I wanted to write this post in response to the large number of threads proposing modifications to 7th edition for both casual and tournament play.
Most of the threads written thus far take issue with the following changes to army list composition and the Psychic Phase:
- Malefic Daemonology (Specifically the Primaris power)
- No caps on the number of warp charge dice an army can provide
- Unbound army construction
- Multiple detachments in Battle Forged armies
- "Come The Apocalypse" allies
All of these new additions to the rules shakes up the paradigm considerably, to the point that there are now numerous ways to destroy a list constructed with the 6th edition force-org chart in mind, even in its most expanded form.
However, this is the issue that I have seen with every thread and complaint to date. They are still operating under the 6th edition paradigm and do not take into consideration the fact that we are now in a new phase of the game, with entirely new methods of constructing play. I will offer a brief analogy first, and then dive into what I feel we as players need to consider and embrace if we are to continue enjoying Warhammer 40,000 for the rest of this edition and beyond.
For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
In most ways, Warhammer 40,000 plays very similarly on the tabletop to how it has been played since 3rd edition. The Psychic Phase is the only major shake-up in this regard, with most other rules changes being refinements more than anything. If you had a solid handle on the mechanics of the game in 6th edition, you still have a solid grasp on them in 7th. However, there are new threats to face and new tools to face them.
Let's just take a look at Malefic Daemonology and Summoning as an example, with the most "broken" of said summoning lists, Tzeentch Daemons. From the perspective of a 6th edition army constrained by one force-org chart (now called "combined arms"), this is indeed a very difficult army to face. However, limiting yourself to army construction in that way is not what 7th edition is about. Unlike 6th, where massively bolstering the force-org chart in various ways was considered cheesy because it fundamentally altered the one laid out in the main rulebook, the rulebook now explicitly offers the option to heavily modify or even completely throw out the old army compsotion rules.
Think about this from the perspective of someone just picking up the game. A twelve year old kid walks into a game store and buys 7th and looks at the way armies are constructed. Why would he look at the Combined Arms Detachment and Allies Detachments and think "Hmm, guess I'll just use those two and ignore everything else available to me?" Why would he completely disregard Unbound armies? He wouldn't. I wouldn't if I were just getting into the game. I'd look at those options and wonder why everyone who limited themselves to just those options were nerfing themselves so hard.
Summoning hundreds of extra points of daemons seems scary, but the only army that can easily do that also relies on Psychic Powers for offensive output. By summoning those extra points of daemons, they also neuter themselves in the early game. Do you think an 1850 point army that effectively doesn't shoot or assault for the first two turns of the game survive a battle against say, two firebase support cadres, an imperial knight and another riptide for good measure? That's three Riptides, an Imperial Knight and twelve broadside battlesuits acting unopposed for two full turns. That army would decimate Daemons, and I'm not even kind of getting creative. Add in the possibilities for other formations, lords of war, etc. and you can see that even against the nastiest Daemon list you can wreck shop.
This was just one example. The point is, we are not playing 6th edition any more. 7th edition should not be viewed as an extension of 6th, It is a new game that uses the majority of the mechanics from previous editions of 40,000 to play on the tabletop.
Obviously this presents a number of frustrations, particularly for veteran players. We have been spending years building lists and playing the game with the old force-org considerations in mind. Many of us still balk at the idea of allies for various fluff reasons. This is an expensive game, so often we dislike these changes for monetary reasons. I have felt that pain myself.
However, if we are discussing banning multiple detachments (over two), banning Unbound completely, banning Lords of War, banning Malefic Daemonology, capping psychic levels for armies, etc. then we are not playing 7th edition. The game has changed, but so have the tools. We should at least consider using them.
I agree 100% with this. Bans and limits do nothing to help people. Nothing is broken when everything is available.
There are too many people scared to do things differently who want to cling to what is familiar and this makes them want to turn 7th into a copy of 6th.
From half the posts I've read lately they should just run tournaments using the 6th rules as that's what half the comps end up making it anyway and leave 7th for those who like a challenge.
So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
I don't want to have to run two firebase cadres, a riptide and a knight to beat daemons though.
Some people like the old fashioned idea of say, an Ork army or a Tau army, and don't want to mix and match with allies or unbound or whatever. And some people don't believe that the answer to cheese is more cheese, that instead there should simply be no cheese - because when the cheddar wheel gets rolling, it squashes tactics flat and turns the game into what cheese-combo counters what.
That said, I think people really gotta get over this multiple force org thing. Thats the only way current Orks is gonna handle 7th, and in all likelihood (due to lack of allies, lack of psychic disciplines, and being choppy in dakka/psychic edition) new Orks too.
don't need to worry about the worst changes as our group doesn't mess with that stuff. No fliers, so don't care about nerfs to helldrakes etc. Very limited allies (probably just one detachment of Battle Brothers). Single FOC. We won't be spamming warp charge dice. Overall, should be just fine.
For the OP. You are just not understanding what it is we that are not happy with the game are complaining about. There are two types of gamers that play 40k. Those that enjoy strategy and tactics on the one hand. On the other hand those that like list building and exploring rule exploits. Most people are a combination of the two that play 40k. 7th edition, more so than any other iteration of 40k, removes the strategy and tactical side of the game. The game is now 100% a rules/listbuilding/exploit game. If you enjoy this type of game then 40k is for you. Since 40k has been losing its market share its safe to assume that the gradual shift away from a strategy game isn't the way to go.
Murdius Maximus wrote: So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
It's not. It'll just annihilate certain armies. Arguably a better limiter would be against summoned monsters themself be it a limit on how many, scoring, or something else.
I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
Murdius Maximus wrote: So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
It's not. It'll just annihilate certain armies. Arguably a better limiter would be against summoned monsters themself be it a limit on how many, scoring, or something else.
Not a bad idea, like maybe make the summon last until next psychic phase or something, or even once per game and the unit has a one turn shelf life? Or how about, summoned units get no saves/scoring and are -1 to all stats? Deamons could also get -1 warpcharge PER MODEL that was a summoned model, so the more you summon, the less you activate for warp charges? Players would really think about that...maybe. I dunno....
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
here is a menu that has more options:
aids
cancer
broken glass
syphilis
rotten eggs
month old potatoe salad
human flesh
steak and French fries
here is one with fewer
aids
cancer
rotten eggs
steak and French fries
-------------------------------
Did more options help? Why is it I think I am able to predict what most players would like to eat for supper in both instances?
And question for the op: Have you ever played apocalypse? I think you'd love it.
Murdius Maximus wrote: So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
It's not. It'll just annihilate certain armies. Arguably a better limiter would be against summoned monsters themself be it a limit on how many, scoring, or something else.
Not a bad idea, like maybe make the summon last until next psychic phase or something, or even once per game and the unit has a one turn shelf life? Or how about, summoned units get no saves/scoring and are -1 to all stats? Deamons could also get -1 warpcharge PER MODEL that was a summoned model, so the more you summon, the less you activate for warp charges? Players would really think about that...maybe. I dunno....
I wouldn't opt for the latter. It'd likely just mean individuals would spam assault units as fodder and quickly let them grind to death to recover spells. Overall a time limit to summons or just a limit to how many would likely be the most optimal really. Sadly the psyker phase is a mess at large so I wish TO's the best of luck fixing it up. As of now though, the biggest worry is maleific and we'll have to see how it is after that is changed.
Those that enjoy strategy and tactics on the one hand. On the other hand those that like list building and exploring rule exploits.
I don't fit into either of those really, although i realize list building (and picking your faction, for that matter) is the most important part of setting yourself up to do well. I would argue that there are players that play for fun and those that play to win. I like winning, but the game is too imbalanced for a win to mean much if you just destroy your opponent with overpowered units.
I play because the models are cool, I like the fluff and the game itself I've found to be really fun, not because it's a top-tier game of tactics and strategic prowess.
Some people like to treat 40k (or want it to be) as a more tactically diverse and competitive game than it is. That's not to say that it's wrong to be competitive when you play, but one must realize that it's an area of the game that is far from perfect.
Nerf dice rolls, because they're too random and not indicative of skill, am I right?
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.
Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.
Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.
Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?
Those that enjoy strategy and tactics on the one hand. On the other hand those that like list building and exploring rule exploits.
I don't fit into either of those really, although i realize list building (and picking your faction, for that matter) is the most important part of setting yourself up to do well. I would argue that there are players that play for fun and those that play to win. I like winning, but the game is too imbalanced for a win to mean much if you just destroy your opponent with overpowered units.
I play because the models are cool, I like the fluff and the game itself I've found to be really fun, not because it's a top-tier game of tactics and strategic prowess.
Some people like to treat 40k (or want it to be) as a more tactically diverse and competitive game than it is. That's not to say that it's wrong to be competitive when you play, but one must realize that it's an area of the game that is far from perfect.
Nerf dice rolls, because they're too random and not indicative of skill, am I right?
I wouldn't even say those two because people that play to win are usually playing for their own interpretation of fun and fun players usually like to win as well. I also agree it isn't just building and cheese and strat. I myself opt for fluff I just have a problem with imbalances because it makes my group have to fiddle around to try to balance something so we can play our fluffy armies.
So why would people ever take 80% of the units avaliable if they are subpar compared to these other options you have mentioned?
Why have to invest in 3 riptides, a knight and 12 broadsides?
These are the issues people have. Yes the options are there for people to take optimal lists. But that is still no different. EVERYONE had the option in 6th of taking an O'Vesa star with buff commander in their list. But most people didn't because they wanted to take particular units/armies they liked. Now it will be even harder to prevail with an army you like (im talking composition not dex), and instead will HAVE to take solely from the 20% of units that are not horribly underpowered in a competitive meta (im being generous with 20%), even more so than before. That is if the person plays in a competitive environment of course.
So what do I do with my tac marines I barely used before? They sure won't get a game now if I want to win!
Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.
Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.
Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.
Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?
