I've been reading up, and I'd like to get back into 40k. I did not like 6th at all (I have the 4th ed rulebook on my shelf still though). I can see a bit of streamlining, and the DE codex is nicely laid out. I'm jusr trying to figure out if it's worth it.
My LGS still has a pretty good core of players, and I could borrow just about any army i want to. I just don't know if I'm sold on the game yet.
7th really isn't much different than 6th. Lords of War are now standard. Flyers still fly. Haters still hate. Wave Serpent is still relatively OP (despite claims otherwise). You can run a multitude of different FOCs, and fluff be damned, Eldar can summon daemons. Dark Angels can summon daemons. In fact every army with a psyker (except Nids and GK) can summon daemons. 7th edition is all about FORGING THE NARRATIVE!!! If you are not having fun you need to FORGE THE NARRATIVE harder!
I liked 6th, it had its teething problems - mostly psyhic power and codex based, but now 7e has just mangled everything. I've quit 40k because it was the final straw
Taking out the Skyfire/Interceptor interaction and thus nerfing a bunch of units that were clearly balanced around said interaction into complete uselessness whilst increasing the already drastic warping effect flyers have on list building is annoying, but otherwise I'm pretty much fine.
7th is mostly 6th with some streamlining plus Daemon summoning. Basically everything that was silly in 6th is still silly, though slightly less so because the silliness has been broadened across all armies better.
I like the fact that flyers, skimmers, and bikes need to declare jink before dice are rolled. Other than that, it seems pretty much the same as sixth to me.
It's a bloated pile of cynical crap. There's like 17 steps before even playing a game. GW is so afraid saying no to crazy stupid crap because it might cost them a sale. I'll keep playing a far more toned down version of 7th and hope someday we can return to 40k not being apoc. When that happens I'll consider paying for rules again, at this point we';re just paying for suggestions.... incredibly expensive suggestions.
I wasn't fond of the changes from 5th to 6th, and 7th really just doubled down on those changes without helping out too much in the core rules. Still lots of bloat, ambiguity, and balance issues.
That said, the codices that have been written in 7th have shown some steps to alleviate the most glaring external balance issues, but internal balance within each codex is still wanting, and a lot of flavour is being cut and re-sold as dataslates and supplements.
I think it's fun and when codices catch up with 7th, I think it'll be a blast. If you didn't like 6th, I doubt you'll like 7th. 7th is pretty much 6.5.
Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
To answer the question; I have fun playing. The rules can be weird sometimes, and I really don't like the fact all the rules are spread out amongst multiple rule books, codexes, data slates, etc... I have been playing for a couple years now and really don't have a grasp of all the different rules for all the different factions. Haeckel I am not even sure of everything I can use as Orks. I rather like the variety 7th Ed allows with formations, unbound lists and maelstrom missions. Feels like my play on the table can affect the outcome. In the past it felt like 80% of the game happened writing a list. It is a bit better in 7th.
Edit: I forgot to add I play because it is BY FAR the easiest game to find other players. Just this weekend I played at a store and there were 24 people there participating in a tournament. I was off the week between Christmas and New Year and found 4 games to play, there is also a store that has pickup games every Tuesday night. So access to opponents is a big plus to the game for me.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
To answer the question; I have fun playing. The rules can be weird sometimes, and I really don't like the fact all the rules are spread out amongst multiple rule books, codexes, data slates, etc... I have been playing for a couple years now and really don't have a grasp of all the different rules for all the different factions. Haeckel I am not even sure of everything I can use as Orks. I rather like the variety 7th Ed allows with formations, unbound lists and maelstrom missions. Feels like my play on the table can affect the outcome. In the past it felt like 80% of the game happened writing a list. It is a bit better in 7th.
Metacritic principle. People get more pissed off by something they don't like than are happy about something they do like. If ten people play a game and there's an even split between folks who like it and folks who don't you're going to get two positive and four negative forum posts about it.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
This has to be said every time this topic comes up, but disliking one aspect of what is a pretty varied game/hobby does not mean you have to quit entirely and never read or post about it.
The fact that I dislike the rules has no bearing on my enjoyment of the fluff, aesthetics, painting, and modelling 40k has to offer, not to mention that the game can still be enjoyed with friends. I may not like the rules, but I love a table with cool scenery and painted armies fighting each other.
Further, I'm sure some people are holding and keeping up with the game on forums in some hope that GW fix the game to be worth the price tag and time investment.
When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
Loborocket wrote: When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
As I mentioned, 40k is a lot more than just a table top game, or rather has other aspects that don't directly relate to the table top crunch.
While I'm sure there are some people who all up quit and sold everything, I'm equally sure other people who quit still have an army or two or twelve for if GW ever sorts themselves out. These people might still collect, paint, model, and play unsupported GW games or other rulesets using their 40k models.
Not to mention the ability to play one of FFG's 40kRPGs to get your 40k fix without playing 40k.
All that to say, I don't think its weird, hyperbolic, or dramatic at all.
When you consider the thread is about how people feel about 7th, and given how long we're into its lifespan, its totally reasonable to have responses that amount to 'I quit'.
Further, this forum is more than a 40k board, so I'm sure some people who jumped to other games might see this thread and chime in.
All in all, its totally reasonable and perfectly sensible for people to chime in in threads like this stating it made them quit. Who knows, maybe the people who quit would come back if the game was changed for the better?
I actually like the tactical objectives, makes the game much more interesting and a lot less repetitive and the psychic phase is nice. not a big fan of a few things, like invisibility, unbound, and daemon summoning.
I'm personally having a blast with 7th, as well as the rest of my gaming club. Sure theres some rules issues, but the "ZOMG UNBOUND IZ BROKEN" and what not is way overstated on the internet. My recommendation is see what your local meta is up to than make your call to get back into it. I play 2-3 times a week and have a lot of fun, but as always, YMMV.
6th is basically 7th with minor fixes.
Psychic phase is added and a bit more fleshed out. No more garaunteed unstoppable psychic buffing every turn.
The army books are more balanced externally then I have seen since playing since 2nd edition. However you play dark elder and while you can now play some cool themed and potentially decent armies like coven. You won't be winning any major torunaments without an elder ally crutch. Or if your lucky they make the rumored harlequin supplement soon.
The game is a lot more open to house rules and interpretation but 90% of the people complaining about it on the forum literally quit and haven't played the game since before 6th. Having traveled for work all over the US the last year I've played in Tampa, Miami, Los angelos, Chicago, NYC, Connecticut, Las Vegas. The meta's are pretty much the same no matter where I played.. On the east coast people tend to follow the adepticon/NOVA house rules on the west coast it's more the LVO house rules. By this I mean on the east coast it's usually two detachments with forgeworld rules and LOW suoer heavies being agreed upon beforehand. On the west coast it's usually 2 detschments with forgeworld rules being more accepted and LOW superheavies being agreed upon before hand. I've litterally never seen anyone even ask to play unbound. You don't see articles even discussing the best unbound lists or see battle reps discussing unbound games beyond friendly encounters and yet people posting on the Internet likes to claim that they are constantly forced to play unbound Titan army everywhere they go. It's just nothing I've seen playing across the U.S. And makes me seriously question the fact people are just making this stuff up.
The game is not perfect and the newest edition didn't magically fix the game however what I really like about 7th is armies are a lot more balanced against each other. Everything is updated and I'm not waiting 5 years and 2 editions to play my armies again. Most of the insane Broken tournament combos have been weakened. There are still great units like wave serpents however putting unstoppable combos together have been drastically reduced. Many of the old Death Stars have been weakened or eliminated entirely. I may not have the strongest tournament army but you can still have a chance no matter which army you play (with a few minor exceptions)
6h edition introduced (or more accurately in most cases, re-introduced) a whole bunch of cool ideas in a ham-fisted and poorly edited fashion.
7th edition added more random silliness without actually fixing anything much, and has great gaping holes that GW show no interest in plugging up.
I'm just treading water waiting for 8th edition at this point, in the hope that this will be a repeat of the 3rd/4th/5th edition progression.
I really hope its nothing like 5th. I tried to get into 5th, but it was too damn complex. I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. Yeah, there are wonky rules, but 5th made my brain hurt.
I don't see how 5th is any more complex, the only thing that I think is more complex is wound allocation (admittedly one of 5E's glaring faults), but aside from that almost everything was simpler. No psychic phase, no HP's on top of a damage table, no random tables for mysterious terrain or objectives, no wildly random Maelstrom missions, far fewer special rules, no Flyers/FMC's, no crazy army construction rules, no Warlord traits, etc.
I mean, the codex books themselves were a little crazier than the newer 7E books, but 5E's core rules were certainly far less complex than 6E or 7E's.
jreilly89 wrote: . I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. .
It really didn't.
Cover in 5th was determined off the unit majority. Now it's worked out per model, which is just painful.
Shooting in 5th was all done on a unit level. Now we resolve every single different weapon separately. Also painful.
Wound allocation in 5th was done in groups, and saved in bunches. Now we have a whole bunch of situations that require you to roll saves one... at... a ... time... Beyond painful.
And while we're on wound allocation, 'allocate to whoever you want' is a much easier system than 'allocate to the closest, and randomise half the time becuase it's not apparent who is the closest, or choose a model because they're in close combat'
And random. Random everything. Nothing 'simplifies' a game like having fourteen thousand* different tables to roll on before you even start the game.
*Statement may contain trace amounts of hyperbole.
I don't see much point in the level of detail or amount of rolling required for the current wounding system when at the same time they essentially turn all terrain into area terrain making flanking to deny cover pretty much impossible if you're pretty much playing anything with a base as area terrain. Remember kids, citadel brand treees .
I like 7-th. It looks like 6-th at the first glance but it has changes some of which are significant. The most notable changes have come with psy phase which is a mixed bag, i like it more than the old system, however, and maelstorm missions that have shaken the games and made them more dynamic and tactical to some extent.
I've been thinking about quitting in 6-th. And almost stopped playing completely. But than 7-th came and now i'm back and liking what's happening. The hate towards flyers and LOW is a bit overrated imo. There are some problematic things coming from escalation books but both regular and forgeworld stuff tends to be just fine! Partially because of maelstorm missions, actually.
Another thing is that 7-th ed codexes are WAY better ballanced than 6-th ed powercreep. Other than GK which is a monobuild minidex unfortunately. Is not so bad for the opponents other than being a bit tiresome cause 90% GK players field the same stuff the same ways and games are mostly decided turn 1.
Loborocket wrote: When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
I quit 40k proper in 2008 and I still read the forums.
I wasn't fond of the changes from 5th to 6th, and 7th really just doubled down on those changes without helping out too much in the core rules. Still lots of bloat, ambiguity, and balance issues.
This. I didn't buy 6th, and I'm not buying 7th. I prefer the 3E / 4E / 5E ruleset over the 6E / 7E series.
jreilly89 wrote: . I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. .
It really didn't.
Cover in 5th was determined off the unit majority. Now it's worked out per model, which is just painful.
Shooting in 5th was all done on a unit level. Now we resolve every single different weapon separately. Also painful.
Wound allocation in 5th was done in groups, and saved in bunches. Now we have a whole bunch of situations that require you to roll saves one... at... a ... time... Beyond painful.
And while we're on wound allocation, 'allocate to whoever you want' is a much easier system than 'allocate to the closest, and randomise half the time becuase it's not apparent who is the closest, or choose a model because they're in close combat'
And random. Random everything. Nothing 'simplifies' a game like having fourteen thousand* different tables to roll on before you even start the game.
*Statement may contain trace amounts of hyperbole.
To be fair, it was some years ago (maybe 5 or 8?) when I read the 5th rulebook. I just remember having a much harder time trying to get into it. Also, the whole experience thing for individual models really confused me.
Game is more fun to me now than it has been for the last 3 editions. It´s even gotten to a point that it interests me more than Warmachine does, it used to be the opposite in 5th and pretty 50-50 in 6th. There has been ridicilous/broken stuff in every edition, it´s not exactly something introduced with 7th.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
Most people like this don´t actually even play, and they probably haven´t played too actively for quite some time regardless of edition. There´s this personality type in the hobby that acts like they actually play and have vast firsthand experience of the rules and the game, but in reality they only play one game a month at best. I know a few people who are constantly talking in a way that makes them seem like active hobbyists, when in fact their 90% plastic "coloured" armies haven´t seen the table in years. They also talk a lot about the rules and 7th edition, while having no actual experience on it whatsoever ( these 2 spesific people. )
Just some weird compulsive need to talk the talk but not walk the walk. Keeping up appearances I guess.
I don't like it. It made a lot of people drop the game, which combined with 3 out of 4 stores closing means the community is almost dead. The forcing to house rule everything is something I don't like, makes it bad for new players and people that return or play somewhere else. On top of that my army sucks against my 3 most common opponents making the actual gaming boring for me.
The idea that somehow w40k went from I play army X, because it is good and I like it, to I play army X with Y ally with FW and under supplement Z, makes me want to quit, but with so few people around it is impossible to sell my army.
If I could I would play 5th or 6th, had ton of fun back then.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
To answer the question; I have fun playing. The rules can be weird sometimes, and I really don't like the fact all the rules are spread out amongst multiple rule books, codexes, data slates, etc... I have been playing for a couple years now and really don't have a grasp of all the different rules for all the different factions. Haeckel I am not even sure of everything I can use as Orks. I rather like the variety 7th Ed allows with formations, unbound lists and maelstrom missions. Feels like my play on the table can affect the outcome. In the past it felt like 80% of the game happened writing a list. It is a bit better in 7th.
Edit: I forgot to add I play because it is BY FAR the easiest game to find other players. Just this weekend I played at a store and there were 24 people there participating in a tournament. I was off the week between Christmas and New Year and found 4 games to play, there is also a store that has pickup games every Tuesday night. So access to opponents is a big plus to the game for me.
As you can see by the replies to your post, the people who dont mind the newer editions are openly attacked (and the harrassment is not only allowed and encouraged as well as joined in with by those "in power". This is why it is rare to see any positive remarks here. Those who would normally make them are afraid to.
For the OP...I find the current edition... different. Better in some ways than earlier editions, worse in others. It is all a matter of personal preference and opinion. Some of the things I like include allies and getting rid of consolidating directly into combat with a new unit at the end of the combat phase. Things I dislike are some of the aspects of the way the allies are implemented (abuses of abilities) and introducing superheavies and titans into mainstream (non-apoc/set up games).
I would say, play whichever edition you want/can find people to play. Myself, I rarely play now, dont even bother with tourneys and am hoping the next edition will be better and good enough to get me playing more often. I'm not going to be one of those why say "I dont play" or " I quit" and then play anyway having made the statement to "prove a point" even though it was a lie that is proven by hanging out and posting on 40k sites. I will be honest and just say that I just cant find it worth it to make trips to the shop and play only on rare occasions.
jreilly89 wrote: . I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. .
It really didn't.
Cover in 5th was determined off the unit majority. Now it's worked out per model, which is just painful.
Shooting in 5th was all done on a unit level. Now we resolve every single different weapon separately. Also painful.
Wound allocation in 5th was done in groups, and saved in bunches. Now we have a whole bunch of situations that require you to roll saves one... at... a ... time... Beyond painful.
And while we're on wound allocation, 'allocate to whoever you want' is a much easier system than 'allocate to the closest, and randomise half the time becuase it's not apparent who is the closest, or choose a model because they're in close combat'
And random. Random everything. Nothing 'simplifies' a game like having fourteen thousand* different tables to roll on before you even start the game.
*Statement may contain trace amounts of hyperbole.
I'm all for bashing some of the current rules but 5th was by far the worst edition rules wise. I had never seen so many "I quit" and rules complaints threads back then. 6th was received very positively on these forums from what I remember. Flyers got hate but everything else seemed to be a change for the better according to the majority. Of course if you're a marine or guard player then 5th was the best and 4th and 6th/7th were/are terrible.
5th got a lot of complaints, like every edition does, I certainly found faults with it, but they certainly weren't worse than they are now. 5E had its issues, but I'd challenge the assertion that it bemoaned more than 6E/7E have been.
5E certainly had its problems, and I continually find myself surprised at how much I miss it because it was severely flawed, but there are significantly more longstanding issues with the 6E/7E paradigm than 5th, and it shows.
Stuff that in 5E was the the realm of internet hyperbole is common reality in 7th.
- 7E is a battle between individual models, but with Codices that have better external balance.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
I only started playing in 6th edition, so can't really comment on earlier editions. I think the addition of tactical objectives is very very good. It may make the games slightly more random, but it also makes it possible to win in many different ways, and makes previously unused units suddenly shine. The 7th edition setup feels a bit more complicated but 6th for some reason, maybe because the 7th ed rules on that are quite poorly written. All in all I think 7th edition is better than 6th, the only really big change is tactical objectives and I like them, so...
Yeah, im enjoying 7th more than 6th. At first, I was perturbed by the amount of individualism in rolling (no more focus fire or majority saves) but actually, once you get the hang of it, it becomes really fast.
I was also a bit worried about the whole LoW/detachment/unbound rules making all armies super cheese fests, but to be honest that hasn't happened either. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'. It also helps that I play at a club where overly competitive play is frowned upon and narrative campaigns and casual armies are the norm - so probably quite close to how GW intended the game to work.
Generally, codex balance is much better in 7th and the two 'op' codices are both 6ed ones (tau/eldar). Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions. The release schedule means the meta changes so fast it's hard to build a single TAC competitive list, or one that relies around on gimmick, which I think is a good thing.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great. Is you want to play competitive tournaments, maybe not as much, but people like NOVA and LVO have put together pretty good rules packs limit craziness.
- 7E is a battle between individual models, but with Codices that have better external balance.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
It's the way the mechanics work really. In 5E, wounds could be allocated to the entire unit regardless of weapon range, you could take casualties from anywhere, cover was determiend by a majority of the unit being in cover or not, etc. Everything was done around the unit as a whole, rather than individual models, with the sole exception of how you allocated wounds taken by the unit which got real fiddly and abusive with multi-wound units. But aside from that, the mechanics were much more "unit to unit" than "model to model".
6E/7E introduced a lot more model specificness as opposed to unit specific mechanics. It didn't matter what kind of power weapon a model had, it was just S:user and Ignores Armor Saves whether it was a mace, sword, axe, or lance.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
how offten do you play against eldar with non eldar armies? Or with IG vs GKs. Or IG vs blight nids. Or DAs vs tau.
. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'.
you mean where you play.
Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions.
Ever played them against a normal msu or eldar army with IG? It doesn't only look terrible for the IG player, it feels terrible when played too. It is "fun" for armies that can either spam resilient msu units or those with units that go further then 18" per turn.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.
that is so bull gak. If anything 7th is good only for tournaments, because you either build an army for scenarios out of multiple books or pick an eldar army, failing that an ok army that is anti eldar. In casual games, half the codex are skewed against each other. How does a "casual" IG player win against a GK one ? how does a casual nid player, play at all, considering he either has the option to go skyblight or have a bad army. Or an eldar player, how does he make his army casual, by taking an unbound army of footslogging melee units ?
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great. Is you want to play competitive tournaments, maybe not as much, but people like NOVA and LVO have put together pretty good rules packs limit craziness.
I completely agree with this. I get really tired of people constantly bemoaning the fact that you have to "house rule" everything, especially when they act like it's something new to X edition. There are definitely instances where the rules need clarification beyond what is in the BRB. I've played since 3rd edition, and I think there's nearly always been a point where interactions between certain rules needed a definitive clarification that didn't come from the rule book it self. Granted, GW used to be better about this via FAQ's. As Arbitorlan said, even if GW isn't doing this as actively as before (or at all), there are plenty of people in the community actively working to fix those kinds of rules interactions and probably doing a better job of it than GW could. At the least they are taking player/community input into account much more heavily than GW ever would or could. All it takes is a quick read of the boards and an equally quick read of perfectly free information to solve nearly any rules issues you could think of. Could GW do better? Yes. Will I rage quit because of a few discrepancies in the rules? No.
All that being said, my one wish, my greatest wish for the future of 40K is thus:
Dear GW rules writers,
Please learn the difference between a unit and a model and distinguish between them clearly when you write rules, That is all.
EVIL INC wrote: As you can see by the replies to your post, the people who dont mind the newer editions are openly attacked (and the harrassment is not only allowed and encouraged as well as joined in with by those "in power".
I forced myself to like 7th, as it is the current edition.
But, some things needed fixing and weren't, and others were broken. I can't think of anything that got fixed.
The tactical-card missions add a bit more fun to the game, though.
The good:
Shooting-by-type, to add a bit or tactics to the shooting phase. It takes a lot of the clunkiness out of the handful-of-colours dice rolls.
Jinking for lots of model types are now the same rule, and works like the old fliers version. Jink to get a save, but snap-shot the next turn.
Vehicles can only explode when hit with AV weapons (AP1/2)
Random objectives in some missions. It means gunlines have to move around a bit.
The bad:
Pinning got taken off snipers.
Focussed Fire got removed.
Daemon summoning arrived, for almost everyone.
Psychic save got added, taking up time for no real benefit.
Everyone scores! Even drop pods.
I don't see where challenges got fixed, they were silly in 6th and just a different kind of silly in 7th, they're basically just a way to pick out and neutralize a units upgrade character (often the only thing possibly able to hit back effectively), Challenges are one of those micro-details that really just should have been left out.
jreilly89 wrote: Also, the whole experience thing for individual models really confused me.
The what...?
EVIL INC wrote: As you can see by the replies to your post, the people who dont mind the newer editions are openly attacked (and the harrassment is not only allowed and encouraged as well as joined in with by those "in power". This is why it is rare to see any positive remarks here. Those who would normally make them are afraid to.
What are you on about? Nobody has been attacked in this thread. And there are people in this very thread making positive remarks. If there weren't, I'm even more confused about what they would be getting 'attacked' for...
Zande4 wrote: 6th was received very positively on these forums from what I remember.
It was at first, yes. On the surface, it had a lot going for it. It was only once people started actually playing it that the issues became apparent.
Of course if you're a marine or guard player then 5th was the best and 4th and 6th/7th were/are terrible.
And given that the majority of players are marine players...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I don't see where challenges got fixed, they were silly in 6th and just a different kind of silly in 7th, they're basically just a way to pick out and neutralize a units upgrade character (often the only thing possibly able to hit back effectively), Challenges are one of those micro-details that really just should have been left out.
Allowing spill-over wounds was definitely an improvement. As you say, though, it doesn't change the fact that challenges, at least the way they were implemented, just don't belong in the game.
At the very least, they should have been optional with a bonus for choosing to fight a challenge, rather than being detrimental for refusing... It simply doesn't make sense for at least half of the armies in the game to feel pressured into accepting a challenge.
Loborocket wrote: When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
I quit 40k proper in 2008 and I still read the forums.
Wow! Kind of sad really. 6-7 years of reading a forum for a game you are no longer playing? You do know there are other games and hobbies out there right?
You must have a lot of time on you hands. Maybe look here for a new game you can get excited about instead of trolling on a past love.
Loborocket wrote: When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
I quit 40k proper in 2008 and I still read the forums.
Wow! Kind of sad really. 6-7 years of reading a forum for a game you are no longer playing? You do know there are other games and hobbies out there right?
You must have a lot of time on you hands. Maybe look here for a new game you can get excited about instead of trolling on a past love.
Ease up on the condensation. You do realize that Dakka has more topics than just 40k.
Sure thing! You post your way I will post mine.
I realize there are topics other than 40k, but THIS thread is about 40k and the category it is under is 40kGeneral Discussion, so I stand firm I think it is weird to read AND POST to a forum/thread you have self identified as "QUIT" 6+ years ago. Anyone is free to do it I suppose just as i am free to think it is weird.
The problem to me is that this attitude somewhat poisons the well of this forum to hear/see all the negativity coming from people who have again self identified as a person who has quit. That is fine QUIT, read posts if you still have a passing interest, but leave the negative posts on the sidelines. I really don't want to see it. It is un-necessary and bitterness never looks good on anyone.
Yes I realize I can move on to another forum or ignore the negative posts/users but I would just rather not have to do that.
Actually I think the moderation of this forum in general is not all that great and many things get out of hand quickly and carry on way to long. In the interest of that, I will self moderate and discontinue posting to this particular thread.
