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.

Greetings everyone.

Let me start this little article off by saying I am neither a GW fanboy, GW Apologist, nor GW hater. I simply enjoy the setting and the game, as well as the modeling and hobby aspect of the game.

I managed to get my second game of 7th edition 40k in yesterday, though sadly it was cut short at the end of the second turn due to my opponent having to bow out suddenly due to family reasons. (Everything wound up being fine, thankfully.)

The game was 1850 points, both forces were battleforged lists (me being primarily I.G. with a very small Space Marine ally force, versus a Slaneshi Chaos Space Marine force with no allies, though I think he has plans to add some Daemons in at some point. He's just starting this army out at present and was playing what he had.). We managed to roll up the Maelstrom of War mission, Contact Lost, and opted to roll randomly for the deployment zones as well instead of using the default deployment for the mission. We got the short board edge deployment, and proceeded to place objective markers around the center of the table, with one in each deployment zone. We then placed armies and rolled powers. Each of us had 3 Mastery Levels per side, with a good number of Psyker powers for each, but the Psychic phase wasn't crazy full of powers like I've heard of from other posters on here it can be. Neither of us are power gamers, preferring take-all-comers lists instead so that wasn't horrible.

My list in a thumbnail for those interested:

Company Comm. Squad w/ Astropath
Tank Commander Vanquisher + one extra Russ Exterminator w/ triple Heavy Bolters (hull + sponsons)
Primaris Psyker (Lvl 2) (HQ that doesn't use up an HQ slot)
4x Veteran Squads w/ Grenadiers (2 mounted in Chimeras)
Aegis Defense Line (plain-jane with no upgrades)
Two Basilisk tanks (independent units, not in a squadron)
One Vendetta gunship.
Allied Space Marine captain and a six man tactical squad

Up until he had to leave, it was very much back-and-forth each turn for objectives, I won the roll off to go first initially and deployed first. He then proceeded to seize the initiative and take out one of my forward deployed chimeras by hull-pointing it to death. By the end of turn one he had 3 victory points to my one (Two Objective Secured and First Blood for him, one Objective Secured for me). The next round he didn't get any objectives (poor luck on his part mostly getting no objective secured cards at all) and I managed to get three in return (amazing luck on my part, drawing two objective secured cards which I already controlled and also having three units within 12" of my table edge and him not having any units in the same area, allowing me to get the rear-guard objective card completed as well). It was at this point he got a phone call and had to pack up quickly and head out before we could continue, but we were able to play enough to really feel out the system and were taking our time with each turn to suss out the rules differences/changes between 6th edition and 7th edition.

Overall, I have to say I really enjoy the game much more with the addition of the Maelstrom of War missions and Tactical Objectives introduced to the game. It throws an entirely new spin on how you play the game, and what decisions you make as the turns progress. It means you need to be a little more aggressive more often than not in order to be prepared for the next objective you may roll up/draw from the deck.

I still enjoy the standard missions that were carried over from 6th edition, to be sure, but the Maelstrom of war missions are very fun and if given my choice, I'll opt for them if I can from now on. Good on you GW, while I may not agree with everything you have done/will do, this was a fun addition to the game and I, for one, am enjoying it greatly.

That's all I've got to add for now. Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

With 7th GW did something I thought impossible. They made the game worse than 6th edition.

I see some people giving gw and 7th a pass because of the concept of the maelstorm missions.

My opinion is that one good idea that should have been implemented in 4th ed does not make up for all of the horribad that is 7th.

Note, I said good idea. That is because it could have been executed in a much better and "balanced" manner.

My friends and I have been playing a modified 5th ed with the pancake style variable objectives spliced in. Fixes some of the bigger problems of 5th. We also house ruled 4th ed would allocation back into the game and old scholl victory points in place of the crappy kill point system.

Am glad you've found a way to enjoy 7th, just not my nor most players in my area's cup of tea.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
The next round he didn't get any objectives (poor luck on his part mostly getting no objective secured cards at all) and I managed to get three in return (amazing luck on my part, drawing two objective secured cards which I already controlled and also having three units within 12" of my table edge and him not having any units in the same area, allowing me to get the rear-guard objective card completed as well).

