inspire any of my friends to even bother looking at 40k.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

humakt said:


> I suspect Necrons dominance will not last longer than a year when we get a few other races having new 'dexes.


probably not, but they are a bit silly right now.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

8th Ed seems to be... smoother.

But we'll see. Once Chaos, Mareens and Eldar (the Main armies of 40k) get some 8th Ed codices amongst them, we'll get a better view.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

OpTi said:


> The thing is for the most part the main rules have been fine just needing a few tweaks here and there, it's always been codex balance thats been the problem. We were looking at the codex's yesterday and the nonimperial codex's except necrons just feel rather meh atm and don't inspire any of my friends to even bother looking at 40k.


Maybe you need to look at the codexes again. I take Orks, and that is all I have used in 6th edition. I dont take lootas, battlewagons or a KFF. Yet I have a good win/loose ratio if that is important. But mainly I am enjoying the games a lot more than in 5th.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I think it is the best so far. There are still some minor hitches, but I think that'll be smoothed out once they release a second FAQ, and get some 6th ed codices out for the outdated armies.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

OpTi said:


> The thing is for the most part the main rules have been fine just needing a few tweaks here and there, it's always been codex balance thats been the problem. We were looking at the codex's yesterday and the nonimperial codex's except necrons just feel rather meh atm and don't inspire any of my friends to even bother looking at 40k.


It's a combination of the two. Using 5th as an example, Mech dominated for two reasons - a user-friendly damage table and a 50% price drop for transports in every codex. If only one of those changes had happened, then there might have been an increase in vehicles over 4th, but not to the point where everyone was running 8+ hulls in 1500pts.

My problems with 6th unfortunately cannot be fixed with new codices, but I don't hate them enough to stop playing. They're just niggling annoyances that I wish I didn't have to deal with.


----------



## OpTi (Aug 29, 2009)

humakt said:


> Maybe you need to look at the codexes again. I take Orks, and that is all I have used in 6th edition. I dont take lootas, battlewagons or a KFF. Yet I have a good win/loose ratio if that is important. But mainly I am enjoying the games a lot more than in 5th.


A good W/L/D means nothing without any reference, you could be an amazing player but you could also just be the best player in your area by miles. I had about a 30/70 W/L in my store, I played CSM against the most brutal DE/IG/GK/SW lists you could make in 5th. Now we all play WM&H i've pulled back to about 50/50 where i feel it's about right with those same players who have gone toe to toe with some of the uk top10 players.

There is only so much you can do with skill when your stuff costs more and does less which is the case with the older codex's for the most part. My point really is that since 3rd the edition has largely been irrelevant because the issues were always a problem with the codex's.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> WTF WHY IS THIS ALLOWED. An example of the randomness having a huge impact on the game was a recent one vs. space wolves, where my home objective was the exploding variety, and his home objective was the one that gives him twin linked (and his long fangs sitting ontop of it)...ontop of my warlord having furious charge in the enemy deployment zone, and his wolf lord on TWC being a scoring unit.


1. The Mysterious Objective bonus only applies to the unit controlling it. Pg 125, 'Note that, while any unit can identify the nature of an objective, it is only scoring units that can make use of it'. This prevents most of the seemingly-powerful objective shenanigans.

2. Which Warlord Traits are really, really imbalanced? I'd say that some are most certainly better than others, but none strike me out as being overwhelming unless in a very particular situation (Conqueror of Cities in a Cities of Death game, for example). However, different power levels they may be, I think they're consistently mediocre to crap.

Midnight


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Good catch on the scoring troop only, we had overlooked that.



> 2. Which Warlord Traits are really, really imbalanced? I'd say that some are most certainly better than others, but none strike me out as being overwhelming unless in a very particular situation (Conqueror of Cities in a Cities of Death game, for example). However, different power levels they may be, I think they're consistently mediocre to crap.


They are all pretty mediocre to be honest. There are just a few that can be game changers if you get extremely lucky with the roll. Things like reroll reserve or making your HQ a scoring unit can have a significant impact on a game. The rest are basically ignorable.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I think that First Blood and Slay the Warlord are more cause for concern than Warlord Traits. First Blood goes to he with the first turn and long-range guns more often than not (oh, of course there are exceptions. I had a game that got to turn 3 and nobody had got First Blood yet), and Slay the Warlord punishes those with in-your-face commanders (Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, Wolf Lords) over backfield or ranged commanders (Company Command Squads, Tau Commanders).

However, they're redeemed by Linebreaker, which is an awesome secondary that encourages mobile and tactical play.