RunicFIN wrote: Game is more fun to me now than it has been for the last 3 editions. It´s even gotten to a point that it interests me more than Warmachine does, it used to be the opposite in 5th and pretty 50-50 in 6th. There has been ridicilous/broken stuff in every edition, it´s not exactly something introduced with 7th.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
Most people like this don´t actually even play, and they probably haven´t played too actively for quite some time regardless of edition. There´s this personality type in the hobby that acts like they actually play and have vast firsthand experience of the rules and the game, but in reality they only play one game a month at best. I know a few people who are constantly talking in a way that makes them seem like active hobbyists, when in fact their 90% plastic "coloured" armies haven´t seen the table in years. They also talk a lot about the rules and 7th edition, while having no actual experience on it whatsoever ( these 2 spesific people. )
Just some weird compulsive need to talk the talk but not walk the walk. Keeping up appearances I guess.
I've "played" 40K for over 20 years, starting with a boxed set of marines vs. orkz (gretchin waaaaaggghhh *splat*). Still have the wargear codex, etc. In that time, I've actually only played a hand full of games.
I collect and paint minis, trade 'em, and play lots of digital based IP (big fan of DoW series). I also, however, do not claim to know jack gak about the current workings of the rules nor try and steer a conversation one direction or another. If anything, the rues seem overly complicated for quick/friendly games (and I actually like the rules for WHFB better if I'm honest). So, there are some of us who are here and just like talking about the fluff/rules/whatnot but not as an authoritative source.
After years of Fantasy (and other games) "hobbysm", I began to be interested in 40k while in 6th edition, and only started playing after 7th edition was out.
The ruleset, as I see it, is a mess. A disjointed mess full of poorly implemented nice ideas. Plus some things (super-heavies, many flyers) that are simply out of place in a 28mm scale game. Titans in Epic? Good. Titans in 40k? Eeeergh.
There are so many silly things that I wouldn't know where to begin and where to finish. Cover - which should be a key mechanic of a skirmish-like shooting game - is implemented in a terribly silly way. There's movement in three different phases of the game - was it that difficult to include the "run" mechanic in the, you know, "movement phase". Some things looked blatantly stupid since the first time I took a look at the rules: why does twin-linked allow you to re-roll missed hit rolls? As far as I'm concerned in the past it was one roll for two hits, which seems way more logical for weapons with two barrels that shoot once (and it's actually quicker to play, since there's no re-roll possibility, so the "streamlining" excuse is BS).
Actually the whole "streamlining" thing just feels stupid at this point. There are so many random elements that for a 1650-1850 game (what I usually play) you may easily need more than half an hour before the game actually begins, and then we're usually lucky if we manage to play 3 full turns in the following two hours.
Despite all this, it's still fun if both you and your opponent manage to keep a positive attitude. Not gonna lie, I've had good times while playing 7th, but mostly due to everything that surrounds the game (satisfaction feeling of fielding your painted models, social enjoyment, funny moments, etc.) more than to the rules themselves. Which says a lot for an almost 30-yeared old game in its 7th edition.
Saddest part is GW not caring at all about the game itself and treating it merely as their favorite cash cow.
koooaei wrote: Oh, trust me, it's a better way of moderation than banning and muting everyone.
Yeah there is probably something between the state this forum seems to be in and outright banning/muting everyone. I don't think the moderation job is easy, but i don't think it is being handled great on this forum. Don't see as much negativity on other forums I use, but of course there is probably less traffic at those too.
koooaei wrote: Oh, trust me, it's a better way of moderation than banning and muting everyone.
Yeah there is probably somethign between the state this forum seems to be in and outright banning/muting everyone. I don't think the moderation job is easy, but i don't think it is being handled great on this forum. Don't seem as much negativity on other forums I use, but of course there is probably less traffic at those too.
So you think moderation should involve reducing the amount of so called 'negativity'?
Sounds like you just want an echo chamber of your own opinions.
koooaei wrote: Oh, trust me, it's a better way of moderation than banning and muting everyone.
Yeah there is probably something between the state this forum seems to be in and outright banning/muting everyone. I don't think the moderation job is easy, but i don't think it is being handled great on this forum. Don't see as much negativity on other forums I use, but of course there is probably less traffic at those too.
Soo...you only want to hear opinions that you agree with? Seems legit.
6th and then 7th killed off any interest in 40k in my local area, so much so that the FLGS stopped stocking it, so now I can't play.
So while I don't have any experience with 7th (nobody was interested in getting it after reading reviews etc etc) I feel that I wouldn't have enjoyed it as it seemed to make things I disliked about 6th (random tables, change in cover) more problematic.
But it's okay, I'm not allowed to voice my opinion in the matter because I'm not actively playing it.
Good: Declaring Jink is good idea. Ummmm... still much of 6th in it... I can still play it.
Bad: Play pretty much anything, psychic phase I am not liking, not sure why, many models are useless, balance I am not sure what that means now, anti-aircraft specific stuff is nerfed to death.
My attitude is pretty much how you play 7th, pray to the dice gods, roll the dice, hope 8th will end in a good result, pretend it is all planned rather than left to random chance.
I will keep building up to a good standard what models I have until that time it is worth having a go.
jreilly89 wrote: Also, the whole experience thing for individual models really confused me.
The what...?
I believe it was 5th edition, but the rulebook from 2004 had a section where you applied experience to your units and they leveled up over the course of battles. It was really wonky.
- 7E is a battle between individual models, but with Codices that have better external balance.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
I only started playing in 6th edition, so can't really comment on earlier editions.
Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.
Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.
If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.
As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.
Vaktathi wrote: It's the way the mechanics work really. In 5E, wounds could be allocated to the entire unit regardless of weapon range, you could take casualties from anywhere, cover was determiend by a majority of the unit being in cover or not, etc. Everything was done around the unit as a whole, rather than individual models, with the sole exception of how you allocated wounds taken by the unit which got real fiddly and abusive with multi-wound units. But aside from that, the mechanics were much more "unit to unit" than "model to model".
6E/7E introduced a lot more model specificness as opposed to unit specific mechanics. It didn't matter what kind of power weapon a model had, it was just S:user and Ignores Armor Saves whether it was a mace, sword, axe, or lance.
Yup. The thing is, wound shenanigans would have been simplified if the rules had simply specified that the player must always allocate failed saves to remove the maximum number of models possible. That would have simplified and sped things greatly, even in multi-wound units.
The ruleset is poorly written, poorly edited, with very little interest in making a coherent, functional, easy to play and enjoy game. It is no more beer and pretzels than, oh, data analysis, and no more effectively competitive than Russian Roulette.
I honestly enjoyed the start of 6th; the Chaos dex was a move in the right direction, as was Dark Angels, hull points were a good idea, and I honestly like directional casualties, a unified set of psychic powers simplified matters, and having a "warlord" was one of my gripes with 5th, having the guy in charge always provide something for your army was a good idea. Balance got out of hand right-quick with Tau/Daemons/Eldar, but the issues were surmountable still.
7th, however, didn't address most of the problems with what was a promising, but still flawed product. It made challenges slightly less intolerable (though still nonsensical considering "Forge the Narrative for everyone but Black Templars and Chaos, and maybe Dark Eldar), vehicles getting a little more durability was nice, but not broken 5th levels, and reducing volume of smash attacks has made MCs/Walkers somewhat even in a fight and having all psychic powers occur at the same time made sense when previously it was a whole other job keeping track of when you can do what, but that's about all I can say that's positive.
Psychic phase is beyond broken. While the idea makes sense, psychic powers are so insanely powerful now if you put even the most basic effort into exploiting; bring lots of psychic dice and one good caster, and get a second shooting phase, or be Eldar and be buffed so insanely it's funny, and if you don't bring a psyker you basically have no defense. At least trying to deny every targeted power was something in 6th...
Directional casualties now make no sense when cover is no longer directional. If you're touching it, you've got the save, and considering how easy it is to give stealth and/or shrouding to things, you can be shooting at guys with no intervening cover, but since they're touching a ruin, viola, 2+ save.
Special rules are a mess, and how they're handed out. There's dozens and dozens of them, all stacking, and the resulting buff combinations has made this the most death-star-y version of 40k I've ever seen, with ridiculous things like re-rollable 2+ or 2++ not just possible, but routine.
And perhaps most damning of all (as the above are but a mere sample of my frustrations) has been the complete abandonment of flavour. The 6th edition codexes, until Imperial Guard and Tyranids actually gave back a lot of customization, flavour and character which been steadily stripped from these armies since 3.5/early 4th. Chapter Tactics made a meaningful comeback, Chaos alignments actually meant something, Dark Angels had fully developed Green/Raven/Deathwings, Tau got a bunch of unique advanced wargear to act as their version of psychic powers, and one of the few good, unique fluffy supplements, Farsight Enclaves, etc. But in the leadup to 7th, when clearly the design direction had changed in preperation, that all stopped. Guard lost what remnants of the Regiment system was left via their special characters, Tyranids were left a hollowed out nerfed codex reliant on dataslate DLC to function well or fluffy, which would mark a new trend in cut content and DLC to make "complete" $150+ codexes for what is a self declared model, not games company. The actual 7th edition codexes only doubled down on that trend, with Orks, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels losing most of what made them interesting or what tools for army variation existed. They remain viable books, and balanced against one another, but painfully monobuild with the player dependent on dataslates, bare-bones codex-priced supplements to have any real variation, or quite often, power neccessary to survive against other books.
I'll play a game with bad rules if it's at least fun and variable. Many of my favourite RTS games on the PC have been, ultimately, flawed in terms of balance (Company of Heroes never had good balance, but remains my favourite RTS of all time, because you could do so many different things to try and win) but as 40k in 7th commits further and further to bland, but still imbalanced rules with painfully little choice or customization, where more often than not I can say how I game will go once lists and terrain is deployed, I simply lose interest. There are increasingly not enough positives in the game to outweigh all the problems in design and business. Were it not for Forgeworld at least allowing me a few armies which are fun and reasonably flexibile, if not competitive at all, I would have given up completely, and should the next Marine book reduce it to something akin to the current run of codexes, I'll simply leave the hobby for good.
I do hold out hope for the future, and I'll never sell my armies, as sooner or later GW will have to change its game and practices, but I'm ever so close to leaving the hobby for a good long hiatus with it in its present state.
I have never played 7th, but last saturday, I got shield of baal deathstorm.
It came with a campaign book and a 7th edition rulebook. I thought it was ok. I need to do some more reading though. Better to stick to 5th.
Started near the end of 5th, played through 6th, then played a handful of games in 7th and quit.
A lot of things got on my nerves. Psychic powers, the pushing of books, and making IoM one giant faction.
What really did me in, was the Maelstrom Missions.
I know a lot of people will disagree, I know a lot will agree. But it's not a tactical or strategic game to me now.
When I started it was nice and simple. You knew the objective going into the game and would fight the entire game based around that.
Now the mission changes based on card draws and your opponent's draws are different from your own.
The games that we did play were always won based on a deck rather that what I did in the game. It's like if they just changed the "roll for turn 6" into a "roll to see who won"
I think one of the only reasons I still care is to see if they ever put "Missile Lock" on anything or if it will be a USR that no model actually has.
The ruleset is poorly written, poorly edited, with very little interest in making a coherent, functional, easy to play and enjoy game. It is no more beer and pretzels than, oh, data analysis, and no more effectively competitive than Russian Roulette.
I honestly enjoyed the start of 6th; the Chaos dex was a move in the right direction, as was Dark Angels, hull points were a good idea, and I honestly like directional casualties, a unified set of psychic powers simplified matters, and having a "warlord" was one of my gripes with 5th, having the guy in charge always provide something for your army was a good idea. Balance got out of hand right-quick with Tau/Daemons/Eldar, but the issues were surmountable still.
7th, however, didn't address most of the problems with what was a promising, but still flawed product. It made challenges slightly less intolerable (though still nonsensical considering "Forge the Narrative for everyone but Black Templars and Chaos, and maybe Dark Eldar), vehicles getting a little more durability was nice, but not broken 5th levels, and reducing volume of smash attacks has made MCs/Walkers somewhat even in a fight and having all psychic powers occur at the same time made sense when previously it was a whole other job keeping track of when you can do what, but that's about all I can say that's positive.
Psychic phase is beyond broken. While the idea makes sense, psychic powers are so insanely powerful now if you put even the most basic effort into exploiting; bring lots of psychic dice and one good caster, and get a second shooting phase, or be Eldar and be buffed so insanely it's funny, and if you don't bring a psyker you basically have no defense. At least trying to deny every targeted power was something in 6th...
Directional casualties now make no sense when cover is no longer directional. If you're touching it, you've got the save, and considering how easy it is to give stealth and/or shrouding to things, you can be shooting at guys with no intervening cover, but since they're touching a ruin, viola, 2+ save.
Special rules are a mess, and how they're handed out. There's dozens and dozens of them, all stacking, and the resulting buff combinations has made this the most death-star-y version of 40k I've ever seen, with ridiculous things like re-rollable 2+ or 2++ not just possible, but routine.
And perhaps most damning of all (as the above are but a mere sample of my frustrations) has been the complete abandonment of flavour. The 6th edition codexes, until Imperial Guard and Tyranids actually gave back a lot of customization, flavour and character which been steadily stripped from these armies since 3.5/early 4th. Chapter Tactics made a meaningful comeback, Chaos alignments actually meant something, Dark Angels had fully developed Green/Raven/Deathwings, Tau got a bunch of unique advanced wargear to act as their version of psychic powers, and one of the few good, unique fluffy supplements, Farsight Enclaves, etc. But in the leadup to 7th, when clearly the design direction had changed in preperation, that all stopped. Guard lost what remnants of the Regiment system was left via their special characters, Tyranids were left a hollowed out nerfed codex reliant on dataslate DLC to function well or fluffy, which would mark a new trend in cut content and DLC to make "complete" $150+ codexes for what is a self declared model, not games company. The actual 7th edition codexes only doubled down on that trend, with Orks, Dark Eldar and Blood Angels losing most of what made them interesting or what tools for army variation existed. They remain viable books, and balanced against one another, but painfully monobuild with the player dependent on dataslates, bare-bones codex-priced supplements to have any real variation, or quite often, power neccessary to survive against other books.
I'll play a game with bad rules if it's at least fun and variable. Many of my favourite RTS games on the PC have been, ultimately, flawed in terms of balance (Company of Heroes never had good balance, but remains my favourite RTS of all time, because you could do so many different things to try and win) but as 40k in 7th commits further and further to bland, but still imbalanced rules with painfully little choice or customization, where more often than not I can say how I game will go once lists and terrain is deployed, I simply lose interest. There are increasingly not enough positives in the game to outweigh all the problems in design and business. Were it not for Forgeworld at least allowing me a few armies which are fun and reasonably flexibile, if not competitive at all, I would have given up completely, and should the next Marine book reduce it to something akin to the current run of codexes, I'll simply leave the hobby for good.
I do hold out hope for the future, and I'll never sell my armies, as sooner or later GW will have to change its game and practices, but I'm ever so close to leaving the hobby for a good long hiatus with it in its present state.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
(though I don't think CSM should be held up as a good example of flavor.)
I don't like it much.
In 3rd-5th, I played 5 games a week on average.
In 6th it dropped to 2 pretty quickly.
It's about 1.5 now...sometimes I get in 2 games if they end fast, but setting up and rule arguments usually means 1 game at most.
Most of my time is spent playing warmachine or a role playing game now. The new release has my hyped for skorne in a major way, and 5th edition is awesome after the horror that was 4th.
Been playing since 3rd and I think 7th is the best yet. Allies, psykers, flyers, superheavies; all are fair game and I love it.
Actually my only beef is that I love the beautiful artwork and page layout of the 6th codexes a thousand times better than the model pictures of 7th but hey, can't have it all.
buddha wrote: Actually my only beef is that I love the beautiful artwork and page layout of the 6th codexes a thousand times better than the model pictures of 7th but hey, can't have it all.
GW is never going back to unit artwork, due to losing the Chapterhouse lawsuit. Showing the actual model for each unit removes the potential for 3rd party artistic interpretation of a different model or part.
You'll still see artwork for other stuff, but not for the army lists of in-game models and units that get played on the tabletop.
The state of the game is solely based on your gaming area. If you are just playing casual games with friends/fiendly people who take a mix of units it doesn't really matter how the rules are.
If you are a WAAC or competitive group, I can see why people would hate one edition over another.
Buy the toys, assemble and paint the toys, then play with the toys. Why so serious?
partninja wrote: The state of the game is solely based on your gaming area. If you are just playing casual games with friends/fiendly people who take a mix of units it doesn't really matter how the rules are.
If you are a WAAC or competitive group, I can see why people would hate one edition over another.
Buy the toys, assemble and paint the toys, then play with the toys. Why so serious?
I'm not a WAAC or competitive player, but 7th pushed me out because making a fluffy army was punished even more. No, I'm not WAAC (aka. wanting to win an occasional game) but I do need the expectation of a possible win to enjoy the game.
7th is hugely flawed. Unbound is a thing. Playing bound is basically unbound with slight restrictions. Detachments give you stuff you normally would have to pay huge points for for free just for losing a few slots of CAD that you can just make up for by taking another detachment. Cover shenanigans have gotten worse...stealth confers to a squad...go to ground make units in cover indestructible. Look out sir is the dumbest mechanic ever invented. Melta still OP, Plasma still OP, Cover still OP, Seriously OP units in wave serp, wraithknight, Riptide. Psykers OP. Game is still fun but it's not really competitive in any way. It's more like magic the gathering now going tri color than a table top game.
I believe it was 5th edition, but the rulebook from 2004 had a section where you applied experience to your units and they leveled up over the course of battles. It was really wonky.
Ah, that would be campaign rules. A couple of editions have had variations on them included in the back of the book. They weren't part of the normal rules, and were largely ignored.
partninja wrote: The state of the game is solely based on your gaming area. If you are just playing casual games with friends/fiendly people who take a mix of units it doesn't really matter how the rules are.
Buy the toys, assemble and paint the toys, then play with the toys. Why so serious?
Actually, I'd argue that balance has a greater impact on groups that are casual and care more about taking random mix of units and 'fluffy' lists.
In a competitive environment, you know to expect only the strongest, hardest lists, and many of those lists are generally known in advance, or at least known strong elements that should be considered in list building. Oddly enough, this provides probably one of the most level playing fields; no one's going to call you out for bringing three knights, or five serpents, or 3 riptides because its expected to bring a lot of strong units to make a strong list.
In a casual setting, a player may really like Knights; potentially enough so to run a mostly Knight list, or using their special formation. On the flip side, the Knight player's best friend may be a Guard player with a strong liking of abhumans and rough riders, which are generally the weakest units in the book. Both are playing fluffy lists and bringing what they enjoy, but the games are going to be so hilariously lopsided, I can't imagine either one of them finding much entertainment in curb stomping the other or being repeatedly curb stomped.
Then again, the entire notion of casual is so poorly defined that just saying 'play casual games' means almost literally nothing.
partninja wrote: The state of the game is solely based on your gaming area. If you are just playing casual games with friends/fiendly people who take a mix of units it doesn't really matter how the rules are.
Buy the toys, assemble and paint the toys, then play with the toys. Why so serious?
Actually, I'd argue that balance has a greater impact on groups that are casual and care more about taking random mix of units and 'fluffy' lists.
In a competitive environment, you know to expect only the strongest, hardest lists, and many of those lists are generally known in advance, or at least known strong elements that should be considered in list building. Oddly enough, this provides probably one of the most level playing fields; no one's going to call you out for bringing three knights, or five serpents, or 3 riptides because its expected to bring a lot of strong units to make a strong list.
In a casual setting, a player may really like Knights; potentially enough so to run a mostly Knight list, or using their special formation. On the flip side, the Knight player's best friend may be a Guard player with a strong liking of abhumans and rough riders, which are generally the weakest units in the book. Both are playing fluffy lists and bringing what they enjoy, but the games are going to be so hilariously lopsided, I can't imagine either one of them finding much entertainment in curb stomping the other or being repeatedly curb stomped.
Then again, the entire notion of casual is so poorly defined that just saying 'play casual games' means almost literally nothing.
This is just my personal experience, but the casual players tend to get more upset when they lose a game then the competitive players. I find this is true in several games that I used to compete in, back in the day (smash bros, starcraft, LoL, WoW).
It's mostly because they don't understand how a game works, and buy into the fluffy nature of the game, or have some sort of blind trust in the game developers. I've had friends tell me that everyone was viable in SSBB because "the game developers give everyone a strength and weakness, every character is equally viable", and then get outraged when they can't win with a bad character like ganon when their friend likes metaknight.
7th really takes advantage of this, by pushing fluffy players to build whatever they want, without learning the meta of the game. I'm lucky that no one has played knights at our club (there is a soft ban of super heavies there), but we warn people who come in to order them not to. Some, usually warmachine players, get quite upset by this, but so far it's worked out.
What makes 7th feel so much better than 6th? All they added was psychic phase, removed the ability to flank and deny cover saves, changed jinks slightly, made challenges basically irrelevant but still kept the mechanic because reasons and nerfed smash. The codexes have cut all the flavour and options in favour of monobuilds and DLC, and the underlying game hasn't really improved mechanically.
Oh man what they did to Jink has mucked it quite a bit too. Too many units simply don't care about the consequences, they can jink when walking/immobilized, have no effect on passengers, and many have abilities that turn it into a 3+ or 2+ even in the open.
Jink is amongst the most borked mechanics in the game currently.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
how offten do you play against eldar with non eldar armies? Or with IG vs GKs. Or IG vs blight nids. Or DAs vs tau.
. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'.
you mean where you play.
Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions.
Ever played them against a normal msu or eldar army with IG? It doesn't only look terrible for the IG player, it feels terrible when played too. It is "fun" for armies that can either spam resilient msu units or those with units that go further then 18" per turn.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.
that is so bull gak. If anything 7th is good only for tournaments, because you either build an army for scenarios out of multiple books or pick an eldar army, failing that an ok army that is anti eldar. In casual games, half the codex are skewed against each other. How does a "casual" IG player win against a GK one ? how does a casual nid player, play at all, considering he either has the option to go skyblight or have a bad army. Or an eldar player, how does he make his army casual, by taking an unbound army of footslogging melee units ?
Oh noes! You have enlightened me! It turns out I was was wrong all along - I wasn't having fun at all! Thanks. Next time I think I'm having fun, I'll make sure to log on here and check with you.
Um.
Yeah.
My meta and the metas of a few other posters here seem to be fine. I'm having lots of fun with 7th, playing fun, casual games in my fun, casual meta. I'm sorry that your meta seems to be gak. I haven't played with your army. I haven't played against MSU eldar Death Spam, because if anyone brought that in my meta it would be frowned upon. It's probably gakky for some armies. I've sometimes been at a disadvantage in a game, but hey, that's fine too. Whatever.
If you want to have more fun with 7th I'd suggest
- Different models
- Different friends
- Caring less
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.
I would imagine that this is probably the case if you're playing with an established group. It's a different story for pick-up games, though.
The fact that the rules are such a mess, and that even basic things like how to construct an army list are so poorly understood by so many players, makes playing a game against a new opponent something of a minefield.
I don't see the 'narrative' really being a thing that is adequately represented in the rules, though. For starters, a system that sees your psyker completely forget which powers he knows from one battle to the next, or that has your Warlord randomly determining just what sort of leader he is each game, is more or less the complete opposite of encouraging narrative play.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.
I would imagine that this is probably the case if you're playing with an established group. It's a different story for pick-up games, though.
The fact that the rules are such a mess, and that even basic things like how to construct an army list are so poorly understood by so many players, makes playing a game against a new opponent something of a minefield.
I don't see the 'narrative' really being a thing that is adequately represented in the rules, though. For starters, a system that sees your psyker completely forget which powers he knows from one battle to the next, or that has your Warlord randomly determining just what sort of leader he is each game, is more or less the complete opposite of encouraging narrative play.
If you want to play fun, narrative casual games 40k is great. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games on the market.
If you want to play fun, narrative casual games 40k is great. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games on the market.
