Help support TMP


"40K 6th Edition game" Topic


31 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the SF Battle Reports Message Board


925 hits since 7 Aug 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Mr Elmo07 Aug 2012 6:40 a.m. PST

With the release of 6th edition and not having played much since 3rd, I decided to see if I should get back into 40K. I had heard the game was more cinema graphic and that seemed nice.

Sadly, the game is just too fiddly. Closest models are removed as casualties so leaders are hiding in the back of the unit as you see so often in the movies. If there is a doubt you need to roll randomly. What a waste of time, owner picks was so much better. Then there is cover, not cover, etc. This could be a lot simpler as well. The unit should either have cover or not, period.

I can't find many penalties for moving. You can even fire most heavy weapons on the move

HTH combat takes way to long. I like the 2d6" charge but the various phases is too much…just get stuck in and start rolling dice!

I love the 40K background, models, etc. but these rules are awful. Its too bad Warpath doesn't have casualty removal and "roll your own" army building. I'll play 40K but not with the dedication I once did; more as a game of last resort.

Chris B Inactive Member07 Aug 2012 6:50 a.m. PST

I thought 6th was an improvement over 5th. I've been sticking with 40K for years, but I don't play more than every couple of months. I like the new casualty rules… shooting at a unit might actually make it harder for it to reach you in an assault, rather than having all the guys in the back ranks somehow catch bullets. Leaders don't have to run in the back – there's a "look out sir" rule now. Heavy weapons firing on the move must "snap fire" and hit on 6's. HTH takes about as long as it used to, I think. I used to play Rogue Trader – now that was fiddly!

ubberdorc Inactive Member07 Aug 2012 6:57 a.m. PST

I really enjoy 6th much better – It has the "feel" of RT/2nd ed but much faster game play.

lkmjbc307 Aug 2012 7:02 a.m. PST

I like the casualty allocation and cover rules. Melee and snap- defensive fire seem like wastes to me. Psychic powers and armor penetration for melee weapons seem too complicated.

I will probably continue playing 5th with the new casualty allocation rules… I may use the snap – defensive fire as well- I'm not sure. I will probably not use the rest unless my game club demands it.

Joe Collins

Scipio Wallicanus Inactive Member07 Aug 2012 7:44 a.m. PST

Overall I think 6th is an improvement over 5th. I gives some life to the shooting units. In 5th Ed the game was won or lost in the assault phase 99% of the time.

And I do like the 'closest models are removed first' change to the rules. After all if you are closer to the enemy you are far more likely to take a bullet or axe to the face.

Still having said all that, 40K is not a tight rules set. So if you are looking for a tight, clean set of rules this game isn't for you.

Ken Portner07 Aug 2012 8:04 a.m. PST

Sadly, the game is just too fiddly.

Closest models are removed as casualties so leaders are hiding in the back of the unit as you see so often in the movies.

Actually isn't that more intuitive? And your assumption about leaders hiding in back is overstated. Often I've used a leader with a better armor save or toughness to soak up wounds to preserve the rest of the unit. That's "cinematic."


If there is a doubt you need to roll randomly. What a waste of time, owner picks was so much better. Then there is cover, not cover, etc. This could be a lot simpler as well. The unit should either have cover or not, period.

It can take longer, but not always. Anyway, that's in keeping with their desire to make things more "cinematic." If you want a more abstracted system then the game is not for you.

I can't find many penalties for moving. You can even fire most heavy weapons on the move

If a heavy weapon moves it can fire, but will only hit on a 6.

HTH combat takes way to long. I like the 2d6" charge but the various phases is too much…just get stuck in and start rolling dice!

This only takes longer if you've got a unit that has models with different initiative's so that they attack at different times.

It seems that you're clearly interested in a "unit" game-- where the unit, not the individual models, acts as a whole. Warpath is what you want.

I love the 40K background, models, etc. but these rules are awful.

If your definition of "awful" is anything you don't like, then I guess you're right. I don't think that's the common understanding of the word "awful" though.

Baggy Sausage Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2012 9:36 a.m. PST

He doesn't like this version because he thinks they are awful. Do you have a different definition of awful as it pertains to rules?

That aside, didn't they used to have things like "Look out sir!" and pulling models from the front rank in previous versions of the game and took them out? If is wasn't good before and was removed, why is it so awesome now?

What is it about this set of rules that makes it better than any of the previous versions?

Ken Portner07 Aug 2012 10:12 a.m. PST

He doesn't like this version because he thinks they are awful. Do you have a different definition of awful as it pertains to rules?

You're right. He meant to say, "I think they are awful." But that observation is about as useful as me declaring "I like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate."

That aside, didn't they used to have things like "Look out sir!" and pulling models from the front rank in previous versions of the game and took them out? If is wasn't good before and was removed, why is it so awesome now?

