6th Edition - Initial Thoughts

[steveNspace]

How do you guys like 6th?

The general consensus down in NY is that it's pretty awesome. I like everything besides pre-measuring, but that's really only because I got good at judging distances from past editions and now it seems like a near worthless skill

I have been posting on my blog again btw, and my initial reactions from reading the book were that plasma guns, terminators and necrons in general (gauss) are now the bees knees for competitive armies. Hopefully I will get the chance to come up to VT and visit you all soon.

[the Goat]

How do you guys like 6th?

I observed several games and played one yesterday. The game is still 40k. The models continue to move, shoot and assault as always. It is still fun.

But the rules are unnecessarily complex. Every rule seems to have an exception (ie. look out sir is a 4+ roll. . . but not if you are an independent character). There are also a lot more things to remember (did those assault marines use their jump packs in the movement phase? I forget because I spent so much time in the shooting phase.). Vehicle movement and shooting is very complex. (ie. how many guns can fire regularly vs snap shooting is different for fast, fast-skimmers, fliers, regular vehicles, etc.)

I expect once people start figuring out the optimal builds for different codecies, we will see that the vehicle damage adjustments went too far. Grey Knight psy rifleman dreadnoughts got a lot better. Who cares if they don't get ap1/ap2 bonuses to the damage table. They only need to glance three times to wreck most vehicles now. And they are pretty good at getting multiple glances per turn.

That is enough ranting for now.

[steveNspace]

As a whole, I think GK have gotten a lot worse now that all their melee strength is AP3. Daemonhammers were an uncommon choice, especially on paladins/terminators. Even Draigo is AP3 now (lol).

Psyriflemen are okay, my view is that they've overall been nerfed. Vehicles have just gotten easier to kill, that's all, so it seems like str 8 anti-tank spam is better when in reality, EVERYTHING is better - and AP3 AT is worse - compared to other AT weapons. You're right that they can easily HP kill now, but they have virtually no ability for single-hit knockouts anymore. Necron gauss totally owns against vehicles however. I've seen a squad of rapid firing warriors knock out a LR in 1 turn of shooting already. Rapid fire weapons being buffed is a nice change. Assault is no longer the end-all be-all of 40k armies, especially with random charge length and lack of AP2 melee weapons floating around. I am banking that vehicle composition is going to be a lot more similar to 3rd now, with a general army having merely a couple vehicles for support rather than an unstoppable iron wall of spam. I am also glad that psykers and allies are certainly not the doomsday weapons they were rumored to be.

All in all I don't feel like the rules are too complicated.. There are a lot of them, but they all make sense and thus will be easy to learn and remember.

[Aleix07]

I would comment with no bias, but then I realized I am biased because it made my army much better...

Other than that, I feel like hidden powerfists used against really tough armor (i.e. terminator armor), got a HUGE nerf with the inclusion of challenges. I personally think challenges don't fit with the fluff most of the time, and they give armies like mine, which have mostly mediocre combat units, a way to minimize casualties from HQs or power fist sergeants easily. A great example is a game I played where my librarian, who had a force staff thanks to the new absolute cc weapon WSIWYG rule, and +2 str and toughness from the Biomancy Iron Arm spell, insta-killed a warboss in combat, with no wounds dealt by the warboss, making his attacks useless. The other option for the ork player would've been to not use his close quarters equipped HQ in the round of combat?! Anyway I think this is a bit unfair towards all those hidden powerfist squads, and maybe warrants a price drop in powerfists because they can easily be rendered useless, especially on one wound squad leaders.

The only other worry I have is about squads from older codexes with all power weapons. This means if I have one with an ax, that was originally no extra cost, that model suddenly has the much rarer AP 2 close combat weapon, and if it isn't a squad leader, is shielded by the entire squad. This probably needs to FAQ'd for the violating codexes until they get an update.

Other than that I think most of these changes are good, and like Steve said these rules are intuitive. At least the crazy terrain ones (I.e. random daemonic rivers?!) are optional.

[steveNspace]

The axes are in line with the swords/mauls/lances because even though they're AP2 and +1 Str, they strike at I 1 which definitely balances them out because initiative is now an even bigger deal than it was in 5th because of 3" pile in moves in the initiative step.