Midnight


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> I think that First Blood and Slay the Warlord are more cause for concern than Warlord Traits. First Blood goes to he with the first turn and long-range guns more often than not (oh, of course there are exceptions. I had a game that got to turn 3 and nobody had got First Blood yet), and Slay the Warlord punishes those with in-your-face commanders (Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, Wolf Lords) over backfield or ranged commanders (Company Command Squads, Tau Commanders).
> 
> However, they're redeemed by Linebreaker, which is an awesome secondary that encourages mobile and tactical play.
> 
> Midnight


On the other side of that coin, is your warlord being fateweaver (or a thirster) in swoop mode all game. The amount of attention it would take to secure that KP almost isn't worth the effort.

I love linebreaker personally. Again with daemons it almost feels unfair...but it certinley rewards mobile armies over gunlines, which is always a good thing.


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

I really enjoy 6th edition. But I really enjoyed 5th edition too. For me, it's like they are two different games. They are similar but play very differently too. I've finally got enough games with all 3 of my armies to see how they work now. 

Necrons need little said. They have become sky gods, if you can live with yourself playing that way. I prefer a small airforce with lots of other tricks in the army. But surely their time on top will come to an end. But the Wraiths have taught me that IG parking lots are truly dead. Thanks to the way squadrons are damaged in CC, high attack units cannot be ignored near vehicles. Even Assualt Marines could glance a squadron to death in short order. 

I found my Blood Angels required my more drastic change of play style. But that is fine with as I did not find them a challange win with. Before, I rarely sought cover for my tanks and dreads. I could rely on their armor to be glanced more often than not. I still can in fact but glancing is better now than it used to be. Fortunately, cover for vehicles is easier to get too. Balance, I guess. But the toughest adjustment is how Rhinos work now. Put simply, they should not be carrying CC troops. Put Tactical Marines in them, hope out at close range and shoot like crazy. 

The Dark Eldar was my last army to try this edition. I was very hesitant to play them because so much changed for them. But I found they still have the same feel; glass hammer. You still need Kabalites and Wyches, it just changed which you need more of. Raiders are still a must, as are Venoms, but needed upgrades have changed. Reavers are very good now, even in dense terrain tables. But the army overall practically requires double FOC for HQs. Too many good choices. 

Anyway, I like 6th. Those are just some of my general musings. Perhaps I'll go into more detail elsewhere.


----------



## Pandora (Jun 19, 2012)

I don't know that DE requires double FOC any more than other armies. While it is nice to have some Haemonculi spreading Pain Tokens to Kabalite units, it is not necessary if you can pull off that magnificent lightning strike. And even with them, it just limits you to picking one other HQ and thus focusing most of your army to a specific task. The beauty is that Reavers fit any build.

On the subject of 6th, I enjoy the cinematic feel of the game. I find myself issuing challenges in character. And the way you advance cautiously into a Mysterious Forest feels more real than just racing headlong into the trees. I recently witnessed a game playing 5th ed rules and so much felt wrong, even though I learned to play with those rules. We've grown beyond them.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

My guard felt a little nagged at as I used plasma tanks frequently and general cover saves dropping felt painful. Once I adapted however I began having real life breathed into things I found stagnant and boring.

My C:SM's are feeling their age considerably, but all I see is new things on the horizon. As long as my new codex isn't terrible I'll be happy. I hope I get some chaos-themed fortifications as I found if I spam ageis defence lines with t-sons I can really agitate most armies and even drew against a necron scythe-spam list. However new is nice and models, units and a codex? 6th is shaping nicely for I!


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Moonschwine said:


> ...I found if I spam ageis defence lines with t-sons....


As a T-Son player I am curious; I had disregarded the Defence line as it ties you to a static line in exchange for protection against shooting that ignores both armour and invulnerable saves. Is that more common than I thought, or have I missed a large benefit?


----------



## DaiKaiju (Aug 8, 2012)

I liked 5th edition, and I was REALLY looking forward to 6th to finally be a well ironed, well play tested (based on the years using 4th & 5th) piece of gaming that would be internally balanced and sensible. Then they just decided to uproot the whole experience.
I like the idea of allies/fortifications. The allies table definitely needs work (why is an entire army kept out of a full two sections of the core rulebook?!). I would have loved Challenges, if they didn't grind everything to halt. Let my troops fight his troops, while our characters fight. These two things don't overlap but each add to resolution. Is that so difficult?!
I HATE overwatch, and the general nerf Assault got in this edition. Why does the opponent get an entire shooting phase during my turn? Yes it's kind of based on stand-and-shoot in fantasy. Fantasy also has model facings so you can work around these things.
Hull Point I don't mind much. I want them more fleshed out and more thought through. I'm much angrier about assaulting from vehicles. I love shipping my Zerkers up the table to prepare for a charge turn 2. Now if I want to do this I have to take a turn to move, a turn to get out, then the 3rd turn I can maybe assault if anything is left of the unit, then they get shot at again for good measure. And no, I don't want Land Raiders, when the cost of the transport is as much as the unit I'm not interested.
What I really hate though is all the random crap added. Random terrain, random objective happenings, random warlord traits. Does no one do planetary scans anymore?
As its stands I have no desire to play 40k, so my World Eaters are going to sit on the shelf collecting dust, and reminding me when this game was fun.