What about 40k makes it a narrative casual game, more so than other games suited for pick up games that are better balanced?
There's far too much randomness and absurdity in the rules for it to work well as a narrative for me anymore. Things like watching a skimmer "jink" while immobilized, having to roll randomly for warlord traits and psychic powers as previously noted, the fact that heavy AT guns are often the least effective anti-tank weapons, invisible units being unable to be targeted by blast and template weapons (exactly what any real life force would bring to bear against such a unit), etc.
There's too much that breaks the suspension of disbelief, too much randomness, and too much nonsensical functionality for it to really be a good narrative game anymore either.
I don't see 7E really doing anything well, it's trying to just make it possible for anyone to use anything GW makes in any game they may want to play, and that's about it.
AnomanderRake wrote: If you want to play fun, narrative casual games virtually any ruleset will do. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games than 40k on the market.
Fixed there for you.
By the way, "Forging a narrative" has to be one of the most stupid excuses I've ever seen for incompetent rules design.
Almost as lame as "well 40k was not designed for competitive play so the rules are actually ok".
It's a game, ffs. Every single game ever designed by mankind needs to have a competitive goal. Of course you can play in a more relaxed, casual way, but ultimately to play a game means trying to win. If a certain game is poorly balanced and its rules poorly written (after more than 25 years, no less) then you have to concede it's a mediocre game at best.
You can still have fun playing a mediocre game because there are other factors involved. You may like its fluff and background, its characters, and the opportunity it gives you to socialize, but it's still a mediocre game. There's nothing wrong with playing a mediocre ruleset if you consider it's worth the time and effort, and I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble admitting the current shape of the rules is poor, to say the least.
If you want to play fun, narrative casual games 40k is great. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games on the market.
What about 40k makes it a narrative casual game, more so than other games suited for pick up games that are better balanced?
Ass rules editing, inconsistency, and the rolling update schedule. If I'm confused about a rule in Warmahordes I can get the precise answer by reading the rulebook, I don't have to have a long argument and then call GW afterwards because they wrote down something that conflicts with something else. The rolling update schedule means power creep, regular rules revisions to keep the power creep under control, requiring players to buy new models regularly to keep up with the competitive scene, and bad balance because "Oh, we'll fix it in the next patch".
40k has beautiful miniatures, I love the lore, and I doubt I will ever drop it entirely, but it's a lot of work for not a lot of interesting gameplay by comparison to WMH.
Which is all to say that 40k is not a good fun, narrative casual game.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, but that was a list of nothing but negatives (of which I largely agree) that all combine to make a combine not really well suited for just about anything.
Blacksails wrote: Which is all to say that 40k is not a good fun, narrative casual game.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, but that was a list of nothing but negatives (of which I largely agree) that all combine to make a combine not really well suited for just about anything.
If I had to point to one specific point in 40k's favour that make it a great narrative casual game I'd have to say the customizability. WMH is a great game, but the models are very fixed and you need a lot of named characters to play; it's impossible to make your army your own to the same degree as it is in 40k.
40k is great if you've got a consistent play group with a more static meta that members of the group understand and play to and consistent in-house answers to bizarre rules contradictions, but it's a nightmarishly hard game to maintain a tournament army for or to play with strangers.
I'm still confused a little by your original assertion that 40k makes for a great casual, narrative game, when everything you've said following that has completely contradicted that.
I agree with you on its flaws, just not that it makes for a great casual and/or narrative game.
At best, I'll say its workable with a close knit group of friends, but I should add that any game works well with a close knit group of friends, and I'd argue other games work even better than 40k in just about any scenario.
Korinov wrote: You can still have fun playing a mediocre game because there are other factors involved. You may like its fluff and background, its characters, and the opportunity it gives you to socialize, but it's still a mediocre game. There's nothing wrong with playing a mediocre ruleset if you consider it's worth the time and effort, and I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble admitting the current shape of the rules is poor, to say the least.
I think that's a fantastic point, you can lament the state of the game while still getting a lot of out the hobby, be that social or artistic.
I've had fun playing games of 7th, but that's in ideal situations, long time opponents and plenty of limitations and work-arounds. I've also had a lot of stress because just getting on the same page is incredibly challenging when everything is optional. They've added all the work and pre-planning of an apoc game to normal 40k.
People can enjoy the 40k universe, enjoy painting and/or converting, have some friends left who still play, and still lament the state of the game. That's me in a nutshell. I don't have the heart or political will to try and play strangers and if all my regular opponents leave the game, well, maybe I'll quit too or slit my wrists and buy 2 wraithknights, a riptide, several transcendent c'tans, a knight and couple skyshields and tell everyone I'm a casual gamer. Because gamer apparently needs an adjective in front of it.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
how offten do you play against eldar with non eldar armies? Or with IG vs GKs. Or IG vs blight nids. Or DAs vs tau.
. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'.
you mean where you play.
Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions.
Ever played them against a normal msu or eldar army with IG? It doesn't only look terrible for the IG player, it feels terrible when played too. It is "fun" for armies that can either spam resilient msu units or those with units that go further then 18" per turn.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.
that is so bull gak. If anything 7th is good only for tournaments, because you either build an army for scenarios out of multiple books or pick an eldar army, failing that an ok army that is anti eldar. In casual games, half the codex are skewed against each other. How does a "casual" IG player win against a GK one ? how does a casual nid player, play at all, considering he either has the option to go skyblight or have a bad army. Or an eldar player, how does he make his army casual, by taking an unbound army of footslogging melee units ?
Oh noes! You have enlightened me! It turns out I was was wrong all along - I wasn't having fun at all! Thanks. Next time I think I'm having fun, I'll make sure to log on here and check with you.
Um.
Yeah.
My meta and the metas of a few other posters here seem to be fine. I'm having lots of fun with 7th, playing fun, casual games in my fun, casual meta. I'm sorry that your meta seems to be gak. I haven't played with your army. I haven't played against MSU eldar Death Spam, because if anyone brought that in my meta it would be frowned upon. It's probably gakky for some armies. I've sometimes been at a disadvantage in a game, but hey, that's fine too. Whatever.
If you want to have more fun with 7th I'd suggest
- Different models
- Different friends
- Caring less
I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking. If you can't handle people with different opinions then perhaps an internet forum isn't for you?
Also one of your solutions is "caring less." That means "drop your standards." That would be easier if GW didn't charge so much for sub standards rules.
The biggest thing that I've noticed is that 7E has more "houserules' than any other edition. I cannot think of a single event or playgroup that does not impose restrictions, self or otherwise, on the game and what players can bring. I've certainly not seen events have to get as into the nitty gritty of saying exactly how players can construct their armies since 4E.
The level of "fixing" even the most playgroups have to do is rather indicative of something wrong with the rules.
I have only just got the 7th ed. Rulebook set. Since getting over my frustration at GW, for releasing an edition less than 2 years from the previous edition. I will state it is a better edition than 6th ed. The rules are better defined. I like the addition of a separate psychic phase. Of which, I think Psykers do not get a free pass on generating their psychic powers by simply rolling vs. their Leadership stat.
Vehicles are now evenly balanced. Not overly powerful, like 5th edition. But not completely one shot themself like in 6th either. Remember, a wrecked vehicle is not necessarily a destroyed vehicle. It means it's broke down wreck, that could be fixed back up after repairs are made back at the motor pool. That is my take of 7th ed.
Vehicles have major issues, they're hardly evenly balanced.
Effectively they've been turned into T/W based units with HP's, except they lack armor saves and still have a secondary kill mechanism in the damage table, but one that's been massively mucked with.
This results in mid strength weaponry with high rates of fire being the dominant tank killers, while actual, dedicated AT guns are relatively ineffective at actually killing tanks.
CC is even worse, where vehicles are universally hit on 3's and hit on rear armor (almost universally 10), and you get a result where a basic 10man tac squad will have an easier time killing a moving Leman Russ or screaming jet powered Falcon on a charge than killing 2 other basic marines on a charge. Effectively, if you make base contact with a tank, its dead, without really much effort on the part of the attacker.
Vehicles, lacking saves, are very easy to kill;.
Here we run into another issue, that of Skimmers vs Non-skimmers. Largely, the only vehicle heavy armies you see coming in anything near top place at most events are Skimmer armies (aside from Superheavy Knights)
Skimmers have a gigantic number of advantages over non-skimmers, through the Jink mechanic. The Jink mechanic gives them an on-demand save of 4+, often able to be increased to 3+ or even 2+ through commonly available wargear and other abilities. Gaining this save does affect their shooting int he next turn, but has imposes zero penalty on any passengers. Many such skimmers also have multiple high RoF weapons systems and/or systems that rely on 6's in the first place for their effectiveness (and often are TL'd either way), making the Snapshot restrictions much less harmful than for single-weapon system vehicles like many Tracked tanks. Knights have a similar bonus in that they get an Invul save over one arc every turn of the game.
Meanwhile for Walkers and Tracked Tanks, Smoke Launchers only give a 5+, prevent both shooting and moving flat out, as well as preventing passengers from shooting, are one use only, and many tanks either don't have access to them or have to buy them. The tracked tanks and walkers meanwhile often retain a similar cost and armor with many of their vastly superior Skimmer counterparts filling similar or identical roles.
The primary positive change to vehicle utility is that they're scoring and sometimes superscoring, which gives them more "meta" utility, but not really in their intended roles.
MWHistorian wrote: I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking.
Indeed. There is a difference between "You're wrong" (I disagree) and "You suck!" (I attack!).
I totally agree. The problem is that here, when someone disagrees with someone, it usually ends up as attacks complete with the name calling spamming insulting pictures and so forth. The usual culprits have been fairly well behaved in this particular thread however so I give them props on that.
The simple fact is that you going to find different opinions and views on this. We have had these sorts of debates since 2nd edition where players preferred rogue trader or 2nd and argued about which was better, which was better balanced, which had better or worse rules or balance or whatever. The arguments are irrelevent as what one player sees as balanced another will see as unbalanced because they think it isnt or because of what "should be", or because they think that some imbalance should be built in or whatever reason we all have. The key is understanding that different people like different rules better and their right to their belief should be respected. If players "Bob" replies to an OP with their opinion on something and player "Danny" disagrees, player "Danny should just stick to the OP and not goi into a 12 page arguement with player "Bob" telling they are wrong with quotes and back and forth because no one is going to change anyone elses mind and it only leads to the aforementioned attacks when they realize that they are not going to change "Bob's' mind.
Many players use gaming as a way to escape reality. A way to have fun with buddies and others use gaming as a way to compete and enjoy winning and many variations and themes. In almost all of them, they take their gaming seriously and it is near and dear to their hearts. To where they feel strongly about it. These strong feelings cause us to take it personally and this in turns clouds how we "take" and "react" to things. A sure fire mixture to heated arguments. We have all seen this I am sure.
For the OP, I would say, give it a shot. Borrow an army and play a few games. If you are into the fluff and the "40k world", and you think you might like to play (under the current rules or possible future ones), and you can afford it, I'd say pick a faction and start some basic collecting of units that you will definately need in a future army (sometimes some of the units get nerfed or ubered but you can always trust that some obvious ones will be staples in any edition and stick with them. This will give you time to convert and paint to a higher degree than you would in a rush by starting in a hurry later and save you $ later by not having to buy those units at a later date.
I'm sure that someone is liable to post after this with select quotes telling me part of this current post is off topic, however, they will be wrong (and derailing the thread themselves) as I am answering a question someone else has bought up in this thread. You will also note, that I addressed the original post and the original poster with an honest answer to their question along with a few tips that may or not be helpful but either way, were given in the interest of staying on topic and being helpful.
EVIL INC wrote: I totally agree. The problem is that here, when someone disagrees with someone, it usually ends up as attacks complete with the name calling spamming insulting pictures and so forth.
At which point you report the offending posts so that we can deal with it, and move on.
What you don't do is try to de-rail threads by claiming that people are being attacked when they're not. Less critique on other posters' behaviour in completely unrelated threads and more sticking to the actual topic would be appreciated.
The simple fact is that you going to find different opinions and views on this.
Yes, you are. That's the whole point of this thread.
You don't need to point out, in every single thread asking for peoples' opinions, that different people have different opinions. That becomes self-evident when people post their opinions.
EVIL INC wrote: I totally agree. The problem is that here, when someone disagrees with someone, it usually ends up as attacks complete with the name calling spamming insulting pictures and so forth. The usual culprits have been fairly well behaved in this particular thread however so I give them props on that.
"Open attacks" are fairly rare on Dakka. What isn't rare are people who take personal offence at their opinion not being agreed with. Some of this stems from language barriers and some of it stems from people who just aren't very good at accepting that people have a different view than they do. These usually end it incredibly long quoting wars with mild snarky remarks and repeating the same things over and over. If they do resort to blatant insults I don't think I've ever seen one last more than 10 minutes before it's deleted and a warning issued.
I definitely disagree with Loborocket and his train of thought that the moderating on this site is poor. I think it's great that we're all allowed to express our opinions whether they be negative or positive. I actually find Dakka to be one of the better forums for 40k if not the best as far as mods go.
Vaktathi wrote: The biggest thing that I've noticed is that 7E has more "houserules' than any other edition.
More than 2E? I'm a bit skeptical...
BTW, you are completely on point with respect to Skimmers / Tanks / Dread Vehicles being completely non-sensical in HtH, but a lot of that ties to 7E having poor CC mechanics in general. Really, 7E has the worst CC rules of any "modern" edition that I've played (3E or later).
And Skimmer armies? How about them Necrons? Skimmers which are uniformly tougher than than any other Skimmer in the game, further benefitting from the 7E rules. Yeah, great stuff.
Zande4, Your right. I've seen both andthis is why I avoid doing either.
I agree most definately on dreads getting hosed this edition. I think they have been bad enough for a while but I think the "first blood" put even bigger targets on them than before and overall, I havnt been impressed with them for a good while even before that.
i would lean towards 7th edition being better for the "basement players" than the tournament players.
This because when you only play 3-5 other people in the privacy of your home, its easier to house rule and keep track of thing with less pressure to win. Your more likely, I think to come up with gentlemans agreements such as no super heavies in games under 2000 points or whatnot. Not that this cant all be done in a shop, but in a shop, your looking at greater numbers of players and different combinations and not always knowing who your gonna be playing ect and so forth which makes it harder to keep track of andwith total strangers....
I think the current edition is.... different. Better in some ways, worse than others from all of the previous editions. Unfortunately, the ways it is "worse" (in my opinion) causes me to be less inclined to play at shops or tournaments and my "baseent group" s to play so rarely games are virtually nonexistant.
Fortunately for me, All of my current armies are "up to date" enough to satisfy me. I have plenty of painting projects to keep me busy in that regard and my buddies and I are exploring Dust Tacticsand with the recent FF super sale, I also have plenty of painting, modeling and such for that game to keep me busy a while as well.
Hopefully, next edition will cause me to play more often.
My earlier suggestion to the OP still stands. Try a few games and even if the rules dont currently appeal to you, if you like the fluff, background and models and are able to, find a faction and get started on some basics for a future edition where you might be more interested so you'll have a head start in your modeling/painting and in terms of money in building an army when that time comes.
Either way, good luck.
EVIL INC wrote: i would lean towards 7th edition being better for the "basement players" than the tournament players.
I see the opposite. As a "garage gamer" (there are basically no basements in SoCal), the increased fiddliness of 7E works against the entire drinking aspect of the game. When you're trying to enjoy your beer, you really don't need to be micro-positioning toy soldiers, or doing multiple layers of rules reference lookups. Heck, just setting up a game of 7E feels like it takes forever. And the rules bloat in the rulebook and Codices gets in the way of casual gaming, where you don't have the time and repetition to memorize every rule in every Codex.
To be fair, powergaming has always been an issue - no matter which edition. Actually, i find it less of an issue now thanks to maelstorm and everything scoring.
Everything Scoring, but some things Scoring better is actually another good example of how stupid the 7E rules are. It would have been better to do away with the Scoring concept altogether, rather than to have different flavors of Scoring. Instead, 7E has a rule, that applies to everything, but in slightly different ways. Fail.
It's still way better than 6-th way of dealing with missions and 5-th killpoints. At least imo. Haven't played earlier editions - can't tell what's been there.
5E killpoints were stupid, still are as they still kept them in in at least one 6E and 7E mission. That said, the Maelstrom missions often have the exact same problem, where killing a Land Raider or a Rhino will both get you that objective point.
For me, Maelstrom missions are more about luck of the draw and what unit types both your and your opponent brought. it's possible to be literally unable to complete certain objectives (hard to kill a building or flyer when your opponent has none), while others can be trivial (e.g. cast a psychic power!). Even when they pertain to the actual objectives on the table, I've both won and lost games simply based on luck. Roll both the objectives I'm on twice in a row? Sweet, I'm up 4 points in one round without doing a single thing.
Maelstrom was an interesting idea, but really poorly executed. Like much of what GW does, they're pretty good at coming up with great ideas and going out of their way to implement them in the worst way possible.
MWHistorian wrote: [spoiler]
I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking. If you can't handle people with different opinions then perhaps an internet forum isn't for you?
Also one of your solutions is "caring less." That means "drop your standards." That would be easier if GW didn't charge so much for sub standards rules.
Debate:
OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: I disagree, my meta isn't the same as yours, I've had a different experience.
Being a dick:
OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: This is BULL gak. Have you ever tried X combination? Have you ever tried Y combination? You're not having fun! You're wrong!
I'd suggest that, when faced with a bad matchup, 'caring less' means playing anyway and not getting all angry about a game of toy soldiers. Just play it anyway. It might be fun. I appreciate that there are other games out there that have a better standard of written rules and balance. Great. If 40k doesn't meet your high standard for a children's toy soldier game, go play one that does.
Does any of this mean 40k is objectively a 'good' or 'bad' game? No. There's no such thing. It might have a good/bad/balanced/realistic/unrealistic ruleset, but that's not the same thing. It's a game. So how 'good' it is is determined by how much you enjoy playing it.
The OP on this thread asks how YOU feel about 7th. There are a lot of people on here telling others that how they feel about 7th is wrong, or trying to 'prove' their experience of 7th is the right one. Maybe they should start another thread.
Personally I enjoy 7th edition. Of course, I've only been playing for a few months and I'm lucky enough to have an awesome local community(most local players are very experienced, veterans of several ETCs and are both willing and able to play the new guys with lists that match in power and provide challenging games).
That being said, I don't consider the 7th edotion rules adequate for anything else than games between established groups of friends. You need the group to agree on a rough power level for a given game and you need the experience and models to build an army accordingly.
It's a bad system for fluffy/casual games because power varies wildly. If one guy likes DA on foot and the other Saim-Hann Eldar or Daemons of Tzeentch, the games between their fluffy lists are going to be very one-sided.
It's a bad system for competitive play because it's too random. Top competitive armies often have ways to minimize this randimness (avoiding part of the rules so to say).
I disagree. Killpoints is a bad mission if you only play killpoint missions, or arrange in advance to play a killpoint mission and build your list specifically to win it. When you play with a random table of missions the 1/3 (or 1/6 in the broken current edition) chance of playing killpoints provides a necessary balance to the advantages MSU armies have in objective missions. For example, do you take two 5-man squads that can each claim an objective, have to be attacked separately, can split their own fire, etc? Or do you consider that too much of a liability in killpoint missions and take a single 10-man squad instead? Without killpoints you almost always take the two 5-man squads. With killpoints it's a much harder and more interesting decision.
Honestly, the only thing wrong with killpoints in 5th was that this concept wasn't explained in the rules. So when tournament players whined and cried about how their MSU transport spam armies didn't automatically win every mission type people felt sorry for them instead of telling them to STFU and stop mindlessly netlisting an army that doesn't work.
While maelstorm's random, yes, the random factor is somewhat lowered by numbers. There are 66 missions, ~2/3% of them are about board controle. You can't get the same mission again. And you draw lots of them.
Furthermore, as it's random and might require basically anything from basica being there to issuing challenges, killing stuff both at range and in mellee, manifesting psy powers, etc. It enspires list variations. Makes you think, why not bring a single psycher just in case i get this extra vp for basically bringing the unit?
Remember how everyone cried that Flyers and SH are op? Here you go, extra points if you deal with them.
Yep, it's not ideal but still a great system. It's much-much butter than last turn flatout on an objective with min squads or static gunlines behind adl and nothing more.
I disagree. Killpoints is a bad mission if you only play killpoint missions, or arrange in advance to play a killpoint mission and build your list specifically to win it. When you play with a random table of missions the 1/3 (or 1/6 in the broken current edition) chance of playing killpoints provides a necessary balance to the advantages MSU armies have in objective missions. For example, do you take two 5-man squads that can each claim an objective, have to be attacked separately, can split their own fire, etc? Or do you consider that too much of a liability in killpoint missions and take a single 10-man squad instead? Without killpoints you almost always take the two 5-man squads. With killpoints it's a much harder and more interesting decision.
Honestly, the only thing wrong with killpoints in 5th was that this concept wasn't explained in the rules. So when tournament players whined and cried about how their MSU transport spam armies didn't automatically win every mission type people felt sorry for them instead of telling them to STFU and stop mindlessly netlisting an army that doesn't work.
Other than speculation on web forums, we've never seen any evidence that their purpose was to counter MSU spam (that's simply been the explanation people rolled with), instead of simply being easier to calclulate than the old Victory Points which were much more accurate reflections of victory but more annoying to calculate.
I think the problems they create is also much larger than any issues with MSU spam, it was entirely possible to have your army broken, to be driven from the field and be completely unable to inflict any further harm on your opponent, and while your opponent lies victorious over the field, with a largely intact army, you win simply because you killed X+1 number of distinct maneuver elements. That's poor design right there, and if your solution to a perceived metagame problem is to construct a victory condition that can result like that, in a battle specifically about destroying your enemy rather than fighting over objectives, something is broken.
koooaei wrote: While maelstorm's random, yes, the random factor is somewhat lowered by numbers. There are 66 missions, ~2/3% of them are about board controle. You can't get the same mission again. And you draw lots of them.
You can however get several for the same objective (e.g. 31 and 21 for example).
Furthermore, as it's random and might require basically anything from basica being there to issuing challenges, killing stuff both at range and in mellee, manifesting psy powers, etc. It enspires list variations. Makes you think, why not bring a single psycher just in case i get this extra vp for basically bringing the unit?
An army might not have access to them for example (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Death Korps of Krieg, Dark Eldar, etc), while for others it may not fit the theme (e.g. a Khornate warband).
Remember how everyone cried that Flyers and SH are op? Here you go, extra points if you deal with them.
*If* they're taken and you draw them when you need them.
Yep, it's not ideal but still a great system. It's much-much butter than last turn flatout on an objective with min squads or static gunlines behind adl and nothing more.
Again, I like the idea, but I don't think they're much better than the older mission style, instead of gunlines you emphasize speedy MSU. It's incredibly easy to rack up a largely insurmountable lead very quickly, and often it has nothing to do with the list or skill, but simple draw.
koooaei wrote: There are 66 missions, ~2/3% of them are about board controle.
But those board control cards are all completely random. Why are you ordered to claim objective #3? Because that's the one that gives you the best chance of controlling more than your opponent? Because it's the one you've been moving your army into position to claim? No, because that's what the random dice said. And then there's the problem where one player gets easy objectives ("claim the objective in your deployment zone that has half your army sitting on it") and the other player gets the hard ones ("claim that same objective").
Furthermore, as it's random and might require basically anything from basica being there to issuing challenges, killing stuff both at range and in mellee, manifesting psy powers, etc.
Yes, which is why maelstrom missions suck. What you just described isn't a coherent strategy, it's rolling the dice and then doing what the dice tell you to do. Why not save a ton of time and money and just play a game of "who can roll more 6s"?
Makes you think, why not bring a single psycher just in case i get this extra vp for basically bringing the unit?
And this is the problem! You aren't taking a psyker because you think it will contribute something to your army, you're bringing it just in case the random dice roll "+1 VP if your army has a psyker in it".
Remember how everyone cried that Flyers and SH are op? Here you go, extra points if you deal with them.
And if your opponent doesn't bring any flyers you have a wasted objective card, while your opponent is potentially scoring points from their cards.
OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: I disagree, my meta isn't the same as yours, I've had a different experience.
Being a dick:
OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: This is BULL gak. Have you ever tried X combination? Have you ever tried Y combination? You're not having fun! You're wrong!
That's how some people debate, I don't have problem with it but others might find it a little brash. If you honestly think it's harsh enough to warrant it, report it and move on. There's no point trying to school a forum board to you standard of what's right or wrong.
The OP on this thread asks how YOU feel about 7th. There are a lot of people on here telling others that how they feel about 7th is wrong, or trying to 'prove' their experience of 7th is the right one. Maybe they should start another thread.
That's how discussions work. What you're suggesting is everyone pop in post there answer and never return...
Vaktathi wrote: Other than speculation on web forums, we've never seen any evidence that their purpose was to counter MSU spam (that's simply been the explanation people rolled with), instead of simply being easier to calclulate than the old Victory Points which were much more accurate reflections of victory but more annoying to calculate.
Whether GW intended it to be that way or just got it right by blind luck (a fairly likely explanation, sadly) that's how it worked.
I think the problems they create is also much larger than any issues with MSU spam, it was entirely possible to have your army broken, to be driven from the field and be completely unable to inflict any further harm on your opponent, and while your opponent lies victorious over the field, with a largely intact army, you win simply because you killed X+1 number of distinct maneuver elements. That's poor design right there, and if your solution to a perceived metagame problem is to construct a victory condition that can result like that, in a battle specifically about destroying your enemy rather than fighting over objectives, something is broken.
But how often does that really happen? If your entire army is crippled while your opponent's army is largely intact then you're probably tabled. So this only happens in the rare event where one player brings way more KP in their army than the other, loses a lot of minor units that give up KP but don't represent much real damage, and almost tables their opponent but fails to get the last kill before the game ends. I can see how that would be frustrating, but is this kind of rare problem really worse than having the game default to MSU armies because MSU strategies have no drawbacks?
And yeah, it's an abstraction that doesn't always make sense, but do objectives really make sense either? Why should a single guardsman standing on an objective score it at the end of the game when a 500+ point terminator death star is standing 2" away and about to kill him one second later?
I saw plenty of games like that, particularly with more elite-ish armies. It happened to me (both ways) more than once.
Winning a KP game 11-9 when you're army has a total of 10 KP's and half a tac squad left and your opponent has 18 in their army and three battle tanks a transport and two transports still left, it's difficult to accept that as a real "win". That was not by any means an uncommon occurrence. Still isn't in KP games.
In fact, I just had one one a couple of Saturday's ago, playing Purge the Alien with my DKoK Assault Brigade.
I left my opponent with a Drop Pod, a 1 wound Librarian, and four Tac marines. I still had a unit of Death Riders, two units of Grenadiers mostly intact, and two units of Heavy Mortars untouched. We both got Linebreaker and Slay the Warlord, I got first Blood, but he got 9 KP's from me, I only got 7 from him, resulting in a total of 11 to 10 in his favor.
So despite having 18 infantry, four Death Riders, four Mortars and twelve crewman, five distinct units and ~566pts worth of models left, and my opponent having ~200-250pts of models of 3 distinct units left, composed of five infantry and a drop pod, I lost. Not quite as decisive as my original example, but by any realistic standard of victory, my army was left more functional, more intact, and had inflicted a greater level of damage on my opponent than I had received.
Yep, it's not ideal but still a great system. It's much-much butter than last turn flatout on an objective with min squads or static gunlines behind adl and nothing more.
Again, I like the idea, but I don't think they're much better than the older mission style, instead of gunlines you emphasize speedy MSU. It's incredibly easy to rack up a largely insurmountable lead very quickly, and often it has nothing to do with the list or skill, but simple draw.
Yep, your points about not having access to some stuff like psychers is valid and i acknowledge it. And the randomness doesn't always go 'fair'. That's why i've said it's not ideal. But i still like it better than the old systems and i truly enjoy maelstorm. Even when i get an unlucky streak of objective cards. The games in general are more dynamic and tactical and it's important for an overall experience.
There IS a reason to use many units that haven't seen play in a while. Ork Kommandoes or IG Sniper Hobbits for example.
I can get that, but for many that's a frustrating experience. It's certainly more dynamic.
Personally I would have liked a broader range of objectives for the older style missions, and possibly missions where the objective is not the same for both sides (e.g. one side plays what is effectively "Emperor's Will", representing two important battlefield positions, while the other may be playing for "The Relic", hoping to retrieve an important piece of equipment from the field).
koooaei wrote: The games in general are more dynamic and tactical and it's important for an overall experience.
IMO the game is actually less tactical, because all of your tactical decisions are made by rolling the dice instead of choosing from multiple possible combinations of objective claiming/contesting/killing that could win the game. In a conventional game you decide to claim objective #2 and contest #3 because your bluff to take #1 left #2 exposed and #3 is too strongly held to take it but within range of one of your fast attack units. In a maelstrom game you take objective #2 because you rolled "capture objective #2" on the random table. See the problem?
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
how offten do you play against eldar with non eldar armies? Or with IG vs GKs. Or IG vs blight nids. Or DAs vs tau.
I seem to have misunderstood the statement made by JohnHwangDD though, so to just to make sure I understand what you mean, do you mean that games between these armies tend to be dominated by individual very powerful models (that's actually how I interpreted the original statement). If not that, why are these match-ups particularly troublesome when it comes to wound allocation and units/models?
But fair enough, I haven't played any of the combinations you list above. More in general I think I haven't had that experience because the casual group I play with tends to try and make games be fun for both parts. I can see the potential problems with playing in pick-up games though, it's just that I would never even consider doing that with a game as complicated as 40k.
Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.
Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.
If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.
As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.
Ok I see, I didn't quite get that was what you meant by individual models being important. I can certainly see that free wound allocation would speed things up, but I do like the tactical element of making sure that your important models (special weapons and sergeants) are protected.
I'm not sure I see the problem with Guard. You mean that it's annoying to not be able to allocate wounds to non-special models first? Well, I must say that I find it a bit weird that the guys in the front packing special weapons have some kind of magical shield that allows them to avoid getting hurt. Or is it just that it takes a lot longer time to sort things out in 6th/7th? I can't argue with that really.
Vaktathi wrote: 5E killpoints were stupid, still are as they still kept them in in at least one 6E and 7E mission. That said, the Maelstrom missions often have the exact same problem, where killing a Land Raider or a Rhino will both get you that objective point.
For me, Maelstrom missions are more about luck of the draw and what unit types both your and your opponent brought. it's possible to be literally unable to complete certain objectives (hard to kill a building or flyer when your opponent has none), while others can be trivial (e.g. cast a psychic power!). Even when they pertain to the actual objectives on the table, I've both won and lost games simply based on luck. Roll both the objectives I'm on twice in a row? Sweet, I'm up 4 points in one round without doing a single thing.
Maelstrom was an interesting idea, but really poorly executed. Like much of what GW does, they're pretty good at coming up with great ideas and going out of their way to implement them in the worst way possible.
Agree with this 100%. This is typically why I build lists to table and incapacitate my foe. I don't like relying on luck to win any more than I have too (dice rolls.)
Okay, so I'm hearing mixed reviews, so my own experience will probably be the best thing to go with. Really, the main things holding me back:
- I am not a fan of vehicles/tanks/flyers/titans at this scale. I like painting infantry, but I get bored with looking at tanks on my shelves.
- The random tables for Warlord Traits and Powers kill a lot of the narrative aspect for me.
- My group is long-time players, but attendance is definitely going down without a "shiny, new" game to replace 40k.
-
Some things I love:
- I finally understand how to build a DE force (I like the new codex).
- Psychic Phase means I don't forget to use powers (But f'real Demon-summoning?)
- My group plays everything from Kill Team to Apocalypse sized games (I like the "Team-pocalypse: Everyone Bring 2k pts" idea)
- Beer, but not pretzels.
I think I'm gonna go hang out some more and gauge the local crowd's feeling. My elves look TOTALLY EVIL but system/setting ambiguous, so I can sit on the sidelines with my pom-poms if it's not for me. THANKS GANG!
Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.
Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.
If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.
As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.
Ok I see, I didn't quite get that was what you meant by individual models being important. I can certainly see that free wound allocation would speed things up, but I do like the tactical element of making sure that your important models (special weapons and sergeants) are protected.
I'm not sure I see the problem with Guard. You mean that it's annoying to not be able to allocate wounds to non-special models first? Well, I must say that I find it a bit weird that the guys in the front packing special weapons have some kind of magical shield that allows them to avoid getting hurt. Or is it just that it takes a lot longer time to sort things out in 6th/7th? I can't argue with that really.
7E wound allocation is high effort, because it affects every single model every time you move (or remove) a model, for basically zero gain. It's stupid.
In the real world, for every military, every trooper is trained to use all of the equipment in the unit, so someone will pick up the special equipment. There is always a SiC or CoC, and someone will take command of the unit. That is how military units work. They don't completely fall apart because one man died. They keep going in the face of losses.
At-will wound allocation models that pretty well. Whomever died, died, and someone else picked up the weapon.
Also, in the real world, there is no magical force directing firepower to whomever happens to be on point. In a firefight, anybody can be wounded, including troops in the rear of a formation. There is no magical barrier stopping bullets at some arbitrary range. People have been killed far beyond nominal "effective ranges".
Again, 7E wound allocation is stupid and I refuse to abide by it.
EVIL INC wrote: i would lean towards 7th edition being better for the "basement players" than the tournament players.
I see the opposite. As a "garage gamer" (there are basically no basements in SoCal), the increased fiddliness of 7E works against the entire drinking aspect of the game. When you're trying to enjoy your beer, you really don't need to be micro-positioning toy soldiers, or doing multiple layers of rules reference lookups. Heck, just setting up a game of 7E feels like it takes forever. And the rules bloat in the rulebook and Codices gets in the way of casual gaming, where you don't have the time and repetition to memorize every rule in every Codex.
LOL, Someone in another post called those of us who prefer to play at home or non-tourney scene players "basement dwellers". I take it s a compliment that we would need to be insulted in such a way so use the term as a compliment even though I dont have a basement either. I dont drink and those of my private group dont drink a lot while we play if they do at all during those times. There are some times they do, but those are with different games such as D&D or whatnot.
When I moved from in-store "dry" gaming to at-home "wet" gaming, GW games got a *LOT* better. Orks and Orcs fit a lot better in the game universe. I am convinced that 3E-5E was designed to be played with a beer in hand and snacks at the ready.
Then GW decided toy soldiers were "serious business", and sucked the fun out in 6E, doubling down in 7E.
7th edition has rejuvenated my gaming group. It's the best edition of 40k yet. The key is finding a group that wants to play the same style 40k as you, but that has always been true.
The ETC missions seem to be the best mission pack so far, in my opinion.
Gangrel767 wrote: 7th edition has rejuvenated my gaming group. It's the best edition of 40k yet. The key is finding a group that wants to play the same style 40k as you, but that has always been true.
The ETC missions seem to be the best mission pack so far, in my opinion.
For an established group it works well: There are few limitations of playing whatever you happen to own.
Due to other games we play, we all tend to a mixed warfare approach since spam tends to be a bit of a yawn.
The most valid complaint I can think of is that the power levels of what can be fielded is so vast it does not allow for reasonably matched pick-up games within a given points value.
I do roll my eyes a bit at the "my group is perfect and there are never any disputes and the open to interpretation and do whatever you want nature of 7th totally never ends up causing dispute due to our ability to use the word fun as often as possible." I have fun when I play with my friends too, I also don't have fun when we try and bring new blood into the group and their lists consists of 5 unpainted large models and they think every terrain piece should be a bubble of cover and all model placement is somehow an abstraction, and wobbly model syndrome lets you do, well, whatever you want.
It's valid to say you're having fun, but fun is subjective. I guarantee you, take 5 people from one of these utopia's of fun we're hearing about, divide them up and ask their opinion on different books and units and you will have a range of opinion, you know, away from the hive mind an all. I don't think it'd be any different with my group of regulars.
I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.
As always, 7th edition is like trying to order a pizza, from a menu that simply lists "pizza" as every topping. One group swears by peperoni, the other wants 10 toppings, neither is able to commincate what toppings they want really, the problem as always is the pizza shop has gone out of its way to make communication amongst customers as difficult as possible. I mean it's all pizza after all right, it's a shared experience, not a meal....
Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.
Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.
If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.
As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.
Ok I see, I didn't quite get that was what you meant by individual models being important. I can certainly see that free wound allocation would speed things up, but I do like the tactical element of making sure that your important models (special weapons and sergeants) are protected.
I'm not sure I see the problem with Guard. You mean that it's annoying to not be able to allocate wounds to non-special models first? Well, I must say that I find it a bit weird that the guys in the front packing special weapons have some kind of magical shield that allows them to avoid getting hurt. Or is it just that it takes a lot longer time to sort things out in 6th/7th? I can't argue with that really.
7E wound allocation is high effort, because it affects every single model every time you move (or remove) a model, for basically zero gain. It's stupid.
In the real world, for every military, every trooper is trained to use all of the equipment in the unit, so someone will pick up the special equipment. There is always a SiC or CoC, and someone will take command of the unit. That is how military units work. They don't completely fall apart because one man died. They keep going in the face of losses.
At-will wound allocation models that pretty well. Whomever died, died, and someone else picked up the weapon.
Also, in the real world, there is no magical force directing firepower to whomever happens to be on point. In a firefight, anybody can be wounded, including troops in the rear of a formation. There is no magical barrier stopping bullets at some arbitrary range. People have been killed far beyond nominal "effective ranges".
Again, 7E wound allocation is stupid and I refuse to abide by it.
Using real world military training and tactics examples isn't a very good idea. I can only speak on the US Army's way of doing things today, but I'd be careful about the things you specifically mention about picking up weapons, assuming command of units, and such. There's way too much to it and way too many variables to try and cite real world examples. I could go into detail about the *actual* processes of doing the things you mentioned but it won't help the discussion and it would look like I'm attacking you. I'll just leave it at: be careful using references like this.
Back on topic: I like 7th would allocation and I don't like it. I like the idea of: the guys in the front are the first to go, as it adds a layer of tactics to the game (however you can debate whether it's a good place to add a layer). But I don't like it because it means my Aspiring Champion Berzerkers can't be the one to lead his gladiator group into close combat. And that makes me sad.
The wounding thing is a mixed bag. The issue I take is more "why are we going into such detail here?" but nowhere else. We're not able to blow limbs of mc's when we cause wounds ala weapon destroyed and immobilized results, but we can pick off specific models from units. I think I'm ok with more detail if it's going to be applied across unit types. I actually really like how specific fire arcs and armour facings work for vehicles, but where the line is drawn between vehicle and mc is hazy as all hell.
I'm torn because I'm the guy that loves real los and obscurement based cover, I don't really like the new move towards everything being area terrain. It's no faster when it comes to the shooting phase because you still need to make sure each one of your models can see at least one model in the enemy unit and assess if there's any hard caps on how many models can die (ie the res of the squad is out of los to the firing unit). The only place lazy terrain rules save time is in the movement phase because you don't really have to care too much where your dude is positioned so long as he's in the magical bubble of cover.
Once everyone learned to just put he important models at the back, moving and flanking to try and proritize killing models with special or heavy weapons or a unit leader became pretty pointless. Even more so with the pin point insanity of barrage.
The game doesn't know if it wants to be a tactical skirmish game or gi joe.
If the micro management of individual models to ensure an incredibly basic amount of protection for a few special models (basically just ensuring your special models aren't in the front row or on the sides) counts as tactics, I think that says a lot for the tactical depth 40k offers.
Blacksails wrote: If the micro management of individual models to ensure an incredibly basic amount of protection for a few special models (basically just ensuring your special models aren't in the front row or on the sides) counts as tactics, I think that says a lot for the tactical depth 40k offers.
I guess what I'm saying is, I could live with it if it jived better with other aspects of the game IE more realistic terrain rules akin to turn based video games but it does seem like a pointless step in conjunction with abstract terrain rules. Believe me, I'm not going as far as randomziing when a vehicle blows up, we just go with the 5th mentality, obviously I'm pulling lasguns or bolter marines before the good stuff.
what i like about 7th is that it fixed the wording on some special rules which made RAW abusers scream with joy abusing said rules
Perhaps, 8th should introduce the following system: ''IISRIPF, AKA If it seems slowed its probably forbbiden.'' Also, i really like the fact that they are toning the power creep in the 7th ed codices...
TL;DR Far from perfect, but 40k is going in a good way
Blacksails wrote: If the micro management of individual models to ensure an incredibly basic amount of protection for a few special models (basically just ensuring your special models aren't in the front row or on the sides) counts as tactics, I think that says a lot for the tactical depth 40k offers.
I guess what I'm saying is, I could live with it if it jived better with other aspects of the game IE more realistic terrain rules akin to turn based video games but it does seem like a pointless step in conjunction with abstract terrain rules. Believe me, I'm not going as far as randomziing when a vehicle blows up, we just go with the 5th mentality, obviously I'm pulling lasguns or bolter marines before the good stuff.
My comment was in reply to Ignatius, but you ninja'd in before me!
But yes, you make a good point. If 40k were more like Kill Team in model count, rules about facings, direction of fire, and directional cover could be used to good effect.
However, if 40k still intends on being a company level games with several tanks and upwards of a 100 infantry per side, then reasonable abstraction should be the name of the game. Area terrain by majority, wounds removed by owning player from wherever, basically like a fixed up 5th edition without some of the wound shenanigans on multi wound models.
I'm confused. You're saying that nobody else in a military unit knows how to load or fire a BAR or Mortar? That there is no chain of command for when the/an officer dies? That people in the rear of a formation won't ever die to incoming fire?
40k is a heroic game, so heroes should be at the fore. It looks better and is more in-universe. But the rules prevent this, so the rules are wrong. Destroying feel in favor of a time-consuming tactical sub-game is a poor tradeoff.
Gangrel767 wrote: 7th edition has rejuvenated my gaming group. It's the best edition of 40k yet. The key is finding a group that wants to play the same style 40k as you, but that has always been true.
The ETC missions seem to be the best mission pack so far, in my opinion.
For an established group it works well: There are few limitations of playing whatever you happen to own.
Due to other games we play, we all tend to a mixed warfare approach since spam tends to be a bit of a yawn.
The most valid complaint I can think of is that the power levels of what can be fielded is so vast it does not allow for reasonably matched pick-up games within a given points value.
I agree. GW has opened the pandora's box so to speak, but if you have a good group to play with then all is good. I'm a bit spoiled as most of the people I play with I have known and played 40k with for about 20 years, so a lot of that conflict is gone.
When I play at one of my LGS however, I have to be 200% clear on what kind of game we're playing. They are much more of the "old school" 40k crowd. They tend to avoid the SPAM and have more high level fun lists (or low - mid tier tournament lists).
Some of my LGS, however, run very high level GT prep style tournaments, so I have seen some of the craziness (adamantium lance, pacific rim, etc..)
I have created a very versatile environment for me to play in. I can get a super competitive, or a super fluff battle almost at whim, so I know this needs to be taken with a heavy dose of salt.
I guess what I am driving at is... if people invest in a community and a group of good tempered players, then this should be the best edition yet, as it really integrates and includes almost any option you could imagine. I do realize this isn't possible for everyone, but this is the spirit that I believe GW is producing under.
ThatSwellFella wrote: what i like about 7th is that it fixed the wording on some special rules which made RAW abusers scream with joy abusing said rules
ThatSwellFella wrote: what i like about 7th is that it fixed the wording on some special rules which made RAW abusers scream with joy abusing said rules
Can you think of some examples?
well in 6th edition RAW wise, ignores cover USR didn't work on vehicles since it said that coversaves cant be taken against wounds caused with ignores cover rule(and since vehicles don't have wounds ignores cover apparently didn't work on them(slowed, but my group was actually considering of implementing that ruling)
I find myself agreeing with both sides of this thread.
I actually like 7th edition and think it fixed many issues that really brought down 5th and had minor fixes to 6th.
Yet I still think 7th is a far cry from a balanced and great rule set.
However that doesn't really matter to me since each army has to play by the same rule set. And 7th edition is one of the best externally balanced systems I've played since 2nd edition.
You have so many army designs and lists right now to play against that no two games ever feel the same and I honestly can't wait to see the results from LVO next month just to see how many different armies and lists make it in the top 10.
Right now I can't tell you who is going to win LVO.
It can go anywhere from Tyranids w 5 tyrants, elder WS spam, grey knight detachment w loth or tig and cents and flyers and siguran tanks, white scar bike star, necron flyers, tau suit spam, admatium lance, demons(hi belakor) greentide, or some out of left field BA/SW army. And while not every single army book is an ultra competitve army; even the worst and oldest army book such as dark Angels are at least slightly competitve and is no where near as bad of shape as army books from editions past where you could have an army on a shelf that was 5+ years and 2 completely different editions out of sync.
Honestly if 40k competition and balance is so broken then The following question should be pretty easy to answer.
Which army list do you expect to win LVO next month?
They allow most forgeworld and most LoW options so it should be pretty easy to guess which list is truly broken.
Just because you can't necessarily pick which army is going to win doesn't mean the game isn't broken. It just means lots of stuff is broken, which does not equate to balance.
You could say the same thing of 5th at its height. Would it be Vulkan-melta-spam SM's? Mechanized IG? Long Fang-spam Space Wolves? Mechanized shooty-gunline Grey Knights? Draigo-wing? Blood Angels? Ork Biker Nobz?
First I don't think it's broken, you may not like it or agree with it.
if you read what I said; I stated I know its a far cry from a balanced perfect ruleset.
However imho it's uninspiring ruleset ultimately doesn't matter since each army plays by the same restrictions.
And it is in my opinion that most armies including all the resources available to them are more balanced between each other.
While I am claiming the above.
You are claiming everything is broken.
Either way the game is more balanced and it ultimately doesn't matter
This is why it's hard for anyone to guess who is the best army right now.
You are completely wrong about 5th. You are combining several meta's and a period of like 5+ years into one point of balance.
We started with space wolves dominating at the end of 4th to turn into rino Rush and lead blowers and By the mid to end of 5th grey Knights had something ridiculous like a 60% army attendance at torunaments and like an 80% win rate Then necrons rolled in at the end to compete. It want really any balance other then who had the newest army book power creep.
gungo wrote: I
Honestly if 40k competition and balance is so broken then The following question should be pretty easy to answer.
Which army list do you expect to win LVO next month?
Which list? Not which combination of codex's and data slates?
Even when lists get cute nicknames, it doesn't always tell you the exact compisiton of the collection of stuff errr ...army/list
gungo wrote: I
Honestly if 40k competition and balance is so broken then The following question should be pretty easy to answer.
Which army list do you expect to win LVO next month?
Which list? Not which combination of codex's and data slates?
Even when lists get cute nicknames, it doesn't always tell you the exact compisiton of the collection of stuff errr ...army/list
As adorable as your comment is when someone says tyranid list w 5 tyrants the list is pretty much going to be a very close representation no matter who makes it. It's built around the tyranid detachment w 3 hq's and a cad with 2 hq's. When someone says greentide it's the greentide detachment and a cad. When someone says the grey night strike force detachment w a cad including tig or loth and cents and flyers and siguran tanks it's pretty freakin clear Or when someone says white scar bike star it's all built around the same core list. When someone says admatium lance it's that and a cad. Not really hard to follow. The minor flavor you change beteeen lists is minor chsnges that doesn't change the core of the list. You can find various people debating what's the best design of these specufic lists all over these forums. So these cute titles are pretty self explanatory and is the basis of every single minature game.
When I tell someone a fat Han list in xwing evreryone knows it's a Han falcon w c3p0, boost, falcon title and usually luke w 3 z95s. If someone takes gunner instead of luke and predator that doesn't change the fact that cute name doesn't represent the same list. You are arguing a point that doesn't matter the fact is there are general list and army designs that are balanced by the fact most of these army lists are comparable in quality. Take a moment and figure out the army list yourself it is as much a part of competitve play as playing well with the units you have. You just have more choices and are able to tailor those lists a bit more now to your liking.