So let me get this straight: the outcome of the game was decided by you drawing better cards than your opponent, and you think this is a good thing?

I'm glad you enjoy it OP, but as with Peregrine the cards implementation... doesn't do it for me. I like (in theory) how the cards make players more active, I just don't think this system is a good way to go about doing that.

 Peregrine wrote:

So let me get this straight: the outcome of the game was decided by you drawing better cards than your opponent, and you think this is a good thing?

The outcome of the game at the second turn when we had to call the game due to him having to leave suddenly was determined by, surprise surprise, random chance, in a game where everything is determined by dice rolls. You know, random chance. Had we played it out, who knows who would have won, or lost? A standard game is supposed to go on for five turns minimum, after all.
That said, It's a game, it uses random elements like many other games do (objectives in this case) which can be generated by dice rolls (how I prefer it) or by drawing cards for them.

As to your statement: Yes I think it is a good thing. That's my opinion. Do I like every nuance of 40k? No. Is it a perfect system? No. Do I still enjoy the game? Hell yes, I do.

I'm not coming on here defending Games Workshop, their principles, their decisions, or their design choices. I came on here, and please note the title of my thread, to offer my opinion on how 7th edition 40k plays. You won't change that opinion, and you're free to disagree with the opinion I expressed as you so vocally have in this, and other forums and threads in the past. It doesn't make your opinion more or less valid than mine, it just makes it different.

At the end of the day, I enjoy the changes that have been made, and the people I play with on the whole do as well. Que-sera-sera and all that jazz.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of the reason behind my opening post, and the opinion expressed there-in.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
I'm glad you enjoy it OP, but as with Peregrine the cards implementation... doesn't do it for me. I like (in theory) how the cards make players more active, I just don't think this system is a good way to go about doing that.

Personally, I agree with you, Yonan. I do like the cards as a means to keep up with the objectives you have to complete, and also have completed (Same for your psychic powers on cards as well, honestly). However, rather than draw the objective cards from the deck, I prefer to actually roll for them with dice and then take the specific objective card I rolled up out of the deck as I roll each one on the chart. Takes slightly longer to do it this way, but I prefer this method as it seems 'more like 40k' to me.

Keeps the feeling, and randomness of the dice roll, while allowing you to still use the cards for their intended purpose: Keeping track of your objectives for the mission.

Just my thoughts on that.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Why are you using Basilisks? They were not very good in 6th and got worse in 7th.

Was trying them out, honestly. I was using a pair of Griffons for a long, long time as my artillery support. Now that Griffons aren't in the codex, I opted to try them out as Basilisks since I had the models painted and adding a plasticard tube barrel extension to the Griffon mortar and making them basilisks wasn't difficult (and the plasticard tubing is removable of course). I can always use Imperial Armor rules to keep fielding them as Griffons if I choose to and my opponent doesn't mind, and now I can also opt to run a Basilisk or two as well should I want the long guns in a list.

I'm seriously hoping GW will put out an Astra Militarum dataslate or something that adds the Griffon, Medusa, and Colossus back into the mix. I love my Griffon mortars to death here and want to be able to field them without having to use the Imperial Armor rules or play the mother may I game with my opponent (a non-issue with my regular gaming group, thank goodness). Also, should I want to go to a tournament, if Forge World rules aren't allowed, I'd like to be able to use the painted models I have in some form or fashion as well. The other option is to field them as Wyverns and instead of 4 barrels just say they're a Vostroyan pattern Wyvern that uses one big fragmenting cluster sub-munition round. Next game I play, I'll try them as Wyverns and see how they work.

Hooray options.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

i do like 7th more than 6th. even though i got a fright playing grey knights when my opponent put about 30 dice on the table for the psychic phase.

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

So let me get this straight: the outcome of the game was decided by you drawing better cards than your opponent, and you think this is a good thing?

