Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey I have been curious about how 7th is going. I mean, I was watching the rumors in hopes of seeing a new box set, and not being familiar with how unreliable the rumormill is, I was really disappointed. I didnt think a rulebook alone would garnish much interest.

So that being said, now that the new version has been out for awhile, has the majority of players on dakka recoiled or welcomed it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I played 2nd and 3rd. I personally thought 3rd was a big improvement due to streamlining. It still had some kinks but I found it worlds better than 2nd and much closer to an actual wargame.

Now of course we're at some weird mishmash between 2nd and 3rd that does neither well.

You know, I played 2nd too, and took a break. Then got back in after 3rd had been out for awhile. To be honest, as much slack as 3rd got, that version was around for a long time, and had the most expansion armies in all of the versions. I mean, Dark Eldar, proper Necrons, Tau, Witchhunters, Daemonhunters, etc. It get them all right, but, there had to be a lot of people buying it all. I dont know what happened between 4th and 6th, but I got DV, and it was a superb set. My only real complaint was the rolling for charge distance. I dont play these games to break them tho, nor play with guys I can't rationalize with. But I dont remember this much controversy with GW back then. And the interesting thing is, the newer models are superb. Just expensive.

 happygolucky wrote:


Personally I always take what I see with a pinch of salt, mainly because I like to make my own judgements with the physical rules in my hands and a few games with them under my belt, always preferring experience than "mathhammer armchair general", after all Some stuff I read may not make it in the rules so to me I don't see a point in complaining about fictions rules, always concentrating about the ones that do exist.

Agreed, I'll use a little mental math-hammer to figure out a units potential, of course, but if I like the look of the unit, I'll try it out in reality before condemning it or singing it's praises.

While the Internet can certainly tell me the percentages of a units performance against a given target, only I can assess whether it's something that fits my preferred playstyle, lists, covers possible weaknesses in my army or would particularly perform well in my meta (there are, for instance, very few MEQ armies in my local club, and that skews a unit's effectiveness hugely)

The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss things.

If you wasn't to see more positive discussion, the solution is to engage in more positive discussion.

Complaining about people complaining is not positive discussion.