Thank you for making my point for me. Your situation is what the game is like after all the bans and restrictions, without them your example would have 400 potential armies, not 4 and no one army would be "the obvious choice".
Poly Ranger wrote: So why would people ever take 80% of the units avaliable if they are subpar compared to these other options you have mentioned?
Why have to invest in 3 riptides, a knight and 12 broadsides?
These are the issues people have. Yes the options are there for people to take optimal lists. But that is still no different. EVERYONE had the option in 6th of taking an O'Vesa star with buff commander in their list. But most people didn't because they wanted to take particular units/armies they liked. Now it will be even harder to prevail with an army you like (im talking composition not dex), and instead will HAVE to take solely from the 20% of units that are not horribly underpowered in a competitive meta (im being generous with 20%), even more so than before. That is if the person plays in a competitive environment of course.
So what do I do with my tac marines I barely used before? They sure won't get a game now if I want to win!
Poly Ranger wrote: So why would people ever take 80% of the units avaliable if they are subpar compared to these other options you have mentioned?
Why have to invest in 3 riptides, a knight and 12 broadsides?
These are the issues people have. Yes the options are there for people to take optimal lists. But that is still no different. EVERYONE had the option in 6th of taking an O'Vesa star with buff commander in their list. But most people didn't because they wanted to take particular units/armies they liked. Now it will be even harder to prevail with an army you like (im talking composition not dex), and instead will HAVE to take solely from the 20% of units that are not horribly underpowered in a competitive meta (im being generous with 20%), even more so than before. That is if the person plays in a competitive environment of course.
So what do I do with my tac marines I barely used before? They sure won't get a game now if I want to win!
This is called a race to the bottom. [/quote
Exactly!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't know what happened with that quote :-s...
This thread, and really, most threads pertaining to the perception of 7th edition, should really be preserved and used as a teaching aid when trying to explain the concept of an echo chamber.
Simple fix for the summoning stuff that everyone is bitching about....ready for it?
DON'T LET PEOPLE PROXY DEMONS!!!!!
If they have all the demons they are summoning built and painted...then they deserve to abuse it as they have obviously been long suffering gits stuck with a previously lame army (that first stand alone book...poor SOB'S) If you want to tell me "well I can't afford all those demons so I have to proxy" then cry me a god damn river I don't care your just playing the army to abuse a rule and I really have no time for you. If you pull a bunch of non demons models out, or even demons that aren't the one's you summoned out to count as your units then I'm pointing at the rules of the power and telling you to shove those models back in the case because you just failed to summon.
*Cool conversions obviously don't apply to this way of thinking...I love cool conversions*
Loopstah wrote: If I can ally syphilis with month old potato salad to cure cancer then yes more options do help.
Ask a stupid question...
It's not a stupid question.
More options are only good if all of those options are worth taking, or in another word, balanced. Games Workshop has shown itself time after time as not being able to balance their game very well.
While more options, on the surface, looks like it will open up more tactics, what it will in reality do it simply open new dominating tactics. It won't be more, because people will abandon the old tactics and strategies as the new hot gak is found. There's a reason most codices fall back to so few builds you can count them on one mangled hand. The same will happen with more options - they will just be different builds.
This also highlights another problem with 40k - too much importance on list building. Strategy and tactics for 40k are just ways to describe the arms race of list building.
Really? I would have thought the more appropriate setup is black has normal setup and white has 3 queens.....you know...since it can't take as many queens as you have pieces on the board and then you manuver to trap and kill said queens.
Here's what I heard " OMG I BROUGHT A STANDARD MARINE ARMY AND THEY BROUGHT 4X AS MANY POINTS IN DEFILERS!"
I wanted to write this post in response to the large number of threads proposing modifications to 7th edition for both casual and tournament play.
Most of the threads written thus far take issue with the following changes to army list composition and the Psychic Phase:
- Malefic Daemonology (Specifically the Primaris power)
- No caps on the number of warp charge dice an army can provide
- Unbound army construction
- Multiple detachments in Battle Forged armies
- "Come The Apocalypse" allies
All of these new additions to the rules shakes up the paradigm considerably, to the point that there are now numerous ways to destroy a list constructed with the 6th edition force-org chart in mind, even in its most expanded form.
However, this is the issue that I have seen with every thread and complaint to date. They are still operating under the 6th edition paradigm and do not take into consideration the fact that we are now in a new phase of the game, with entirely new methods of constructing play. I will offer a brief analogy first, and then dive into what I feel we as players need to consider and embrace if we are to continue enjoying Warhammer 40,000 for the rest of this edition and beyond.
For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
In most ways, Warhammer 40,000 plays very similarly on the tabletop to how it has been played since 3rd edition. The Psychic Phase is the only major shake-up in this regard, with most other rules changes being refinements more than anything. If you had a solid handle on the mechanics of the game in 6th edition, you still have a solid grasp on them in 7th. However, there are new threats to face and new tools to face them.
Let's just take a look at Malefic Daemonology and Summoning as an example, with the most "broken" of said summoning lists, Tzeentch Daemons. From the perspective of a 6th edition army constrained by one force-org chart (now called "combined arms"), this is indeed a very difficult army to face. However, limiting yourself to army construction in that way is not what 7th edition is about. Unlike 6th, where massively bolstering the force-org chart in various ways was considered cheesy because it fundamentally altered the one laid out in the main rulebook, the rulebook now explicitly offers the option to heavily modify or even completely throw out the old army compsotion rules.
Think about this from the perspective of someone just picking up the game. A twelve year old kid walks into a game store and buys 7th and looks at the way armies are constructed. Why would he look at the Combined Arms Detachment and Allies Detachments and think "Hmm, guess I'll just use those two and ignore everything else available to me?" Why would he completely disregard Unbound armies? He wouldn't. I wouldn't if I were just getting into the game. I'd look at those options and wonder why everyone who limited themselves to just those options were nerfing themselves so hard.
Summoning hundreds of extra points of daemons seems scary, but the only army that can easily do that also relies on Psychic Powers for offensive output. By summoning those extra points of daemons, they also neuter themselves in the early game. Do you think an 1850 point army that effectively doesn't shoot or assault for the first two turns of the game survive a battle against say, two firebase support cadres, an imperial knight and another riptide for good measure? That's three Riptides, an Imperial Knight and twelve broadside battlesuits acting unopposed for two full turns. That army would decimate Daemons, and I'm not even kind of getting creative. Add in the possibilities for other formations, lords of war, etc. and you can see that even against the nastiest Daemon list you can wreck shop.
This was just one example. The point is, we are not playing 6th edition any more. 7th edition should not be viewed as an extension of 6th, It is a new game that uses the majority of the mechanics from previous editions of 40,000 to play on the tabletop.
Obviously this presents a number of frustrations, particularly for veteran players. We have been spending years building lists and playing the game with the old force-org considerations in mind. Many of us still balk at the idea of allies for various fluff reasons. This is an expensive game, so often we dislike these changes for monetary reasons. I have felt that pain myself.
However, if we are discussing banning multiple detachments (over two), banning Unbound completely, banning Lords of War, banning Malefic Daemonology, capping psychic levels for armies, etc. then we are not playing 7th edition. The game has changed, but so have the tools. We should at least consider using them.
No, I get it, I really do. The game is now different. But it happens to be a game I no longer want to play and I don't think the makers of the game want me to play it.
I wanted to write this post in response to the large number of threads proposing modifications to 7th edition for both casual and tournament play.
Most of the threads written thus far take issue with the following changes to army list composition and the Psychic Phase:
- Malefic Daemonology (Specifically the Primaris power)
- No caps on the number of warp charge dice an army can provide
- Unbound army construction
- Multiple detachments in Battle Forged armies
- "Come The Apocalypse" allies
All of these new additions to the rules shakes up the paradigm considerably, to the point that there are now numerous ways to destroy a list constructed with the 6th edition force-org chart in mind, even in its most expanded form.
However, this is the issue that I have seen with every thread and complaint to date. They are still operating under the 6th edition paradigm and do not take into consideration the fact that we are now in a new phase of the game, with entirely new methods of constructing play. I will offer a brief analogy first, and then dive into what I feel we as players need to consider and embrace if we are to continue enjoying Warhammer 40,000 for the rest of this edition and beyond.
For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
In most ways, Warhammer 40,000 plays very similarly on the tabletop to how it has been played since 3rd edition. The Psychic Phase is the only major shake-up in this regard, with most other rules changes being refinements more than anything. If you had a solid handle on the mechanics of the game in 6th edition, you still have a solid grasp on them in 7th. However, there are new threats to face and new tools to face them.
Let's just take a look at Malefic Daemonology and Summoning as an example, with the most "broken" of said summoning lists, Tzeentch Daemons. From the perspective of a 6th edition army constrained by one force-org chart (now called "combined arms"), this is indeed a very difficult army to face. However, limiting yourself to army construction in that way is not what 7th edition is about. Unlike 6th, where massively bolstering the force-org chart in various ways was considered cheesy because it fundamentally altered the one laid out in the main rulebook, the rulebook now explicitly offers the option to heavily modify or even completely throw out the old army compsotion rules.
Think about this from the perspective of someone just picking up the game. A twelve year old kid walks into a game store and buys 7th and looks at the way armies are constructed. Why would he look at the Combined Arms Detachment and Allies Detachments and think "Hmm, guess I'll just use those two and ignore everything else available to me?" Why would he completely disregard Unbound armies? He wouldn't. I wouldn't if I were just getting into the game. I'd look at those options and wonder why everyone who limited themselves to just those options were nerfing themselves so hard.
Summoning hundreds of extra points of daemons seems scary, but the only army that can easily do that also relies on Psychic Powers for offensive output. By summoning those extra points of daemons, they also neuter themselves in the early game. Do you think an 1850 point army that effectively doesn't shoot or assault for the first two turns of the game survive a battle against say, two firebase support cadres, an imperial knight and another riptide for good measure? That's three Riptides, an Imperial Knight and twelve broadside battlesuits acting unopposed for two full turns. That army would decimate Daemons, and I'm not even kind of getting creative. Add in the possibilities for other formations, lords of war, etc. and you can see that even against the nastiest Daemon list you can wreck shop.