The outcome of the game at the second turn when we had to call the game due to him having to leave suddenly was determined by, surprise surprise, random chance, in a game where everything is determined by dice rolls. You know, random chance. Had we played it out, who knows who would have won, or lost? A standard game is supposed to go on for five turns minimum, after all.
That said, It's a game, it uses random elements like many other games do (objectives in this case) which can be generated by dice rolls (how I prefer it) or by drawing cards for them.

As to your statement: Yes I think it is a good thing. That's my opinion. Do I like every nuance of 40k? No. Is it a perfect system? No. Do I still enjoy the game? Hell yes, I do.

I'm not coming on here defending Games Workshop, their principles, their decisions, or their design choices. I came on here, and please note the title of my thread, to offer my opinion on how 7th edition 40k plays. You won't change that opinion, and you're free to disagree with the opinion I expressed as you so vocally have in this, and other forums and threads in the past. It doesn't make your opinion more or less valid than mine, it just makes it different.

At the end of the day, I enjoy the changes that have been made, and the people I play with on the whole do as well. Que-sera-sera and all that jazz.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of the reason behind my opening post, and the opinion expressed there-in.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Just ignore Peregrine. He has a strong opinion and won't admit he's wrong. EVER.

Glad you're in enjoying 7th! I have yet to play a game of 7th myself so I can't say weather I like it or not, but glad SOMEONE isn't moaning about everything.


HOWEVER. Mark this day in your calendars everybody! I agree with Peregrine on something! 40k is a Dice game not a card game!

Ive been playing a few 7e games over the past few weeks. I have to say i do enjoy it. For a bit of perspective, I play at home with my friends, not in a club and definatly not in a tournament. However I am interested in playing at a club there just isnt really any around me.

Anyway back to my point, The comments above about drawing those objective secured cards to basically "win" the game. While I do see where the anger can come from when these are the way you win or lose a game at the core of it I see it as a good addition. These cards are rewarding you for your battlefield superiority, and in turn removing the 5th turn objective grab from the game. Its giving more points to the player who holds more of the field or is in a better position to control the feild.

This is just one of those things you need to keep in mind when building a list now I feel. But anyway thats my view on it and I do like the idea. That being said I have yet to play with the cards and I will be doing so next game.

The problem is that often you get nonsensical or non-achievable objectives. There are so many instances where either the objectives you're assigned simply are not applicable to battles, or aren't realistically achievable by the army.

Assassinate- welp, my opponent's army has no characters or ive already killed them

Witch hunter - welp, my opponent has no psykers

Harness the warp - welp, I have no psykers

Hungry for Glory - yeah, my Shas'Ui/IG Sergeant is totes gonna be able to win that...

Demolitions - welp there's no Buildings or Emplacements on the board...

Scour the Skies - welp...there's no flyers or FMC's...

Psychological Warfare - oh, everything is Ld10 or is Fearless, great..



Alternatively, some are hilariously easy to snag (some fit into both categories)

Behind Enemy Lines - oh I'm playing Eldar and have Jetbikes, looks like I auto-achieve that one.

Harness the Warp - oh sweet I've got 12 power dice and my opponent has no psykers, that wasn't hard.

etc...

These can result in just as ridiculous, if not more ridiculous, game outcomes than previous editions.

Glad you are enjoying 7th, I am as well. Don't let those who are heavily biased and negative towards the game currently get to you.

It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

I prefer drawing cards to rolling, just because it reduces the time spent perusing the rulebook. It's also pretty difficult to do the secret objectives mission without cards. Also, if you know beforehand that neither player has psykers, or fliers, or whatever other things that specific cards call for, just remove them from the deck.

I have to agree that the new maelstrom missions are a shot of fresh lemony life into the arm of 40k. It gives it a much more dynamic feel.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:
The next round he didn't get any objectives (poor luck on his part mostly getting no objective secured cards at all) and I managed to get three in return (amazing luck on my part, drawing two objective secured cards which I already controlled and also having three units within 12" of my table edge and him not having any units in the same area, allowing me to get the rear-guard objective card completed as well).

