dresnar1 wrote:
As long as Jervis Jhonson is head of the rules department the rules for GW games will continue to be trash. The reject doesn't seem to understand that you can still "forge a narrative" with a solid set of rules. Jervis is also on board the money whore GW train, he has no integrity.

Until JJ is fired we shouldn't expect anything better from GW.

dresnar1 wrote:
As long as Jervis Jhonson is head of the rules department the rules for GW games will continue to be trash. The reject doesn't seem to understand that you can still "forge a narrative" with a solid set of rules. Jervis is also on board the money whore GW train, he has no integrity.

Until JJ is fired we shouldn't expect anything better from GW.

 herpguy wrote:
I really hope somebody gets fired, but I doubt it. I'm going to lay low and not waste my money on GW products (including rulebooks) for a while and see how this all land out.

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
What makes it that bad?

 herpguy wrote:
I really hope somebody gets fired, but I doubt it. I'm going to lay low and not waste my money on GW products (including rulebooks) for a while and see how this all land out.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
What makes it that bad?

ITs 6th edition, with random objectives, random objective cards, and fantasys 6th/7th edition magic phase. They took the worst of 6th, and the worst of fantasy and bundled it together while at the same time doing nothing to address what broke 6th.

 loki old fart wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
What makes it that bad?

ITs 6th edition, with random objectives, random objective cards, and fantasys 6th/7th edition magic phase. They took the worst of 6th, and the worst of fantasy and bundled it together while at the same time doing nothing to address what broke 6th.

At last somebody with his eyes open.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

 Grey Templar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

Ummm, 8th is the best balanced Fantasy edition thus far. Magic is a little wonky, but nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th(where certain factions were straight up OP with having automatic 25+ dice magic phases)

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

Ummm, 8th is the best balanced Fantasy edition thus far. Magic is a little wonky, but nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th(where certain factions were straight up OP with having automatic 25+ dice magic phases)

Regardless of what i think of 8th, reality is it has tanked, they are supposedly reviewing the system in depth for 9th which should come up shortly. 7th 40k is a terrible edition, so the foundation for it to tank is sadly already there. What i mean to say is that this potential crisis can also be an opportunity.

 Grey Templar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

Ummm, 8th is the best balanced Fantasy edition thus far. Magic is a little wonky, but nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th(where certain factions were straight up OP with having automatic 25+ dice magic phases)

Regardless of what i think of 8th, reality is it has tanked, they are supposedly reviewing the system in depth for 9th which should come up shortly. 7th 40k is a terrible edition, so the foundation for it to tank is sadly already there. What i mean to say is that this potential crisis can also be an opportunity.

Fantasy has tanked not because its a bad ruleset, but because GW itself is tanking and people are becoming disenchanted with their games.

And because of all the Comp tournaments going way overboard with Comping Fantasy tournaments as a kneejerk reaction to a GW ruleset and not actually considering that its not really all that bad. A little light comp is all that would be needed. Ban specific items and characters and that's it.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

Ummm, 8th is the best balanced Fantasy edition thus far. Magic is a little wonky, but nowhere near as bad as it was in 7th(where certain factions were straight up OP with having automatic 25+ dice magic phases)

Regardless of what i think of 8th, reality is it has tanked, they are supposedly reviewing the system in depth for 9th which should come up shortly. 7th 40k is a terrible edition, so the foundation for it to tank is sadly already there. What i mean to say is that this potential crisis can also be an opportunity.

Fantasy has tanked not because its a bad ruleset, but because GW itself is tanking and people are becoming disenchanted with their games.

And because of all the Comp tournaments going way overboard with Comping Fantasy tournaments as a kneejerk reaction to a GW ruleset and not actually considering that its not really all that bad. A little light comp is all that would be needed. Ban specific items and characters and that's it.

The point is, that fantasy which is less important for the company tanked and it prompted a redesign. 40k which is much more important to them has the opportunity to do the same, specially after this god awful edition, which is aiming to be the second terrible edition in a row.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Well, I guess that there is a good chance that JJ will be fired for daemonology.

 da001 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Think about it, 6th was bad, they doubled down on 7th. Now 7th being as terrible as it is, has the opportunity of becoming fantasys 8th and prompting a (supposed) real redesign. We might end up being better off if they take a real hit this edition.

I can´t believe I agree with this. But I do!

I am not sure 7th is worse than 6th, but it is mostly the same (90% copy-paste) and it doesn´t solve any problem. It also pushes the limits of the game (daemonology, unbound, the magic phase), so it may actually serve as a revulsive. People will (perhaps) join forces and create their own rules (for tournaments, for other editions, for fan-made systems), and GW may go down and the game get bought by someone else OR they may react and reboot the game.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Well, I guess that there is a good chance that JJ will be fired for daemonology.

Why?

I got the impression most of the GW´s Inner Circle and shareholders indulge in daemonology. Wasn´t Satan herself a high-level office-holder until Ward´s promotion?

xxvaderxx wrote:

The point is, that fantasy which is less important for the company tanked and it prompted a redesign. 40k which is much more important to them has the opportunity to do the same, specially after this god awful edition, which is aiming to be the second terrible edition in a row.

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

 azreal13 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

BrianDavion wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

yeah damned randomness, it's interfering with my ability to randomly roll to shoot, randomly roll to get past his armor and randomly roll to wound!

 Happygrunt wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

The point is, that fantasy which is less important for the company tanked and it prompted a redesign. 40k which is much more important to them has the opportunity to do the same, specially after this god awful edition, which is aiming to be the second terrible edition in a row.

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards). The battlefield will change and having an army capable of adapting to the changing environment (or ineptitude of High Command as part of my game turned out to be ) makes the game player better.

Honestly, at first glance, I like 7th more than 6th. There are a few small changes that make the game more interactive, with the psychic phase being a nice addition. Both myself and my opponent took very balanced lists (1k of mechanized IG vs 1k of Death Guard) and we were both interacting with each other during all parts of the game.

I would highly suggest that everyone tires 7th before writing it off as "6th but worse". There are some nice subtle changes that make the game very enjoyable.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

 da001 wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

The point is, that fantasy which is less important for the company tanked and it prompted a redesign. 40k which is much more important to them has the opportunity to do the same, specially after this god awful edition, which is aiming to be the second terrible edition in a row.

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards). The battlefield will change and having an army capable of adapting to the changing environment (or ineptitude of High Command as part of my game turned out to be ) makes the game player better.

Honestly, at first glance, I like 7th more than 6th. There are a few small changes that make the game more interactive, with the psychic phase being a nice addition. Both myself and my opponent took very balanced lists (1k of mechanized IG vs 1k of Death Guard) and we were both interacting with each other during all parts of the game.