This was just one example. The point is, we are not playing 6th edition any more. 7th edition should not be viewed as an extension of 6th, It is a new game that uses the majority of the mechanics from previous editions of 40,000 to play on the tabletop.
Obviously this presents a number of frustrations, particularly for veteran players. We have been spending years building lists and playing the game with the old force-org considerations in mind. Many of us still balk at the idea of allies for various fluff reasons. This is an expensive game, so often we dislike these changes for monetary reasons. I have felt that pain myself.
However, if we are discussing banning multiple detachments (over two), banning Unbound completely, banning Lords of War, banning Malefic Daemonology, capping psychic levels for armies, etc. then we are not playing 7th edition. The game has changed, but so have the tools. We should at least consider using them.
No, I get it, I really do. The game is now different. But it happens to be a game I no longer want to play and I don't think the makers of the game want me to play it.
That is a totally fair assessment and position. Like I said, this is a different game. People certainly don't have to continue playing anything they don't like. I would probably stop short of saying the makers of the game don't want you to play it. I'd say they would prefer for people to adapt to some of the new standards of 40K and use or modify the new rules as they see fit.
I am really, really curious to see some batreps with unbound. Honestly, of all the changes in 7th the only 2 I have major problems with from the get-go are unlimited FOC (battle-forged and unbound are equally guilty IMO) and not enough restrictions on ICs joining/buffing units. I'm a little over the IC thing, but still not sold on unbound/multiple force orgs; that's going to take some time.
Orktavius wrote: Simple fix for the summoning stuff that everyone is bitching about....ready for it?
DON'T LET PEOPLE PROXY DEMONS!!!!!
Thus making the intent behind the change - GW selling more daemons - work perfectly, and ensuring the practice of butchering the rules to sell models continues.
I agree with OP.
For the most part, I'm pleased with the changes. Yeah, there's a few glaring imbalances and I'm not impressed with malefic, though I've always liked the idea of being able to summon daemons in a battle, they got a little carried away (plus, with the "no proxying daemons" rule clearly written, their intent is pretty see-through).
Really though, I prefer fluffy games and campaigns over bitter competitiveness and such by far, so I have no problems with the unbound/multi-force org. In fact, orks have been really hard to play with single force org for a while now, anyway, with everything being so cheap. In a 2500 single FOC list I recently made, I had to use every single slot! That's a little too limiting, IMHO.
Orktavius wrote: Simple fix for the summoning stuff that everyone is bitching about....ready for it?
DON'T LET PEOPLE PROXY DEMONS!!!!!
Thus making the intent behind the change - GW selling more daemons - work perfectly, and ensuring the practice of butchering the rules to sell models continues.
Exalted.
This also goes with GW's pathetic effort to get us to only use GW terrain in our games. Similarly stupid.
They try to upset the meta in such a brutal way that only neck beards will have armies that they can play. In their twisted plan we rush out and spend hundreds to stock up on cheese so we can compete with said neck beards.
Pretty pathetic. My bet is that they see a little boost in sales (neck beards rushing out to buy new stuff) and then a precipitous drop in sales as the rest of the gamers out there leave.
oh wait. THat just happened in Dec.
I think that 7th heralds a new era of 40k which has the potential to significantly expand the player base. This is because of my boys reactions when they found out that they could take all their cool models and play them in a game. They were PUMPED. There will be a lot of people who didn't want to deal with having to buy an HQ, troops etc just to get the Wraithknight, baneblade/insert new cool looking shiny unit here in order to play it. Now they don't have to.
To play 40k now, you just need to get the models you like and know someone with a rulebook. You can get a codex if you want an army, but if you just have a single wraithknight/riptide/Heldrake/Defiler/Soulgrinder, well, there are enough sources to get the rules for that.
And I think that is a very good thing.
Like the OP, I think 40k will be fundamentally different because you can CHOOSE what style of game you want to play. Don't like unbound? Fine - play BattleForged. Don't like BattleForged? Play unbound. Want to play all the big models you can find? Go ahead.
I personally will happily play any unbound list in a maelstrom mission with my battleforged list at any fixed point limit. Not for a standard mission, but for maelstrom, sure.
I think people are seriously underestimating the value of objective secured and the way that works with the maelstrom missions. Playing an unbound list against a battleforged list in a maelstrom mission will be really hard. Because you don't have enough units to cover all the objectives and eliminate ALL my troops in 1 turn. Plus you have to kill my super scoring vehicles as well.
And there is a lot of wailing about the demon summoning. Well, it COULD be a problem in the game if you let them do it for the whole game. But, casting summoning is not that easy to do (particularly if your dice hate you) and they can only TRY to do it once from any unit per turn. The answer is to kill the unit - actually just the psyker with the power will do. Because, while they are summoning, they aren't casting protective powers (which you can deny now) and they aren't slinging nasty stuff at you. There is no codex that can't overwhelm a single unit given they have multiple detachments to play with. Alpha strike, here we come! Beta strike will do.
For me 40k is about bringing a list which enables me to respond to the tactical changes in game, and deal with how the game unfolds. 6th Ed was imho more unbalanced, because certain armies had FOC slots that literally had all the good stuff in it and that army was highly constrained (eg Cron FA and HS slots). Now, that's not a restriction (well, not as much) so you can bring more of the good stuff if you pay the HQ and troop tax.
And that for me is the key point. For the agreed points limit, you can now access as powerful list as you want. No "only have three slots" restrictions for any army.
That's probably the thing that scares people the most......now they have to choose. You have to choose your player group, choose the way you play (WAAC, fluffy, bound, unbound etc etc). There is more uncertainty in what you are facing. There is more uncertainty in what you'll be trying to do in a game (for maelstrom missions). Now, how good a general are you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry for the wall of text!
I think that 7th heralds a new era of 40k which has the potential to significantly expand the player base. This is because of my boys reactions when they found out that they could take all their cool models and play them in a game. They were PUMPED. There will be a lot of people who didn't want to deal with having to buy an HQ, troops etc just to get the Wraithknight, baneblade/insert new cool looking shiny unit here in order to play it. Now they don't have to.
To play 40k now, you just need to get the models you like and know someone with a rulebook. You can get a codex if you want an army, but if you just have a single wraithknight/riptide/Heldrake/Defiler/Soulgrinder, well, there are enough sources to get the rules for that.
And I think that is a very good thing.
Like the OP, I think 40k will be fundamentally different because you can CHOOSE what style of game you want to play. Don't like unbound? Fine - play BattleForged. Don't like BattleForged? Play unbound. Want to play all the big models you can find? Go ahead.
I personally will happily play any unbound list in a maelstrom mission with my battleforged list at any fixed point limit. Not for a standard mission, but for maelstrom, sure.
I think people are seriously underestimating the value of objective secured and the way that works with the maelstrom missions. Playing an unbound list against a battleforged list in a maelstrom mission will be really hard. Because you don't have enough units to cover all the objectives and eliminate ALL my troops in 1 turn. Plus you have to kill my super scoring vehicles as well.
And there is a lot of wailing about the demon summoning. Well, it COULD be a problem in the game if you let them do it for the whole game. But, casting summoning is not that easy to do (particularly if your dice hate you) and they can only TRY to do it once from any unit per turn. The answer is to kill the unit - actually just the psyker with the power will do. Because, while they are summoning, they aren't casting protective powers (which you can deny now) and they aren't slinging nasty stuff at you. There is no codex that can't overwhelm a single unit given they have multiple detachments to play with. Alpha strike, here we come! Beta strike will do.
For me 40k is about bringing a list which enables me to respond to the tactical changes in game, and deal with how the game unfolds. 6th Ed was imho more unbalanced, because certain armies had FOC slots that literally had all the good stuff in it and that army was highly constrained (eg Cron FA and HS slots). Now, that's not a restriction (well, not as much) so you can bring more of the good stuff if you pay the HQ and troop tax.
And that for me is the key point. For the agreed points limit, you can now access as powerful list as you want. No "only have three slots" restrictions for any army.
That's probably the thing that scares people the most......now they have to choose. You have to choose your player group, choose the way you play (WAAC, fluffy, bound, unbound etc etc). There is more uncertainty in what you are facing. There is more uncertainty in what you'll be trying to do in a game (for maelstrom missions). Now, how good a general are you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry for the wall of text!
Why did you need a ruleset to allow you to do any of the things you say your boys are pumped for? In the past couldn't you have just played any models you wanted to? Because rule books existed you had to follow the rules? Now that there are no rules you feel free to do these things?
I just don't understand this. You could always do this. This is not an improvement, this is a lack of structure for when you DON'T want to have these types of games.
themadlbb wrote: For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
You left out the important part where the fluff of the first game established that nobody in this world dual wields before the sequel introduced dual wielding.
There are considerably better strategy games out there. There are far easier games to get started with. The only reason 40K didn't lose me, someone who's always been interested in it primarily for the fluff and the models, with 7th edition and its "everybody can summon daemons now" nonsense is because it already lost me with 6th edition, where it really started to rape its own fluff in an effort to sell models.
I would like to offer an alternative theory to the ones subscribed.
With regard to the OP comment of dual wielding vs single wield analogy lets take Halo 1 vs 2 as the basis.
In Halo 1 you could only single wield, the weapons were different but fairly balanced in general.
In Halo 2 they added in dual wielding but a single wield was equally viable by setting the standards of balance so dual wield was shorter range.
In this analogy both were viable.
40k should have a similar approach to the game, every option should be approximately balanced so anything can be used. That doesn't mean everything is awesome sauce, it just means that different tools have different uses. Therefore an SMG wont be able to do something at long range but when it gets close it will be useful but you have a battle-rifle for range.