MWHistorian wrote: [spoiler]
I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking. If you can't handle people with different opinions then perhaps an internet forum isn't for you?
Also one of your solutions is "caring less." That means "drop your standards." That would be easier if GW didn't charge so much for sub standards rules.
Debate:
OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: I disagree, my meta isn't the same as yours, I've had a different experience.
Being a dick:
OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: This is BULL gak. Have you ever tried X combination? Have you ever tried Y combination? You're not having fun! You're wrong!
I'd suggest that, when faced with a bad matchup, 'caring less' means playing anyway and not getting all angry about a game of toy soldiers. Just play it anyway. It might be fun. I appreciate that there are other games out there that have a better standard of written rules and balance. Great. If 40k doesn't meet your high standard for a children's toy soldier game, go play one that does.
Does any of this mean 40k is objectively a 'good' or 'bad' game? No. There's no such thing. It might have a good/bad/balanced/realistic/unrealistic ruleset, but that's not the same thing. It's a game. So how 'good' it is is determined by how much you enjoy playing it.
The OP on this thread asks how YOU feel about 7th. There are a lot of people on here telling others that how they feel about 7th is wrong, or trying to 'prove' their experience of 7th is the right one. Maybe they should start another thread.
. Bazillions of edits for clarity...
Agreed.
A lot of people seem to take it personally when you're having fun with 7th or GW products at all.
In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.
In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.
It's not just the list, it's also based on mission type and player skill, as well as terrain and luck of the dice. I'd say the list is 60% of the game, but you can't just deny those other factors. I've won games by VPs where one more turn I would have been tabled.
In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.
And this is evidence of me and others not being omniscient or...?
Does any of this mean 40k is objectively a 'good' or 'bad' game? No. There's no such thing. It might have a good/bad/balanced/realistic/unrealistic ruleset, but that's not the same thing. It's a game. So how 'good' it is is determined by how much you enjoy playing it.
Rules are the game. If rules weren't the most important thing in a game, every Serbian basket ball team would come with AKs, and I don't mean in their bus like last years championships, but on the court.
It's not just the list, it's also based on mission type and player skill, as well as terrain and luck of the dice. I'd say the list is 60% of the game, but you can't just deny those other factors. I've won games by VPs where one more turn I would have been tabled.
Ok, there is more then enough match ups that end around deployment or rolling to get first turn. I play IG, if on the other side of the table is an eldar army or a GK army I know how it ends. I played those match ups for more then 5 months every week and I know how they end, no matter what mission is played.
In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.
And this is evidence of me and others not being omniscient or...?
No it's showing the fact people like you are so out of touch with the game that you argue balance when you honestly have no idea what's competitive or unbalanced. Given a simple and basic question of anyone who plays the game would know or have thier own opinion on if they bothered to play would at least have some semblence of a coherent and objectable thought on.
Instead you respond with amounts to I don't have a clue. But hey feel free to argue about a topic on 7th edition when you have no clue what's currently competitive, balanced, playable, working or not working in the game. You sound really informed!!!
In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.
And this is evidence of me and others not being omniscient or...?
No it's showing the fact people like you are so out of touch with the game that you argue balance when you honestly have no idea what's competitive or unbalanced. Given a simple and basic question of anyone who plays the game would know or have thier own opinion on if they bothered to play would at least have some semblence of a coherent and objectable thought on.
Instead you respond with amounts to I don't have a clue. But hey feel free to argue about a topic on 7th edition when you have no clue what's currently competitive, balanced, playable, working or not working in the game. You sound really informed!!!
I didn't realize we were exclusively talking about reece's version of 40k.
I'll make sure to tell everyone who has won a tournament last month it didn't count unless they've heard of the las vegas open...
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm confused. You're saying that nobody else in a military unit knows how to load or fire a BAR or Mortar? That there is no chain of command for when the/an officer dies? That people in the rear of a formation won't ever die to incoming fire?
40k is a heroic game, so heroes should be at the fore. It looks better and is more in-universe. But the rules prevent this, so the rules are wrong. Destroying feel in favor of a time-consuming tactical sub-game is a poor tradeoff.
No... That's not what I said at all. I said don't use those examples because there is more to it than you are insinuating. Again I'd rather not go into exact detail, you'll just have to trust me. Which of course is at your discretion to do stand by no means have to. But in some instances what your implying is appropriate and in others it's not practical. Again, there are a lot of variables. If it was as easy as you're saying, I'd have shaved off a couple months of pretty intense training. I have a 5 month course specifically on the roles of the platoon leader in the Armor branch coming up soon- which will barely scrape the surface of anything not pertaining to that specific job. But again, it's up to you to decide if you'd like to believe me or not.
This set of rules is a conflicting one for me. On the one hand I like having to at least place some thought in the movement and placement of men in a squad, but on the other hand I don't like having to keep my aspiring champions in the back of the formation. There's benefits to both in my opinion, and I suppose I'd be happy with either form.
I'm not sure that 40k requires as much complexity as it has, considering that each Guardsman is completely interchangeable in stats and abilities. The rules apply a deliberate homogenization of the members of a unit. So, while I agree there might be more to my examples, [i]for the purposes of modeling an in-game unit[i], I disagree that such additional complexity or variables is helpful or useful.
There is an art to simplification for the best simulation.
Based on my understanding of reality and my experience in the military, while wearing my game designer hat, I'm not going to agree with your request to simply trust you.
That isn't an attack on you or your experience. It simply means that I won't believe you without a better reason to do so.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm not sure that 40k requires as much complexity as it has, considering that each Guardsman is completely interchangeable in stats and abilities. The rules apply a deliberate homogenization of the members of a unit. So, while I agree there might be more to my examples, [i]for the purposes of modeling an in-game unit[i], I disagree that such additional complexity or variables is helpful or useful.
There is an art to simplification for the best simulation.
Based on my understanding of reality and my experience in the military, while wearing my game designer hat, I'm not going to agree with your request to simply trust you.
That isn't an attack on you or your experience. It simply means that I won't believe you without a better reason to do so.
Fair enough, as it said it was your decision and I'm not offended. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree as I really don't feel that restating everything I've been taught is a good use of anyone's time.
I'm mixed on the issue about dropping weapons. I know probably one of the main reasons why is because the way they were doing the whole precision shot rules and model vice unit wounds. Personally I figure it should be based on leadership. If the unit isn't fleeing they should be able to recognize that a special/heavy weapon is needed for one task or another. If the is fleeing then they might have a reason to lose special weapons.
But I'm not a rule designer so I can't say much on that issue.
I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.
Could you be a little bit more condescending perhaps? I think we can all agree that opinions vary. "Fan boy exuberance"? I haven't seen a single case of that in this thread, if anything the thread is filled with anti-fanboy sentiments. I don't really mind getting some new perspectives (even if I don't agree with them), but the discussion is way more interesting if people actually write what they think (and why they think so) instead of trying to characterize other people or make unfounded assumptions.
I wouldn't say that maelstrom missions are more tactical, but it adds another dimension to the game which means that you cannot use the same kind of strategy as you used to do. I think it makes the games more dynamic, things happen all over the board during the entire game instead only during the last two turns. It also forces you play a bit unsafe and take risks that you may not have needed to take before. For me this means that the battles are more interesting and fun. Yes, they might be a bit random at times, but in my experience it usually evens out over a game. Almost all of the maelstrom games I've played have been close calls, where the win is decided in turn 5 or 6. Of course, we always play with the house rule that mission cards that are impossible to complete can be switched out.
Do you really feel that strongly about maelstrom missions that you would refuse to play someone with a different opinion? I find that a bit extreme, but well, to each their own.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: I've been reading up, and I'd like to get back into 40k. I did not like 6th at all (I have the 4th ed rulebook on my shelf still though). I can see a bit of streamlining, and the DE codex is nicely laid out. I'm jusr trying to figure out if it's worth it.
My LGS still has a pretty good core of players, and I could borrow just about any army i want to. I just don't know if I'm sold on the game yet.
to low quality to warrant such prices, rules are strewn out to much and balance is muck.
New purchases are currently on hold for the time being.
Savageconvoy wrote: I know probably one of the main reasons why is because the way they were doing the whole precision shot rules and model vice unit wounds.
Both of which are stupid things to have in a game like 40k. This isn't a small-scale skirmish game where every detail needs to be represented, it's a large-scale game that needs a lot of abstraction to function properly. Just drop the whole "every model is a special snowflake" concept and only care about the status of the whole unit. The assumption that someone else picks up the melta gun after a sniper kills the first guy might not be 100% accurate, but it's a close enough approximation for a game with titans that can kill the whole squad in a single shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gruntl wrote: I think it makes the games more dynamic, things happen all over the board during the entire game instead only during the last two turns.
That would be nice, if the things that happen every turn had any connection at all to the previous events in the game. Rolling dice on the random "who gets points this turn" table as often as possible is not really something to praise. Nor should we forget that things happen all over the board every turn in a conventional game, even if they don't immediately lead to VP scoring.
Personally, I liked being able to choose which models died in a unit to avoid losing the "good" weapons. Currently, flamers are really hosed (pun intended) because unlike other special weapons, they HAVE top be at the front to be effective without hitting your own guys.
Now, I can totally understand the idea of other guys in the unit not being able to effectively pick up a special or heavy weapon and use it. That is a bit of actual realism. Not to say they couldnt use it, but the key word is "effectively".
But then to allow for that bit of realism, you would need to add in a whole new set up rules and charts for each different special or heavy weapon which would add to the so called bloat.
I would say easier to just allow the owning player to pick the guy to remove or possibly allow special or heavy weapons a type of look out sire roll to see if there is anyone else in the unit who is able to effectively use the weapon.
Yeah, people tend to get their emotions up when they expect/want to play a competitive game and get their butt handed to them.
That person may have not done anything really wrong either.
So many things GW chooses to lean on randomization as the core mechanic I am surprised I do not have to roll on occasion for "deviation" when moving my models (every move roll for leadership to see if they go where planned! new rule!). The main beef brought up was psychic powers and leadership abilities where they each suffer from amnesia until the day of battle.
It is perfectly possible to have fun, there is so much going on in a game I find it hard not to. You just have to remind yourself this is not a competitive game, there is not enough fixed rules / points / abilities for models to operate within to be sufficiently tactical. The meta changes so quickly that being away from the game for 6 months seems like a new game coming back.
I find people who "really like to win" are drawn to 40k because they only have to research a netlist and with minimal effort they can start "beating" veterans of the game on occasion: fast effort vs. reward. The confusion is that GW needs to clearly state that their rules are for tabletop war-game RPG: they are quite good for creating the backdrop and fielding any battle you choose with few limitations. We have had some terrific "epic" scenario battles that I think few games could match. But for pickup games I have abandoned 40k: it is too subject to "abuse" to have a friendly game with a stranger.
When GW can get it to the point where I could field X points of "fast attack" and pit it against the same points in "artillery" and against the same points in troops and each of those are a close battle, then I think they could be on the road to a more competitive game. They could always field those rules separate like apocalypse but it could be "tournament warfare edition". If Battletech can field "Alphastrike" for large tactical battles with still tons of detail, the 40k setting would be perfectly possible to update as well. All GW has to do is choose to engage their gaming customers a little more rather than delude themselves they are only collectors: it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.
Could you be a little bit more condescending perhaps?
But see, this is the problem, people can tell you nicely or in a condescending tone but your reaction will be the same, you feel judged because people don't enjoy what you enjoy. I can't dispute that you have fun playing maelstrom but I have no interest in playing maelstrom missions. We can ttoally agree to disagree, until someone makes the claim the maelstrom is "more tactical", I'll have disagreements with that.
Talizvar wrote: So many things GW chooses to lean on randomization as the core mechanic I am surprised I do not have to roll on occasion for "deviation" when moving my models (every move roll for leadership to see if they go where planned! new rule!).
You are aware that 40k 7E has random charge distance, right? Also random movement through rough ground. OTOH, with assault being terrible in 7E, maybe you haven't personally experienced it?
Anyhow, the random is supposed to make the game so that the better player doesn't always win, and the increasing random is supposed to give the underdog even more chances to beat a stronger opponent. I'm kinda dubious about this in practice.
I Like 7th a lot, having played 6th and 1 or 2 games of 5th.
I don't experience flyer spam, flyrant spam, riptide spam, wave serpent spam, ect in my local area, 'cause we understand the need not to be dicks and play every game like its the final of some super tournament.
I like the new vehicle table and new phase, which means the powers aren't just randomly done in shooting.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: I Like 7th a lot, having played 6th and 1 or 2 games of 5th.
I don't experience flyer spam, flyrant spam, riptide spam, wave serpent spam, ect in my local area, 'cause we understand the need not to be dicks and play every game like its the final of some super tournament.
I like the new vehicle table and new phase, which means the powers aren't just randomly done in shooting.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
So seeing as no one is a dick, do you guys every have any disagreements?
The reason I ask is, you name powerful/annoying units and their apparent absence where you play then move right on to "people" . Are units the problem or people?
This is why comments like this don't pass the smell test for me because sll I see is "only dicks run into issues playing this game" and I'm sure that's not what you're saying but it comes off as that.
Just to contrast with what you're saying, we've had an INCREASE in issues and bad air when we try and make what we think are more "casual" or laid back or fluffy lists because there's no real metric to go by and its subjective as all hell. I'm at the point where I'd rather my opponent bring what they feel is a strong list and I will do accordingly rather than have everyone tone police each other and make character judgements of one another based on what units we take.
I don't buy that anyone enjoying the game is existing in some utopia, I can totally buy that people are enjoying 7th but I tend to believe the more honest accounts with a bit of nuance, rather than the rose coloured glasses stuff.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The issue with "casual" is that not everyone wants to restrict themselves. I see that a lot in my group. Oh, well.
I think the problem comes when people's collection changes in power level without them buying anything new.
My friend has a ulthwe list and I have an iyanden list. He runs a large seer council, few tanks and aspects, and what few guardians he has are on jet bikes.
I run a lot of WG, WL, and WS.
In certain editions, his list was absurdly overpowered and could not be stopped.
In certain editions, my list was absurdly overpowered and could not be stopped.
I don't play my eldar all that much, and I don't want to collect more, but I've had to shelve them completely. My ability to run a 1850 game depends on me using 3 waveserpents, and now that is considered to be a little much. This isn't as bad when it's a new unit, like the riptide, but when an old unit gets upgraded...oh boy.
I'm so lucky I decided on Alpha Legion over Whitescars right now
That's why I own large armies of Eldar, Guard and Marines - there's always a playable army for whatever power level I want.
Lately, I've been playing a lot of Guard, because it's just been more fun to have regular men on the board. I do miss the all-conquering Eldar days in 3E & 4E.
But see, this is the problem, people can tell you nicely or in a condescending tone but your reaction will be the same, you feel judged because people don't enjoy what you enjoy. I can't dispute that you have fun playing maelstrom but I have no interest in playing maelstrom missions. We can ttoally agree to disagree, until someone makes the claim the maelstrom is "more tactical", I'll have disagreements with that.
I play since early 5-th and like 7-th. 5-th was my start and was fun but it had it's serious issues. Basically, every edition has it's issues from what i've seen so far. But for most people they boil down to codex ballance. Which is admittedly good in 7-th so far.
I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.
Could you be a little bit more condescending perhaps?
But see, this is the problem, people can tell you nicely or in a condescending tone but your reaction will be the same, you feel judged because people don't enjoy what you enjoy. I can't dispute that you have fun playing maelstrom but I have no interest in playing maelstrom missions. We can ttoally agree to disagree, until someone makes the claim the maelstrom is "more tactical", I'll have disagreements with that.
No, I would not have reacted the same way. As I said, I'm not at all annoyed at people enjoying different things from me, or disagreeing with me. My issue with your post is about how you communicate, not what you communicate. I don't particularly agree with what JohnHwangDD thinks about wound allocation, but I'm not at all annoyed at his responses. If anything I think they are great because he specifies what he thinks is the problem.
Of course we can agree to disagree, but I'm actually interested in knowing more details on why you think maelstrom missions are so bad.
gruntl wrote: I'm actually interested in knowing more details on why you think maelstrom missions are so bad.
Its an entirely random mechanic, with random mechanics inside them, on top of a game already over burdened by unnecessary random tables.
First of all, your mission cards are random. Some of them you may not be able to complete at all. Some of them may be worlds more difficult to complete than what your opponent drew. If that wasn't bad enough, several cards have randomVP rewards. As in, I could theoretically complete 4 of these objectives with D3 VP and roll super low on each for a total of 4. My opponent could complete 2 of the same objectives and roll really well, beating me by 1-2 VP. Its absurd.
When you factor in everything else that's random pre-game and during (warlord traits, psychic powers) that can have varying degrees of relevance - again because of the randomness - the control you have as a player in determining the game's outcomes is greatly reduced.
People say its 'tactical' because you have to react to a changing scenario. There's nothing tactical about drawing an objective in the opposite corner, while your opponent draws one that they're six inches from. There is absolutely zero tactical elements in that; its purely reactive and random. Tactical would involve decision making; if the cards could be chosen, or pre-determined prior to the game, or at the half way mark, or just something that gives the player a choice, then I might see some sort of tactical element.
As it stands, the concept of asymmetrical mission is a good one. Its dynamic and allows for armies to play to their strengths or counter those of the other army. Maelstrom took that idea, and executed it in a poor fashion. There's no player choice in the objectives. Its just random.
If you enjoy random events determining the outcome of your game, then Maelstrom is for you. The only thing I'll credit Maelstrom with doing is encouraging more movement than standard games, but even that's a stretch.
After playing since Rogue Trader I am completely exhausted with "New Rules". I have played RT, 2nd, 4th, 6th and now 7th. My opinion, 6th was a mess and 7th is a train wreck. What do I like about 7th? snap fire, vehicle hull points, what don't I like about it? Everything else. Having your armies units mechanics completely change from one edition to the next, is very frustrating and it seems, is done is the spirit of selling new models. (BTW, Centurion, Dreadknight, the Dark Angel land speeder and the flying boxes are horrible looking, silly, models). LOS broken, area terrain is gone, invisibility is ridiculous, Shrike attacking with a Str 4 weapon? Maelstrom cards, stupid etc etc.
Play 4th edition, go on ebay and pick up all the codexes for cheap and enjoy fun, friendly games.
To those Tournament guys, I only played one once (tournament) but I feel for you, with this pile of garbage that is 7th edition.
Fanboys, I know Ill get stomped for daring to dis GW new rules, however Im just giving a veterans opinion.
wulfbrigade wrote: After playing since Rogue Trader I am completely exhausted with "New Rules". I have played RT, 2nd, 4th, 6th and now 7th. My opinion, 6th was a mess and 7th is a train wreck. Play 4th edition, go on ebay and pick up all the codexes for cheap and enjoy fun, friendly games.
Fanboys, I know Ill get stomped for daring to dis GW new rules, however Im just giving a veterans opinion.
If you like 4th, you may want to look at picking up a 5th Edition rulebook, as 5th addresses a number of rules questions from 4th, while still playing similarly.
I like the perspective of guys who've played in RT and 2E - a lot of the new kids don't know what things were like back then, how 1500 pts was a huge game that took forever.
Indeed. I started in Rogue Trader. many of the newer/younger players dont understand the fun that we had back in the early days of 40k and how/why we love the fluff so much. Because we grew up with it as a part of our lives. overall, it is why many of us old timers accept each edition on it's own merits. preferring some over others in different aspects for different reasons but always loving the hobby itself.
EVIL INC wrote: Indeed. I started in Rogue Trader. many of the newer/younger players dont understand the fun that we had back in the early days of 40k and how/why we love the fluff so much. Because we grew up with it as a part of our lives. overall, it is why many of us old timers accept each edition on it's own merits. preferring some over others in different aspects for different reasons but always loving the hobby itself.
The RT/2E approach to Fluff was very different than what we have in 6E/7E. Lot more detail and storytelling back then, but games took roughly 3x as long as they do today - 750 pts of 7E models takes as long as a 1850 pt 7E game.
3E trimmed things back a lot, but you could play 1500 pts of 7E models in the time it takes for a 1250 pt 7E game. And they were still providing drawn & painted artwork.
In 7E, it's all pictures of the actual models, where everything's a catalog of stuff to buy. No imagination.
gruntl wrote: I don't particularly agree with what JohnHwangDD thinks about wound allocation, but I'm not at all annoyed at his responses. If anything I think they are great because he specifies what he thinks is the problem.
Of course we can agree to disagree, but I'm actually interested in knowing more details on why you think maelstrom missions are so bad.
of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.
Which is basically the opposite of maelstrom missions. Maelstrom is basically actions hastily taken with little forethought with no specific military end other than the drunk commissar on the other end of the line just really wants to see a sgt challenge plague marine champion, He's so drunk, he doesn't even care if the sgt wins the challenge. The cards take nothing into context, it'd be like sending your boys to destroy a bridge that doesn't exist and when that is discovered, I dunno, shoot a plane or a space wizard or something. Ask yourself this, what good would be playing a basic crusade mission (objectives) if at the end you justs rolled D3 vp for each objective?
I think the cards are salvageable but the current design isn't great. Blacksails said it well:
As it stands, the concept of asymmetrical mission is a good one. Its dynamic and allows for armies to play to their strengths or counter those of the other army. Maelstrom took that idea, and executed it in a poor fashion. There's no player choice in the objectives. Its just random.
If you enjoy random events determining the outcome of your game, then Maelstrom is for you. The only thing I'll credit Maelstrom with doing is encouraging more movement than standard games, but even that's a stretch.
The movement thing will obviously depend on the cards drawn and the terrain layout.
EVIL INC wrote: Indeed. I started in Rogue Trader. many of the newer/younger players dont understand the fun that we had back in the early days of 40k and how/why we love the fluff so much. Because we grew up with it as a part of our lives. overall, it is why many of us old timers accept each edition on it's own merits. preferring some over others in different aspects for different reasons but always loving the hobby itself.
The RT/2E approach to Fluff was very different than what we have in 6E/7E. Lot more detail and storytelling back then, but games took roughly 3x as long as they do today - 750 pts of 7E models takes as long as a 1850 pt 7E game.
3E trimmed things back a lot, but you could play 1500 pts of 7E models in the time it takes for a 1250 pt 7E game. And they were still providing drawn & painted artwork.
In 7E, it's all pictures of the actual models, where everything's a catalog of stuff to buy. No imagination.
Some see it that way. Others see it as the ability to play the fluff like Rogue Trader with structure added.
I agree with the commercialism however. That is offset with the much greater variety and convertability of the models. I'm willing to flip past the adds and get what I want to create the units i want in ways I was not able to back in the 80s when I started playing.
I enjoyed taking the time to play a longer game just as I enjoy playing bigger games in the same time for different reasons.
I like the Maelstrom missions. Keeps the game dynamic for me, even if it is "random". Just a different way of playing. I think it somewhat captures the spirit of the quote above. If the "tactics" of the game all happened away from the table in a "carefully planned" way I think I would not like game as much. The more that happens as the game develops and changes, the better to me. It makes me think about things that are happening "now" rather than just grabbing the latest "net list", pressing the easy button, and smashing the face of my opponent.
I like the Maelstrom missions. Keeps the game dynamic for me, even if it is "random". Just a different way of playing. I think it somewhat captures the spirit of the quote above. If the "tactics" of the game all happened away from the table in a "carefully planned" way I think I would not like game as much. The more that happens as the game develops and changes, the better to me. It makes me think about things that are happening "now" rather than just grabbing the latest "net list", pressing the easy button, and smashing the face of my opponent.
I've been in the military and mealstrom breaks my suspension of disbelief. Combat is not executed by a officer on the radio high on acid.
Reacting to random events is not tactical, its just reacting. Sure, there are some tactics involved in a game of 40k, but not enough for me. I need something beyond "go there and shoot this."
As another veteran from RT days, it was deeply flawed but it had a lot of soul. That soul isn't just dead now with 7th, it's come back as a one of those jerk ghosts that knocks vases off of tables and smells like rotten meat.