----------



## Dicrel Seijin (Apr 2, 2011)

In my last three 5th ed. games, I lost all of them, by a lot. In a year of playing 5th ed. I had 1 win, 2 draws, and double-digit losses.

In my last three 6th ed. games, I've lost to Tyranids; won in a free-for-all against SM, Necrons, and CD; and tied against Necrons. I've had 3 wins, 2 draws, and 2 losses. 

I should probably mention I play Orks. 

I'm liking 6th ed. Now there are some things that I don't like--I've yet to roll a Warlord trait that I like or that was even useful. I've developed a reputation among friends for making all terrain dangerous (and killing my units in the process). 

The secondary objectives are what do it for me. I basically charge across the board, screaming "Waaagh!" at the top of my lungs so I almost always get Linebreaker and First Blood. Slay the Warlord is sometimes a bit of an issue (Ghaz fell for the first time last game against a Stormlord and his retinue). 

I like that KP is only for one scenario. As an Ork player I feel I should be free to ignore casualties and just keep charging forward.

I like that my Trukks have 3 HP and don't explode at the first hit (sometimes), heck, I had a Trukk survive to the end during my last game for the first time (rather than all getting blown up by Turn 2). 

Overwatch is a double-edge sword. I love it for my burna boyz. I don't like charging IG or Necrons though. 

Having more dice rolls doesn't really affect me since for the most part I have to use codex tables instead (like the Ramshackle on for the Trukks). 

During 5th edition, I didn't look forward to games. It didn't matter what strategies I employed (or didn't), I would lose. Sometimes these were near-tabling (one game I ended with a Runtherd and an immobilized Dread). It was just a slog. I know a couple of my friends were worried I'd quit the game; it was that bad.

With 6th edition, I'm much more enthused about playing. It's a reset. My friends and I are re-learning the game and it's a lot more fun.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

as a whole i like more than 5th (the only other edition i played). some things are really wonky though, how LoSir!/different armor saves works for example. 

also there are several things that just does not appeal to me in any real way (random Objs, forrests, rivers, rolling for warlord traits/psy powers (id rather roll and you can pick that or one above/below of the table OR the primaris power).

and others i like but dont really plan on using a lot of - fortifications, allies (my favorite...easier to stay motivated and get a couple of squads painted at a time)

----

the only real issue i have is hull points (not the idea of). almost everything to me feels 1 or 2 HPs short.


----------



## Pandora (Jun 19, 2012)

For those who hate all the "random crap," it is largely optional. Find a like-minded opponent and don't use the mysterious rules or warlord traits. Establish what the terrain is before the game, as some of the stuff on those tables is quite fun to use. If you don't like random powers, use your codex's(at least while you can). Even Allies and Fortifications are optional.



> I would have loved Challenges, if they didn't grind everything to halt. Let my troops fight his troops, while our characters fight. These two things don't overlap but each add to resolution. Is that so difficult?!


That is exactly how challenges work. The characters try to kill each other while the squads fight. Not complicated.

Rage quitting and shelving armies seems so petty. The rules aren't so different that you can't adapt and still have fun. It's like a five-year-old stomping home because he wanted to play tag but everyone else is playing freeze tag. Yes, assault is not what it was, but Overwatch makes sense and they did it in a way that is not very threatening, except for flamer units. But that's why you shoot them and use a little strategy. Hard to do with a Berzerker army, I know.(not sarcastic) I also know that if an opponent rolls well, my Wyches die before reaching assault but I normally only lose 1-2 for Overwatch.

For those upset about Flyers, one of my Ravagers has shot down a Necron Scythe in two separate games. Tough to hit perhaps, but easy to break. And for every person I hear wanting more HP, I hear another saying too many things have too many HPs. For my vehicles, it doesn't much matter. Give them 10 and they'll still fall.