What this means in game design terms is that the options should be balanced in such a way that depending on the terms of engagement they can be used to varying affects.
Some of this is down to the player obviously; but there should not be such significantly better options by doing one thing that no other option can compete.
For example Tau. Tau are pretty good at shooting, they have methods to increase this for a point cost, and suck at close combat. They however were given the ability to remove cover entirely (and in some cases line of sight) which made them a significant problem for people trying to get close.
If they had been forced to modify cover instead of removing it, the player trying to get close would be able to use cover to help that, thereby exploiting the close combat weakness.
In the new edition the balancing issues are way out which causes the problems and moaning. I think most people would be happy to adapt to the game if these issues were addressed.
I think it should be fine to bring anything in the game in any combination, but there should be something that makes that army not infallible.
The problem that's causing the issues is the summoning of daemons, because, whilst a fair option, it is too easy to do on mass and therefore unbalanced.
If the game was more balanced regardless of the options available to you it would be better.
While more options is good most of the times I think there is a limit.
Personally I Play 40k for 2 reasons:
1. I like building and painting GW Models.
2. I like strategy games.
While reason 1 wont be affected by the rules GW writes, reason 2 will be. The problem for me is, that more options in 40k means less strategy, more rock, paper scissors, cause there is not enough Balance in the game. I just dont want to buy and paint riptides, Imperial Knights or deamons to have a FAIR Chance in a strategy game that is dominated by the collected cheese of all armies in one list. In a good strategy game every army should have the ability to build a valid TAC-list that can handle every monobuild-list through pure skill of the Player ---> without allied cheese.
I also think tournaments with no regulations are simply stupid. Whats the point of being the king of rock, paper, scissors?
To make it short: 40k without modifications was never a good strategy game and wont become better through more options. A good game begins with some sort of balance.
I think that 7th heralds a new era of 40k which has the potential to significantly expand the player base. This is because of my boys reactions when they found out that they could take all their cool models and play them in a game. They were PUMPED. There will be a lot of people who didn't want to deal with having to buy an HQ, troops etc just to get the Wraithknight, baneblade/insert new cool looking shiny unit here in order to play it. Now they don't have to.
To play 40k now, you just need to get the models you like and know someone with a rulebook. You can get a codex if you want an army, but if you just have a single wraithknight/riptide/Heldrake/Defiler/Soulgrinder, well, there are enough sources to get the rules for that.
And I think that is a very good thing.
Why did you need a ruleset to allow you to do any of the things you say your boys are pumped for? In the past couldn't you have just played any models you wanted to? Because rule books existed you had to follow the rules? Now that there are no rules you feel free to do these things?
I just don't understand this. You could always do this. This is not an improvement, this is a lack of structure for when you DON'T want to have these types of games.
Absolutely, and we did. But now it is official, and you can do it in every FLGS without people looking at you strangely.
Your point works in reverse as well....you can always house rule that unbound doesn't exist - now the structure allows you to choose which you want.
And I don't think there is a lack of structure. There are clearly defined structures now which are essentially the same as the ones that existed before (double FOC anyone?). All that changed was the points limit it kicked in at.
For myself, I am not interested in a play style in which there are no restrictions. The tactical interest comes from the limitations you have to work within and try to transcend.
When you can do that by pic'n'mixing any units at all, there is no meaning to the game. It becomes a dice fest, especially when random changing objectives are added.
So yes, a paradigm shift to what is IMO a very bad paradigm that I reject. I also rejected the start of this move in 6th edition -- D weapons, Allies, etc. These things are designed mainly to sell more models, not because they improve the game.
The way forwards for players like me is to ignore and/or reject/ban the new stuff that has been crammed into the rules and strip it back to the core essentials. This is fairly simple to do, in fact, and the only problem is that rather than simply not playing optional add-ons, like Apocalypse used to be, we are being cast in the role of joyless nay-sayers stopping other players from having their legitimate fun.
MasterOfGaunts wrote: While more options is good most of the times I think there is a limit.
Personally I Play 40k for 2 reasons:
1. I like building and painting GW Models.
2. I like strategy games.
While reason 1 wont be affected by the rules GW writes, reason 2 will be. The problem for me is, that more options in 40k means less strategy, more rock, paper scissors, cause there is not enough Balance in the game. I just dont want to buy and paint riptides, Imperial Knights or deamons to have a FAIR Chance in a strategy game that is dominated by the collected cheese of all armies in one list. In a good strategy game every army should have the ability to build a valid TAC-list that can handle every monobuild-list through pure skill of the Player ---> without allied cheese.
I also think tournaments with no regulations are simply stupid. Whats the point of being the king of rock, paper, scissors?
To make it short: 40k without modifications was never a good strategy game and wont become better through more options. A good game begins with some sort of balance.
Don't entirely disagree with your statement. However, why are you assuming that everyone you play will only field riptides, knights and demons? There is a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) flying around - with no basis in fact.
The game has changed, dramatically, and if anything requires you to have more strategy and better tactics because you aren't facing cookie cutter netlists with limited options anymore. Balance is created in your player group at the level of competitiveness you want. In fact this was true with 6th as well - many tournaments restricted LoW, rerollable 2+ and created a different game to the one intended....but it still didn't result in "balance" because of the nature of the player group. If you wanted to be competitive in 6th, you needed Taudar, eldau, inquisitions etc.
In 7th, you get to choose what form your op cheese comes in and you can have as much of it as your player group wants and you play within a defined structure that the world plays to. That's a good thing.
OP- Excellent post. I agree 100% with everything you said. The new player is going to be the most confused when the vet players start slinging around restrictions.
MarkCron wrote: The game has changed, dramatically, and if anything requires you to have more strategy and better tactics because you aren't facing cookie cutter netlists with limited options anymore.
And this will be true for at least a month.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: OP- Excellent post. I agree 100% with everything you said. The new player is going to be the most confused when the vet players start slinging around restrictions.
Kilkrazy wrote: For myself, I am not interested in a play style in which there are no restrictions. The tactical interest comes from the limitations you have to work within and try to transcend.
When you can do that by pic'n'mixing any units at all, there is no meaning to the game. It becomes a dice fest, especially when random changing objectives are added.
So yes, a paradigm shift to what is IMO a very bad paradigm that I reject. I also rejected the start of this move in 6th edition -- D weapons, Allies, etc. These things are designed mainly to sell more models, not because they improve the game.
The way forwards for players like me is to ignore and/or reject/ban the new stuff that has been crammed into the rules and strip it back to the core essentials. This is fairly simple to do, in fact, and the only problem is that rather than simply not playing optional add-ons, like Apocalypse used to be, we are being cast in the role of joyless nay-sayers stopping other players from having their legitimate fun.
Ok, fair enough. But, in reality, you're rejecting a paradigm that specifically allows you to do exactly what you want and providing a common structure for you to start from. Having that structure is essential - it is WAY easier to criticise and tear down a structure that it is to create it in the first place.
Providing a rules structure for both the bound and unbound lists and essentially "formalising" what was taking place in a lot of basements, garages and houses was and is a great move. It makes the game more attractive to a wider range of people, who will undoubtedly group up and say "we want to play x like this". Where is the problem with that?
The debates in this and many threads are imho, valuable because it allows people to decide for themselves what they think works for them. The only concern I have with "nay-sayers" is where blanket statements of "x is terrible and will break the game" are generically applied, with no examples. Hell, we haven't had the edition for a week yet - how can anyone claim to be able to make generic statements?
Two months from now, there may well be specific things that are generically adjusted - things like being able to swap useless maelstrom cards. And we'll be having "bound is better than unbound" arguments. Today, everyone should just dust off those old models and go play a game.
MarkCron wrote: The game has changed, dramatically, and if anything requires you to have more strategy and better tactics because you aren't facing cookie cutter netlists with limited options anymore.
And this will be true for at least a month.
Hmmm. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in Dakka's ability to create netlists
Byte wrote: OP- Excellent post. I agree 100% with everything you said. The new player is going to be the most confused when the vet players start slinging around restrictions.
Bravo good Sir!
What new player?
The one who sees Gorkamorka and just wants to have that to go with their Riptide, Wriathknight and Imperial knight
MarkCron wrote: Providing a rules structure for both the bound and unbound lists and essentially "formalising" what was taking place in a lot of basements, garages and houses was and is a great move. It makes the game more attractive to a wider range of people, who will undoubtedly group up and say "we want to play x like this". Where is the problem with that?
It was great in basements, and my friends loved my illegal at the time CSM+IG+Daemons lists. For getting a game with someone you don't know it's horrible as the chances are much more likely that it'll be a less enjoyable game. Will it be fluff rape? Will it be OP resulting in you being steamrolled? Will it be complete tosh resulting in you steamrolling them? The structure is essential to set a baseline for play so you can have a decent game with anyone, anywhere. If you want to customise your play with your friends, you were free to do that before.
And this is the proof of poor game design. Most of the Balance should come from the rules themselves, so that I can go to a pickup-game without the fear of facing a demonfactory, quadtides or whatever else OP-List. Within my group I can play everything I want with every silly rule i can think of. Well, I dont want to start a new balance discussion here. All I wanted to say is that more options isnt generally good, especially in a game that lacks of balance, cause it will make everything even worse. If we ve got balance, we can think of more options.
MarkCron wrote: Providing a rules structure for both the bound and unbound lists and essentially "formalising" what was taking place in a lot of basements, garages and houses was and is a great move. It makes the game more attractive to a wider range of people, who will undoubtedly group up and say "we want to play x like this". Where is the problem with that?
It was great in basements, and my friends loved my illegal at the time CSM+IG+Daemons lists. For getting a game with someone you don't know it's horrible as the chances are much more likely that it'll be a less enjoyable game. Will it be fluff rape? Will it be OP resulting in you being steamrolled? Will it be complete tosh resulting in you steamrolling them? The structure is essential to set a baseline for play so you can have a decent game with anyone, anywhere. If you want to customise your play with your friends, you were free to do that before.