I would highly suggest that everyone tires 7th before writing it off as "6th but worse". There are some nice subtle changes that make the game very enjoyable.

I am not sold on the 'tactical cards' thing. How do you create a tactic if your goals are constantly changing? Doesn´t it make the game a completely random fight, with the armies racing from one place to another, and where a lucky card means more than any personal skill?

xxvaderxx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

xxvaderxx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

 Happygrunt wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

So are you Frankie or Josh in the report? My question still stands; have you actually played the game yet?

xxvaderxx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So....you have no clue what-so-ever how any of it works, and based on the fact you know there is a random element of cards, and that alone, in an OPTIONAL ALTERNATE GAME MODE, you conclude that 7th edition is terrible and in effect a dumbed down 6th.

You sir, need to get off our hobby, you just spoil our fun.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

 Happygrunt wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:


I am going to make two pretty bold claims that will be gross generalizations, but this thread seems to be all about these, so here I go:

1. Anyone claiming 7th is bad without first trying it for themselves is looking for things to complain about and has no base for their accusations.

2. Anyone complaining about tactical objective cards needs to step back and look at how they play. Gone are the days with armies able to focus on one aspect of the game and still win. Adaptation will be necessary and play styles will change. Balanced armies WILL have an advantage over lopsided ones and that is how it should be.

l.

1. I can argue with. I'm not looking for things to complain, But when I see something I don't like, I don't try to white wash it. I love 40k and want it to get better, but in my opinion of what I think is fun, it's getting worse.

2. You may be right. I haven't tried it. The objective cards may in fact be good, but unfortunately they're not the reason I'm not buying into 7th. That's more to do with the fact that they're not even hiding that its just a cash grab, they're destroying the fluff with armies that have no business being together, loyalist summoning demons, escalation in the main rules, unbound crap and not fixing what was wrong with 6th.

I actually liked 6th. I thought it was the codexes that were mostly at fault. I was hoping that GW would look at the complaints and fix them. Instead they just added random things that have nothing to do with what was driving people away.

Reply by: Azreal13 - click to view full reply 

44272

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:14:15

Post by: Azreal13

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

I disagree with the use of the word hate in almost every context it is used in in this board, but if you don't like the direction 40K has gone in latterly, you read any of his articles in WD or generally have a perspective on the game that extends back more than 6 years or so, when there were other people that also had a strong influence in development, it is very easy to attribute a lot of that which is unpopular to JJ's attitude to how he thinks the game should be played, and a substantial disconnect between that attitude and how many people outside of Lenton think it should.

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:35:34

Post by: dresnar1

azreal13 wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

I disagree with the use of the word hate in almost every context it is used in in this board, but if you don't like the direction 40K has gone in latterly, you read any of his articles in WD or generally have a perspective on the game that extends back more than 6 years or so, when there were other people that also had a strong influence in development, it is very easy to attribute a lot of that which is unpopular to JJ's attitude to how he thinks the game should be played, and a substantial disconnect between that attitude and how many people outside of Lenton think it should.

Who said anything about Jervis Jhonsons family? What does Jervis Jhonson's family have to do the quality of the rules he puts out?

There is a lot we know about Jervis Jhonson from the volume of articles he has put out giving a fairly definitive amount of information on his theory of game design. Jervis has been quite clear that he prefers games with random outcomes, Jervis loves random charts, Jervis prefers games ran by a Games Master. In his tenure as head of the rules department he coined the phrase "forge a narrative" and he has used that phrase to as an excuse for an increasingly unbalanced gaming system.

Jervis Jhonson fails to grasp one very simple point. You can "forge a narrative", play games with Dungeon Masters, have house rules with friends and still have a balanced, well thought out, minimal loop hole, often FAQ'D, rule set. It seems that Jervis is incapable of understanding that a competent rule set can still allow for they types of games he prefers.

Jervis Jhonson is horrible at his job. No one said he is horrible to his family, or his pets, or his neighbors. Nothing about Jervis Jhonsons' personal life has been stated by anyone. The only thing that has been said is that he is terrible at creating a competent set of rules. I'd go so far as to say my little sister, who doesn't even the play the game, could do a better job than Jervis Jhonson.

I don't understand GW at all. Since Jervis's tenure the company has continued to lose market share. They still allow him to pump out his drivel. Fire this guy already. My best wishes to him family though, just to be clear about that.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:38:39

Post by: BoomWolf

xxvaderxx wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Dude, heralds are anecdotal, you can use any caster that can summon them and spam horrors.

The are "anecdotal" yet every single "daemon spawn farm" seems to rely solely on them doing the summoning, with no proof on reason to assume they can even try for summoning powers.
If you want to get it done though daemon princes (the one daemon codex unit that will have these powers for sure, probably some, or all, of the god-spesific big deamons too), meaning you are using a model of 230+ points (depending on daemon type) for every attempt to summon, and it eats an HQ slot each, and if you do peril, its the big, and few, guys that go down.

And the pink horrors that will likely fuel them will do noting except generate warp charges, meaning their 90-180 points are also sank into the summoning, so each "summon", to get 6-8 dice, will eat up over 300 points that do nothing else. is that that bad? is it all that different from tervigons?

dresnar1 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
So....you have no clue what-so-ever how any of it works, and based on the fact you know there is a random element of cards, and that alone, in an OPTIONAL ALTERNATE GAME MODE, you conclude that 7th edition is terrible and in effect a dumbed down 6th.

You sir, need to get off our hobby, you just spoil our fun.

You sir need to stop being a GW apologist. Your basicly saying that even more randomness in the game is somehow making the game better? Really?

Why not just play the cards and call it a day if that is what decides the game?

Here is what is going on. Strategy doesn't dictate the outcome of a game, draws do. The vast majority of players play 40k for its strategic play. Strategic play has been on the decline since 5th. 7th removes what very little strategic play was left. If you enjoy 40k now you are a person that enjoys a good game of paper/rock/scissors over chess.

I am not GW apologist, i'm a 40k player that is having fun, and your attitude towards the game makes me have more fun if you just stop being a part of it.

I'm basically saying that it is an OPTION you dont even have to play with! the "regular" missions are still there, to be played, and the card-based ones are an alternative, if you don't like it, DONT FREAKING PLAY IT.
And yes, randomness IS a part of gaming. how much, when and where is a delicate matter of balance, and each game needs his own amount.
Do you want no randomness at all? lets remove dice rolling then? randomness are a part of this game, for better or worse. and random objective is a thing that many games do, and do it well, because once the objectives are stale, the game gets stale, and if you cant be sure about the objectives-you prepare yourself to all of them, or make calculated choices of what to focus, and what to ignore.