I believe the root of the issue is GWs business model. It goes something like this, "lets release a new ruleset every 3 years, we will change the stat line of basic troop models and make our new models rules, over the top, so people will want THOSE units in the army, instead of keeping the old ones" (Centurions, flying Tyranids, Flyers in general) Then we will charge a ridiculous amount of money for these rules"
The problems with this, it makes parents refuse to buy a game that costs $200, It alienates veteran players, (Player reading new rules: What do you mean my army doesn't even work close to the same way anymore!!?, i NEED TO BUY ________ TO HAVE A GOOD ARMY??). It makes the old rules sell like crazy on ebay and finally, it p&#@$ people off.
Here is what I propose, keep this edition as the FINAL edition, (even though its way too complicated) Release new PDF documents to update it. Make these OPTIONAL RULES. Sell more miniatures that don't suck. (Centurions, Taurus Transport, Vengeance LandSpeeder, Thunderwulf, these are ridiculous, terrible looking models, and the list goes on and on...)
wulfbrigade wrote: I believe the root of the issue is GWs business model. It goes something like this, "lets release a new ruleset every 3 years, we will change the stat line of basic troop models and make our new models rules, over the top, so people will want THOSE units in the army, instead of keeping the old ones" (Centurions, flying Tyranids, Flyers in general) Then we will charge a ridiculous amount of money for these rules"
The problems with this, it makes parents refuse to buy a game that costs $200, It alienates veteran players, (Player reading new rules: What do you mean my army doesn't even work close to the same way anymore!!?, i NEED TO BUY ________ TO HAVE A GOOD ARMY??). It makes the old rules sell like crazy on ebay and finally, it p&#@$ people off.
Here is what I propose, keep this edition as the FINAL edition, (even though its way too complicated) Release new PDF documents to update it. Make these OPTIONAL RULES. Sell more miniatures that don't suck. (Centurions, Taurus Transport, Vengeance LandSpeeder, Thunderwulf, these are ridiculous, terrible looking models, and the list goes on and on...)
Your welcome GW
End of Board meeting.
They certainly have alienated veteran players, but also they keep out new players with bloat, complexity and pricing. It's not really a good combination to be doing.
I lost interest in playing 40k just after the 6th Tyranid codex was released. It took my favorite army and didn't fix any of the problems with the last codex, it just added to option to run some new units in a really cheesy way while leaving most of the codex borderline unusable. I picked up the 7th rule book and could barely muster the will to play games anymore, I have only played about five games of 7th and each one was maelstrom, which I think is one of the worst additions to the game since fliers. I played my latest game two nights ago and while I stomped the person I was playing against I just felt that the game wasn't any fun anymore.
To much power creep has made the game turn into a mess and when your basic troop serves no real purpose other than to fill in the mandatory slots on your force org, then what is the point?
1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.
2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.
Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.
I think Maelstrom can add some tactical depth. Last time I played it, I was playing a SM demi company list. I had to pick where I wanted to be with regards to which cards I already had, which are already gone, and therefore, where I need to be close to. All in the face of the same questions for my opponents hand. While trying to whittle him down, and getting whittled myself. When most of your list moves 6" a turn, it can be quite tactical.
Throw in some ObSec jetbikes, though, and its just random.
That, and d3 VP. WTF, roll to see who wins after the game? Why not just 2vp?
Bharring wrote:I think Maelstrom can add some tactical depth. Last time I played it, I was playing a SM demi company list. I had to pick where I wanted to be with regards to which cards I already had, which are already gone, and therefore, where I need to be close to. All in the face of the same questions for my opponents hand. While trying to whittle him down, and getting whittled myself. When most of your list moves 6" a turn, it can be quite tactical.
Throw in some ObSec jetbikes, though, and its just random.
That, and d3 VP. WTF, roll to see who wins after the game? Why not just 2vp?
Agreed have you tried Cities of Death yet? ...it's even better and I personally like the objective cards more as well.
morgoth wrote:Best edition by far.
Two major changes that vastly improved the game:
1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.
2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.
Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.
I have to agree, if you are willing to fully jump in and embrace the changes; the folks that cling to old lists (tervigon-spam, razor-spam, etc) and thinking seem not to enjoy it as much. Leaving your 'comfort zone' is not something us nerds do easily haha.
I have been "comfortable" with 40k from the beginning.
It is just other games systems are that much more fun and the "new" 40k takes a tiny bit more work.
The mind springs to "why bother".
I have the models, when GW wants to make something more fun to play I will be ready.
Honestly I don't hate 7th. The biggest reason for it is the codexes that have come out feel more balanced. There are less things that feel like you should never take them while at the same time there are less things that feel like you need to take them or else you'll lose.
Yes, the game has teething problems still, but played with a bunch of friends you're on the same page with it works great. It's not perfect, but it's pretty solid and it feels like a good ruleset that is trying to give players a nice selection of options to play with while actually trying to properly balance the game.
I think I can sum up why there is so much disdain with 7th edition.
If I were to lose every single 40k model I had in a fire or theft and I was left with starting from scratch, I wouldn't. I would just move on to other, better games and never look back at the past. The issue is that I HAVE the multiple armies and hours of work that I put into them so I am not likely to just give up on them with all of the money and time that has been put into the game. On the other hand I do not enjoy the game enough anymore due to the direction GW has taken it so I generally have a pretty negative view of 40k and 7th just made everything worse.
I feel like this attitude sums up a lot of peoples feelings towards the game and is why so many people are negative towards it while sticking around. I am extremely anti-7th but I am not willing to write off the thousands of dollars and hours spent building, painting, and planning that I have in this game.
40k keeps rolling because of attrition more than anything else, despite GWs best effort to destroy the community around it.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I think I can sum up why there is so much disdain with 7th edition.
If I were to lose every single 40k model I had in a fire or theft and I was left with starting from scratch, I wouldn't. I would just move on to other, better games and never look back at the past. The issue is that I HAVE the multiple armies and hours of work that I put into them so I am not likely to just give up on them with all of the money and time that has been put into the game. On the other hand I do not enjoy the game enough anymore due to the direction GW has taken it so I generally have a pretty negative view of 40k and 7th just made everything worse.
I feel like this attitude sums up a lot of peoples feelings towards the game and is why so many people are negative towards it while sticking around. I am extremely anti-7th but I am not willing to write off the thousands of dollars and hours spent building, painting, and planning that I have in this game.
40k keeps rolling because of attrition more than anything else, despite GWs best effort to destroy the community around it.
This!
Plus, for me, the fact that I'm a total fluff bunny and I simply have not found an alternative table top game that's gripped me in the way the 40K universe has.
It's kinda like Star Wars. The original trilogy sucked me, as did the 2nd through 5th editions did of 40K, and despite the utter dissapointment that were the prequels/6th and 7th edition, I cannot help hoping (against better judgement perhaps) that the future still has great in store for my two favorite franchises.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I think I can sum up why there is so much disdain with 7th edition.
If I were to lose every single 40k model I had in a fire or theft and I was left with starting from scratch, I wouldn't. I would just move on to other, better games and never look back at the past. The issue is that I HAVE the multiple armies and hours of work that I put into them so I am not likely to just give up on them with all of the money and time that has been put into the game. On the other hand I do not enjoy the game enough anymore due to the direction GW has taken it so I generally have a pretty negative view of 40k and 7th just made everything worse.
I feel like this attitude sums up a lot of peoples feelings towards the game and is why so many people are negative towards it while sticking around. I am extremely anti-7th but I am not willing to write off the thousands of dollars and hours spent building, painting, and planning that I have in this game.
40k keeps rolling because of attrition more than anything else, despite GWs best effort to destroy the community around it.
I hear comments like "7th is good, it just needs some rule tweaking and a good group of friends" and I have to ask myself- why not just play another edition and not have to pay all that money for nothing?
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think it's an unwillingness to adapt. I think people for the most part, just don't like the new rules and don't find them fun.
This.
I don't have a problem with change. Just with the changes that makes the game less fun to play.
Unbound is a fine idea for campaign play, or for specific scenarios. It's a nonsense idea for regular games.
Changes to D weapons aren't likely to concern me until I buy or play against something that has one.
For the most part, I think I would like 7th edition a lot more if...
- Unbound was scenario-specific
- Warlord traits and Psychic powers were selectable
- Wound allocation was done as per 5th edition, with an addendum to apply wounds to already-wounded models first.
- The psychic phase rules were actually finished, and functional.
- Hull points were balanced out with vehicles given saving throws.
Rolling dataslates back into the codexes where they should have been to begin with wouldn't hurt, either.
Accolade wrote: I think Arbiter's points were all well made.
I hear comments like "7th is good, it just needs some rule tweaking and a good group of friends" and I have to ask myself- why not just play another edition and not have to pay all that money for nothing?
I agree. It is far less costly to play an older edition. I have gotten many old rulebooks and codecii from used bookstores for a considerable discount.
Oddly the print is still on the pages even though they are 'obsolete' editions.
Vaktathi wrote: There's a difference between leaving a comfort zone, and throwing any semblance of structure out the window.
The illusion of structure.
What structure is there if you can have 5 non standard detachments, 3 Allied, 1 Inquisitorial Detachment, 1 Assassin and an IK detachment, plus dataslates and formations.
The game doesn't have any structure anymore, it lost structure when alternate FoCs started, got worse when the Allied shenanigans began and completely disappeared with formations, Imperial Knights and non-FoC units.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't think it's an unwillingness to adapt. I think people for the most part, just don't like the new rules and don't find them fun.
This.
I don't have a problem with change. Just with the changes that makes the game less fun to play.
Unbound is a fine idea for campaign play, or for specific scenarios. It's a nonsense idea for regular games.
Changes to D weapons aren't likely to concern me until I buy or play against something that has one.
And that's the inability to adapt right there.
Unbound is something you haven't even tried or even considered the ramifications of.
Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.
1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.
2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.
Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.
So it's the best edition ever because it fixed two problems that had been introduced by 6th edition, only 2 years earlier?
1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.
2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.
Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.
So it's the best edition ever because it fixed two problems that had been introduced by 6th edition, only 2 years earlier?
6th did not introduce strength D, 7th finally merges all of the 40K into one 40K, where you can enjoy all of your models all the time, without being an donkey-cave to your opponent because strength D was designed for funPocalypse and not 40K at first.
I did not play 6th but I don't think 6th introduced Strength D.
Clearly 6th did a lot to break the structure in 40K, but it was already started before that. And maybe that structure was a problem to begin with. The FoC never scaled well, never adapted to different armies properly, etc.
7-th sux because there's lots of broken stuff.
Previous editions rock cause it's been long ago and i've allready forgotten lots of broken stuff from back than.
Also the game was more exciting cause i was younger and it was new experience.
morgoth wrote: And that's the inability to adapt right there.
No, that's a dislike for a system that throws the FOC out the window in favour of 'just use whatever miniatures you want to plonk on the table', because the different style of the different armies is a very large part of what I enjy about 40K, and turning it into a game between two random collections of miniatures just isn't appealing, right there.
Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, ...
No, I dismiss it as ridiculous because it's ridiculous.
...when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.
Really? Which of the problems that I perceive in the game does Unbound fix?
It arguably 'fixes' balance between codexes, by just letting everyone take the strongest units from whichever codexes they like (which isn't, IMO, a fix. It's breaking the system further instead of repairing it)... but army balance was never a major issue to me in the first place. And I'm at a loss as to how it does anything for any of the other problems that I had with 6th edition.
morgoth wrote: And that's the inability to adapt right there.
No, that's a dislike for a system that throws the FOC out the window in favour of 'just use whatever miniatures you want to plonk on the table', because the different style of the different armies is a very large part of what I enjy about 40K, and turning it into a game between two random collections of miniatures just isn't appealing, right there.
Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, ...
No, I dismiss it as ridiculous because it's ridiculous.
...when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.
Really? Which of the problems that I perceive in the game does Unbound fix?
It arguably 'fixes' balance between codexes, by just letting everyone take the strongest units from whichever codexes they like (which isn't, IMO, a fix. It's breaking the system further instead of repairing it)... but army balance was never a major issue to me in the first place. And I'm at a loss as to how it does anything for any of the other problems that I had with 6th edition.
Unbound doesn't mean you have to take Broadsides with Night Scythes. Besides, that kind of stupid was already possible before, so how is it worse now ?
For the rest, just wait and see, in five years you'll agree with me.
1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.
2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.
Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.
So it's the best edition ever because it fixed two problems that had been introduced by 6th edition, only 2 years earlier?
6th did not introduce strength D, 7th finally merges all of the 40K into one 40K, where you can enjoy all of your models all the time, without being an donkey-cave to your opponent because strength D was designed for funPocalypse and not 40K at first.
I did not play 6th but I don't think 6th introduced Strength D.
Clearly 6th did a lot to break the structure in 40K, but it was already started before that. And maybe that structure was a problem to begin with. The FoC never scaled well, never adapted to different armies properly, etc.
I think the problem was the introduction of strength D into regular games that weren't apocalypse without any major changes to the strength D rules. But hey you didn't play 6th so it's not your fault that you missed the escalation supplement or whatever it was that allowed super heavies.
koooaei wrote: 7-th sux because there's lots of broken stuff.
Previous editions rock cause it's been long ago and i've allready forgotten lots of broken stuff from back than.
Also the game was more exciting cause i was younger and it was new experience.
Look, I'm not in la-la land either, I KNOW other editions weren't some panacea for 40k, heck that's why people are always so excited for a new edition, they hope to see weird rules (subjectively or objectively) fixed. We're on the same page, although I'd still maybe argue that 5th was more enjoyable.
But it doesn't seem like the newer editions are any better than older ones, they're just different. And maybe that's where we're having this disconnect- I don't want to pay upwards of $135 for new books of rules that aren't any better than the previous ones. And what 7th REALLY has going against is the cost of buying the current rules needed for a decent army, through supplements, etc., just keeps on going up!
The fact of the matter is that you're not going to get an objective answer to that question by posting it on these forums. There are too many people here who are either anti or pro GW beyond the point of objectivity, and they all have axes to grind that are occasionally personal. You can see it by the people who are jumping on here in order to say that they quit the game two editions ago even though the present question is about 7th, which they've never played. There's also some people who are willing to look past small issues or even larger ones because they love the game and want to play no matter how convoluted or bloated the rules are. Either way though, the OP's post was a grenade lobbed into the forums, which is a shame because all the negativity and fighting on display here has pushed him away from playing.
IMO, Anyone who wants to know the state of the game should skim the tactics and YMDA forums. Tactics will give you a broad idea of how the armies play and what sort of strategies fit your play style best while YMDA will give you an idea of where the major rules sticking points are and how frustrating/hopeless the situation is. However, this particular post, or any direct question concerning the state of the game, was doomed to descend into a pissing match the moment the OP clicked submit. The player base online is just too volatile to provide you with objectivity on this.
morgoth wrote: And that's the inability to adapt right there.
No, that's a dislike for a system that throws the FOC out the window in favour of 'just use whatever miniatures you want to plonk on the table', because the different style of the different armies is a very large part of what I enjy about 40K, and turning it into a game between two random collections of miniatures just isn't appealing, right there.
Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, ...
No, I dismiss it as ridiculous because it's ridiculous.
...when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.
Really? Which of the problems that I perceive in the game does Unbound fix?
It arguably 'fixes' balance between codexes, by just letting everyone take the strongest units from whichever codexes they like (which isn't, IMO, a fix. It's breaking the system further instead of repairing it)... but army balance was never a major issue to me in the first place. And I'm at a loss as to how it does anything for any of the other problems that I had with 6th edition.
Unbound doesn't mean you have to take Broadsides with Night Scythes. Besides, that kind of stupid was already possible before, so how is it worse now ?
For the rest, just wait and see, in five years you'll agree with me.
"Inability to adapt." is a rather funny statement.
Having played up to 7 editions of the game is a proven ability to adapt and have some perspective.
Unbound has managed to take the inequity of the points system that may have been limited by the army selection to now pretty much cherry-pick what you want.
You do not "have to" take anything that is overpowered but the difference is YOU CAN.
The greatest change other than army selection is that a plain old "choice" is less common without it quickly being followed with a dice roll.
Sometimes it is just nice to choose to do something and do it rather than wait for the dice to decide.
I think just a normal move, deployment and army selection are the few things not determined by a dice roll.
Hindsight, I think 5th edition was more fun, 6th was an interesting change but then showed it needed some "dialing in" and 7th really did not change anything significant in tweaking core game mechanics which was a disappointment.
Many people have too many models invested in 40k to quit and walk away forever, there have been bad editions and good editions, people tend to take a break and play something else until GW chooses to sharpen their pencil and write something a little more interesting.
The less we buy within the "bad edition" the sooner it moves on.
It is playable but seems too much like work for something to be a hobby: I am under no obligation to compensate for GW lazy writing.
koooaei wrote: 7-th sux because there's lots of broken stuff.
Previous editions rock cause it's been long ago and i've allready forgotten lots of broken stuff from back than.
Also the game was more exciting cause i was younger and it was new experience.
Look, I'm not in la-la land either, I KNOW other editions weren't some panacea for 40k, heck that's why people are always so excited for a new edition, they hope to see weird rules (subjectively or objectively) fixed. We're on the same page, although I'd still maybe argue that 5th was more enjoyable.
But it doesn't seem like the newer editions are any better than older ones, they're just different. And maybe that's where we're having this disconnect- I don't want to pay upwards of $135 for new books of rules that aren't any better than the previous ones. And what 7th REALLY has going against is the cost of buying the current rules needed for a decent army, through supplements, etc., just keeps on going up!
I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.
I think the Maelstrom of War concept, improved on with Cities of Death, is the best thing to ever happen to 40k.
I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.
Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?
I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.
Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?
Oh you're not wrong but it's certainly not the ListHammer game that 5th was; another 7th ed concept that helps this are the allies and formations. I know some people are highly resistant to move away from the 'one codex versus one codex' brand and I can understand that but it doesn't have to be straight DA versus Eldar spam. And that said, the Eldar codex is imo out of balance with all of the other newer codex which otherwise seem as even as we've ever had.
Further Maelstrom of War missions do make a huge difference as well, when I beat Eldar with SM it's always maelstrom hah.
I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.
Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?
Oh you're not wrong but it's certainly not the ListHammer game that 5th was; another 7th ed concept that helps this are the allies and formations. I know some people are highly resistant to move away from the 'one codex versus one codex' brand and I can understand that but it doesn't have to be straight DA versus Eldar spam. And that said, the Eldar codex is imo out of balance with all of the other newer codex which otherwise seem as even as we've ever had.
Further Maelstrom of War missions do make a huge difference as well, when I beat Eldar with SM it's always maelstrom hah.
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.
I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.
I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.
Maelstrom of War is a random mechanic within another random mechanic.
You might as well not even play the game and just draw the cards and roll the indicated VPs to see who wins...
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.
I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.
What I mean:
Let's assume player A plays better than player Bz
What does adding a random mechanic do
1) In many cases it favors nobody, player A wins on account of being better.
2) In some cases it favors player A, which wins by even a bigger margun
3) In some cases it favors playerB, which wins despite being a worse player.
Case 3 helps player B win more in a random game.
Very simplified: In a 100% skill based game, let's say A wins 60% of the time. Now make the game 50% skill 50% luck. A would only prevail 55% of the time (60% of the 50% skill plus 50% of the 50% luck).
To give you an actual play example: I started my last Maelstrom game from 0-3 just because, as my opponent got Secure Objective fir 2 he was already sitting on and manifest 3 psy powers as GK.
But it doesn't seem like the newer editions are any better than older ones, they're just different.
Bingo!
That's what i'm trying to say. It's a different sort of fun. Some people like it, some don't.
All your points are absolutely valid and understandable. Though, 7-th feels like a better version of 6-th for me. Actually, so much better than i've started to enjoy the game once again. But when you compare 3-5 to 6-7 - it's complerely different type of games with all the same minis. Good or bad.
And about $ cost - it shouldn't be so absurdly high in the first place.
I think the problem was the introduction of strength D into regular games that weren't apocalypse without any major changes to the strength D rules. But hey you didn't play 6th so it's not your fault that you missed the escalation supplement or whatever it was that allowed super heavies.
The problem from the beginning was the huge schism between 40K and Apocalypse / Forge World that to this date prevents many happy FW customers to play their resin blocks on the table, because the majority of players have elected as dogma that you have to ask before bringing anything FW to the table.
During 5th, they started Apocalypse to sell the concept to GW general customers, and with 6th they worked on the transition, 7th is the culmination of that where there is no more barriers between 500 point 40K and 500.000 point 40K, and most Apoc / FW stuff has been adapted to range only from good to terrible.
I like that, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.
Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?
I've yet to read a single top tournament player write those words.
Somehow it's always less skilled players who are under that impression.
There are DA lists that break MechDar. There are no DA lists that are both TAC and break MechDar.
Still, that's only true in the very tiny bubble of 40K w/ CAD+Allied @ 1850 points competitive.
I would be surprised if that has any effect at all on your friendly games.
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.
I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.
Maelstrom is braindead and doesn't require more skill than the old table quarters mission.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it requires a lot less skill.
After all, as long as your list design is acceptable and you draw the right first cards, it's an automatic win, even if you get totally butchered and have no map control.
Maelstrom is braindead and doesn't require more skill than the old table quarters mission.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it requires a lot less skill.
After all, as long as your list design is acceptable and you draw the right first cards, it's an automatic win, even if you get totally butchered and have no map control.
Wow, "in fact" is that opinion coming from any experience? We've found nothing of the sort playing almost exclusively maelstrom missions.
If you draw 'bad' cards the game doesn't end, and I've found most often that an opponent will leave himself vulnerable when he is trying to achieve a tactical objective, you have to be smarter about your in game choices. If that doesn't appeal to you, ok, but I don't see how you can argue that 'annihilation + final-turn quarter grab' requires more skill.
I've yet to read a single top tournament player write those words.
Somehow it's always less skilled players who are under that impression.
There are DA lists that break MechDar. There are no DA lists that are both TAC and break MechDar.
Still, that's only true in the very tiny bubble of 40K w/ CAD+Allied @ 1850 points competitive.
I would be surprised if that has any effect at all on your friendly games.
.
TBH it does. From a purely personal (and somewhat limited) experience, if I put what I want on the table and my opponent puts what he wants on the table, a significant amount of times one of us have lost before the game even started.
List tailoring is often a necessity, and I've found that (IMO) at least some codexes have trouble list tailoring over a certain threshold.
I think the inclusion of titans and superheavies and such provoke far more list tailoring than unbound.
because most of the unbound armies you see are not power grabs but rather for fluff.And thats if you even see an unbound army to begin with as they are as rare as unicorns in the red light district.
On the other hand, you see a baneblade, trancendant ctan or something like that in virtually every army 750 points on up.
I feel that those items should have stayed in apocolypse (or in larger games such as 2k+.
I also feel that there should be SOME limit on unbound. For example still following a force or chart even if the choices are from different armies or if going outside the force org chart that the entire army be made up from one codex. Something of that nature.
EVIL INC wrote: I think the inclusion of titans and superheavies and such provoke far more list tailoring than unbound.
because most of the unbound armies you see are not power grabs but rather for fluff.And thats if you even see an unbound army to begin with as they are as rare as unicorns in the red light district.
On the other hand, you see a baneblade, trancendant ctan or something like that in virtually every army 750 points on up.
I feel that those items should have stayed in apocolypse (or in larger games such as 2k+.
I also feel that there should be SOME limit on unbound. For example still following a force or chart even if the choices are from different armies or if going outside the force org chart that the entire army be made up from one codex. Something of that nature.
I think having a minimum point game for superheavies would have been a good choice, unbound doesn't really bother me as anyone who was to abusive with it where they would quickly find a lack of willing opponents.
The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I think having a minimum point game for superheavies would have been a good choice, unbound doesn't really bother me as anyone who was to abusive with it where they would quickly find a lack of willing opponents.
The problem is there are no guidelines on what constitutes "abuse" if army selection is within the rules.
I could see a proper competitive player new to the game look at what the rules allow, pick what seems the most economical points/capability-wise and fully expect to go into a game with a fight on his hands.
Imagine the surprise that players do not pick to the most optimum lists they can make, they pick for theme or stick to one army out of stubbornness.
Looking more critically at the points costs for units would also raise an eyebrow.
Vaktathi wrote: The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.