I have no idea if you're correct or not. But even if you are, so what? Is there some unwritten requirement that rules be consistent from edition to edition?

What is it about this set of rules that makes it better than any of the previous versions?

Nothing. 6th Edition is no "better" than any other Edition in the same way that Vanilla Ice Cream is no "better" than chocolate. It's just different.

But you really miss the point. No one who gives it a second thought believes that the new editions of 40K are aimed at "improving" the rules. (gosh, if we just have one more edition we'll get it right this time!) They are aimed at change for change's sake.

And before you hysterically shout that new editions are nothing more than churning to make more sales (imagine that, a business whose goal is to make as much money as it can; I'm truly shocked!) I'd suggest that most people actually enjoy the change.

Sure, no one really wants to pay more to buy new books or models, but I think that the change up in rules ever five years or so keeps the game from becoming stale and presents new challenges for players to contemplate and overcome.

striker807 Aug 2012 10:25 a.m. PST

Sounds like someone's natural bias showing Elmo. Or did you just not read the rules at all?


Yes, casualties come from the models closest to the shooter. But in the games I've played so far it has been rather easy for both players to see which models are closest and if multiple models are then the shootie chooses.

Cover is based on the model. It can't get much simpler than that in my book.

Penalties for moving are there, just not common since 99% of movement is on open ground with rapid firing weapons. Heavy weapons do pay a penalty for moving, some can't fire at all and the rest will only hit on 6's.

Just how long did your assaults take? You do realize the assault rules didn't change all that much and the phases are the same as they've been for the past 4 editions with a single addition of moving un-based models into base at their initiative. Add to that there are 10 initiative steps and you skip those initiative steps not represented in the assault just like in the past. Any one with a basic knowledge of the rules and a few games under their belt does move into assault and starts rolling dice.

Just those points alone scream reading and comprehension failure on your part based on your natural bias.


Lets just say your definition of awful must be solely your own. I bet i don't like most of you preferred games but i'd be hard pressed to call them awful and even harder pressed to go and make that claim public. Maybe you should just play the games that meet your expectations and desires and let others do the same without the condemnation and veiled insults.

basileus66 Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2012 10:44 a.m. PST

I've played a few games with 6th Edition, and honestly I haven't find the rules so difficult.

Casualty allocation makes sense to me. The closest models are the first one to be eliminated. Officers, characters and special weapons, therefore, are usually -of course, if you do not forget to do it!- in the middle of the unit. The rear isn't a good position, especially if your opponent has a good grasp of the rules. If you put your best soldiers in the back, he will need only to move his unit where he can shoot them. The middle of the unit makes more sense. In my opinion, that's not a bad choice -only in the movies the guy with the special weapon will lead the charge! in real life, he will be slightly in the back of the unit to provide fire support for the rest of his buddies to deal with the enemy.

I agree that cover could be more streamlined. It's not very difficult, but it could be have been deal more elegantly.

Moving has a big penalty: your normal weapons have their range cut down to half, and heavy weapons will hit only with 6's. Assault weapons have not that problem, of course, but their ranges are usually shorter than rifled weapons, so in the end the results are the same.

My main criticism is with saving rolls in melee, when there are different saving rolls in the unit. I would have rather prefered that they would have opted by a system where you simply allocated wounds in order -one to each model in contact, then one to each model not in contact, and repeat until all wounds are allocated- and then roll the savings. As it is now it looks too artificial.

Best

Mr Elmo07 Aug 2012 1:59 p.m. PST

Casualty allocation makes sense to me. The closest models are the first one to be eliminated

But why does it have to be so concrete? Owner allocates hits was so much nicer as you had an elegant mechanic for "Bob" picking up the squad weapon after "Joe" goes down with it. Bolt Action might be the best, owner picks unless the wound roll is a 6. That way you can still quickly say, "4 guys died, make 1 the missile launcher"

Penalties for moving are there,

BARELY, I seem to recall Rapid fire being 24" if you didn't move and 12" twice if you didn't. You can now shoot 24" even if you move.

And, when ISN'T an Ork going to move? The snap fire penalty is almost nonexistent.

I agree that cover could be more streamlined.

If it was owner allocates wounds, this would not be an issue, even for close combat.

Angel Barracks07 Aug 2012 2:42 p.m. PST

wow I had 1st edition and so much of what is being talked about here is so alien to me.
Rapid fire, snap fire, ranges being less if you move, all so different…

Wolfprophet07 Aug 2012 2:43 p.m. PST

I've been finding most criticism is coming from a complete lack of understanding. The rules are a MAJOR improvement.

Especially the changes to rapid fire, wound allocation and the vehicle hull points. It just takes a few games to learn.

The 2xd6 for assault is a major improvement too. It forces you to think instead of just rush your guys forward into melee.