Now, if you bothered noticing that the objectives are placed before choosing sides, meaning that most of them will be mid-field, and that most cards refer directly to objectives, and the others are based on an action you yourself do, rather then the enemy, you would notice that once you get your cards you can thinker how to use them, how to get them to work for you, and how to deny your opponent of using his. they are all achievable, and make you think on-the-fly rather then plan ahead, and thats another type of game that is also quite fun for many of us, myself included.
Though if you do not enjoy planning on the fly, you can stick to armies that do not get random abilities (necrons, tau, sisters, anyone not running spykers are completely expectable) and playing missions that do not have as much random factors (eternal war, the 6th edition ones), while those of us that do enjoy it go with changing objectives, throwing altar of war on each other, and generally creating a mess of things (as war should be-a bloody mess where nothing is predictable)

Seriously, how can someone bitch so much because he was given additional options he may or may not play with, as he chooses.

Reply by: Kain - click to view full reply 

57646

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:42:10

Post by: Kain

The intent is to convince people to stop feeding GW's bad habits with money so they either change their bad habits or die out like a company that mistreats it's customers should. If it's making you want to play the game less then it's working.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:46:28

Post by: BoomWolf

Its not making me want to play any less, I enjoy the game.

I just wish your type were not a part of it, as your attitude is harmful for gaming in general, not just 40k.
I would not want guys with this attitude in my Game of Thrones games, my battlestar galactica games, my munchkin, MTG, LoL, plantside, civilization, PoE or any other game in existence for that matter.

Reply by: Kain - click to view full reply 

57646

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:49:00

Post by: Kain

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not making me want to play any less, I enjoy the game.

I just wish your type were not a part of it, as your attitude is harmful for gaming in general, not just 40k.
I would not want guys with this attitude in my Game of Thrones games, my battlestar galactica games, my munchkin, MTG, LoL, plantside, civilization, PoE or any other game in existence for that matter.

What's that phrase the Americans have? "The Customer is always right?" If there is substantial customer dissatisfaction, then the Company is doing something wrong and should change course, or it should suffer, perhaps even die if the dissatisfaction is sufficient.

Entertainment businesses exist purely to profit via pleasing the masses. If they do not please the masses, they do not deserve to profit.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:54:34

Post by: BoomWolf

Except that they do not please you personally, and you see it as a good reason to try to ruin it for people that are pleased, and that's being a douche.

Reply by: loki old fart - click to view full reply 

20880

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:54:50

Post by: loki old fart

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not making me want to play any less, I enjoy the game.

I just wish your type were not a part of it, as your attitude is harmful for gaming in general, not just 40k.
I would not want guys with this attitude in my Game of Thrones games, my battlestar galactica games, my munchkin, MTG, LoL, plantside, civilization, PoE or any other game in existence for that matter.

Please stop assigning people to groups. Definitely stop telling them to quit gaming.
If the thread upsets you so much, walk away from it for a while.

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:58:02

Post by: dresnar1

 BoomWolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Dude, heralds are anecdotal, you can use any caster that can summon them and spam horrors.

The are "anecdotal" yet every single "daemon spawn farm" seems to rely solely on them doing the summoning, with no proof on reason to assume they can even try for summoning powers.
If you want to get it done though daemon princes (the one daemon codex unit that will have these powers for sure, probably some, or all, of the god-spesific big deamons too), meaning you are using a model of 230+ points (depending on daemon type) for every attempt to summon, and it eats an HQ slot each, and if you do peril, its the big, and few, guys that go down.

And the pink horrors that will likely fuel them will do noting except generate warp charges, meaning their 90-180 points are also sank into the summoning, so each "summon", to get 6-8 dice, will eat up over 300 points that do nothing else. is that that bad? is it all that different from tervigons?

dresnar1 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
So....you have no clue what-so-ever how any of it works, and based on the fact you know there is a random element of cards, and that alone, in an OPTIONAL ALTERNATE GAME MODE, you conclude that 7th edition is terrible and in effect a dumbed down 6th.

You sir, need to get off our hobby, you just spoil our fun.

You sir need to stop being a GW apologist. Your basicly saying that even more randomness in the game is somehow making the game better? Really?

Why not just play the cards and call it a day if that is what decides the game?

Here is what is going on. Strategy doesn't dictate the outcome of a game, draws do. The vast majority of players play 40k for its strategic play. Strategic play has been on the decline since 5th. 7th removes what very little strategic play was left. If you enjoy 40k now you are a person that enjoys a good game of paper/rock/scissors over chess.

I am not GW apologist, i'm a 40k player that is having fun, and your attitude towards the game makes me have more fun if you just stop being a part of it.

I'm basically saying that it is an OPTION you dont even have to play with! the "regular" missions are still there, to be played, and the card-based ones are an alternative, if you don't like it, DONT FREAKING PLAY IT.
And yes, randomness IS a part of gaming. how much, when and where is a delicate matter of balance, and each game needs his own amount.
Do you want no randomness at all? lets remove dice rolling then? randomness are a part of this game, for better or worse. and random objective is a thing that many games do, and do it well, because once the objectives are stale, the game gets stale, and if you cant be sure about the objectives-you prepare yourself to all of them, or make calculated choices of what to focus, and what to ignore.

Now, if you bothered noticing that the objectives are placed before choosing sides, meaning that most of them will be mid-field, and that most cards refer directly to objectives, and the others are based on an action you yourself do, rather then the enemy, you would notice that once you get your cards you can thinker how to use them, how to get them to work for you, and how to deny your opponent of using his. they are all achievable, and make you think on-the-fly rather then plan ahead, and thats another type of game that is also quite fun for many of us, myself included.
Though if you do not enjoy planning on the fly, you can stick to armies that do not get random abilities (necrons, tau, sisters, anyone not running spykers are completely expectable) and playing missions that do not have as much random factors (eternal war, the 6th edition ones), while those of us that do enjoy it go with changing objectives, throwing altar of war on each other, and generally creating a mess of things (as war should be-a bloody mess where nothing is predictable)

Seriously, how can someone bitch so much because he was given additional options he may or may not play with, as he chooses.

I'm a tournament player. I like to win using strategy.