So let me get this straight: the outcome of the game was decided by you drawing better cards than your opponent, and you think this is a good thing?

This. However if you don't mind that, then more power to you and glad you enjoyed it despite the flaws.

My opponents and I always try and re-roll or re-draw (depending) the objective if it's one that's impossible to achieve. Did you get the objective card that is kill an enemy flyer when the opposing side has no flyers? Kill an enemy psyker when playing against a force with zero psykers on the board? Re-roll/re-draw an objective.

It's only if there's no way to achieve the objective at all in the game, even if the game goes a full 7 turns. Otherwise it's keep what you draw and try to accomplish the objective if you're able.

The example I gave in the opening post about my opponent not getting any objective cards he could complete in the second turn was that he drew destroy a vehicle objective, and win a challenge objective, and was unable to accomplish either of his objectives that turn (though he did try, and immobilized one of my Basilisks with a penetrating hit, however it didn't wreck/destroy the vehicle.)

Overall, it's fun, and entertaining from turn to turn, and I'm enjoying the game more as a result of the ebb and flow of the objectives as the game progresses.

It's also cool to be able to fight your way out from under and 'catch up' if you're behind. At the end of turn one, I was 2 victory points down already (3 to 1), and managed to pull back ahead in turn 2 (3 to 4) by the time we closed turn 2. That kind of thing rarely happened in the old 6th edition games I played. If you were 2 or 3 victory points down that early, it was typically difficult to mount a real comeback in most missions. Not impossible, mind you, but certainly difficult. I also love that doing a late game turbo-boost objective grab/contest is no longer a thing when playing Maelstrom of war missions.

Just my thoughts on that. Take it easy for now, and I'm glad to see more people are enjoying 7th edition.

-Red__Thirst-






Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

So let me get this straight: the outcome of the game was decided by you drawing better cards than your opponent, and you think this is a good thing?

This. However if you don't mind that, then more power to you and glad you enjoyed it despite the flaws.

Allow me to re-state my reply to Peregrine:

The outcome of the game at the second turn when we had to call the game due to him having to leave suddenly was determined by, surprise surprise, random chance, in a game where everything is determined by dice rolls. You know, random chance. Had we played it out, who knows who would have won, or lost? A standard game is supposed to go on for five turns minimum, after all.
That said, It's a game, it uses random elements like many other games do (objectives in this case) which can be generated by dice rolls (how I prefer it) or by drawing cards for them.

As to your statement: Yes I think it is a good thing. That's my opinion. Do I like every nuance of 40k? No. Is it a perfect system? No. Do I still enjoy the game? Hell yes, I do.

I'm not coming on here defending Games Workshop, their principles, their decisions, or their design choices. I came on here, and please note the title of my thread, to offer my opinion on how 7th edition 40k plays. You won't change that opinion, and you're free to disagree with the opinion I expressed as you so vocally have in this, and other forums and threads in the past. It doesn't make your opinion more or less valid than mine, it just makes it different.

At the end of the day, I enjoy the changes that have been made, and the people I play with on the whole do as well. Que-sera-sera and all that jazz.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of the reason behind my opening post, and the opinion expressed there-in.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

It's fine that you don't like it, and more power to you as well if you don't like another random element added to a game that is built on random elements (dice rolls) to resolve what happens while playing the game. C'est-la-vie.

Thanks for the thoughts, they are appreciated.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion of 7th, or telling you that you're wrong to have it, but I also think that you (and maybe your opponent) also had the kind of list that 7th is made for. The list is varied, with no real 'spamming' of units, and doesn't seem to pick and choose the best elements of several armies. You also don't have any of the 'hijinks' that are possible (baneblades on skyshields, etc).

Your list isn't bad, but it is clearly not optimized to be abusive, cheesy, or beardy. If people choose to play with lists like that, I think they will have fun (for the most part) with 7th. If you (or worse, your opponent) takes a list that is totally legal, but designed to exploit or even just maximize any particular advantage, then I think you will see why some people are down on 7th.