I played a 1850 pt game tonight with my Lamenters at the BFS club in NY. Shooty terminators are pretty dominant now, and feel no pain is overall buffed, even at 5+, and stupidly good on certain units like the Bike command squad I was trying to kill (Need strength 10!!! to remove FNP on those with toughness 5 being unmodified value for bikes). I think the decision to move power weapons to AP3 may have been not so good. In the game I was playing there was a captain vs captain challenge, both with AP3 weapons and 2+ saves. Lasted forever and wasn't much fun at all. Furious charge not providing initiative bonus is also severely handicapping for the armies that rely on it (like mine ), but whatever. From the few games I've played, Land Raiders are basically some of the only marine vehicles worth taking imo. Rhinos and Razorbacks are incredibly easy to knock out with the HP system, and Armor 13 is even vulnerable with just 3 HP and most vehicle cover saves (including smoke) being 5+.

That being said, I am going to be busting out my bitz box and adding in a lot more plasma guns to both of my marines armies where I can. My plasma-gun honor guard are celebrating for sure, albeit not in their razorback... I also plan on picking up another LR sometime in the near future to replace my Stormraven which is unfortunately going to be sitting for quite some time on the shelf.

[EmperorsWrath]

6th has fixed the Ork Nob/Nob Biker and GK Paladin "absorb a ton of wounds before a single model dies" problem by making the first model take wounds until he dies. Having said that though, the problem was limited to only a few multi-wound model units that could also be equipped with various weapons/wargear to allow the shenanigans to occur in the first place.

Unfortunately 6th has introduced a worse problem that will occur much more often: a "character" (which now includes any non IC squad leader as well as other traditional characters) who has a different armor value or save characteristic. The problem manifests itself in close combat, and can be illustrated by the following example that occurred last Sunday: Banshees vs. Scarabs. The Banshee Exarch has a 3+ save while the rest of her squad has a 4+ save. To quote the rulebook's bold text, "Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase." The rules go on to state that in hand to hand there are quite a few models who are "the closest", so the rules further state, "A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to." [nice dangling participle btw] So one by one, each wound gets allocated to the model with the better armor save, who proceeds to have a better chance of bouncing the wound. When she fails, a cry of "Look Out, Sir!" is heard and she doesn't die, rinse and repeat. This is NOT intuitive, nor is it "cinematic" or fun. An entire squads' attacks going on a single more well armored model over and over again is just feels wrong for close combat, I have no idea how this made it through playtesting. It seems to be the opposite design spirit compared to rules like True LOS, Focus Fire, and Precision Shots.

What 6th HAS fixed: Fearless, cover saves (for the most part), and the ability to kill models that could not be seen in the target unit.

As expected given what happened between 7th and 8th edition for Warhammer, 6th edition is more of a different ruleset rather than a tweak of 5th.

Yes, Necrons seem stupidly good with glancing.

[steveNspace]

Jeff, your example is incorrect.

The Look Out Sir special rule clearly states that the wound is allocated to another model before saves are made, therefore you cannot allocate unsaved wounds to another model. If the Banshee Exarch fails her save, the Exarch is dead. She cannot allocate a wound onto another model after her saving throw has been cast.

[EmperorsWrath]

Actually, you are incorrect.

Page 16 Look Out, Sir!, very first sentence:

"When a Wound (or unsaved Wound) is allocated to one of your characters..."

Unsaved Wound, not unresolved yet unrolled-for Wound.

Look Out, Sir! is not a new rule, it's been in Warhammer for many editions and is always after a character's save has been blown and another Joe Trooper eats the wound instead.

BoLS has reviewed, and dislikes, the same issue here, in the "The Bad" section:
BoLS 6th Edition - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

All that aside though, it seems to me that the only way that makes sense and keeps the game playable, and less ridiculous, is to play it as you've said. The Look Out, Sir! roll should be made prior to Armor/Invul/Cover Save so that it is a risk management decision and not just an extra save mechanic. It makes more sense for both the Shooting and the Assault phase allocations.