Ummm... in 5th edition, you could turn up and get roflstomped by GK, Crons. In 6th it was <insert army>Dar/dau. I don't think it is structure that is causing your concern. Rather, it is the player group. However, you are always free to choose who to play and to ask what they player is playing - in fact the new book almost demands it because you have extra missions, points limits, any restrictions you prefer.....etc.
That is the difference with this edition - now there is a very good reason to actually communicate with the other player before setting up - and you will see a whole bunch of legal combinations that you've never seen before. That's why 7th ed is not 6.5 as many are calling it.
MarkCron wrote: Providing a rules structure for both the bound and unbound lists and essentially "formalising" what was taking place in a lot of basements, garages and houses was and is a great move. It makes the game more attractive to a wider range of people, who will undoubtedly group up and say "we want to play x like this". Where is the problem with that?
It was great in basements, and my friends loved my illegal at the time CSM+IG+Daemons lists. For getting a game with someone you don't know it's horrible as the chances are much more likely that it'll be a less enjoyable game. Will it be fluff rape? Will it be OP resulting in you being steamrolled? Will it be complete tosh resulting in you steamrolling them? The structure is essential to set a baseline for play so you can have a decent game with anyone, anywhere. If you want to customise your play with your friends, you were free to do that before.
Ummm... in 5th edition, you could turn up and get roflstomped by GK, Crons. In 6th it was <insert army>Dar/dau. I don't think it is structure that is causing your concern. Rather, it is the player group. However, you are always free to choose who to play and to ask what they player is playing - in fact the new book almost demands it because you have extra missions, points limits, any restrictions you prefer.....etc.
Like I said, my gaming group was great - the problem here is for random pick up games. Yes, there were powerful lists before - when they had restrictions they had to meet. Now that there are no restrictions, there will be lists much more powerful for any points value. And as I said, facing OP lists isn't the only problem - fluff rape and underpowered lists aren't fun to play against either.
That is the difference with this edition - now there is a very good reason to actually communicate with the other player before setting up - and you will see a whole bunch of legal combinations that you've never seen before. That's why 7th ed is not 6.5 as many are calling it.
The problem is, when you communicate you'll find you both want different games since the rules are so wide, thus making it a problem to find random games. Especially since the 40k player base has already been dwindling for some time.
Kilkrazy wrote: For myself, I am not interested in a play style in which there are no restrictions. The tactical interest comes from the limitations you have to work within and try to transcend.
When you can do that by pic'n'mixing any units at all, there is no meaning to the game. It becomes a dice fest, especially when random changing objectives are added.
So yes, a paradigm shift to what is IMO a very bad paradigm that I reject. I also rejected the start of this move in 6th edition -- D weapons, Allies, etc. These things are designed mainly to sell more models, not because they improve the game.
The way forwards for players like me is to ignore and/or reject/ban the new stuff that has been crammed into the rules and strip it back to the core essentials. This is fairly simple to do, in fact, and the only problem is that rather than simply not playing optional add-ons, like Apocalypse used to be, we are being cast in the role of joyless nay-sayers stopping other players from having their legitimate fun.
This is exactly the way I feel. GW has been cannabalizing 40k for the sake of pushing models. I reject their attempts to sell me gak I don't need. No SA, no escalation, no double FOC, no unbound, no armies spawning armies, no forge world, no lords or war in "normal" 40k. 1 FOC + 1 ally OR formation/dataslate is plenty for me.
No it isn't. If every game was supposed to be exactly balanced and purely about player skill, we'd all be playing chess. In fact, every game that involves dice and or unit choice can be broken to some extent or another. Games like Dropzone Commander/X Wing/ insert your favourite seem to be distinguished as "balanced" because you can play any army and have a chance of winning. 7th removes some of the restrictions that were holding some armies back - making the game more "balanced". Sure, you are going to get 4tide, 3knight, demonfactory, 3ctan, baneblade, all wraith etc etc etc. The point is that in 7th there are more ways to get a powerful, OP, Cheesy army, than just to buy the latest codex/shiny model.
How does it remove restrictions , when playing something else then a patchwork army is suddenly a stupid thing to do. How many people started to play w40k or any other table top game to play with those SW , those rebels , those cryx and aleph bastards , compering to those that started playing the same games by buying random models. In fact a free for all is even more limiting then it was before. Eldar or tau may have lacked something , ok am probably kiding myself in the case of eldar , now they have no problems with that. It was already a problem with 6th , where not taking coteaz , if you could, was a stupid thing to do.
Not following. Clearly 7th removes restrictions. Playing a battleforged army (which, as many have pointed out, has almost no limits anyway other than HQ and troop taxes) gives you clear advantages over a "patchwork" army, particularly in missions with multiple objectives.
Re eldar, we may see the death of every army other than eldar and demons in a few months. But somehow I doubt that.
It does not remove rescrictions , if everyone has to play a patch work list made out of multiple codex ,even eldar and demons. Then the armies who do it worse are non viable. Every unit that can be replaced by another from a different codex , becomes automaticly bad , which means the number of playable armies drops. And the number of "pure" armies , and I think there are more people wanting to play SW or AM , then patchwork armies , that are viable drops almost to zero . Even demons are better when they take ally . Knights for example help them with other armies MC and are very good blockers too.
My boyfriend told me to use a sports example so people would understand me better. The fact that there are free for all weight classes in K1 , doesn't mean that there are zounds of people under 100kg and 190 wining fights .
Kilkrazy wrote: For myself, I am not interested in a play style in which there are no restrictions. The tactical interest comes from the limitations you have to work within and try to transcend.
When you can do that by pic'n'mixing any units at all, there is no meaning to the game. It becomes a dice fest, especially when random changing objectives are added.
So yes, a paradigm shift to what is IMO a very bad paradigm that I reject. I also rejected the start of this move in 6th edition -- D weapons, Allies, etc. These things are designed mainly to sell more models, not because they improve the game.
The way forwards for players like me is to ignore and/or reject/ban the new stuff that has been crammed into the rules and strip it back to the core essentials. This is fairly simple to do, in fact, and the only problem is that rather than simply not playing optional add-ons, like Apocalypse used to be, we are being cast in the role of joyless nay-sayers stopping other players from having their legitimate fun.
This is exactly the way I feel. GW has been cannabalizing 40k for the sake of pushing models. I reject their attempts to sell me gak I don't need. No SA, no escalation, no double FOC, no unbound, no armies spawning armies, no forge world, no lords or war in "normal" 40k. 1 FOC + 1 ally OR formation/dataslate is plenty for me.
I have to piggyback on these comments. Love or hate the new rules, I think that it is clear the rules are becoming more and more of a vehicle just to sell models.
Apocalypse already existed to allow for superheavies, but when GW didn't feel like they were moving enough Baneblades they bumped the superheavy rules into a new expansion (Apocalypse-lite with a new nice price tag) then insisted these rules were core to the game at all times. A new book was required to play these units, and superheavies had the nice benefit of devaluing core troops whose battlefield roles shrank as they were going up against significantly more powerful units (thus needing more troops to be effective at their previous role).
And I feel like this has to be said- GW's intention on adding in more allies, formation, superheavies is for you to buy more books. I keep seeing people say "just get the rules from...places.' I don't think stealing the rules (or copying them from a buddy) is a good solution and is certainly the opposite of what GW is trying to foster by adding in all this content. Unbound is the next step in this thought process-
Okay, I want to use a Riptide, an Imperial Knight, and some Imperial Guard for my Tau robot force, I just need the Imperial Knights, the Tau Empire, and Astra Militarum books, so $150 in rules (not including the Escalation book).
Some people might like all this extra content, but I think it imposes a stark wall against anyone wanting to start playing the game. And what we end up with is veteran players who don't mind spending an extra $50 a month on a new rulebook here or there, but no new people and a continually dwindling game.
MarkCron wrote: No it isn't. If every game was supposed to be exactly balanced and purely about player skill, we'd all be playing chess. In fact, every game that involves dice and or unit choice can be broken to some extent or another. Games like Dropzone Commander/X Wing/ insert your favourite seem to be distinguished as "balanced" because you can play any army and have a chance of winning. 7th removes some of the restrictions that were holding some armies back - making the game more "balanced". Sure, you are going to get 4tide, 3knight, demonfactory, 3ctan, baneblade, all wraith etc etc etc. The point is that in 7th there are more ways to get a powerful, OP, Cheesy army, than just to buy the latest codex/shiny model.
Some people actually care about the background lore of the game, and don't look forward to the prospect of Grey Knights allying with Daemons to take on Dark Eldar allied with Tyranids.
I'll throw this in for what it's worth. The OPs got it basically right. New edition, new paradigm, the things that worked before won't work now and there's going to be a feeling-out process while players learn the ropes of the new rules.
The thread has (predictably) been overrun by people expressing disapproval, anger, and genuine hate towards GW over something as benign as some new rules. This baffles me, and strikes me as a waste of time. I see no purpose to becoming this emotionally distraught over what is, after all, a pretty minor alteration to the rules set. Not liking it is perfectly reasonable, but really hating the people that are responsible...it achieves nothing, and has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread.
To the new rules, I played a game with my Tau against an IG army with primaris psyker, a group of sanctioned psykers, and an allied inquisitor with psychic powers. I had him basically beaten by the end of turn three (at which point he conceded), and I didn't make a single deny roll (though his primaris did perils and lose prescience, to his chagrin). Within reason the new psyker rules don't unbalance the game too much.
On top of this, I've been collecting Orks for something like twenty years now and I've got many thousands of points worth. My girlfriend plays tyranids and has a little over a thousand points, my other buddy plays guard with maybe 1,500 pts worth. We wanted to do a 2k point game, them combined vs me, but under the old allies rules we couldn't make it work and had to jury-rig our own scenario. Having the option to ally guard and 'nids, un-fluffy though it may be, will let us play these games now with some semblance of order under the rules. So I think it's a good thing and I'm happy they made the changes, and I think that's the sort of scenario they had in mind when they wrote those rules.