It isn't a terrible rule set in that every game is bad, but it's a poorly designed rule set in that it doesn't do anything to prevent terrible games. A fantastic game and a terrible, one-sided massacre are both handled pretty evenly by 7th. A good set of rules for a competitive, rather than cooperative, game, shouldn't depend on player goodwill and understanding to enable fun games.

You are also the ideal target in that you play with regular opponents who are your friends. People who can only game at tournaments or pickup games can't depend on the 'friendly' nature of matches in 7th. Even if people aren't being TFG, 7th doesn't do enough to teach you, or restrict you, to playing 'fun' armies. Oddly enough, 7th seems to be written for the veteran gamer, who has already played a lot of 40K and read a lot of 40K fluff, and 'knows' how the game 'should' be played. The new guy who picks up 7th and buys an Unbound army of [Insert Annoying Unit] because he thinks they look cool won't know he is going to be considered a douche.

Da Butcha, may I say that I agree with your sentiment whole-heartedly. Very well said, sir.

I think 40k, unlike many other gaming type hobbies out there such as Computer games, board games, MMO's, etc. hearken back to a previous generation of gaming (and gamers) where there was more opportunity to be social and learn the 'norms' of 40k, fantasy tabletop wargames from veteran gamers in active clubs and places that could teach and educate the new players to the game on how to not buy nothing but [insert annoying unit here] because they will be seen as TFG, or worse.

The internet, for all it's convenience and ways it helps people every day, can also hinder as much as it helps in regard to people learning about the game and how to play it.

I also agree with what you're saying about tournaments and competitive play, as I have organized and run several tournaments in the Jackson, MS metro area in the past a few years ago (haven't lately, as I don't have a good venue that will accommodate the tournament size I need for a reasonable price and still allow for some kind of limited prize support for the tournament). 7th Edition is great for gaming groups/friends to use to set up campaigns, narrative or otherwise, and encourages people to be fair minded in their list building, to have a reasonable theme and go with it, etc. etc.
For tournament play, it is certainly a sticky situation, as doing a Maelstrom of war mission in a tournament would be untenable with time constraints/restrictions in place. I hope to start to organize another tournament for the players in the area here, but it is going to be a tall order to get things put together and come up with some missions that are fun and different without being overly complicated. I'm thinking about coming up with some variation missions for my tournament that are different for each round and dependent on the table, will have different Malestrom of War objectives to complete for each side already generated. One-off hybrid missions, essentially. Mixtures of the old 6th Edition missions with some tactical objectives thrown on top. This is still just a tentative idea I'm working on for future use perhaps, we'll see.

If anyone here has ever participated in the Kalm Before the Waaagh! tournament in Alabama at Knuckleheads Bar, you'll have an idea of the mission concept I'm using as a basis (Still the funnest and most enjoyable tournament I've ever participated in, to date, by the way). Hopefully more people will continue to start enjoying 40k 7th edition, and/or give it more of a fair shake if they haven't already done so. If you can get some like minded people to play with, it's a great way to enjoy the game.

Anyhoo, thank you once again for your thoughts, Da Butcha, kudos to you for the input, sir.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Ugh. I don't play with people I'm not friends with. I could just LoL if I wanted to do that.

Some people don't have that option, sadly. Some only get to play when they play in a tournament format that requires they drive several hours from where they live to find a game. Otherwise they don't have any option or opponents to play, sadly.

That kind of situation may be somewhat rarefied, but it does exist.

Just throwing that out there. My preference is to play people I know and enjoy gaming with/playing against, but my preference and what I wind up having to settle for aren't always the same, sadly. Still, I'm luckier than most in that I have several good, like minded opponents to choose from in the area here where I live and believe me when I say I don't overlook how fortunate I am to have that kind of thing, to be sure.

Just my thoughts on that, take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

tiger g wrote:
It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

Do you need to touch the fire to know you won't like the outcome?