To be honest, I see that as just as big a problem as Unbound. They've complicated and abstracted the normal army selection process to the point where you might as well just forget about it and play Unbound anyway.
I don't recall ever seeing anyone in previous editions asking 'Hey, is this a legal list?' unless it was to check an opponent's list when they don't have the appropriate codex themselves. This edition, there seems to be so much confusion out there as to how to build a Battleforged list, simply because GW have made it such a mess.
It's possibly also worth pointing out that Unbound wasn't actually added for the players' benefit. It was GW's way of encouraging people to buy whatever they choose to release this month instea of waiting for a release that actually fits your chosen army. The complete lack of any studio interest in updating their FAQs over the last 3 years or so shows that they have absolutely no intention of trying to maintain a functional game. The fact that Unbound somewhat levels the playing field is a side-effect, not a goal.
Vaktathi wrote: The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.
morgoth wrote: The problem from the beginning was the huge schism between 40K and Apocalypse / Forge World that to this date prevents many happy FW customers to play their resin blocks on the table, because the majority of players have elected as dogma that you have to ask before bringing anything FW to the table..
Which could have been resolved simply by including a note in the army selection section of the 40K rulebook pointing out that Forgeworld exists and that units from Forgeworld's books can be used in your army.
It was nothing more than that lack of 'official' recognition that had most people viewing Forgeworld with suspicion.
Vaktathi wrote: The bigger point about Unbound quickly becoming a non-issue is that "battleforged" armies can be pretty much the same thing, they just make you take a Troops tax and give you a bonus for it. When an army of nothing but formations can be legal and "battleforged", then it's kinda hard to see the harm in Unbound.
To be honest, I see that as just as big a problem as Unbound. They've complicated and abstracted the normal army selection process to the point where you might as well just forget about it and play Unbound anyway.
I don't disagree at all. I'm not at all a fan of multiple CAD's, formations, or unbound. That said, if people are going to take multiple CAD's, formations, etc, I just don't see the point in banning Unbound if you're allowing those.
I don't recall ever seeing anyone in previous editions asking 'Hey, is this a legal list?' unless it was to check an opponent's list when they don't have the appropriate codex themselves. This edition, there seems to be so much confusion out there as to how to build a Battleforged list, simply because GW have made it such a mess.
It's possibly also worth pointing out that Unbound wasn't actually added for the players' benefit. It was GW's way of encouraging people to buy whatever they choose to release this month instea of waiting for a release that actually fits your chosen army. The complete lack of any studio interest in updating their FAQs over the last 3 years or so shows that they have absolutely no intention of trying to maintain a functional game. The fact that Unbound somewhat levels the playing field is a side-effect, not a goal.
morgoth wrote: The problem from the beginning was the huge schism between 40K and Apocalypse / Forge World that to this date prevents many happy FW customers to play their resin blocks on the table, because the majority of players have elected as dogma that you have to ask before bringing anything FW to the table..
Which could have been resolved simply by including a note in the army selection section of the 40K rulebook pointing out that Forgeworld exists and that units from Forgeworld's books can be used in your army.
GW said that many times. FW said they were official 40k units.
In the end, GW got sick of answering "is FW legal?", and wrote in unbound to answer the question for everyone.
GW said that many times. FW said they were official 40k units. .
...in Forgeworld publications.
From the many, many discussions I've seen on this over the years, all that many players needed was a note in the actual rulebook endorsing Forgeworld. For those who viewed FW as not having the authority to publish ' official ' rules, FW themselves saying that was meaningles.
The main GW studio didn't ' get sick of answering ' that question, because they never did answer it.
Unbound is kind of interesting considering GW's other takes on "balance."
The GW design team knows their ruleset isn't especially balanced; they may not be very good at writing rules, but they're hardly ignorant. Their response to imbalance, or just through a lack of interest, is to apply random as a means of "balancing" an otherwise broken concept like Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers, Maelstrom and others. If the player could simply pick things, the glaring imbalances in those mechanics at present would become immensely frustrating.
And then they release Unbound, multiple CADs, formations out the wazoos, alternate FoCs (the last one I don't have any issue with at all; specific FoCs with their pros and cons for Marine First Companies, Carnivals of pain, etc, solid idea, and the execution is less terrible than is normal for GW). The problem, however, with this is now players literally can choose whatever the hell they want in terms of units are combos, with very little restriction.
What is the end result? Massively apparent imbalance. If someone wants to spam something, there is no hard final limit on FoC slots; there's alternate FoCs, or pay more troop taxes for other CADs, or go the furthest and play unbound. It makes the issues present in and between codexes much more apparent, and the gulf between a fluffy or casual player and a competitive one that much more apparent.
Casual players, in my experience, rarely step beyond the CAD + Ally combo. If there's something specific to what they've always wanted to do offered elsewhere, they'll go for it, but they won't adopt things that don't fit their style as readily. Competitive players are more likely to tweak, modify, adjust and adopt combos that will up their game; this isn't some WAAC behaviour, it's simply playing the game the way they enjoy it.
In a game with a tight ruleset, the difference in power level between these two shouldn't be as dramatic. In 5th in particular, fluff bunnies such as myself didn't suffer unduly unless the dice gods decreed it against even the most hardcore tourney player; the system just couldn't be gamed all that much. MSU spam in transports was the most efficient thing, and draigowing was annoying, you'd have an uphill battle, but you weren't browbeaten to death.
Now, a competitive player can drop multiple CADs from different codecii in the same faction, with formations, dataslates and other add-ons to up their game some more, which will allow them to bring ever more powerful lists and combos.
Using myself as another example, my 7th Edition Minotaurs dropped their two useless token tactical marine squads with lascannons, and the equally useless Stalker and now play at 1750 with an unbound 1st company list. They in turn have enjoyed fighting double CAD Tau with mountains of sniper kroot, and 3-4 Skyrays backed by HYMP Broadsides, or dual CAD Guard with 6 heavy choices filled with Russes, the pask punisher and a little psyker farm, or a Chaos summoning farm with a CAD of Crimson Slaughter and an allied vanilla Chaos with Ahriman in a rhino as a psychic battle bus.
With the gloves off, the casual player stands no chance against the competitive one on lists alone. The imbalance in the game has only been exacerbated by providing so little structure in which people can just run wild on the crazy stacking power-gaming crap to the point where I flat out don't enjoy the game anymore unless I'm fighting someone I know and trust to bring me a game we'll both enjoy.
I didn't have to do that in 5th; I could challenge mister uber-tourney optimal list, not one wasted point, and I'll lose more than I'll win, but I'll pull out a win, bloody his force and make him work for it. Now? About half the games I played in the last 6 months before I moved to France, I was tabled without killing more than 150 points of my opponent's.
The lack of structure is, of course, not the sole problem; massive codex imbalance, broken psychic phase, wonky flier rules, rules massively favouring certain unit types over others (Skimmer vs regular vehicle, MC vs Walker, bikes vs other infantry, etc), but these issues only become more apparent in an environment of absolutely no structure.
GW said that many times. FW said they were official 40k units. .
...in Forgeworld publications.
From the many, many discussions I've seen on this over the years, all that many players needed was a note in the actual rulebook endorsing Forgeworld. For those who viewed FW as not having the authority to publish ' official ' rules, FW themselves saying that was meaningles.
The main GW studio didn't ' get sick of answering ' that question, because they never did answer it.
Whatever man, the fact is that Apoc (v5), v6 and Escalation and v7 made Apoc/ForgeWorld mainstream and any new player starting right now would have no problem with anyone fielding a baneblade or some other fairly balanced choice (of course, mr donkey-cave with his twin tranC'tan at 1850 points will always be a problem, but that's what he's there for right).
In a game with a tight ruleset, the difference in power level between these two shouldn't be as dramatic. In 5th in particular, fluff bunnies such as myself didn't suffer unduly unless the dice gods decreed it against even the most hardcore tourney player; the system just couldn't be gamed all that much. MSU spam in transports was the most efficient thing, and draigowing was annoying, you'd have an uphill battle, but you weren't browbeaten to death.
That's ridiculous. I tabled people over and over in 5th, with a list I wasn't even done optimizing, and clearly there was a huge gap between your average fluff list and a properly designed power list, as I was still learning and creating new tricks.
If anything, the next versions were more balanced.
In 6th for example, ToF statistics showed a 50% win rate for all the armies within the top 5 group.
Now, a competitive player can drop multiple CADs from different codecii in the same faction, with formations, dataslates and other add-ons to up their game some more, which will allow them to bring ever more powerful lists and combos.
Using myself as another example, my 7th Edition Minotaurs dropped their two useless token tactical marine squads with lascannons, and the equally useless Stalker and now play at 1750 with an unbound 1st company list. They in turn have enjoyed fighting double CAD Tau with mountains of sniper kroot, and 3-4 Skyrays backed by HYMP Broadsides, or dual CAD Guard with 6 heavy choices filled with Russes, the pask punisher and a little psyker farm, or a Chaos summoning farm with a CAD of Crimson Slaughter and an allied vanilla Chaos with Ahriman in a rhino as a psychic battle bus.
With the gloves off, the casual player stands no chance against the competitive one on lists alone. The imbalance in the game has only been exacerbated by providing so little structure in which people can just run wild on the crazy stacking power-gaming crap to the point where I flat out don't enjoy the game anymore unless I'm fighting someone I know and trust to bring me a game we'll both enjoy.
I didn't have to do that in 5th; I could challenge mister uber-tourney optimal list, not one wasted point, and I'll lose more than I'll win, but I'll pull out a win, bloody his force and make him work for it. Now? About half the games I played in the last 6 months before I moved to France, I was tabled without killing more than 150 points of my opponent's.
The lack of structure is, of course, not the sole problem; massive codex imbalance, broken psychic phase, wonky flier rules, rules massively favouring certain unit types over others (Skimmer vs regular vehicle, MC vs Walker, bikes vs other infantry, etc), but these issues only become more apparent in an environment of absolutely no structure.
Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.
What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.
Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.
morgoth wrote: So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.
Alright so it's listbuilding and you admit he's building poor lists.
or the list building process.
Wait what?
It's not just list building, but arguably the lists that he builds are terrible, if he can't deal with bad lists like kroot snipers.
Or, he's playing against people who don't build TAC lists, which in itself is just janken.
And no, the list building process has not become worse with v6 or v7, but apparently his list building skills have not gotten better. Get the difference ?
My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.
Yeah, I really don't see the problem with that. But then, 40K had a psychic phase (that worked identically to WHFB as it was back then as well) when I started, so it's not something new, just something returned in a slightly different format.
If they had bothered to proofread the rules before publishing them, the psychic phase would be fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: ...of course, mr donkey-cave with his twin tranC'tan at 1850 points will always be a problem, but that's what he's there for right).
But the TranC'tan isn't a problem because everyone can take them, right?
morgoth wrote: Whatever man, the fact is that Apoc (v5), v6 and Escalation and v7 made Apoc/ForgeWorld mainstream.
I always thought sadness, depravity, contempt for your fellow man and an overall infatuation with winning a race to the bottom is what made apoc "mainstream".
morgoth wrote: In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.
go on....
morgoth wrote: And no, the list building process has not become worse with v6 or v7, but apparently his list building skills have not gotten better. Get the difference ?
That depends a lot on if people you play like to use silly crap.
At this point I'm just surprised we haven't seen you ask anyone if they even lift... bro.
I got into 40k because of several of my good friends got me into it. I knew going in that that rules were a bit wonky, and that armies were not on level playing fields. While it can be frustrating to know, the game still is fun and has merit. 7th has been better for me as an Ork player than 6th mostly because the Codex update was incredibly needed, with the Ork faction being in a far better boat than it was before. I've gotten better, won more games, and have been generally having a good time with it.
I get where a lot of people are coming from when they want a tighter, consistent rule set. I won't lie, I'd like that myself. But as 40K is, and seems to have been for a long time now, it's a game that works best with friends, or a group that you play with often and have the same taste in 'fairness'. Like minded people is key here. The rules are not tournament tight, and I sadly don't think they will ever get to that point. I see so many posts about tournaments, when the game is not even remotely close to designed for that sort of setting.
I enjoy 7th (Even 6th and the tail end of 5th) because I play with friends. I like eating food, tossing dice and making Ork sounds when things happen (Good or bad), and getting a laugh or ten with my friends. That's why I enjoy this game. Win or lose. Flawed or otherwise.
I also know that this is not a luxury that every player has, and I count myself very fortunate.
Melevolence wrote: I get where a lot of people are coming from when they want a tighter, consistent rule set. I won't lie, I'd like that myself. But as 40K is, and seems to have been for a long time now, it's a game that works best with friends, or a group that you play with often and have the same taste in 'fairness'. Like minded people is key here. The rules are not tournament tight, and I sadly don't think they will ever get to that point. I see so many posts about tournaments, when the game is not even remotely close to designed for that sort of setting.
40k isn't designed for "casual" games with like-minded friends either, and the things that make it bad for tournaments also make it bad for "casual" games.
Melevolence wrote: I get where a lot of people are coming from when they want a tighter, consistent rule set. I won't lie, I'd like that myself. But as 40K is, and seems to have been for a long time now, it's a game that works best with friends, or a group that you play with often and have the same taste in 'fairness'. Like minded people is key here. The rules are not tournament tight, and I sadly don't think they will ever get to that point. I see so many posts about tournaments, when the game is not even remotely close to designed for that sort of setting.
40k isn't designed for "casual" games with like-minded friends either, and the things that make it bad for tournaments also make it bad for "casual" games.
Odd, considering I have the most fun with this game with my friends and like minded players than I do with people I don't see eye to eye with. And we have zero issues with the games flaws because we just work through it. Yes, the rules suck. But its enough of a baseline for us to get by and make sound judgement calls. Like the rulebook tells us to. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll keep having fun with the game.
Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.
What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.
Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.
One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.
I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.
Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.
The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.
My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.
GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.
If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.
If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.
One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.
To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.
The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.
Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.
That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.
Infinity? Bring the worst gak imaginable, and you still stand a chance, apply any sense whatsoever, and you should get a decent game, because despite having a rather large roster of units, special rules and potential army lists (if anything there's more than 40k, as very few units are objectively bad or "must takes") the game is, at its core, designed to be balanced, with a coherent points pricing system, benefits for sticking to a theme, significant playtesting, regular rule updates and tweaks (including basic unit profiles, if need be). The end result is something you can play pick-up extremely easily, build the list you want and not be punished for it, and have your personal skill at playing the game tested, not your ability to dredge out bizarre fluff-breaking combos out of dozens of rules publications/sources.
You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.
Pyeatt wrote: It's funny that you guys are complaining about unbound and titans with D weapons.
My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.
Just want to clarify this for you and others who think this, go play fantasy, then come back and apologise for this idiotic statement.
fantasys magic phase is superficially similar in the same way the shooting phase is similar In both games, magic in fantasy works much much better and had they brought that in, 40k pay phase would be much better, as it is now.... Crap.
Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.
What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.
Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.
One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.
I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.
Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.
The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.
My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.
GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.
If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.
If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.
One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.
To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.
The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.
Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.
That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.
Infinity? Bring the worst gak imaginable, and you still stand a chance, apply any sense whatsoever, and you should get a decent game, because despite having a rather large roster of units, special rules and potential army lists (if anything there's more than 40k, as very few units are objectively bad or "must takes") the game is, at its core, designed to be balanced, with a coherent points pricing system, benefits for sticking to a theme, significant playtesting, regular rule updates and tweaks (including basic unit profiles, if need be). The end result is something you can play pick-up extremely easily, build the list you want and not be punished for it, and have your personal skill at playing the game tested, not your ability to dredge out bizarre fluff-breaking combos out of dozens of rules publications/sources.
You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.
Pyeatt wrote: It's funny that you guys are complaining about unbound and titans with D weapons.
My biggest complaint is the perversion of 40k when they brought in WHFB's Magic Phase.
Just want to clarify this for you and others who think this, go play fantasy, then come back and apologise for this idiotic statement.
fantasys magic phase is superficially similar in the same way the shooting phase is similar In both games, magic in fantasy works much much better and had they brought that in, 40k pay phase would be much better, as it is now.... Crap.
QFT: If you bring an army with no casters in fantasy against an army with a pair of high level casters, a) magic dice are capped, and b) you won't be able to stop everything, but chances are you'll be able to cancel out a powerful spell or two with a little luck, or shoot said magic user with a cannon and your problems go away.
Having target values to beat for successful casts and denies makes things a lot more straightforwards and easier to balance than "roll x number of 4+s to cast, roll equal number of 6s to cancel" with no limit on dice pool. I've got an Empire army with no magic whatsoever, and the magic phase hurts (but my shooting hurts equally as much for them, cannons and muskets ahoy!), but if someone's going to unleash purple sun or dwellers or something at an inconvenient time, chances are I can stop at least that.
In 40k, I've had a single Tervigon using Paroxysm to reduce my 10 man terminator squad to WS/BS1 for an entire game and eventually killed with gaunts, it was the only power the tyranid player used and only had the one psychic bug, and I couldn't do anything to stop it; I never had more than 3 dice, and if he rolled a strict average of two successes on 4 dice, my probability to cancelling anything is about nill.
The only time you really stand no chance of cancelling something in Fantasy is when someone rolls irresistible force. In 40k, you almost never stand a chance unless you've got a high level psyker in the target unit or a librarian with their psychic hood. For many armies, they just get an extra phase to remove models or watch the enemy buff into obscenity. In fantasy, you have to make choices, what do you try and stop, what do you let through, no matter what, and can use your own magic phase, even with no magic users to dispell ongoing effects. There's some actual thought to the system, and actual choice involved for the players.
koooaei wrote: I see so many complaints about tran ctans and such. But how is it really related to edition of the game? It's the problem of bad unit design.
Having LoW being an intrinsic part of the list building means the C'tan can pop up in anyone's list normally without warning.
In older editions, things like the C'tan would be Apoc only, which is a separate type of game you arrange knowing large stompy death machines will be common.
It is also bad unit design, but the link to the edition is that 7th made such units kosher for normal, everyday play.
There would be 95%* less bitching about the C'tan if Lords of War/Super heavy/Gargantuan stuff was removed from normal games and put back into its own separate Apoc game.
*That number entirely made, but sufficient to say 'a lot' of people.
Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.
What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.
Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.
One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.
I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.
Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.
The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.
My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.
GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.
If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.
If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.
One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.
To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.
The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.
Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.
That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.
Infinity? Bring the worst gak imaginable, and you still stand a chance, apply any sense whatsoever, and you should get a decent game, because despite having a rather large roster of units, special rules and potential army lists (if anything there's more than 40k, as very few units are objectively bad or "must takes") the game is, at its core, designed to be balanced, with a coherent points pricing system, benefits for sticking to a theme, significant playtesting, regular rule updates and tweaks (including basic unit profiles, if need be). The end result is something you can play pick-up extremely easily, build the list you want and not be punished for it, and have your personal skill at playing the game tested, not your ability to dredge out bizarre fluff-breaking combos out of dozens of rules publications/sources.
You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.
Oufff, that is a good post, Major, you really hit the nail on the head.
The biggest crime 7th has committed is that it has killed its ubiquity as a game that draws in all sorts of players, and even new ones. The prospects of keeping up with the game now is a price tag that even hardcore fans start to balk at (way waaaaay past the point and onlooker would have been thinking you were crazy).
Now more and more of what's left are players who have no qualms about dumping furniture-cost's worth of money into all-plastic armies to stay with the game, and it's just an elite club for that group. Which I guess is great if you enjoy 40k being an elite club that snubs all the other Wargame plebs, but there was a time when 40k was becoming almost popular.
Sold all my gak. 6th and 7th are both terrible. 4th and 5th were strong because they were decent rules and not overly convoluted. These current rules are all about buying new DLC rules and escalating towards insanity. It should be a game, not research for a college dissertation to play.
Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.
What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.
Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).
So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.
One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.
I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.
There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.
And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.
And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.
Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.
Strangely enough, most competitive players have had no issues winning with Tau or Necrons or Marines.
The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.
Maybe, just maybe, your lists are as close to pure random garbage as it gets ?
My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.
Because what you play has gotten a lot worse over time and you're sticking with it. The world isn't worse, your world is, because of your decisions.
GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.
Why do you want your badly designed list (let's call it fluffy, although why the feth would the DKOK lose a battle I don't know) to be on the same level as the best lists there are ?
If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.
Again, your local meta has shifted to competitive, and you're still refusing to see that's the only thing that happened.
If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.
1. Build a competitive list (or hell copy it)
2. Play it for 20 games
3. Come back and share your experience.
Nobody cares what a fluff bunny thinks of competitive gaming, because he simply does not have a hint of experience on the topic.
One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.
So one of your local players has a really bad list, with Ahriman and Thousand sons and neither of your armies can fight his ? WHAT ?
How much more do you need to realize that you are playing one of the weakest lists possible and that puts you far behind before the race even starts ?
To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.
The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.
So your club is mostly anti-competitive. Many are. Some aren't.
Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.
That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.
And clearly you would know because you've been playing competitively in 5th and 7th edition.
You think you know who will win ? Hell you know nothing. I know nothing. Why don't you just go out and ask a very good player what he thinks about tabletop choices ?
You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.
So your real problem is that DKOK is not competitive ? well just say it instead of blaming it on everything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Accolade wrote: The biggest crime 7th has committed is that it has killed its ubiquity as a game that draws in all sorts of players, and even new ones. The prospects of keeping up with the game now is a price tag that even hardcore fans start to balk at (way waaaaay past the point and onlooker would have been thinking you were crazy).
Now more and more of what's left are players who have no qualms about dumping furniture-cost's worth of money into all-plastic armies to stay with the game, and it's just an elite club for that group. Which I guess is great if you enjoy 40k being an elite club that snubs all the other Wargame plebs, but there was a time when 40k was becoming almost popular.
The only thing that changed is your opinion of 40K.
It has always been crazy expensive, it has always had flavor of the Edition armies, and it has always had competitive and non-competitive players.
Good lord Morgoth you are obtuse and needlessly belittling. I'm just bad at the game and thus what I say has no merit?
40k is an awful competitive game, and it has only gotten worse. This is a bad thing for competitive and non-competitive players, as more and more, list building is the chiefly exercised skill in 40k.
I'm choosing to move more and more to a game which is, at it's core, a tournament game with a tight ruleset and true, legitimate freedom of option, not merely the illusion of it overtop of a fundamentally broken game. I am not incapable of making a better, more competitive list. I am consciously choosing not to because it breaks what I enjoy about the game; the setting, the aesthetic and flavourful armies. The way the rules are structured encourages armies which represent none of that, and to be quite frank, if that is what I need to do to have fun in 7th, I'll simply stop playing. I certainly am reaching that point, and maybe you don't give a good god damn that players who don't think like you aren't enjoying the game, the obviously shrinking playerbase will eventually affect your enjoyment, where once that wasn't a concern. There's an exodus going on, and it's being spearheaded by the competitive players, at least in my area; they're sick of a fundamentally broken game which requires constant investments of hundreds of dollars to be even functional, the fluff-bunnies are more resilient, not being too caught up in stomping people, but the fundamental flaws of the game still makes it unenjoyable.
Every time I consider another army, or any additions to my existent armies, I always stop myself with "I'm not going to have fun with this once I'm done building and painting it."
I'm not alone with that, and that will kill this game more likely than not.
I still enjoy 40k against the right player in spite of its mountain of problems, but it requires an awful lot of work on both of our parts. That is a bad thing for a game, especially one which demands such a large financial investment. The game isn't growing; the GW figures only reinforce that, and that is due to a myriad of issues not least of which being the poor quality of the game rules themselves. It's not as much of a factor on someone joining, but it certainly is for someone deciding whether or not to keep playing. So long as it's effectively "free" for me to keep playing at this point, I will, but another bad edition which doesn't fix at least some of the underlying issues, or if my codexes get an update which kills what little enthusiasm I have left, I'll just box everything up and hope that in the future the game becomes something fun again, for everyone, not just those who will rules-hop, exploit broken mechanics and otherwise enjoy being belligerent and utterly miss the social aspect of this game.
Instead, I'll just play infinity and know what no matter who I'm up against, I can have fun and have a chance of winning.