You seem to be a person more in line with Jervis Jhonsons game design theory. I see the rules as being a part of the game to reduce player division. You seem to believe you can just work everything out in an endless stream of casual games where each player some how agrees with each other which rules to follow and which to ignore. For you if a player wants to play unbound and you don't then its K cause you don't have to play them. I'm a person that feels that dividing a dwindling player base is a bad thing. Your a player that is K with running out and buying 80 demons because of new broken rules intended to make you do just that. I'm a player that sees a cash grab for what it is. You're a GW apologist. I'm calling a spade a spade.

You will have more fun if I don't play the game? Me playing or not playing should have very little impact on your enjoyment of the game. However, you should care if I quit. The player base is dwindling for 40 k and has been for some time. If I, a die hard fan of over 20 years, quit how many others like me will do the same? How soon till you show up to play a game and can't find anyone playing the game you want to play, further exacerbated by you finding an individual willing to make changes to the rules you agree with?

No one is saying get rid of randomness. We are saying randomness shouldn't be the primary source for a win. Dice rolling isn't about randomness, it's about playing the odds. Good playes make decisions on those odds when moving their units. Often tipping the odds in their favor incase of undesirable outcomes. Drawing cards from a deck is random with no counter strategy to good or bad luck.

Reply by: Kain - click to view full reply 

57646

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 19:58:17

Post by: Kain

 BoomWolf wrote:
Except that they do not please you personally, and you see it as a good reason to try to ruin it for people that are pleased, and that's being a douche.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

And I'm far from the only person who thinks that Jervis and co are making mistake after mistake.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 20:20:04

Post by: BoomWolf

"The truth"? its a game, there isn't right and wrong here as its a matter of personal preference!
I refuse to believe you really believe think everyone has the same tastes.
Is he making mistake after mistake? not really. he has great ideas, he's only rather bad at polishing them. he just needs someone to take his ideas, and properly polish them.

Edited for rudeness - MT11

dresnar1-as said, the "altar of war" is still an option, so why rage about the fact there is another one too?
And all this "play MY way attitude" is the issue, not the fact there are multiple options.
I am play a bound army, I prefer to have a "hold no bars" type of game where everything is kosher and that I can throw altar of war in, mess around with the card objectives and all that-but I have no problem played against an unbound army, or stick to eternal war missions if that's more comfortable for the opponent.
A game is not a job, its a social interaction meant for fun, part of it means that you need to reach mutual agreements on some basic things, like what game do you play to begin with-and you can see it in any game.

lets look at MTG for example. we got the "standard", "extended", "EDH", "commander", "archnemesis", "FFA", "THG", "empror" and tons of other list-restriction types, or alternate mods that throw the "normal" pacing of the game to the wind, you can even combine several game types at once to create new types (emperor archnemesis, extended FFA, EDH standard....) and it WORKS.

Munchkin? there are a bazillion expansions with various degrees of matching between theme, you will usually play one of them, but even then you need to choose what version, and may players mix and match versions (apocalypse+cothulu, space+axe cop, bits+basic, any other combo you can come up with), play a game where even the rules don't quite stay the same, and everyone has a blast.


You know why? because there are basic rules for the "basic, hold no bars" type of game, and from there on each pair or group chooses what direction they want to play, based on personal preferences and tastes. there is NO reason why 40k shouldn't be the same, where you have the "generic-everything is on" style, and from there on every specific game is set to the constrains that fits the players.
How HARD can it be to reach a simple agreement over a game?

And when it comes to tournaments-they all make up their own missions and rules ANYWAY. in EVERY game. only the most solid of games that have no options what-so-ever play by strict base rules, as that's all there is. each turny only needs to define itself as "this is a X type turny" or "this is a Y type turny", and players will go to the ones they like, knowing what the expect in each one.
And even going to one that is not your usual game type can be alot of fun, you won't bring your usual list (or maybe you will, as it includes your usual plus extras), and you won't fight your usual opponents-but its OK, because you KNEW that's the kind of turny it is.

The first rule of gaming people-its a game.

Reply by: George L. - click to view full reply 

65838

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 20:25:59

Post by: George L.

out if interest, how many of you have actually played 7th before deciding it sucks. Personally Im ot iterested in 40k anymore, 6th kinda killed it for me but people could atleast give it a chance.

On the flipside, if 7th sucks we might get some new blood on the warmachine scene

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 20:28:31

Post by: dresnar1

 BoomWolf wrote:
"The truth"? its a game you smartass, there isn't right and wrong here as its a matter of personal preference!
I refuse to believe you are actually stupid enough to think everyone has the same tastes.
Is he making mistake after mistake? not really. he has great ideas, he's only rather bad at polishing them. he just needs someone to take his ideas, and properly polish them.



dresnar1-as said, the "altar of war" is still an option, so why rage about the fact there is another one too?
And all this "play MY way attitude" is the issue, not the fact there are multiple options.
I am play a bound army, I prefer to have a "hold no bars" type of game where everything is kosher and that I can throw altar of war in, mess around with the card objectives and all that-but I have no problem played against an unbound army, or stick to eternal war missions if that's more comfortable for the opponent.
A game is not a job, its a social interaction meant for fun, part of it means that you need to reach mutual agreements on some basic things, like what game do you play to begin with-and you can see it in any game.

lets look at MTG for example. we got the "standard", "extended", "EDH", "commander", "archnemesis", "FFA", "THG", "empror" and tons of other list-restriction types, or alternate mods that throw the "normal" pacing of the game to the wind, you can even combine several game types at once to create new types (emperor archnemesis, extended FFA, EDH standard....) and it WORKS.

Munchkin? there are a bazillion expansions with various degrees of matching between theme, you will usually play one of them, but even then you need to choose what version, and may players mix and match versions (apocalypse+cothulu, space+axe cop, bits+basic, any other combo you can come up with), play a game where even the rules don't quite stay the same, and everyone has a blast.


You know why? because there are basic rules for the "basic, hold no bars" type of game, and from there on each pair or group chooses what direction they want to play, based on personal preferences and tastes. there is NO reason why 40k shouldn't be the same, where you have the "generic-everything is on" style, and from there on every specific game is set to the constrains that fits the players.
How HARD can it be to reach a simple agreement over a game?

And when it comes to tournaments-they all make up their own missions and rules ANYWAY. in EVERY game. only the most solid of games that have no options what-so-ever play by strict base rules, as that's all there is. each turny only needs to define itself as "this is a X type turny" or "this is a Y type turny", and players will go to the ones they like, knowing what the expect in each one.
And even going to one that is not your usual game type can be alot of fun, you won't bring your usual list (or maybe you will, as it includes your usual plus extras), and you won't fight your usual opponents-but its OK, because you KNEW that's the kind of turny it is.

The first rule of gaming people-its a game.