I have played three games so far and I don't like 7th. Do I need to play a hundred more to satisfy you? Spend another $1000 to validate my opinion? What requirement do you need to take my opinion seriously?

tiger g wrote:It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

I fully admit that I've never played a game of 7th. I also think 7th is objectively bad from a game design point of view because of the reasons Vaktathi stated above and more (daemon factory comes to mind).

Crimson Devil wrote:

tiger g wrote:
It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

Do you need to touch the fire to know you won't like the outcome?

I have played three games so far and I don't like 7th. Do I need to play a hundred more to satisfy you? Spend another $1000 to validate my opinion? What requirement do you need to take my opinion seriously?

Three games is a small sample size. I have to ask, did you bias yourself against 7th before playing your first game? If you went in thinking you'd hate 7th, you'll be right. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

jonolikespie wrote:

tiger g wrote:It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

I fully admit that I've never played a game of 7th. I also think 7th is objectively bad from a game design point of view because of the reasons Vaktathi stated above and more (daemon factory comes to mind).

The non achievable objectives is an easy fix, just discard anyone you cannot achieve and draw another. Most people are already playing with that house rule already.


Maybe you should give it a try, and go in with an open mind.

The fact you've stated Daemon Factory as a major problem makes me think you don't fully grasp 7th edition and the changes,mparticularily in the Psychic Phase. If you look through tactics, you'll see a thread I wrote in the limitations of Daemon Factories ie Summoning. If people are playing by the rules, Daemon Factory isn't terribly strong, and it certainly won't be winning GTs. Now, Summoning can be useful in some lists and scenarios, but as a list it doesn't work very well.

Maybe you should give it a try. There are certainly things I don't like, but many of those things I can easily avoid SHs, GCs, and Unbound. Keep an open mind, many of the knee jerk reactions about 7th have proven to be less problematic than originally thought.

Personally I think overall the perceived issue with 7th isn't any one thing, it's a combination of things. Maelstrom Missions/Objective Cards, yet more random, Unbound, summoning, all of it kind of combines since it didn't fix any of the major issues of 6th and actually exacerbate them.

 Zagman wrote:

Three games is a small sample size. I have to ask, did you bias yourself against 7th before playing your first game? If you went in thinking you'd hate 7th, you'll be right. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I've played 4 games and the things I thought were a problem were actually problems in all 4 cases. I wouldn't chock my experience up with bias because the games were a test with a good friend of mine. I didn't want to hate the missions, I just wanted to see how it would play out. Without the cards the games are almost impossible. Having to jot down numbers so you can compare to a table to make sure you're able to go after Objective #X but not to get the mission to go after X more than once. Well you can, but it's a different name so it's entirely different because.... Yeah. Objectives on the board. Why do I need a table to tell me to go after an objective. I thought objective meant by definition I was going after it.

One game ended half way through turn 3 because my opponent got so many point ahead while I had drawn objectives that would require me to push back or destroy several of his most defended units. We did a second game and the results were entirely different from the previous game just based around the cards being drawn even though the strategy was the exact same as before, same deployment, and same lists. The game is not decided on strategy, but on card draws. Seriously, the same effect could be made by getting a deck of playing cards and flipping one over every time you capture an objective and the number on the card is how many points you get. The problem with that, is that it's actually more balanced than the maelstrom cards but most people would laugh the idea off as being silly.

The missions remind me of the Scouring in the Eternal War missions. We all hated having to randomly handle the different point values for the objectives especially since you wouldn't know what each was worth until you were into the game. Going in blind is not really that fun in a strategy game to me. How can you plan for anything when you don't even know what you're fighting over?