As an aside, we should really stop using the phrase "fluff-rape". We have few enough women around these parts and my girlfriend at least finds phrases like that off-putting enough to stay away from the online community.
No it isn't. If every game was supposed to be exactly balanced and purely about player skill, we'd all be playing chess. In fact, every game that involves dice and or unit choice can be broken to some extent or another. Games like Dropzone Commander/X Wing/ insert your favourite seem to be distinguished as "balanced" because you can play any army and have a chance of winning. 7th removes some of the restrictions that were holding some armies back - making the game more "balanced". Sure, you are going to get 4tide, 3knight, demonfactory, 3ctan, baneblade, all wraith etc etc etc. The point is that in 7th there are more ways to get a powerful, OP, Cheesy army, than just to buy the latest codex/shiny model.
Before I say anything, I agree with your OP in concept. I don't think we are quite looking at it with all the other possible combos that might come out just yet. The new spells and the revisions are enough to trip anybody up. Heck look at the hard nerf to snipers that just flew out of nowhere.
This is a flawed argument. Also, nobody ever said they wanted an exactly balanced mirror match because you can already almost do that in 40k (random dice rolls are the only deterrent). People just like games that are balanced enough that there's nothing that was heldrake level broken or Pyrovore level bad. No bad options like the mark of tzeentch which is basically always worthless and should never be taken. It doesn't match the fluff and it punishes fluffy, casual, and non-competitive players that are more prone to bring what they like. At this point, the game is horridly broken to no end. GK allied with daemons? That's fluff breaking horrid, and just all around terrible yet here we are daemons fighting alongside GK summoning daemons to fight the dastardly Imperium of Mankind. This game has had long spans of time where an army could auto-table an enemy on turn 1! If you give a man a foot, they will go a mile. At best, they should have placed some house rule ideas in it rather than plastering the rules officially.
I think the GW community is driven mostly be fear, at least vocal elements on the interwebs.
Most people do not actually think of what is balanced but simply fear that they might lose to something, without even thinking about it.
for example, summoning.
People are acting like the sky is falling over demon players summoning more lesser demons.
There's some frontline gaming report video out there where a guy rolls well above average and gets about 200 points of demons on turn 1 with no perils. The game goes on and the guy continues to roll well, he then goes on to NOT WIN, that is right this omg the sky is falling it cannot be stopped power even whent he guy rolled very very well, did not win him the game against a fairly tame space marine army.
So chill out people and play the game to the rules for a few months before you figure out what is "broken" because most of the stuff people are saying is broken - is not.
office_waaagh wrote: The thread has (predictably) been overrun by people expressing disapproval, anger, and genuine hate towards GW over something as benign as some new rules. This baffles me, and strikes me as a waste of time. I see no purpose to becoming this emotionally distraught over what is, after all, a pretty minor alteration to the rules set. Not liking it is perfectly reasonable, but really hating the people that are responsible...it achieves nothing, and has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread.
Well don't forget how much money many of us have put into the game This is a hobby game. It is the most expensive wargame out there, requires building, painting, and finally playing games. The rulebook came out 2 years after the previous one and costs 80 dollars with a rather crummy rulebook in several ways. People are upset arguably because they don't like the direction 40k is going after having invested probably at least a thousand bucks into the game building and customizing their army. Then the rulebook comes in and invalidates it.
To the new rules, I played a game with my Tau against an IG army with primaris psyker, a group of sanctioned psykers, and an allied inquisitor with psychic powers. I had him basically beaten by the end of turn three (at which point he conceded), and I didn't make a single deny roll (though his primaris did perils and lose prescience, to his chagrin). Within reason the new psyker rules don't unbalance the game too much.
As mentioned, I don't think that a single psyker is the worry. It become a problem with armies that (fluffy) are heavily psyker orientated such as GK and Tzeentch CD. The guys naturally have tons of psykers and that's when problems start to pop up. Against them, they can basically shut down any of your own magic whilst spamming their own. That said Tzeentch has an odd catch where the shooting spells that they were built for were drastically nerfed but daemon spawning is new arguably and likely broken. To be frank I'm still not really sure if Chaos summoning is really that broken either. It's only a limited amount of summons really.
On top of this, I've been collecting Orks for something like twenty years now and I've got many thousands of points worth. My girlfriend plays tyranids and has a little over a thousand points, my other buddy plays guard with maybe 1,500 pts worth. We wanted to do a 2k point game, them combined vs me, but under the old allies rules we couldn't make it work and had to jury-rig our own scenario. Having the option to ally guard and 'nids, un-fluffy though it may be, will let us play these games now with some semblance of order under the rules. So I think it's a good thing and I'm happy they made the changes, and I think that's the sort of scenario they had in mind when they wrote those rules.
Wait, you actually used the ally rules for that!? My group just makes co-op games where units are BB but cannot join eachother's unit so you can buff each other but not mix units. Actually the GW employee when we started was the first to do that. Also it's not too heresy if you model those guard to be some mad cults working for Nids . Not quite how they work but close enough.
As an aside, we should really stop using the phrase "fluff-rape". We have few enough women around these parts and my girlfriend at least finds phrases like that off-putting enough to stay away from the online community.
Wait, no offense but why talk about women in this? I'm sorry just a bit perplexed why you'd even bother to mention this at all. As per avoiding it for that, pssssht if anything avoid it for the flame wars, pointless debates that always continue, and the embitterment and hatred of gamers that hold a cynical view of the game often. Jesting aside, we don't want to walk into this one trust me. This is a trap, a terrible terrible trap that nobody wants to awaken. It'll just lead to pointless debates that are incredibly off topic.
Guys, just wanted to add a few more things here. Not responding to anyone in particular, more to general sentiments.
First, let's discuss what I will call the "plight of the fluffy player". There seems to be some thought that fluff-driven players are getting totally screwed in 7th edition, and that every army will be like the one i proposed in my OP (which i was hesitant to do, because it should be obvious that that was just one silly example and certainly not something that every army would even consider taking). The truth is that purely fluff-driven players have often found that their lists are not completely optimized within a rule system, because in 40K fluff often revolves around a certain factions specialties and weaknesses, meaning that most fluff armies will necessarily have those same strengths and weaknesses.
7th edition actually opens up more options for fluff-driven armies in two important ways. First, by throwing the limitations of the force-org chart out the window, you now have a sanctioned framework to build an army as fluffy as you like. Did you ever want to build a strike-force of Ultramarines Terminators backed up by Vindicators and Librarian Tigurius, but didn't want to proxy using Deathwing rules or have to ask an opponents permission to break the force-org chart? Now you can.
7th edition also makes fluff armies more competitive. People who rebelled against allies but felt some offense at the fact that they opened up more force-org options can rejoice. Now, even if your best units are highly concentrated in one or two slots, you can easily build a battle-forged army that allows you to use all of your goodies. Sure, you can spam things, but you can also create potent, well-rounded armies without feeling like people who use allies have one over on you.
Now let's talk about the psychic phase, which people seem to have an issue with because certain armies can press the advantage there to a greater extent than other armies. I touched on this in the OP, but just to reiterate, there is one variation of one army in the entire game that can do the thing everyone is terrified of. That army has to render itself completely impotent in the early game in order to build up a frightening number of summoned Daemons. As someone else pointed out, even in the Frontline video that has scared the bejeesus out of everyone the Daemons still lost.
Also, I just have to say from a fluff perspective, why wouldn't Tzeentch control the Psychic Phase compared to the likes of Tau, Necrons, or Imperial Guard (or anyone else for that matter, bar Eldar)? Their fluff positions them as the masters of psychic power. They are literally made of charged psychic matter. They certainly don't control the shooting, movement, or assault phases, even with their summoned Daemon buddies.
For those suggesting that the addition of new options somehow decreases the number of competitive options...I just don't buy it. First off, even with Unbound armies, there are heavy restrictions. The two most important are points and allies interactions. I am not concerned about facing down these "Killer Combos" that have to deploy 12" away from each other and can't move within 6" of each other without potentially debilitating themselves and can't score effectively.
Finally, I certainly believe that GW has made some of the changes they've made to make money. I don't blame them for that, though I do think some of their methods are unsavory. That being said, I don't think they're going to making a killing off of new players buying one or two additional codexes to field allies. And as far as the whole Escalation/Lord of War thing goes, the argument always fails to take into consideration that people have wanted to include superheavy units in games outside of Apocalypse, which for my area anyway are almost always few and far between. With the nerfs to D Weapons in 7th I don't even think they are that scary anymore.
So, again, it is a different game. One that not everyone has to enjoy or agree with. But any claims that the game is somehow "worse" now is entirely subjective. It is simply different, and everything else is opinion.
ArmyC wrote: Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.
The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.
Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.
Wonderful.
7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.
No Fun
Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.
Might be fun.
Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.
I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.
How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?
ArmyC wrote: Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.
The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.
Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.
Wonderful.
7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.
No Fun
Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.
Might be fun.
Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.
I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.
How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?
Here's the thing, though.Seasoned tournament players playing tournament lists will win just about every game they play against random "pick-up game" opponents. That has nothing to do with 7th edition. That's been the case in every edition, and for every tabletop war game that I can think of.
So the auther of the thread wants me to believe that the only solution is to list build to counter every OP combo we come accross?
1. How does that make us (players who want a tactical challange and fun game) any better than the people who WAAC. The answer is it doesn't.
2. most people lack the models and money (one of the follies that restrict recriutment into the game) to make that happen
Ok so you list build to kill the deamon factory maybe even without using a deamon factory, what exactly have you proved? anything? nothing is more like it....very few forged armies have a chance againts deamon factory. There are a few I agree
Many of us are stuck on the idea of single force organization or forged armies because thats what makes a fun and tactical game....not the super uber poop lists like deamon factory. Yes it is a poop list, and I will not play it or anyone who builds a OP list again.