They made jump pack infantry more powerful too and the new mechanics regarding "Mysterious Objectives" make things more interesting. And that's just to start. It's not many changes, but the changes are where it counts. They're what 5th edition SHOULD have been.

Moving has a big penalty: your normal weapons have their range cut down to half,

Nope. Rapid fire fire full range at all times now and at half range, they get to double tap.

owner picks was so much better.

No, this was a blatantly stupid mechanic that offered people with OP'd melee units to abuse the crap out of it. Even I did it because I play tau now and I had to shield drones. Now, I can just put the drones up front and they can damage soak all the hits until they die… Just like they would in reality.

Have you ever even watched someone with 30 Hormagaunts take 5 wounds to the unit from the front and then remove his five lost models from the REAR of the unit so he keeps his closer distance to the shooter? What sort of Bleeped text is that?!

Farstar Inactive Member07 Aug 2012 3:18 p.m. PST

Has anyone figured out if template weapon casualty removal is front-to-back for those under the template, or from the entire unit?

The other complaint I'm hearing locally is that wounds are not allocated front to back *then* rolled, but applied front-to-back anew with each wound, making the "let the tough guy soak it all" squad arrangement rather too viable.

john lacour Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2012 4:30 p.m. PST

play a game of GRUNTZ, mr. elmo. tbh, the rules put 40k to shame. and before the flamming starts, i'm an old man whos been playing 40k since RT, so i'm not just and "anti gw" guy. i love the figures and the fluff of 40k(the HH series is awsome, and i have so many BL books my books case is gonna colapse), but the constant problems with the codexs and new, more expensive rules every 4 years is plain non sense.
GRUNTZ will have you doing things a 40k player would'nt dream of, like shoting up the enemy BEFORE he gets close enough to use his chainsword. imagine that!

Mick A07 Aug 2012 4:41 p.m. PST

Mr Elmo, just out of curiosity, did you happen to lose the game you played?

Mr Elmo07 Aug 2012 6:03 p.m. PST

Yes, but that is not unusual. I'm a lover, not a fighter. :)

I also bought some new Necrons. I like the background and models; I just need funner rules.

Garand07 Aug 2012 7:47 p.m. PST

I also bought some new Necrons. I like the background and models; I just need funner rules.

Just wait until someone comes charging at your lowly Necron warriors in a Land Raider. Get them into double-tap range, and watch them take it down. THOSE are fun rules (for me)!

Damon.

basileus66 Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2012 2:17 a.m. PST

Nope. Rapid fire fire full range at all times now and at half range, they get to double tap

You are right! I was assuming the restriction was still in place, and didn't realize that it had been changed! Damm!

Thanks for your correction! It has been duly noted!

basileus66 Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2012 2:23 a.m. PST

Bolt Action might be the best, owner picks unless the wound roll is a 6. That way you can still quickly say, "4 guys died, make 1 the missile launcher"

Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. It's a matter of taste. I disliked the gamemanship involved in the wound allocation in 5th… even if I took advantage of it! I like it more now, but if you don't there is no possible counter-argument.

Mr Elmo08 Aug 2012 4:27 a.m. PST

30 Hormagaunts take 5 wounds to the unit from the front and then remove his five lost models from the REAR

That is concrete thinking. You presume the Homagaunts moved 12" or whatever, stopped, and were shot at.

During the simulated time slice that is both players turns, my mind pictures the hormagaunts swarming across the table like stallions on the plains and being shot at as they move. If one in front dies, then another further back takes its place (in theory they are only a few feet apart). It's actually quite logical that the end appearance is that the models in the rear died.

I'm thinking, Games Workshop figured out young players of 40K these days can't abstract their game play.

Ken Portner08 Aug 2012 5:06 a.m. PST

BARELY, I seem to recall Rapid fire being 24" if you didn't move and 12" twice if you didn't. You can now shoot 24" even if you move.

That's right.

And, when ISN'T an Ork going to move? The snap fire penalty is almost nonexistent.

The Ork's weapons are all Assault or Heavy, not Rapid Fire. So yes, they have no penalty for moving.

But again, I think you're missing the point. You're complaining that there's no penalty on shooting for having moved. That's a complaint based on the physical world.

40k is a game. It doesn't purport to be a simulation (how could it?). So the fact that the rules don't model the physical world as we know it is irrelevant. No penalty for on shooting for moving is just a game mechanic.

Ken Portner08 Aug 2012 5:12 a.m. PST

Has anyone figured out if template weapon casualty removal is front-to-back for those under the template, or from the entire unit?

All that the template does is tell you how many hits you've acheived. In other words, casualties are NOT limited to the model under the template. The wound allocation procedure is the same as for any other shooting; closest to furthest. Yes, that's not intutive, but that's the way it is.


The other complaint I'm hearing locally is that wounds are not allocated front to back *then* rolled, but applied front-to-back anew with each wound, making the "let the tough guy soak it all" squad arrangement rather too viable.