[steveNspace]

The wording of the rules is written poorly but due to how units with mixed saves have different wound allocation rules than units without mixed saves, this exploit is not possible even in RAW terms. Wounds are allocated before saves are taken in a unit with mixed saves, and Look Our Sir comes into play when wounds are allocated. Allocating unsaved wounds is IMPOSSIBLE in a unit with mixed saves, it's clear as day on page 15.

[the Goat]

The wording of the rules is written poorly but due to how units with mixed saves have different wound allocation rules than units without mixed saves, this exploit is not possible even in RAW terms. Wounds are allocated before saves are taken in a unit with mixed saves, and Look Our Sir comes into play when wounds are allocated. Allocating unsaved wounds is IMPOSSIBLE in a unit with mixed saves, it's clear as day on page 15.

I wouldn't say, "clear as day". But I think you are correct. Look out sir works when you allocate a wound (or unsaved wound). If everybody in the unit has the same armor save then you roll all the saves together and allocate unsaved wounds (use look out sir at this point). But if there are different saves in the unit, you allocate wounds (use look out sir now) then roll armor saves one by one. So Jeff's example is not a problem.

However they didn't completely solve the issue with wound allocation shenanigans on grey Knight Paladins and Ork Nobs (and biker Nobs). For those units every single model is a character. So no matter who is closest they get to roll for look out sir. The roll is successful, one guy gets a wound and doesn't die. Next wound do the same thing, but put the wound on an undamaged guy. If they get lucky (make almost all look out sir rolls) every guy in the unit could take a wound and none die. Even rolling average you will get several wounded (but not dead) guys. Wasn't this problem supposed to be solved? Only for Space Wolf Thunderwolves and Daemon Bloodcrushers I guess.

[steveNspace]

When I said it was clear as day, I did not mean the overall ruling but rather that unsaved wounds cannot be allocated to a unit with mixed saves.

Regarding multi-wound squads not being "fixed", well I guess if that's dependent on how you viewed them in the first place. At the very least the wound sharing has been nerfed by 50% (4+ LoS roll), so that is a pretty substantial hit to multi-wound units already. I was personally never of the opinion that multi-wound squads with different wargear was an exploit in 5th anyway.

[EmperorsWrath]

Look out sir works when you allocate a wound (or unsaved wound). If everybody in the unit has the same armor save then you roll all the saves together and allocate unsaved wounds (use look out sir at this point). But if there are different saves in the unit, you allocate wounds (use look out sir now) then roll armor saves one by one

I stand corrected, and happier, since now Look Out, Sir! makes much more sense and I don't have to Rage Quit [tm] 40K...

I was personally never of the opinion that multi-wound squads with different wargear was an exploit in 5th anyway.

Seriously? Do you actually think GW's intent was this: make a rule designed for almost all units in the game [single wound per model] that makes it possible, with enough wounds caused in a single shooting phase, to lose the special weapon / heavy weapon / SGT models so that they are not always the very last models standing. Then, have this same exact rule also make Ork players have to buy a bunch of different wargear load outs to make Nob units get the ability to spread wounds around and not have any of them die which is the exact opposite of what the rule achieves with single wound models? GW hardly thinks their rules through that far; these kinds of things only come out after the min/max'ers have found the holes that GW's lack of thorough playtesting lets get through. Then it's a "whoopsie!", GW never fixes it, and we are stuck with stupid rules loopholes: the stuff that WAAC players live for. You might not think that it breaks the game, but it most certainly is an exploit.

In my opinion Nob=Character only holds true for the Nob upgrade to a Boyz squad, not a Nobz squad where all of the models have the same stat line (unless you bought a Painboy for the Nobz squad in which case the Painboy, and only the Painboy [separate stat line in the codex], would be available for utilization of the Look Out, Sir! rule). As far as the back of the book descriptions are concerned, I never give them any credence since they are obsolete, and usually quite different, as soon as real codices come out. As a perfect example of "wrongness" just look at the Necron Command Barge in the back, it is NOT defined as a chariot. Really, GW? Ugh.

GW needs to explicitly define characters for every squad that has access to having them inherently or having the ability to add or upgrade a squad member to a character, we will see if they do when the first 6th ed codex comes out (CSM in August???).