40k 6th edition "leaked" thoughts?

[MagickalMemories]

It's not just about the die roll. It's about taking into account all the various "synergies" on your side and your opponents that may or may not affect you. Too much for my tastes.

Eric

[eman1_2]

It's not just about the die roll. It's about taking into account all the various "synergies" on your side and your opponents that may or may not affect you. Too much for my tastes.

Eric

Agreed. Not that I won't do it, it is just that I would rather not. The last few editions have not had anything like that, and I would rather they keep it that way. already enough trouble to remember how much that skimmer moved last turn, now we have to do ti for every vehicle? No thanks. (but I will if I have to - GW sucks, but they still are the gorilla).

[kturock]

Yeah the last 2 editions required almost no thinking other than how to roll more dice.

You could make almost the same build using each army.
No creativity required.

GW even admitted that they wanted to level the playing field, so that players & dice rolls won games, not models in armies.

If you recall, It was the thing I complained most about when it released.

Dumbing down the rules and making them more vanilla. I do believe I had several supporters.

Now that they're reversing it abit, and making the armies a bit different, everyone's complaining.

BTW vanilla is the biggest selling flavor of ice cream. Go figure.

[spiralingcadaver]

Personally, I left 40k because I felt it was too simple: after about the 15th game with my army, I had it completely optimized and basically on autopilot.

In that case, I could just do what amounts to emperical optimization, rather than playing a strategy game.

[Norseman]

BTW vanilla is the biggest selling flavor of ice cream. Go figure.

That's because it goes well with PIE!!!!!!

[HarlequinZero]

It's not just about the die roll. It's about taking into account all the various "synergies" on your side and your opponents that may or may not affect you. Too much for my tastes.

Eric

Agreed. Not that I won't do it, it is just that I would rather not. The last few editions have not had anything like that, and I would rather they keep it that way. already enough trouble to remember how much that skimmer moved last turn, now we have to do ti for every vehicle? No thanks. (but I will if I have to - GW sucks, but they still are the gorilla).

Personally, I never had a problem with this back in the day. I just made counters out of little plastic chits to represent overwatch and other things. However, back in 2nd edition you didn't have anywhere NEAR the number of models in an army that you do now. The size of armies could cause the old special rules to bog the game down. Heck, just moving swarm armies in the current game requires a fair grasp of logistics.

[kturock]

2nd ed came with counters. Most other game companies give counters or markers; some even as free downloads from their website.

[HarlequinZero]

2nd ed came with counters. Most other game companies give counters or markers; some even as free downloads from their website.

I never owned the box. Hence, I made my own counters. This was when I was a poor high school student so the lower model count made it possible for me to play. I always had to count on someone else to have the psyker cards on hand, though.

[kturock]

I heard last nite that GW said on warseer the entire thing is a fake.

So, thoughts?

True? Seems like alot of work to be a fraud. Especailly since it's gone through layout for pics and has annotations for what artwork is needed. Yes it's needs atleast 1 more proofread.

False?
Covering their arses because it's not going over well?

Some ex-GW emplouees pet project that got shelved?

[MagickalMemories]

I don't know if they've come out officially to decry it as fake, but rumor mongers have been saying that for a little while, now.
Well, not that it's fake, but what I've said before about it not being accurate.

Myself, I wouldn't believe anything GW said until I saw the 6e rules and compared them to this pdf. GW have been known to lie in the past in a feeble attempt to get us off the scent of what they're doing (Space Hulk release, anyone?). I know it's a bit cynical sounding but, with their history, I think of it more as a realistic point of view.

Eric

[Norseman]

False?
Covering their arses because it's not going over well?

I thought it was generally well received?

[MagickalMemories]

I think, in reality, it's been liked and disliked as much as the last incarnation.
(I wasn't really into gaming much -or online forums to discuss it- when 4th ed came out.)

The thing is that a lot of the people loving it are the ones who bitched about 5e (and previous editions). That's getting some attention.
For the majority of people, though, it's been like every other edition. There are things we like and things we don't. I, for one, was glad to hear that some of the things I disliked were reportedly removed (Evasion and changed turn sequence, anyone?).

Eric

[Adunaphel]

From everything that I have read the rules are going over VERY well. I have taken a look at them (not comprehensively) and I think that IF those are the rules, it MIGHT actually get me to want to play. In my opinion, if they are going to do new rules, then do NEW RULES. I got into 40K when 3rd edition started. It was fun but as "new" editions were released that were actually the same exact rules, it really started to drag for me. Really, they were just resets where they could "lose" some models and add new one's to keep the money rolling in. I think about all of the innovative games that they could have made instead of the constant drivel of new/same old editions and it makes me kind of sick. Necromunda and Mordheim are still the best games that GW offers (in my opinion) and just think of all the other ideas that were laid to rest because they were busy crashing and burning the cash cow...

IF these are not going to be the new rules and GW has another set of the "same" rules, then I will probably just end up using these rules instead the few times that I would play. I am to the point where I wouldn't even dream of paying the prices that they want for their books if the rules are just the same old crap rehashed. Waste of my money.

Karl

[mardaddy601]

My take - I don't care. And truth be told - be honest - neither should anyone else, really.

I play to have fun, to socialize with those across the table and pitch the battle. Sure a win once is a while is good, but so long as the battle is interesting with some moments of pure, mindboggling bad luck and maybe some good that we can laugh about, I'm happy.

And this is exactly the reason I could give a rat's behind about "leaked" and "proposed" rules changes.

Until it becomes, "canon," I don't care.

Since I am not vested in winning, but play to have fun, I am not going to waste time tooling my army or play-testing, "maybe- proposed," changes to maximize ultimate pwnage on the table. I really don't care.

It has been enlightening to see how many have already run out (at the LGS and discussed in various forums) and been diligently testing and retesting lists under the, "new," rules with their forces, vying for an, "early edge," as if their very self-worth depended on it...

[spiralingcadaver]

It has been enlightening to see how many have already run out (at the LGS and discussed in various forums) and been diligently testing and retesting lists under the, "new," rules with their forces, vying for an, "early edge," as if their very self-worth depended on it...

Yeah... it's a bit much. If it were an open beta, then sure, but this is just setting yourself up for trouble, in my opinion