----------



## Antonius (Jan 10, 2012)

I think 6th is good overall.
Current FAQ round are another story (i play IG with LRBTs with sponsons - Many sadfaces of nerfing a decent rule to hell). They almost in some respects seem to FAQ down things that worked fine (and had a reason to exist such as Lumbering Behemoth), but fail to properly explain rules in the book such as the shocking wording of how direct and indirect firing work for barrage weapons (at least 5th had it CLEARLY spelled out). I wonder what the shape of the first 6th edition codex will be - Methinks it will be less unit-specific rules and more "lets mix and match" USRs and a general standardisation across all codices with the main rulebook (which, lets face it, requires a complete and comprehensive rulebook - with the increase in USRs etc, i think this might be the case), but i may just be blinded by the annoyance that i may have to rip weapons and sponsons off my best painted model in my collection (i do wonder what the justification was behind it - are LRBTs with sponsons really OP? or Is it they want to attempt to reduce the number of 4th ed poster boy IG tanks?).


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I love 4th. Most of my opponents arent worried about me being overpowered as I like to use fluffy lists anyway, and a fluffy necron list is as good as any competitive non-necron list


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Antonius said:


> I think 6th is good overall.
> Current FAQ round are another story (i play IG with LRBTs with sponsons - Many sadfaces of nerfing a decent rule to hell). They almost in some respects seem to FAQ down things that worked fine (and had a reason to exist such as Lumbering Behemoth), but fail to properly explain rules in the book such as the shocking wording of how direct and indirect firing work for barrage weapons (at least 5th had it CLEARLY spelled out). I wonder what the shape of the first 6th edition codex will be - Methinks it will be less unit-specific rules and more "lets mix and match" USRs and a general standardisation across all codices with the main rulebook (which, lets face it, requires a complete and comprehensive rulebook - with the increase in USRs etc, i think this might be the case), but i may just be blinded by the annoyance that i may have to rip weapons and sponsons off my best painted model in my collection (i do wonder what the justification was behind it - are LRBTs with sponsons really OP? or Is it they want to attempt to reduce the number of 4th ed poster boy IG tanks?).


I would assume it's streamlining. Codex or unit specific rules are being replaced by standardisation. The same thing happened to 8th ed fantasy with their magic items and USR's.


----------



## DaiKaiju (Aug 8, 2012)

Pandora said:


> That is exactly how challenges work. The characters try to kill each other while the squads fight. Not complicated


I am glad to say I was wrong about this (explained horribly to me, and didn't double check when I got a rulebook). But still stand by my other points.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

Well the knew faq sorted out wound alocation wych was my only dislike.
I also like the fact you cant zoom onto objectives last turn no more even tho ill have to adapt the eldar. 
I also see nothing wrong with warlord traits or brb powers witch i love.


----------



## Pandora (Jun 19, 2012)

DaiKaiju said:


> I am glad to say I was wrong about this (explained horribly to me, and didn't double check when I got a rulebook). But still stand by my other points.


Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I just had to vent a little last night is all. Hopefully Berzerkers get better with the new Chaos codex.


----------



## DaiKaiju (Aug 8, 2012)

Pandora said:


> Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I just had to vent a little last night is all. Hopefully Berzerkers get better with the new Chaos codex.


We are using the internet for it's intended purpose lol


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I finally got my chaos dex and the 6th ed books in the mail. So far i am impressed with how 6th ed looks and i am looking forward to my first game with it. I must say i am also impressed with the sheer size of the new book. Even when i am not able to play i enjoy reading through it.


----------



## Tyreal Ardeus (Mar 28, 2012)

I enjoy the latest codex a great deal. Of course I've only played since halfway through 5th edition so that's all I have to compare it to but I retain that it's a great improvement.

One of the main things that irritated me about the last edition is people taking shots to the face, and models being removed from the back. What? 

So hundreds of shells and lasguns slash and explode into a mob of orks, and the ones up front are 100% safe. Not a scratch. But those poor bastards in the back, sucks to be them. Made no sense at all. So I love removing from the front now. 

I also like challenges, although depending on the situation It seems that many challenges are very one sided. Not sure why. Most I've seen, luck aside, are one combatant absolutely dominating the other. In any case it adds a nice fluffy feel (myself being a fluff-nut). 

Also enjoy flyers, as much as overpowered turds that they are. Not so much flyers in general, so much as now shooting at something that is flying above the ground actually makes sense; it's hard to hit! 5th edition shooting at skimmers such as vendettas, which should be way up in the sky while moving, was easy.

Not sure how to feel about hull points. It makes sense... I guess. But it made Necrons the current most OP race, as taking any kind of vehicle against them is almost 100% pointless and a waste of points. Even flyers turn to dust in the face of a 20 man warrior blob, let alone two or three.

Anyways, overall I do really like the new rulebook. From what I've heard and read about previous ones it's a definite improvement over them as well.


----------