Sorry man, if the rules aren't good it's not a good game. Here are the problems:

a.These rules aren't good.

b. It's a obvious cash grab.

For A there is no excuse. Jervis Jhonson sucks and needs to go.

For B the company has no respect for its customers. The game isn't for games by gamers. We are all a bottom line, once the game implodes the golden parachutes come out and were left holding the malformed bag.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 20:33:15

Post by: BoomWolf

A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

B-its a company, everything they DO is a cash grab, and an obvious and admitted one, just like every other company on the planet, including every other game maker.


JJ needs to go? maybe. maybe not. he's not doing a spectacular job, but not a horrid one either.

And "The game isn't for games by gamers", seriously? do you think there is ANY game that fit that description out there?

EDIT for the second part you added during me writing:

If the cards are your problem, play the regular missions rather then the alternates, as said a million times. stop complaining about something that is not in the core of the game.

And warmachine is exactly the same in that aspect, except too small yet for people to notice it and deconstruct as quickly. if you believe otherwise you are misguided. (heck, they started the "giant models are awesome" theme already!)

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 20:34:48

Post by: dresnar1

George L. wrote:
out if interest, how many of you have actually played 7th before deciding it sucks. Personally Im ot iterested in 40k anymore, 6th kinda killed it for me but people could atleast give it a chance.

On the flipside, if 7th sucks we might get some new blood on the warmachine scene

Played yesterday. I rolled my eyes so many times I sprained one of them. The game made me cross eyed (till it heals). I'm considering suing. Anything as bad as 7th should come with a warning label.

On another note a 11 year old beat the store owner who is quite good. He just drew the right cards and won. Nice eh!

I primarily play Warmachine. Awesome game. Hope to see more people that prefer strategy games to leave the listbuilding/exploit/random win game that 40k has turned into.


Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

B-its a company, everything they DO is a cash grab, and an obvious and admitted one, just like every other company on the planet, including every other game maker.


JJ needs to go? maybe. maybe not. he's not doing a spectacular job, but not a horrid one either.

And "The game isn't for games by gamers", seriously? do you think there is ANY game that fit that description out there?

Uhhhh yeah? Have you not payed attention to what is gobbeling up GW's market share? If Jervis Jhonson payed attention to what the players wanted he wouldn't have put out this edition.

You want to meet the President of Privateer Press? Go to some of their big tournaments and go ahead and play him in a game.

Edited for rudeness, do not use that word please. - MT11

Reply by: Kyutaru - click to view full reply 

86467

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:01:33

Post by: Kyutaru

 BoomWolf wrote:
A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

We are still referring to the same rulebook, right? Forget playing the game, have you guys even read the book yet?

"Unless otherwise noted, all Psykers, other than those belonging in the Tyranids Faction (p.118) can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline"

"Psykers with the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp (p.25) on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."

Nothing forbids a Herald from taking the Daemonology powers so they fall into the category demanded by this new discipline that "everyone" gets to use it.

Except Tyranids because feth those guys.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:04:09

Post by: TheKbob

Kyutaru wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

We are still referring to the same rulebook, right? Forget playing the game, have you guys even read the book yet?

"Unless otherwise noted, all Psykers, other than those belonging in the Tyranids Faction (p.118) can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline"

"Psykers with the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp (p.25) on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."

Nothing forbids a Herald from taking the Daemonology powers so they fall into the category demanded by this new discipline that "everyone" gets to use it.

Except Tyranids because feth those guys.

Could you imagine Tervigons and Mono-Tzeentch allies? ALL THE FREE UNITS!

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:06:38

Post by: BoomWolf

The gobbeling is the natural result of competetiong, and players moving to games that fit their own tastes better. one game cannot fit everyone.

And the fact you can "meet up the president of PP" is also because they are currently relatively small, and the most important thing for him TO do, is good public relations, rather then managing a huge cooperation.

Its all quite simple and natural.

Reply by: Kyutaru - click to view full reply 

86467

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:08:03

Post by: Kyutaru

 TheKbob wrote:

Could you imagine Tervigons and Mono-Tzeentch allies? ALL THE FREE UNITS!

Nothing stops you from being able to do that!

But I don't want to give up my Thousand Sons... I love their laser guns too much.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:08:46

Post by: TheKbob

 BoomWolf wrote:
The gobbeling is the natural result of competetiong, and players moving to games that fit their own tastes better. one game cannot fit everyone.

And the fact you can "meet up the president of PP" is also because they are currently relatively small, and the most important thing for him TO do, is good public relations, rather then managing a huge cooperation.

Its all quite simple and natural.

Outside of whatever you're meandering about, a balanced game is better for all players. Only Games Workshop games have a distinct fissure between a competitive and non-competitive mindset because everything is so busted.

Any other wargame does not have this fissure in their ranks. But sure, keep arguing like the other side is the "bad guy."

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:11:40

Post by: BoomWolf

I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

Reply by: xxvaderxx - click to view full reply 

20887

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:14:58

Post by: xxvaderxx

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

Then go live by, nobody called you to post here.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:16:38

Post by: TheKbob

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

And my point still stands. No other game has this fissure making you're "different tastes" things irrelevant. If the game was better designed, no one would have to worry about "will my opponent thing I'm a WAAC loser for playing X, Y, or Z units?".

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:18:07

Post by: dresnar1

 BoomWolf wrote:
The gobbeling is the natural result of competetiong, and players moving to games that fit their own tastes better. one game cannot fit everyone.

And the fact you can "meet up the president of PP" is also because they are currently relatively small, and the most important thing for him TO do, is good public relations, rather then managing a huge cooperation.

Its all quite simple and natural.

Jeeze. Are you getting paid by GW? GW just can't do wrong in your eyes can they? Your level of GW apologetics is pretty epic.

Privateer Press isn't "small" by any definition for a gaming company.

If you're getting paid by GW maybe ask for a raise? You deserve it.

Reply by: liquidjoshi - click to view full reply 

19728

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:18:42

Post by: liquidjoshi

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't think of them as "bad guys" at all, just people that have different tastes and seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by.

Which is why we should leave "your" game alone?

I was gonna sugar coat it, but feth it, you're a hypocrite. That whole "seems to insists that their tastes are facts of live we all must live by" thing. Because you've not done that at all [/sarcasm]. But please, keep othering people with legitimate complaints though if it makes you feel better.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:21:30

Post by: BoomWolf

I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

Every single bash so far except that, was based around the whole "random is good" ideal, who is not only optional, but a matter of personal taste.