There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.
And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.
And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.
Thing is that, IMO at least some codexes have a lot easier time building powerful TAC lists than others.
Some codexes need to focus on a single facet of the game to the expense of almost all others in order to be competitive.
Not to get off subject here; I love Infinity but it's not fair to compare it to 40k by any stretch.
Infinity manages a handful of models (many are nearly identical) and maybe one vehicle on a tiny board and it's still not perfect. There were(/are?) Tags that were pretty unbeatable (I haven't tried the newest rule yet though).
While 40k manages ...well it's not even the same ballpark. Aside from being a sci-fi miniatures game you really cannot compare them.
MajorStoffer wrote: Good lord Morgoth you are obtuse and needlessly belittling. I'm just bad at the game and thus what I say has no merit?
Everyone's opinion has merit.
What I'm telling you is that you have it all wrong.
You think the game changed when the only thing that changed and caused you to feel like you do is the relative power level of your own lists and the competitiveness of your local meta.
I think in regards to what you're saying gunzhard, it's always worth considering that 40k's rules haven't changed much (minus tweaks here and there) since the 2nd incarnation, where armies had maybe one tank and a few squads of troops.
Of course, I'd agree that Infinity would have an...infinitely harder time balancing 40k-size games, 40k is essentially skirmish rules with all sorts of "take anything you want" tacked on top.
There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.
And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.
And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.
Thing is that, IMO at least some codexes have a lot easier time building powerful TAC lists than others.
Some codexes need to focus on a single facet of the game to the expense of almost all others in order to be competitive.
That's the case for nearly every codex.
Do you think Eldar stand a chance outside of Mech ? they don't. Not against other power builds. So what easier time ?
Some codexes are just a lot less powerful and their TAC lists are not top 5.
Well there's only room for five in top 5 right ?
Either way, all that stuff is v6 and not v7, and when the new Tau and new Eldar come out in v7, they'll probably be properly in line with every other v7 release: good enough, nothing too crazy.
In my opinion, 40K has never been that balanced or that streamlined, GW are taking it towards more balance and more streamlining, I don't know how people can be disappointed by that.
Accolade wrote: I think in regards to what you're saying gunzhard, it's always worth considering that 40k's rules haven't changed much (minus tweaks here and there) since the 2nd incarnation, where armies had maybe one tank and a few squads of troops.
Of course, I'd agree that Infinity would have an...infinitely harder time balancing 40k-size games, 40k is essentially skirmish rules with all sorts of "take anything you want" tacked on top.
Well the "take anything you want" and even large scale games might be a turn off for you, but 40k can do that well. The newest Apoc book/rules are excellent, check my blog we do it fairly regularly. Just because some people don't want that and might even prefer a skirmish game doesn't change the facts. Infinity is entirely a different animal, it's not fair to compare them. That said, I do also love Infinity.
There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.
And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.
And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.
Thing is that, IMO at least some codexes have a lot easier time building powerful TAC lists than others.
Some codexes need to focus on a single facet of the game to the expense of almost all others in order to be competitive.
That's the case for nearly every codex.
Do you think Eldar stand a chance outside of Mech ? they don't. Not against other power builds. So what easier time ?
Some codexes are just a lot less powerful and their TAC lists are not top 5.
Well there's only room for five in top 5 right ?
Either way, all that stuff is v6 and not v7, and when the new Tau and new Eldar come out in v7, they'll probably be properly in line with every other v7 release: good enough, nothing too crazy.
In my opinion, 40K has never been that balanced or that streamlined, GW are taking it towards more balance and more streamlining, I don't know how people can be disappointed by that.
External balance I agree. It really is a very good thing that most 7th edition codexes have been landing pretty close to the same 'target' power level.
Internal balance however is just as bad or worse than before. I haven't seen a single 7th edition codex that had any semblance of internal balance (where at least some of the older codexes managed to).
What I meant by some codexes have an easier time doing TAC lists
Codexes like Eldar, SM or Tau (and Necrons maybe)benefit from having a few versatile units effective vs. all kinds of threats. Others din't. They need to include specialized units (often useless outside their intended role) for stuff like AA and whatnot. As such, they have a harder time fieksing a TAC list.
It's true, Infinity is extremely small in comparison, more akin to Rogue Trader in scale, but what I bring it up for is the overall design is tight and systematic. Pretty much every rule, stat and piece of wargear has a points value which combine together to create a given unit, which has allowed a fairly comprehensive roster of stuff to exist in fairly good harmony. Balance only gets wonky when the combo of gear is either too beneficial or too mediocre, at which point that particular unit gets an adjust outside of the default formula.
Jervis basically came out and said they give 40k units a points value which they "feel" it needs. There's nothing concrete, nothing comprehensive, nothing tested properly, just ideas thrown at a wall and seeing what sticks. It's a difference of philosophy which results in a very different experience at the end of the day. 40k doesn't even feel coherent anymore, just random releases coming out with no forewarning, no apparent direction with rules that are all over the place. Infinity has very formulaic unit design, and that's what it's good at, and I don't expect nor want 40k to emulate that system exactly, but it need some coherent direction and design. We've got a skirmish ruleset trying to handle company-sized engagements with DLC rulesets, no communication or avenue of feedback with mechanics borrowed, lifted or copied from other products in the studio's lineup with little thought behind their implementation beyond "RANDOM!" and years and years worth of "patches" piled up upon one another to keep everything pseudo-functional, but now the cracks have gotten too large, the game is sagging under its own bloat with a confused, poorly functioning ruleset which doesn't suit anyone particularly well.
What 40k needs is a complete reboot, with rules which match the scale of game it's supposed to be, with some sort of avenue for communication, a company not actively hostile towards its own customers which is tight enough to allow two random people to play a pickup game without massive imbalance between their armies, but open enough to allow customization and flexibility which is what made 40k so good during the "glory days" of 3rd and 4th edition.
There are so many little things they could do, even with their current system of $50-$100 patches that they choose not to; cover a modifier rather than a save, make the psychic phase work like the magic phase with actual structure, limits on excess and ways for non-magic armies to survive, give fliers a modifier to hit rather than flat "only on 6s" and increase their minimum movement distance in flier mode (moving 6'' more than a tank in a phase shouldn't equal nigh-impossible to hit), put actual restrictions on super-powerful units like Wraithknights, Imperial Knights and so on, and actually test and update via pdf obviously dysfunctional units like Wave Serpents.
But none of that is forthcoming, GW demonstrates no desire to do anything constructive or to better their product, merely to release new products as quickly as possible, relying on inertia more than anything else to keep generating admittedly decreasing revenue. They don't care, at the end of the day. That's why 7th is mediocre at best, and that's why, increasingly, I can't be bothered to care. This has been one of my favourite hobbies, for which I loved building armies, testing them out, tweaking, adjusting, experimenting and actually looked forwards to the next release.
Now? I only have a kind of perverse pleasure in wondering what GW will break next, what awful business decision they will undertake and how better they will make an enemy out of their customers and playerbase. 7th has soured me enormously, I make no secret of that, and I know I am not alone on that front.
It really has been the advent of 7th which has seen an explosion of non-GW games in my area. Before, even during 6th which was no prize pig itself (mostly, imo, due to bad codex balance more than the core rules),, people really looked down on other games; Warmahordes was for the ultra-competitive, Bolt Action/Flames of War was for the Grognards and the malcontents, no one had even heard of Infinity. With 7th, however, we've got 9 Infinity players, only two people *don't* have Warmahordes armies (one being myself), half a dozen Bolt Action armies, more X-Wing than I could shake a stick at, a bunch of Star Trek: Attack Wing players and a bunch of people got into the Vampire: Masquerade larp of all things, and while everyone still loves the idea of 40k, the game and the company just pisses people off, competitive or casual. No one's selling their stuff, which I think speaks to the love people have for 40k; they want it to get better, they want to be able to have the kind of fun they had with the game as recently as 2 years ago, but no one's buying more and we haven't seen, or even heard of a new player in months at any of the local clubs.
The writing is on the wall that all is not well in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium.
Internal balance however is just as bad or worse than before. I haven't seen a single 7th edition codex that had any semblance of internal balance (where at least some of the older codexes managed to).
What I meant by some codexes have an easier time doing TAC lists
Codexes like Eldar, SM or Tau (and Necrons maybe)benefit from having a few versatile units effective vs. all kinds of threats. Others din't. They need to include specialized units (often useless outside their intended role) for stuff like AA and whatnot. As such, they have a harder time fieksing a TAC list.
Err.. What older codexes had good internal balance ? I may never have seen them tbh.
Eldar, SM, Daemons, Tau and Necrons are just powerful codexes. They don't have an easier time doing TAC lists, they just have better everything, including TAC lists.
Eldar have no AA but enough pseudo AA to handle few flyers, and enough resilience and staying power to handle many flyers.
Necrons don't give two gaks about snap firing, and are flyer spammers themselves.
Marines ride on the GravStar, which of course doesn't care about airborne firepower.
Daemons ride on the ScreamerStar, exactly the same kind of deal.
Tau will just bash your head in, can easily deal with anything as long as it's shooting.
Imperial Knights are way too resilient to bother about flyers.
In other words, if the Eldar were a little bit less resilient, the Necrons couldn't spam planes as effectively, the Marines didn't have the GravStar, the Daemons the ScreamerStar and the Tau were a bit less powerful, they would be exactly like the v7 codexes in power and TAC-ability.
Imperial Knights are a skew build that will find counters in time.
So no, no codex has a better time with TAC lists specifically, just a better time with lists.
What 40k needs is a complete reboot, with rules which match the scale of game it's supposed to be, with some sort of avenue for communication, a company not actively hostile towards its own customers which is tight enough to allow two random people to play a pickup game without massive imbalance between their armies, but open enough to allow customization and flexibility which is what made 40k so good during the "glory days" of 3rd and 4th edition.
40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.
What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.
40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.
40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.
What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.
40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.
From a purely practical point of view, a game that is 'better than ever' doesn't cause the company built around it to decline in sales year after year.
40k is getting better lately, I agree, but it's still far from a good game.
It's not a good competitive game due to randomness and tons of balance issues.
It's not a good casual game because if you bring what you want and your opponent brings what he wants you can easily end up with very one sided games.
It's only a good game if you have a stable group of friends that are 40k fans to play with and as such you can tailor armies for fun games as well as enjoy the game more than.other superior rulesets just because it's 40k.
40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.
What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.
40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.
From a purely practical point of view, a game that is 'better than ever' doesn't cause the company built around it to decline in sales year after year.
40k is getting better lately, I agree, but it's still far from a good game.
Isn't the decline just WHFB though ?
All I'm saying is 40K is getting better and I enjoy playing it. So it must be a good game for some at least.
Yes I appreciate the improvement in rules and recognize that there's a lot of room for improvement.
But if we're talking rules and competition I'd be playing Starcraft II, not some half obscure miniature game.
If it's friends and beer and pretzels, board games, because all of my friends don't feel like miniatures.
For miniatures however, as they are the reason we even play those complex expensive games, 40K has at least a decade on everything out there.
GW's sales have sunk between 2 to 5% per report since just after 6th's release.
6th's drop brought a lot of people back into the game, saw a lot of people get into the game and saw a brief renaissance as most of the early 'dexes were pretty solid without being one-trick ponies compared to the 5th ed books, and only Necrons and the Heldrake really were well outside the norm, there was also a big spike in licensing revenue with the release of Space Marine and the last DoW2 expansion in that timeframe if I recall correclty, over twice what they're bringing in now.
Since then, GW's been on a steady decline in revenue, with Fantasy only accounting for about 8% of their total revenue (hence the End Times to try and rejuvenate that flagging system).
In terms of objective external balance, the most recent codexes have been an improvement, and none of the dataslate/formation stuff has been way out of line (though I'm pretty sure every non-BA player feels cheated by the BA formations). However, their internal balance is still absolute pants, and your own posts Morgoth only reinforce that.
Having these killer app lists is not indicative of a healthy system, where you either bring one of those lists or you pack up your army and go home.
In the most recent codexes, there remains awful internal balance and nonsensical rules which act only as evidence that GW either doesn't care or doesn't know what they're doing. Dark Eldar basically had their entire previous army concept invalidated in favour of becomming an assault army of all things. The whole shoot and scoot skirmisher army got nerfed really, really hard, but Coven is now ace. Time to buy a whole new army if you're a Dark Eldar player. Orks almost completely lost any kind of viable Elite army; no more Nobs as troops, Cybork is barely worth the time, and Flash Gitz got less random (one of the only things to get less random in the entirety of 7th, and an ork unit no less!) but lost survivability and stormboyz are excellent. Every single codex is now defined by a handful of good units, one or two superb, mind-blowingly awesome units and a bunch of garbage ones, with gaping holes in many armies.
The game isn't healthy, it's still possible to have fun, and having an existant club is absolutely critical where people understand one another and can force the game to work, in a way befitting their interests, but a game which charges $100 for the basic rules, $50 per codex or supplement, and $15+ for less than 20 page DLC, of which only a paragraph or two are rules shouldn't need more work to set up than Linux.
There is some evidence that game balance will improve, broadly, as codexes get replaced (I hope no one was attached to their two year old $50 Chaos book), but I don't think a few more patches on a seriously flawed, and massively overpriced product will stop GW's decline. It's slow, but absolutely inexorable, and I don't think the company has the capacity, will or creative talent to rectify that. Their "improved" codexes absolutely kill the one traditionally defining factor of 40k; choice and flexibility.
You don't play a codex, a theme or an army anymore, you play a netlist or you don't get to have fun against someone who does.
I am sorry if my disgust in the devolution of one of my favourite pastimes from an enjoyable, flexible, but slightly flawed game to a dysfunctional mess is irksome, but it is not so simple as just "go play something else;" I love 40k, I love my Imperial Guard army, I love my Space marines, I'd love to do a Freeboota army, but GW no longer wants my love, my money or my respect, and only after completely losing all hope in them, and seeing how much more positive an experience I can have with other products has resulted in me looking elsewhere, but that longstanding love of the 40k product, in all its forms keeps me looking back, hoping that some day, some how it might once again become something great.
This is not anger, nor mere frustration, but despair and exasperation. If one enjoys the new model of extreme powergaming, where the 40k universe is little more than a thin veneer on top of increasingly tacky models and wonkier rules, all the power to you. I for one have no interest in that hobby, and will hold out so long as I am able.
If I don't stick with PC games with glaring balance issues for more than a month, why on earth should anyone put up with GW's massive flaws, incompetency and malice for the prices they charge and the time their hobby demands?
40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.
What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.
40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.
From a purely practical point of view, a game that is 'better than ever' doesn't cause the company built around it to decline in sales year after year.
40k is getting better lately, I agree, but it's still far from a good game.
Isn't the decline just WHFB though ?
All I'm saying is 40K is getting better and I enjoy playing it. So it must be a good game for some at least.
Yes I appreciate the improvement in rules and recognize that there's a lot of room for improvement.
But if we're talking rules and competition I'd be playing Starcraft II, not some half obscure miniature game.
If it's friends and beer and pretzels, board games, because all of my friends don't feel like miniatures.
For miniatures however, as they are the reason we even play those complex expensive games, 40K has at least a decade on everything out there.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy 40k as well, but I feel it has way more bad aspects than good aspects.
Me and my friends simply liked the setting of 40k from Dawn of War games way before we got enough dispsable income to get into tabletop wargames.
We talked about it several times and we all feel pretty much the same: if WH40k wasn't set up in the 40k universe butin some random settimg we had no prior attachment to we would haven't picked it up and instead would have gone for one of the vastly better systems out there, probably Warmahordes (which most of us plant to pick up ad a 2nd system after we have a 40k army done anyway).
As it is right now, we just feel enduring the bad rules is worth it for us to put 40k miniatures and not generic SF miniatures on the table. I can't help the feeling that we are having fun DESPITE the 40k rules and not BECAUSE of them.
I have played all editions.
Some token attempt was made to balance an army within it's codex.
That has steadily slipped until what we have now.
We now substitute models for others in separate codexes to keep some semblance of theme.
The permutations outside of contained codexes are too much to even attempt at balance.
"Best ever" game system indeed, first time I stopped playing completely for other games ever.
I have a big enough collection to make some ungodly mixes, but at the end of the day, it just looks stupid to field no matter how "competitive".
Lots of options but what makes a good game is carefully considered limitations.
koooaei wrote: I see so many complaints about tran ctans and such. But how is it really related to edition of the game? It's the problem of bad unit design.
The problem is that the C'Tan is designed with a 7E "ADD ALL THE CHROME!!!" philosophy. It's an unwieldy confusion of chrome for character.
4th was the golden age of rules. Not perfect but clear enough that players didn't get nearly so bogged down by the rules quagmire that we have today. There was more focus on the gameplay and tactics.
7th feels like GWs attempt to slowly crawl its way back to those blissful days.
We'll see what they do when 8th edition hits stores later this year.
Honestly, the 40K rules have some downsides and all, but mostly they're not *that* bad.
But maybe if you were to point out what you think isn't working well, in 40K proposed rules for example, we can have a discussion about that.
I think a lot of things are either bad, poorly thought or flat-out unnecessary.
Starting from the base premise of the game: roll 1d6. It's way too granular (even the most inept marksman hits a fly at 100m 1/6th of a time) and average results have an equal chance to occur as extreme results. Switching to 2d6 would greatly improve the game IMO.
Radomnes. Everything in 40k is a die roll. With the new necron codex even what you get to do in the shooting phase is a die roll. Every new codex adds more random tables to roll on, further lessening player agency and the control you have over the game. Add to that what I consider unneeded dice rolls, lie 2+ to Wound rerollable ine of the assasins gets. How often will you fail it (1/36 chance) and how often wilo it really matter that you've failed it?
Balance. I simply dislike that you can't simply.putyour army on the table and play, you need to negotiate with your opponent beforehand.
A lot of specific rules: cover (why on earth does a marine gain no benefit from cover when shot by lasguns, but does when shot by the same guarfsmen with plasma guns?), skyfire (why is a plane movimg 18 high up in plain sight harder to hit than a jetbike moving 36 around terrain?), unit types (what does MC do that couldn't be achieved by either infantry or vehicle classification fir example?), twin-linked and quite a few others.
Disappointment, confusion on why steps cannot be taken now to make it better.
Why is it so resistant to fundamental change until a new big rule book release?
- That the rules could have easily been cleaned up with a strong eye to "murder your darlings".
- Change more things to be "choices" rather than a successful die roll.
- Continue to populate / control the "special rules" in the main rule book and less temptation to creating new ones in codexes.
- Granular rule sets for kill-team, "normal" and Apocalypse battles should be defined better for "balance" rather than one-size fits all.
- Some formula needs to be made for calculating a points cost value for a given unit at least for a guide, the overpriced and underpriced units are a bane to the game.
- Impose much greater restrictions / penalties to 2+ codex lists (increased point cost, further objective taking limitations, leadership / command penalties).
- Use much more formal to-the-point rules writing (put a box around core rules and write fluffy / friendly writing around it for examples).
- Suggest due to the various legal issues around models use this release model:
Initial codex with existing models and released new models at time of publication.
Release "supplements" for waves of new models or a really fancy insert in the model kit / blister.
Re-release the codex with all the updated models (more money! they should like that).
- Take a good look at what each model does and it's purpose, does it perform?
Rhino: "common" armor personnel carrier? Performs role? Cost correct? Transport only? Not assault platform? What can be used for assault?
Drop Pod: One way transport anywhere on board. Assault platform?
Predator Tank: Armored shooting platform. Role? Troop or vehicle killer.
I think when there are too many models that may compete for the same role: that is when they lose-out, or the chance to use another army's more effective units happens.
There is too much garbage models and too much must-take models in the game that there is some confusion of how points cost is even considered as a game balancing mechanic.
Due to access of a huge catalogue of poorly balanced model costs, we have the criminal differences in list builds that do not even have the benefit of being contained within a single codex. All the built-in liabilities and benefits are thrown out the window.
More restrictions not less, this rule system is like a spoiled child that has never been told "no" and will just keep demanding more.
Some of you think that the Psychic phase is a problem as it seems unfinished or rushed and that the Magic phase of Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition I presume) is much better. Could you elaborate on this?
Chaospling wrote: Some of you think that the Psychic phase is a problem as it seems unfinished or rushed and that the Magic phase of Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition I presume) is much better. Could you elaborate on this?
The psychic phase allows unlimited warp charges and is extremely simplistic; roll X 4s to succeed, roll X 6s to cancel, modifier only if target is a psyker.
Risk of failure on my psychic powers is extremely low, and are extremely difficult to counter, especially in the volume it can reach. There is little structure; you either have enough dice/psykers to cast or cancel things, or you don't and lose the psychic phase.
Fantasy places hard caps on how many "power die" re: warp charges can be generated or used on a given power. Additionally, powers have a specific "target number;" the total value of the dice rolled, plus any modifiers the caster/army might have. If the cast is successful, the defender must use their own dice pool to match the value rolled, plus modifiers. Items exist for single-use autocast or autodispell, and even an army with no or few casters can, in their turn, dispell "ongoing effects:" buffs and debuffs or DoT attacks. Rolling specific values can result in irresistible force, either casting or dispelling, which can not be changed in any way.
Both games have stupid broken powers and obscenely powerful casters, but Fantasy has a lot more steps in place to mitigate abuse and is much more formulaic rather than random, and in general, since only Lord or Hero units, generally, provide any kind of power dice, it's much harder, points wise, to cram in major magic usage; big powerful casters are massively more expensive than any non-Apocalypse unit in 40k, ranging up to 1000 points for Nagash (otherwise known as giant feth-off cannonball bait).
In fantasy, I can play against a magic-heavy list without much magic, and if I'm smart I can keep my army intact long enough to slow down the psychic barrage. In 40k, your only counter to major psychic spam is psychic spam or the Celuxes assassin.
Chaospling wrote: Some of you think that the Psychic phase is a problem as it seems unfinished or rushed and that the Magic phase of Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition I presume) is much better. Could you elaborate on this?
Okay. First off at the very base your psychic powers are based on a roll of 1d6 and you add more dice based on the levels of your psykers. This is a problem when you have armies like Grey Knights and Necrons facing off against one another in that one army doesn't even exist within a phase of the game and the other one has more psykers than they know what to do with. Next you have to roll a number of 4+'s equal to the mastery rank of the power you are manifesting, this is irritating because it is so random with very little you as the player can do to modify it other than throw more dice at it and hope for the best. Then after you case the power your opponent has to roll a number of 6's to cancel it equal to the number of 4+'s you rolled, this is a ludicrous system that benefits the psyker far to much. Now I know you can modify that roll but you will at best break even with the person casting and even then very few armies are capable of reaching that point. So going back to our situation where you have a Grey Knight player vs a Necron player, the Necron player can't do anything to stop the Grey Knight player other than hope they can get lucky. With the advent of 6th and 7th psykers are becoming more and more powerful but the armies without or limited access to them are not seeing any changes while psyker heavy armies are becoming far to powerful.
In WHFB you roll 2d6 to determine how many casting dice you have, your opponent gets a number of dispell dice equal to the highest of the two dice you rolled. So a roll of 2d6 that gave you a 4 and a 5 would give the casting player 9 spell dice and his opponent 5 dispell dice. Then you channel with your casters which is rolling a die for every caster and getting an additional power/dispell dice for every 6 you roll. This can be modified with some basic magic items so that you can get a channel on a 5+. Next spells in WHFB have a casting value that all you need to do is equal or exceed in order to cast your spell. So for a spell level 14 you need to roll 14 on how ever many dice you want to allocated to that power, to help you out you get to add the caster level of the wizard casting the power to the die roll as well as modifying it with magic items. So a level 4 wizard would only need to roll a 10 to cast a power level 14 spell. To dispell a spell you do the exact same process with one of the defending armies casters, you roll however many dispell dice you want and add the caster level of the wizard that is attempting the dispell.
So you have a situation in WHFB where the casting player has a bit of advantage by having more dice to play with than the defending player but the defending player is never at a point where they can do nothing to defend themselves. In 40k there really is no defense against casting other than hoping the psykers player rolls so poorly that the power doesn't go off.
.