Here is what will happen at my LFGS when ask to play from a deamon factory of some other combo that breaks/warps the rules into a one way game.....extend my hand to shake his and say "congratulations you win, not going to waste my time not having fun"
If that makes me a jerk (or a worse word), well then there are several of us at my LFGS
[not a personal attack just disagree totally with you thats all.
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.
Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.
Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.
Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?
^This.
By banning the handful broken things, you get a plethora of possibilities.
For every broken unit/rule taken down, a score of new units/lists become viable all of a sudden.
Another example of the same reasoning: by banning a few TFG players when their behaviour is unacceptable, the rest of the players are able to enjoy the game, so they keep playing and attrack new players.
Allowing something that is hurtful is not a good idea. Restrictions exist for a reason.
Will keep it short, played for a long time, just finished reading 7th rules:
1) Pickup games suck, the combinations of power levels have escalated so it is that much easier "bringing a knife to a gun fight".
2) "Fluff" has suffered: bitter enemies can be fighting together on a whim, demons can be universally summoned where whole planets were destroyed to hide their existence. But hey, you can bring pretty much anything so you can act out the most outlandish of stories.
3) The changing objectives become as much of a game loser as who goes first or what army list you selected.
4) I have easily over 6 different armies, not many can say that. I can "neck beard" the hell out of people with selection that would cost a freaking fortune for anyone starting out. It is looking more like pay to win which is how GW likes it. <edit> Forgot all the buildings and terrain... Fortress of Redemption anyone?
5) The only way this game now seems to work is crafting scenarios, that is not for everyone (I am OK with it but not so good for playing new people).
<edit2> Guess I am trying to get at that "tactical challenge" is a bit of a joke, army selection and MORE random elements that impact winning has made it even less competitive a game. It truly should be sold as a mass, highly detailed RPG game.
I will now go through my list of stuff and see what would be the most unholy combination of models I can find (Baneblade, Shadowsword, Imperial Knight, Grey Knights, Inquisitors, IG/AM, CSM, Daemons, BT)
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: So the auther of the thread wants me to believe that the only solution is to list build to counter every OP combo we come accross?
1. How does that make us (players who want a tactical challange and fun game) any better than the people who WAAC. The answer is it doesn't.
2. most people lack the models and money (one of the follies that restrict recriutment into the game) to make that happen
Ok so you list build to kill the deamon factory maybe even without using a deamon factory, what exactly have you proved? anything? nothing is more like it....very few forged armies have a chance againts deamon factory. There are a few I agree
Many of us are stuck on the idea of single force organization or forged armies because thats what makes a fun and tactical game....not the super uber poop lists like deamon factory. Yes it is a poop list, and I will not play it or anyone who builds a OP list again.
Here is what will happen at my LFGS when ask to play from a deamon factory of some other combo that breaks/warps the rules into a one way game.....extend my hand to shake his and say "congratulations you win, not going to waste my time not having fun"
If that makes me a jerk (or a worse word), well then there are several of us at my LFGS
[not a personal attack just disagree totally with you thats all.
I definitely don't take this as a personal attack, but I also think you missed the point of my post.
My point is not that you should counter WAAC or cheesy armies with even more WAAC or cheesy armies, but rather just stating that we are selectively looking at some of the more seemingly powerful builds that arose out of 7th through the lens of 6th edition limitations. If we are going to condemn 7th because of some of the issues that arise, I think its only fair we try to redeem it with the options available to us as well.
If you personally believe that tactics only exist in a game played with a single force-org chart, and that anything that doesn't meet that restriction can't be played strategically or tactically, then you are absolutely correct in saying 7th is not for you. I do not personally agree with that sentiment at all, because I think if anything 7th has opened up the possibility for a dramatically larger number of tactics and strategies.
I would like to point out that I think you are wrong. This is just an opinion, of course, and I guess you are probably right in other things. But in this specific thing you are utterly, completely wrong.
As a 'fluffy' player, I want 'fluffy' rules. I want to read the rule and think 'yeah, that is exactly the way it would happen in the background'. I don´t think about if it is competitive or not. If I read about Farseers invoking Daemons and using them in battle I don´t start trying to imagine some extremely odd situation where this insane abomination is possible, I just start feeling something inside me hurting. I hate it when it happen, and the 7th edition is almost unbearable in this regard. The butchering in the background section, the 'do what you want!' rules and the dwindling relation between the rules and the setting make me feel that I am not 'bringing the universe of warhammer 40000 to live', I am just pushing some plastic models from here to there. And since I am not into competition, that makes me really sad. 6th and 7th have been like seeing an old friend dying.
(not that this stops me from playing though, I think I am becoming a masochist)
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.
Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.
Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.
Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?
^This.
By banning the handful broken things, you get a plethora of possibilities.
For every broken unit/rule taken down, a score of new units/lists become viable all of a sudden.
Another example of the same reasoning: by banning a few TFG players when their behaviour is unacceptable, the rest of the players are able to enjoy the game, so they keep playing and attrack new players.
Allowing something that is hurtful is not a good idea. Restrictions exist for a reason.
But this assumes that there existed a state of 40K where there were no OP units or lists. A counter-argument to your point might be: once you remove one layer of cheese, you open up the door for different levels of cheese.
But in any case, this again is not an issue of 7th. It is an issue for any game that offers variety in units and army composition. O'vesa Star, Screamerstar, Seerstar were broken right before 7th dropped. Farsun Bomb and Cron Air were broken before that. Draigowing and Psyback Spam before that. Leafblower and Nidzilla before that. Nob Bikerz before that.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
As of right now, the "Broken" army is Daemon Clown Car. To be honest, that is not all that scary given the new tools at our disposal. I'm sure there will be more broken armies after that that make Clown Car seem like a joke. There will always, always be ways to break this game. 7th has just given us the opportunity for quite a bit more variety.
"It is impossible to design a car that can completely eliminate fatalities from car crashes. Therefore we should not care if a badly designed car has higher fatality rates."
themadlbb wrote: If you personally believe that tactics only exist in a game played with a single force-org chart, and that anything that doesn't meet that restriction can't be played strategically or tactically, then you are absolutely correct in saying 7th is not for you. I do not personally agree with that sentiment at all, because I think if anything 7th has opened up the possibility for a dramatically larger number of tactics and strategies.
The problem is the game is a combination of rules.
Do not look through the lens of only the changes to force organization.
Just the change for objectives and victory points have an extra random element added.
YES "tactics" will be more... frantic as they change during a game and pretty much throws "strategy" out the window.
The problem is they keep hammering "forge the narrative" and this is just a whole bunch of discrete parts we slap together supposedly to try out some new mixing and matching options for the win.
I find the proposed acceptance of this new paradigm silly in the extreme when applied to pick-up games or tournaments since the assumption of a reasonably matched force based on points is rather comical.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
But this assumes that there existed a state of 40K where there were no OP units or lists. A counter-argument to your point might be: once you remove one layer of cheese, you open up the door for different levels of cheese.
But in any case, this again is not an issue of 7th. It is an issue for any game that offers variety in units and army composition. O'vesa Star, Screamerstar, Seerstar were broken right before 7th dropped. Farsun Bomb and Cron Air were broken before that. Draigowing and Psyback Spam before that. Leafblower and Nidzilla before that. Nob Bikerz before that.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
As of right now, the "Broken" army is Daemon Clown Car. To be honest, that is not all that scary given the new tools at our disposal. I'm sure there will be more broken armies after that that make Clown Car seem like a joke. There will always, always be ways to break this game. 7th has just given us the opportunity for quite a bit more variety.
Nope. The balance is broken and a broken balance kills the variety.
Also, I think your reasoning is wrong. It is not a matter of getting a 'perfect state' in 40k.
It is all a matter of how wide is the gap between a top list and a bottom list. It doesn´t matter if there is a small difference between army A and army B. It matters when the difference is so big that list B has no choice. It matters when the gap is so big it kills the fun for most players.
And getting more playable lists is an improvement in itself . To achieve for perfection is indeed foolish. We should try to improve the game for the sake of improvement itself, not because we are aiming for a 'perfect' situation.
To use again the 'banning people' example: by banning the player who randomly attacks other players with a knife, we improve the environment. Saying that it would be better to accept him because otherwise we should start talking about the 'no-shower' guy makes no sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kain wrote: "It is impossible to design a car that can completely eliminate fatalities from car crashes. Therefore we should not care if a badly designed car has higher fatality rates."
The worst thing that could happen is that the "everything is included" means that people can do whatever they want from a casual perspective and abuse it without recourse. If you have players who value winning at all costs, they will reach a point where either other players will adapt or they lose the support base to play against. That's fine. That's life. You get to pick your friends and your hobbies and who you want to play with. I'd be fine with everything goes but within a restraint consideration mode.
What will really hurt is in the tournament scene. The end game is competitive players narrowing their selections to the extreme point of picking from a limited pool of models they feel represents the best choices and the best combos. I don't want to go to an Unbound tournament and see mash ups of Tau/Eldar/Inquisition/Imperial Knights fielding a single Servo Skull Inquisitior, Riptides supported by Markerlights, Eldar Seer Councils, and backed by a beastly Imperial Knight or two in half the armies I see and 30+ Warp Point generated Daemon summoning armies in the other half.
GW has handed the keys to the future of Warhammer 40k to the players and it is up to us to make the adjustments.
ArmyC wrote: Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.
The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.
Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.
Wonderful.
7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.
No Fun
Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.
Might be fun.
Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.
I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.
How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?
Here's the thing, though.Seasoned tournament players playing tournament lists will win just about every game they play against random "pick-up game" opponents. That has nothing to do with 7th edition. That's been the case in every edition, and for every tabletop war game that I can think of.