Reply by: Kyutaru - click to view full reply 

86467

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:27:03

Post by: Kyutaru

 BoomWolf wrote:
I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

What assumptions? Did you even read the post I made above? You can quote it right out of the book. No one is assuming Heralds get Daemonology, the book SAYS they get daemonology.

Oh, and daemonology isn't the only broken psyker power. Invisibility, which we already KNOW several units are capable of getting, is beyond broken in and of itself. You just don't see as many complaints about it because it's not a Primaris power and only Be'lakor and his friends can reliably use it. But when placed on a Fateweaver, the chances of dealing a wound to that Fateweaver are 1 in over 1200.

I would strongly encourage you to actually read the rules before saying there's nothing wrong with them.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:29:09

Post by: TheKbob

 BoomWolf wrote:
I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

Every single bash so far except that, was based around the whole "random is good" ideal, who is not only optional, but a matter of personal taste.

In terms of game design, random is bad. But to digress, rather the onus of proof is on your argument.

We can look at the past 12 months of Games Workshop releases. They have been slipshod, haphazard, poorly supported, and some appearing to be plain sucker purchases. We still have a codex that doesn't work and auto-loses the game.

No, the burden of proof is to show that 7E is indeed balanced given the track record of the company. Past history and dash of rationality dictates this. So please, prove to us 7E is a better game. Because that's the proof I need to spend $85 on rules versus a Woldwrath for my Circle.

Reply by: liquidjoshi - click to view full reply 

19728

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:30:12

Post by: liquidjoshi

Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Everything that was wrong with 6th and has remained.
Zero shooting nerfs.
Zero assault buffs.
Certain types of assault build being further nerfed.
Psychic phase.
More random in a game that requires very few random aspects.
"Forge the Narrative" excuse.
Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.
Further propagation of the terrible balance issues in 6th via FOC, Dataslate, Ally, Supplement and mini'dex (INQ, LOTD, ETC) abuse.
Superheavies in normal games, but no clarification for Forgeworld.

Just off the top of my head. An then we get to GW's actual practices, ignoring the internet like it doesn't exist, the bull pricing overall, double bull pricing in AUS, so on.

Yes, some of those are optional, but now it's legitimate to run Calgar, Swarmlord and a Riptide in the same army. What. The. Balls. I just... I'm done. That would never, ever happen in... Right, I'm sorry, I'm just not forging hard enough.

Forge a damn narrative all you want, 7th is just all the wrong steps 6th took doubled over.

Don't worry though Wolfy, the rest of us (that's "them") will probably go play Infinity or something.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:34:38

Post by: TheKbob

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.

Hey, slow your roll just a bit. Rippers are now super scoring units. Thus you can bring 80 pts worth of rippers for your troops, thus spamming everything else. I believe I made a Tyranids army at 1850 that was Skyblight + more FMCs to be 4 Tyrands, 2 Harpies, 2 Crones, 3x10 Gargoyles, and ripper swarms to round it out. Something like 7 super scoring units and 8 FMCs.

Also, I plan on running a new Tyranids list. 4x Ripper Broods, 4 Dakka Flyrants, 4x Tyrannofexes. NIDZILLA IS BACK!

Reply by: Wayniac - click to view full reply 

3750

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:37:54

Post by: Wayniac

Personally I think there's some instances where Unbound makes sense:

* All Terminator/1st Company
* Ork Kult of Speed
* Tyranids + IG (Genestealer Cults!)
* Nidzilla

but the fact it's not restricted and is quite literally "Buy anything you like, and feel free to use it" is just disgusting and quite literally pisses on 30 years of background. In fact for all the crap he gets I'm even more disgusted that Jervis Johnson actually let something like that slide seeing as he's been with GW for most of those 30 years and is one of the "founding fathers" of 40k.

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:38:42

Post by: dresnar1

 BoomWolf wrote:
I didn't protect the balance of the game itself, but I still stand behind the fact nobody ever given a single reason to WHY they think 7th edition balance is broken, or worse then 6th, with the exception of the "demon spawn list" that is based upon the assumptions on the contents of future FAQs. (mainly, that heralds are even the ones to get daemonology)

Every single bash so far except that, was based around the whole "random is good" ideal, who is not only optional, but a matter of personal taste.

Unbound armies are horrible from a balance/strategy perspective. Anyone with half a brain can figure this out. Jervis Jhonson doesn't hence why the rule is in the book.

Reply by: Blacksails - click to view full reply 

34243

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:39:29

Post by: Blacksails

Not to be overly picky, but you could always do a 1st company/all termies by using counts as DA.

I partially agree on the rest, as you could always house rule something/fan dex it, though admittedly this makes it a little more acceptable for pick-up/league/tourney play.

Reply by: RivenSkull - click to view full reply 

59984

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:41:52

Post by: RivenSkull

 BoomWolf wrote:

lets look at MTG for example. we got the "standard", "extended", "EDH", "commander", "archnemesis", "FFA", "THG", "empror" and tons of other list-restriction types, or alternate mods that throw the "normal" pacing of the game to the wind, you can even combine several game types at once to create new types (emperor archnemesis, extended FFA, EDH standard....) and it WORKS.

Munchkin? there are a bazillion expansions with various degrees of matching between theme, you will usually play one of them, but even then you need to choose what version, and may players mix and match versions (apocalypse+cothulu, space+axe cop, bits+basic, any other combo you can come up with), play a game where even the rules don't quite stay the same, and everyone has a blast.

If we want to use these as examples of what makes a game work, your argument doesn't hold water, and not just because the 2 business models are so radically different. (We're not counting Munchkin because that is a game designed to be silly tongue in cheek, and best played when drunk.)

With MTG, despite the masses of different types of play, the core rules are not changing in any of them. For the most part it's just a restriction on what cards can be played (Legacy, Standard, Modern, etc.), changing a few minor gameplay aspects, (Commander). THG and Emperor are casual player created multiplayer formats (mostly from veteran players that get bored with playing the same stuff over and over) that are applied to which ever card restrictions there are. Then, to further things to make it "work", WotC actively bans cards that create broken and relatively unfun combos that dominate a format. Yes it's a bit of a retroactive approach, and it makes maintaining a relative balance across multiple formats, it keeps things balanced. GW, should in theory, be able to do similar things with routine FAQ's. They don't.

WotC makes sure to word things very cut and dry to avoid the whole RAI/RAW crap GW goes through.

There is also the aspect that MTG has a constant flow of new product, which makes the process of balance a bit more difficult. In a year there will be over 700 new cards out. 40k, for the most part has a relatively static unit composition, which in theory should make things so much more easy to keep balanced. The fact that there are so many thing that are not points to poor rule writing and incompetence.