Yes, technically speaking wounds are allocated to the closest model until it's removed. So if the character with the 2+ save is the closest model, he keeps taking the wounds and the saves until he dies. (Unless he decides to pass the wound off using the "Look out Sir!" rule. That only matters when the models in the unit are different though. Otherwise you can roll the saves all at once.

Ken Portner08 Aug 2012 5:14 a.m. PST

Bolt Action might be the best, owner picks unless the wound roll is a 6. That way you can still quickly say, "4 guys died, make 1 the missile launcher"

In 6th Edition 40k if a Character (meaning either Independent Character or squad sergeant) rolls a 6 to hit, he gets to choose which model in the target unit takes the hit. (The rule is called Precision Strike or something like that).

So 40k has an element of what you're saying Bolt Action has.

Ken Portner08 Aug 2012 5:20 a.m. PST

but the constant problems with the codexs and new, more expensive rules every 4 years is plain non sense.

The typical complaint of the cranky gamer, completely missing the point.

New rules every 4-5 years is not "nonsense." It's intended to mix things up and keep the game fresh. Does it require you to buy new books and perhaps new models? Yes.

But so what? If you want a game that you can use the models you bought 30 years ago without having to pay a cent more just stick to Napoleonics/ACW/Ancients/whatever.

Angel Barracks08 Aug 2012 5:54 a.m. PST

. Does it require you to buy new books and perhaps new models? Yes.

Actually no.
Only if you wish to play in GW stores/events.
If you play at any other place there is no requirement to do so.

Ken Portner08 Aug 2012 7:50 a.m. PST

Actually no.
Only if you wish to play in GW stores/events.
If you play at any other place there is no requirement to do so.

Well of course if you have a group of like-minded friends who want to keep playing 3rd, 4th, 5th edition you're right.

But realistically if you want to be able to walk into a gaming store of any stripe and play a stranger you need the current rules.

One of the biggest attractions of the GW hobby (like FOW) is that you can walk into any store in the world and play game wioth a complete stranger and be speaking the same language, so to speak.

There may be rules that are technically better, or cleaner, or more whatever than 40k, but none of them offer the large community and make it as easy to find people to play the game with.

When I feel like complaining about the cost of GW's products I try to keep in mind that that community is part of what I'm paying for.

Baggy Sausage Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2012 8:43 a.m. PST

Sorry Bede, I didn't mean to make you hysterically defend this version of the rules. I as only looking for information so I could decide whether or not to buy these rules yet again. Thank you for your 7+ posts on this subject.

Ken Portner08 Aug 2012 8:53 a.m. PST

Sorry Bede, I didn't mean to make you hysterically defend this version of the rules. I as only looking for information so I could decide whether or not to buy these rules yet again. Thank you for your 7+ posts on this subject.

No hysterics involved. I think I provided a good amount of hard information (as opposed to comments like "it's awful" or "nonsense" or "great") so you can form your own opinion.

Feel free to thank me.

Wolfprophet08 Aug 2012 2:40 p.m. PST

Only if you wish to play in GW stores/events.

Not even there. The same day we were doing 6th edition learning games, two guys came in to play a 3rd edition game between Marines and Eldar. The marine player even had nothing but vintage models. Beakies all across the board! The Eldar player was a regular though and had mostly newer models.


That is concrete thinking. You presume the Homagaunts moved 12" or whatever, stopped, and were shot at.

During the simulated time slice that is both players turns, my mind pictures the hormagaunts swarming across the table like stallions on the plains and being shot at as they move. If one in front dies, then another further back takes its place (in theory they are only a few feet apart). It's actually quite logical that the end appearance is that the models in the rear died.

I'm thinking, Games Workshop figured out young players of 40K these days can't abstract their game play.

It's not logical.

If you have ten men around a crater, two of them outside in front and eight in the crater and those two get killed, does it make sense to pull two men out of the crater instead of the two guys not smart enough to be in the crater? I don't think so. I view it purely as "Who's most likely to die first?" Otherwise, it becomes a game of removing the least important guys so the important one lives long enough to do what you invested points in him for, even though he's in front taking all the hits.

Or in the case of the melee swarms like Hormagaunts, it turns into keeping the distance closed so they can get into combat with the fewest fatalities, despite the fact that the herd/swarm/etc would lose distance as their front row becomes corpses in reality. That's logical and how a few other rules sets I've played handle it. Works just great in Starship Troopers unless the bug player doesn't take tunnels and doesn't understand the concept of "Herding" the M.I. player to get around the "Kiting" tactic.

Mr Elmo08 Aug 2012 4:49 p.m. PST

does it make sense to pull two men out of the crater instead of the two guys not smart enough to be in the crater?

well, if a guy leaves the crater and picks up the gun the deceased man had, that would be what lyou describe, would it not?

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.