There are a lot of good things in the game though. The warlord trait change and re-roll is better. Still would be better purchased, but for some reason tables are in. Some of the rule fixes are good, though the multi-level rules need to come back. The problem is without Maelstrom missions it's just a 6th ed FAQ and the Maelstrom missions just seem annoying with extra book keeping and figuring out different card mechanics in each game. Yeah there are easy fixes to remove the useless/impossible cards but the fact that it's so easy to fix makes it more aggravating that GW didn't bother to fix it themselves. Replacing a screw yourself to stop a car from falling apart does not mean the company assembled a good car.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
One game ended half way through turn 3 because my opponent got so many point ahead while I had drawn objectives that would require me to push back or destroy several of his most defended units. We did a second game and the results were entirely different from the previous game just based around the cards being drawn even though the strategy was the exact same as before, same deployment, and same lists. The game is not decided on strategy, but on card draws. Seriously, the same effect could be made by getting a deck of playing cards and flipping one over every time you capture an objective and the number on the card is how many points you get. The problem with that, is that it's actually more balanced than the maelstrom cards but most people would laugh the idea off as being silly.

This is an interesting point, and IMO one of the big things that make me want to ignore 7th edition. Where is the strategy involved in picking cards? What tactics are involved in dealing a hand and getting VPs immediately for doing basically nothing? The cards seem to add to the random nature of the game, as far a cry from "forge the narrative" as possible because what's narrative about objectives changing mid-game at random? If the cards were pick at the start and that's your "objectives" for the game, that'd be great but to pick cards every turn and have it be left to chance if you get something useful or useless?

I'm intelligent enough to look at the changes, based upon ones that I didn't enjoy in 6E, to say 7E is worse. Or do I need to spend $85 and 24+ hrs of gaming time to draw said conclusion?

Actually, no. I don't. The onus of merit is on the company to sell me their item. Not for me to buy it and see if I like it. As it stands, the game has increased in random elements that have no weighted probability or effected upon by the player. Warlords continue to specialized in something just before battle, master psykers are one brain fart away from forgetting their forte, and now we have schizophrenic commanders issues orders all over the field. The latter, asymmetrical mission design, has already been done better in 6E and other games without the attempt to sell you yet another low margin, high profit add-on.

If the company wasn't an awful entity, then I might be more willing to give it a whirl. However, since it's an awful company who in turn spawned another ruleset requiring house rules to function, I'm better to spend my hard earned money on games that consider me a part of their community and as a customer.

It's a culture shock to me tbh after not having played since the start of 5th.. When my templars actually worked. So far I've been tabled twice, which is embarrassing.. It's taking some major adjustments.

craddock92 wrote:
It's a culture shock to me tbh after not having played since the start of 5th.. When my templars actually worked. So far I've been tabled twice, which is embarrassing.. It's taking some major adjustments.

The two Templars players I knew switched to either Imperial Fists or "Counts-As" Iron Hands for his Templar models because the chapter tactics are superior.

I enjoy 7th edition more than 6th. The psychic phase is interesting, and has definitely changed the way I play my army. I have only played a few Maelstrom missions, house-ruling that you discard objectives that are impossible to obtain (which is, IMO, just common sense), but I've enjoyed them. Most of my games have been with the regular missions as that is what tournaments here seem to stick with (at least for a while into the future).

For those who dislike the Maelstrom missions: you are aware that the regular missions from 6th edition are still in existence, right?

Just some random examples of things that have changed the game up for me as a CSM-player:
-Be'Lakor is not near guaranteed to get invisibility off every time (which is fair enough, as the power has gotten a lot better), unless I throw a lot of dice at it. With a lot of dice comes a higher chance of periling. And I need somewhere to get those dice from, so I find myself bringing other psykers just as WC-producers. This makes a lot of stars a lot more unreliable, which is good, and fewer units are "auto-include" in armies.
-Since vehicles are a lot less likely to explode, I find myself using Rhinos more often. In 6th they spent most of their time on my shelf.
-I can now ally any combinations, allowing me to try out small support-detachments from certain armies to get a feel of how they play before investing in a larger force (there is a lack of people willing to play smaller point games where I am)
etc.

All in all, I'm positive about it

On another note, I really don't understand why people who don't play the game any longer bother spending their time on a forum dedicated to 40k.