And for something (hobbywise) that takes as much investment as 40k does, these issue make it so much of a problem.

And I don't think that the majority of us that are really having problems with this edition are having these reactions because of smaller rules changes. Taking the new Sniper rules as an example, non of us are freaking out over things like that. Those types of changes bring up some "whys?" depending on the severity of the changes, but that's what happens with edition changes. Rules can change, and we adapt.

What we are having issues with are that many of the rule changes are not sound. Whether it was the change to random assault ranges coupled with the other changes in assault in 6th, the addition of more random aspects of the game, or the change that everything (for the most part) is scoring creates and entire balance issue that wouldn't be there if there was adequate play testing, and GW had any respect for their customer base. Then, tacked on with how poorly so much of things are written and the amount of typos that it seems that GW doesn't use an editor overall makes more problems, and the way things are more pointed towards house rules being the solution which further fragments things.

A great example for how the workings need to be looked at is with the CCB. Because now the rider and chariot are considered one "model", even if I didn't get to choose if the rider or the chariot gets hit, a Phase Shifter allows the CCB to have the 3++ save as well because of the term "model" in the shifter rules.

And to really start to top things off, since the player base and profit margins have been slowly declining, the thinly veiled money grabs are pushing people over. First with the inclusion of allies which encouraged people to buy more, then to an extent the addition of flyers, then with the inclusion of Superheavies and Lords of War, then the addition of things like the imperial Knights, and now with the absolutely bonkers ability for so many armies to be able to summon multitudes of models that require the purchase of not only those models but the codex needed to pay them. And then there's the even more thinly veiled money grab of Unbound armies that screams "Buy all of the expensive things to make you win." There is a whole lot of pay to win going on, and people don't want to further support a hobby/company that continues to do these things.

Reply by: liquidjoshi - click to view full reply 

19728

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:42:24

Post by: liquidjoshi

While yes, I agree that certain builds benefit from unbound, I think the players of those vs "Ten Riptides and a Revenant" builds are going to be the minority, severely so.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:44:34

Post by: TheKbob

 liquidjoshi wrote:
While yes, I agree that certain builds benefit from unbound, I think the players of those vs "Ten Riptides and a Revenant" builds are going to be the minority, severely so.

My lists that I offered weren't unbound, but battle forged using the multiple combined arms detachments. So you're still "legal". That's the funny part.

Reply by: bullyboy - click to view full reply 

85390

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:45:22

Post by: bullyboy

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Did I NOT tell you that this HABIT of CAPITALIZING RANDOM WORDS is a pain to READ as this helpful EXAGGERATION of your typing QUIRKS should DEMONSTRATE?

stop being a jerk, if you can't read through a few capitalized words without rupturing a blood vessel, take a break.

Reply by: RivenSkull - click to view full reply 

59984

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:46:35

Post by: RivenSkull

 liquidjoshi wrote:
While yes, I agree that certain builds benefit from unbound, I think the players of those vs "Ten Riptides and a Revenant" builds are going to be the minority, severely so.

I agree with the fact that they will probably be a minority as the community will hate it, the fact that it is enabled (consent not withstanding) in the rule book is pushing things a little to far and pushes the amount of negotiations before a game longer. And the fact that so many battle forged armies can do very similar things makes it worse.

Reply by: Kain - click to view full reply 

57646

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 21:49:25

Post by: Kain

bullyboy wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Did I NOT tell you that this HABIT of CAPITALIZING RANDOM WORDS is a pain to READ as this helpful EXAGGERATION of your typing QUIRKS should DEMONSTRATE?

stop being a jerk, if you can't read through a few capitalized words without rupturing a blood vessel, take a break.

He(she?) can stand up for him)her?)self. One of the rules is that one use proper spelling and grammar at all times, and random capitalization is not certainly not proper as per the rules of the English language.

As an aside, capitalize the first letter in every sentence.

Yours proudly:

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:15:32

Post by: BoomWolf

I can, chose not too, too much of a pointless argument.

I abandon this whole arguement. its a pointless one and we will not reach an agreement at any point.

Reply by: Truth118 - click to view full reply 

71499

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:20:18

Post by: Truth118

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Everything that was wrong with 6th and has remained.
Zero shooting nerfs.
Zero assault buffs.
Certain types of assault build being further nerfed.
Psychic phase.
More random in a game that requires very few random aspects.
"Forge the Narrative" excuse.
Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.
Further propagation of the terrible balance issues in 6th via FOC, Dataslate, Ally, Supplement and mini'dex (INQ, LOTD, ETC) abuse.
Superheavies in normal games, but no clarification for Forgeworld.

Just off the top of my head.

It sounds like you haven't actually read the new rules yet and just went by the opinions of cynics on internet forums.

Jink causes you to have to snapshot, so shooting was nerfed slightly in this regard.

Charging through difficult terrain is 2D6-2 rather than the lesser 2 of 3D6. On average I think it is just about the same, but probably makes it easier to get longer charges off. I'd like to see someone do the numbers on it.

I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1 (Heldrake only does one hit per vector strike because its a flyer, not a FMC) and are Ap2 instead of Ap3. It's harder to assault with them, but what Tyranid player is assaulting with his FMC's? Grounding tests only happen once per phase too, so now FMC's won't be taking S9 Ap2 wounds from markerlights. Tyranids can now actually take allys that can score, although can't deploy within 12".

The way a lot of people are whining in here you would think that Taudar wasn't done away with. Ally rules are fairly permissive now, but they can't buff each other nearly as well. O'vesa star is gone as well.

Strength D was also nerfed to account for it being more common in "standard" games. Now it only ignores invulns and cover on the roll of a 6. It's still pretty nasty, but seems to be a little more specialized towards larger targets.

One day (and maybe 1 or 2 games) after the official release of the rulebook is too soon to make sweeping generalizations (you should actually get a hold of the rules to read for yourself eventually). In an ideal world where they could fix all balance issues with the press of a button, people would still piss themselves.

Reply by: Kain - click to view full reply 

57646

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:24:40

Post by: Kain

 BoomWolf wrote:
I can, chose not too, too much of a pointless argument.

I abandon this whole arguement. its a pointless one and we will not reach an agreement at any point.

I accept your concession of defeat.

Reply by: TheKbob - click to view full reply 

53985

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:27:26

Post by: TheKbob

 Truth118 wrote:


I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1

Everything I have read is that Vector Striking is one hit on ground targets and D3 on flying targets.

Reply by: Truth118 - click to view full reply 

71499

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:33:19

Post by: Truth118

 TheKbob wrote:

 Truth118 wrote:


I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1

Everything I have read is that Vector Striking is one hit on ground targets and D3 on flying targets.

