Thursday, January 19, 2012

Big Jim’s take on the 6th ed 40k “Leak” part 1




Ok guys, I have been holding off on posting this until I got some practical experience with the “leaked rules.” I am of the opinion that they are an unpolished set of playtest rules for the actual 6th edition of 40k. They have obviously been playtested but are still lacking polish and clarification of many rules. With that said I do imagine a lot will have changed or been smoothed out by the time we actually see the release in July.

I will not be doing a breakdown of the rules here, since it has been done many places such as on the Frontline Gaming and Sons of Taurus blogs. I am going to share my experiences in the 5 games we have played; including the few weak places in the rules that I am sure will be fixed in the actual book.

The first thing I want to point out is that the game plays much faster we were easily shaving 45 minutes off of a 2000 point game. So far I have used Chaos marines and IG against Orks and IG. Of all the armies I think the Orks get hit the hardest with the changes especially now the close combat attacks are AP 6.

The new Assault before Shooting turn sequence is pretty ace too. It really makes you think about where you want your units to be ahead of time. Speaking of assault, it sure did get much more deadly to lose an assault even if you happen to escape your opponent, since just being broken within 12 inches of an enemy removes the unit from the table. Wowzers that really does speed things up!

The new Evasion chart and modifiers make shooting more effective, what a concept in a sci-fi wargame. Couple this with the new cover save, Rapid Fire and Multi-targeting rules, then bam shooting becomes more deadly.

We are elated with the fact that cover saves drop to a much more balanced 5+ for most things; even my buddy Kev who plays Orks agrees with the change.

The new missions rock with the multi-layered victory conditions. Loving the overhaul to Kill Points, with the point value of the unit issuing multiple KP’s is an excellent mechanic; plus it is something we have been doing for a while here already in my little group. Objectives now make sense and mirror closely to what we have been doing for two years. They are now scored every turn, and anything except vehicles can claim them, but scoring units gain more points for holding an objective.

Now here is the bad part about Objectives that we are sure is missing from the doc, but will be in the final version. According to the PDF there is no way to contest an objective and people are interpreting that you and your opponent can claim the same objective at the same time. Come on guys use your heads that is what they are for after all; that makes zero sense and why would GW do that.

My prediction will be that any unit including vehicles will be able to contest an objective when the final rules are released.

Stratagems are pretty kool too, but can be a bit powerful. I imagine that these will be much more refined in the final rules. That said the bidding mechanic is a weak point in the PDF, don’t get me wrong I love the concept, but something just does not feel right. First turn does not seem to be as important as it once was, so really it seems that bidding is more for stratagem denial more than anything else, so definitely feel like a weak point.

Overall these games have been fantastically fun, more fun than standard 5th has ever been in my eyes. They also feel much more Cinematic really leading to the game feeling like the 40k Lore that you read in the novels! The early rumors were that GW was going to make 6th ed much more narrative in their feel and these surely do just that.

Well that is it for part one, in part two I will explain why I think that Defensive Fire is a “Keystone” mechanic to these rules, which the vast majority of the internet does not seem to be able to wrap their minds around.


8 comments:

  1. In reverse order:

    Agree that Defensive Fire is important to the rules as a whole. Does need clarification though!

    Not so sure about contesting. I think that if both sides have units on an objective that matter, the points will tie which is the same effect as contesting. Gives more of a boost to troops and more of a kick to vehicle-dependent armies. I can see it as intentional.

    By my reading Surrounded isn't nearly that dangerous. You have to be within 12" at the end of your movement. Broken units can still Run, so unless they have to go through cover they should be able to move at least 12". They should have already done a Fall Back of Move+d6" already. Only unengaged units count, and you can charge with other units to open gaps in your movement phase. If after all that you're still within 12" of an unengaged enemy, you probably ARE pretty much surrounded and screwed!

    So, when's the 6th ed KZ update out? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Defensive Fires does need clarification!

      Your point about contesting is interesting! I can see that working I guess.

      "So, when's the 6th ed KZ update out? ;-)"
      That's an ancient Bohemian secret!

      Delete
  2. Hopefully the game does become more narrative and less tournament friendly ... if these rules end up being just another set to please the tournament crowd I'll take a pass. I'm staying cautiously optimistic though the concept of the stratagems seems really quite cool! I like that it is sounding like the rules are perhaps more complex that 5th but in a satisfying way. So instead of getting a more dumbed down ruleset ... perhaps these are a notch up. *crossing fingers* ... thanks for the post, very insightful!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously as one of the 'tournament crowd' I disagree, but I actually do so very strongly.

      The simple fact is, that if you want t o play a narrative game based on GW's system, you can create rules for it much better on your own than GW have ever shown the capacity to do, and so they simply waste their time and money attempting to write story-based missions everyone, or even a majority, will enjoy.

      Much more sensible to write missions PURELY for tournament play, with an appendix of extra 'fun' rules that they don't need to bother even playtesting, just making them suggestions to spur players' own imagination.

      This is especially true since the competitive scene for WFB has been largely killed by 8e, and the resulting hit to sales if so-called "competitive 40k players" simply quit would cause GW sever financial difficulty [particularly when their armies went up on ebay for a lot less than retail, and a number would be unpainted and thus more assuredly sell!]

      Delete
    2. I think that missions can be competitively balanced yet still give a narrative feel, just as rule sets can be. The two goals don't have to be mutually exclusive. Even "unbalanced" scenarios can be balanced if goals are similarly aligned to account for it.

      As for the competitive players selling their armies on ebay, don't they do that every few codices anyways? ;-)

      Delete
  3. I haven't tried the new rules yet, but when I do I'm planning to use secret bidding for the strategem points, rather than doing it openly. Both players write down what they are prepared to pay for first turn on a piece of paper, and then reveal, with no counter bidding allowed. I think that makes the process more interesting, and allows for more tactics trying to work out how much you think your opponent might bid. I also think for most games it will be sensible to include a strategem point cap.

    ReplyDelete
  4. can you fire heavy weapons when moving at a minus to BS?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm excited that a lot of the randomness that can give (or take away) big advantages may be going away and the game is becoming more tactical and less "luck".

    ReplyDelete