Pg. 174 "...nominate one enemy unit not locked in combat that the model has moved over that turn. That unit takes 1 hit (if the unit is an enemy Flyer in Zoom mode, or an enemy Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, it instead takes D3 hits).

I'm sorry then, I got that wrong. I first read it as the Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature doing the D3 hits.

Reply by: dresnar1 - click to view full reply 

86326

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:34:56

Post by: dresnar1

 Truth118 wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Ok, just for you Boom, here's the list.

Everything that was wrong with 6th and has remained.
Zero shooting nerfs.
Zero assault buffs.
Certain types of assault build being further nerfed.
Psychic phase.
More random in a game that requires very few random aspects.
"Forge the Narrative" excuse.
Tyrranids still being boned, through FMC nerfs and the "revised" allies chart.
Further propagation of the terrible balance issues in 6th via FOC, Dataslate, Ally, Supplement and mini'dex (INQ, LOTD, ETC) abuse.
Superheavies in normal games, but no clarification for Forgeworld.

Just off the top of my head.

It sounds like you haven't actually read the new rules yet and just went by the opinions of cynics on internet forums.

Jink causes you to have to snapshot, so shooting was nerfed slightly in this regard.

Charging through difficult terrain is 2D6-2 rather than the lesser 2 of 3D6. On average I think it is just about the same, but probably makes it easier to get longer charges off. I'd like to see someone do the numbers on it.

I'm not sure what FMC nerf people keep referring to. FMC vector strike is now D3 rather than D3+1 (Heldrake only does one hit per vector strike because its a flyer, not a FMC) and are Ap2 instead of Ap3. It's harder to assault with them, but what Tyranid player is assaulting with his FMC's? Grounding tests only happen once per phase too, so now FMC's won't be taking S9 Ap2 wounds from markerlights. Tyranids can now actually take allys that can score, although can't deploy within 12".

The way a lot of people are whining in here you would think that Taudar wasn't done away with. Ally rules are fairly permissive now, but they can't buff each other nearly as well. O'vesa star is gone as well.

One day (and maybe 1 or 2 games) after the official release of the rulebook is too soon to make sweeping generalizations (you should actually get a hold of the rules to read for yourself eventually). In an ideal world where they could fix all balance issues with the press of a button, people would still piss themselves.

You GW apologists are all the same. Insult anyone that doesn't think GW's stuff doesn't stink. We are whiners because we point out how gakky this edition is, from the timing, to the obvious cash grab, to the poorly written rules.

You claim the jink change is a legitimate nerf to shooting? Really? By your own admittance no change to charge but somehow the argument that assault armies still wont have a place in the game is invalid? Really? You should try looking at the world through something other than your "GW is awesome no matter what and anyone else that disagrees is a whinner, take my money plzzzz" goggles.

Reply by: liquidjoshi - click to view full reply 

19728

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:43:38

Post by: liquidjoshi

Thank you Dreznar.

Truth118: I like how you assume I've not read or own the rulebook. Nice sweeping disregard of my argument based on a false assumption.

I have nothing to add at this time. Dreznar nailed it.

Reply by: BoomWolf - click to view full reply 

63064

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:51:10

Post by: BoomWolf

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I can, chose not too, too much of a pointless argument.

I abandon this whole arguement. its a pointless one and we will not reach an agreement at any point.

I accept your concession of defeat.

Sigh. against with the 6 years old mentality of "last words means I'm right", no, your not right, I'm just not giving enough of a crap about you to bother talking to you any more, nothing else. (until this point I was still watching, but from that point on, its safe to assume I do not.)

Reply by: liquidjoshi - click to view full reply 

19728

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:51:52

Post by: liquidjoshi

Says he's done, comes back to call someone else's opinion wrong.

Nice.

Reply by: xxvaderxx - click to view full reply 

20887

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:53:46

Post by: xxvaderxx

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I can, chose not too, too much of a pointless argument.

I abandon this whole arguement. its a pointless one and we will not reach an agreement at any point.

I accept your concession of defeat.

Sigh. against with the 6 years old mentality of "last words means I'm right", no, your not right, I'm just not giving enough of a crap about you to bother talking to you any more, nothing else. (until this point I was still watching, but from that point on, its safe to assume I do not.)

This is not a "are rules ok?" discussion, there is no question in the title nor in the post. You just have not realized it yet, you will come around, or not, frankly i could not care less.

Reply by: Kyutaru - click to view full reply 

86467

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:54:43

Post by: Kyutaru

So who's looking forward to the 40k MMO?

It can't possibly be balanced any worse. Might even strike a few new breakthroughs in the tabletop.

My twitch skills are a decade gone, but when I start a guild of little Space Mariners and oversee deployments, it's almost like playing the tabletop game with better special effects.

I'll have to leave my PlanetSide minions behind though...

Reply by: liquidjoshi - click to view full reply 

19728

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:56:03

Post by: liquidjoshi

Sadly not me. I've been put off by the Space Marine Community on 360.

*sigh*

Why must everyone insist on killing 40K for me?

Reply by: Kain - click to view full reply 

57646

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/25 22:57:01

Post by: Kain

Kyutaru wrote:
So who's looking forward to the 40k MMO?

It can't possibly be balanced any worse. Might even strike a few new breakthroughs in the tabletop.

My twitch skills are a decade gone, but when I start a guild of little Space Mariners and oversee deployments, it's almost like playing the tabletop game with better special effects.

I'll have to leave my PlanetSide minions behind though...

I'm hoping that they'll let the Tyranids be playable at some point, but in the meantime will likely mostly play Orks until the Necrons are added, at which point I'll split my focus. Maybe dabble a bit in the other factions.

Reply by: MajorTom11 - click to view full reply 

22687

7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run. @ 2014/05/26 01:16:26

Post by: MajorTom11

This thread is off the rails.

Here's a little secret: a new edition will bring out very entrenched members of both haters and white knights. You can't come into a thread like this and try to 'win', because some people aren't willing to change their minds, and you yourself are probably not going to either if you are willing to engage in a protracted debate about how someone else feels about a game.

There will likely be a new thread about this made so others can discuss civilly. If I see anyone from this thread who made posts containing nothing but character attacks and antagonistic remarks to other users, or those who spammed their opinion repeatedly over multiple pages blocking others from participating and just raising tension, you will very quickly receive the action you should have gotten this time around.

If you have a black and white view of things, to the point you think anything else is stupid, then this topic in general is not for you, at least not here at Dakka. Thank you.

MT11