I can think of several where this isn't true. I mostly play pickup games a few times a month as well. I win most of them also. 40k is dead in my area(dying in your area as well) we play a lot of Warhmachine. I play three factions and win with solid tactics most of the time.
Not so for 40k 7th ed the cutes and ladders edition.
WarOne wrote: The worst thing that could happen is that the "everything is included" means that people can do whatever they want from a casual perspective and abuse it without recourse. If you have players who value winning at all costs, they will reach a point where either other players will adapt or they lose the support base to play against. That's fine. That's life. You get to pick your friends and your hobbies and who you want to play with. I'd be fine with everything goes but within a restraint consideration mode.
What will really hurt is in the tournament scene. The end game is competitive players narrowing their selections to the extreme point of picking from a limited pool of models they feel represents the best choices and the best combos. I don't want to go to an Unbound tournament and see mash ups of Tau/Eldar/Inquisition/Imperial Knights fielding a single Servo Skull Inquisitior, Riptides supported by Markerlights, Eldar Seer Councils, and backed by a beastly Imperial Knight or two in half the armies I see and 30+ Warp Point generated Daemon summoning armies in the other half.
I don´t think the tournament scene will suffer: the TO writes down some extra rules, perhaps after doing some surveys among the players, and the people going there abide by the rules. It was already needed in 6th.
I don´t see where lies the problem. (coming to think of it, this is probably because I know nothing about tournaments)
Anyway, I think the short end of the stick goes to the 'casual' player, the player who goes to one place to find a stranger to play with. A casual player can bring a list to a place and find out no one plays with him. This is already a problem and it is getting worse.
It's interesting how a lot of posts seem to miss the point of the thread by looking at 7th thorough 6th ed point of view.
In particular a number of posters say:
-"allowing everything will lead to abuse", demonfactory is game breaking. Exactly the same thing has happened in every edition release - there are a small number of net lists from a couple of codexes which are highly overpowered compared to every other list. The difference with 7th is that this spam effect can now come from every codex, not just the latest one.
-"Restrictions are necessary to balance the armies". Fallacy. Restrictions simply create new kings of the castle. And there won't be "more variety" because powergames will always focus on the top 2/3. 7th gives more variety because every codex *could* spam their best unit(s). But that unit(s) is different in every codex and has differing tactical counters.
- there are a lot of concerns expressed about cost of entry and how new players won't play because they can't afford to buy the books. I disagree with this completely. The number of rules applicable to an individual model is small and quickly become widely known. It is certainly not what GW would prefer, but in the real world people are not going to buy an entire codex to get the rules for a riptide/wraithknight/shiny model. They might buy it for the contained fluff or if they really like the army and plan to add more models.
- getting pickup games might be harder. However, people showing up in 6e with triptide/tripdrake/seer council/taudar weren't exactly the most popular people were they? I agree this can and probably will continue to happen, but hopefully the wider player base will get used to playing a wider variety of lists.
- There are new missions. Remember, in the Frontline Demonfactory game, the Demon player LOST. Setting up a list to be able to capture objectives fast is going to be far more important than bringing x excessively powered non troop models.
Overall, it is somewhat disheartening that the general assumption is that 40k wargamers will actively try to break the game and we will all rush out and buy demons. I'm sure there is a small minority who will do that because there always is.
But there are a lot of gamers that won't, hopefully the majority. I'm not. Anyone in Perth, Australia, is welcome to PM me and I'll play a maelstrom mission against any list you bring.
Really? Based on what evidence? Two battle reports from Frontline gaming?
There is certainly a tweak required to enable a player with unusable tactical objectives to discard them and draw new ones, but other than that in my games so far they have been great.
They go a long way towards making the game more dynamic.
I like the concept, don't get me wrong, but they are very messy. They are unequal, uneven, random for random sake, and more random. They can give you d3 points when it should either be a solid 2 or 3 and will require things like: Cast a spell! which is easy for one army and worthless for another and so on. It doesn't help the objectives opt for the same thing. Capture this random objectives. Overall it's just silly with rewards for meaninglessly trivial things. Great concept, terrible execution.
Kilkrazy wrote: For myself, I am not interested in a play style in which there are no restrictions. The tactical interest comes from the limitations you have to work within and try to transcend.
When you can do that by pic'n'mixing any units at all, there is no meaning to the game. It becomes a dice fest, especially when random changing objectives are added.
So yes, a paradigm shift to what is IMO a very bad paradigm that I reject. I also rejected the start of this move in 6th edition -- D weapons, Allies, etc. These things are designed mainly to sell more models, not because they improve the game.
The way forwards for players like me is to ignore and/or reject/ban the new stuff that has been crammed into the rules and strip it back to the core essentials. This is fairly simple to do, in fact, and the only problem is that rather than simply not playing optional add-ons, like Apocalypse used to be, we are being cast in the role of joyless nay-sayers stopping other players from having their legitimate fun.
This is exactly the way I feel. GW has been cannabalizing 40k for the sake of pushing models. I reject their attempts to sell me gak I don't need. No SA, no escalation, no double FOC, no unbound, no armies spawning armies, no forge world, no lords or war in "normal" 40k. 1 FOC + 1 ally OR formation/dataslate is plenty for me.
I have to piggyback on these comments. Love or hate the new rules, I think that it is clear the rules are becoming more and more of a vehicle just to sell models.
Apocalypse already existed to allow for superheavies, but when GW didn't feel like they were moving enough Baneblades they bumped the superheavy rules into a new expansion (Apocalypse-lite with a new nice price tag) then insisted these rules were core to the game at all times. A new book was required to play these units, and superheavies had the nice benefit of devaluing core troops whose battlefield roles shrank as they were going up against significantly more powerful units (thus needing more troops to be effective at their previous role).
And I feel like this has to be said- GW's intention on adding in more allies, formation, superheavies is for you to buy more books. I keep seeing people say "just get the rules from...places.' I don't think stealing the rules (or copying them from a buddy) is a good solution and is certainly the opposite of what GW is trying to foster by adding in all this content. Unbound is the next step in this thought process-
Okay, I want to use a Riptide, an Imperial Knight, and some Imperial Guard for my Tau robot force, I just need the Imperial Knights, the Tau Empire, and Astra Militarum books, so $150 in rules (not including the Escalation book).
Some people might like all this extra content, but I think it imposes a stark wall against anyone wanting to start playing the game. And what we end up with is veteran players who don't mind spending an extra $50 a month on a new rulebook here or there, but no new people and a continually dwindling game.
I cannot exalt this enough. It's exactly how I feel only stated clearly and level headed.
The new edition is neither conducive to fair games, fluffy armies and it makes collecting armies more of the game than actually playing it.
There are too many OP units that ruin the game. For example, a Transcendent C'Tan, put that in a normal game of 1850 against a tac list. It will dominate the game make the game one sided.
In -another game which I won't name- you can add in super heavies without gross imbalances. It just means you have less units but the same power level. It's fair and not OP so you don't get people rejecting playing games against them. Thus, you get to play the models you like rather than the models your opponent allows you to play.
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....Hold on there..........did you just say games Workshop, a company that operates on the basis of selling toy soldiers.....MAKES RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING MORE TOY SOLDIERS!!!!! :O
Mind totally blown.
How dare they make rules for a game whose sole purpose is to facilitate selling more cool toy soldiers help sell more toy soldiers. GET YER torch and pitchforks gents it's time for a good ol fashioned mob to storm GW.
Alright....I'll stop with the troll like sarcasm now...but really guys? As for the C'tan thing...isn't that like a minimum of 600-700 points? So it's a third of your army....and therefore you have less models than your opponent but the same power level...you know like that other game? Has it really come down to just blind flailing about complaining about anything and everything until something sticks? You name me one model company that doesn't make rules for the purpose of selling models and I'll mail you a cookie.
Orktavius wrote: WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....Hold on there..........did you just say games Workshop, a company that operates on the basis of selling toy soldiers.....MAKES RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING MORE TOY SOLDIERS!!!!! :O
Mind totally blown.
How dare they make rules for a game whose sole purpose is to facilitate selling more cool toy soldiers help sell more toy soldiers. GET YER torch and pitchforks gents it's time for a good ol fashioned mob to storm GW.
Alright....I'll stop with the troll like sarcasm now...but really guys?
Really.
MMO companies are in the business of making money as well. Some have attempted to do so by implementing pay-to-win paradigms, which is more or less the profile that Games Workship is pursuing.
Others learned that you are far more successful making a fun, engaging, balanced game that a lot of people want to play, thus growing your customer base, rather than creating a small, niche, self-cannibalizing game that's dependent on your static or shrinking customer base spending more and more money to remain competitive.
I cannot exalt this enough. It's exactly how I feel only stated clearly and level headed.
The new edition is neither conducive to fair games, fluffy armies and it makes collecting armies more of the game than actually playing it.
There are too many OP units that ruin the game. For example, a Transcendent C'Tan, put that in a normal game of 1850 against a tac list. It will dominate the game make the game one sided.
In -another game which I won't name- you can add in super heavies without gross imbalances. It just means you have less units but the same power level. It's fair and not OP so you don't get people rejecting playing games against them. Thus, you get to play the models you like rather than the models your opponent allows you to play.
I'm gonna go ahead and counter this with my own opinion that the new edition actually lets you play bigger games without having to buy new models, and in fact reduces the amount of models you have to buy. If Unbound were really just a toy advertisement to rake in more cash, then there would have been some stipulation that adding whatever you wanted meant you needed to include additional models just to have them.
You know, like 6th edition and the '2 troops and an HQ' tax.
Now? You can throw whatever you want in there without having to buy a couple boxes of troop choices and an expensive HQ just to play the game. You can play the game with the cheapest boxes on the shelf if you wanted. You can make anyone your HQ. How exactly is this a money grab? I mean, holy crap there's plenty of things to complain about in regards to GW, find something a little more solid.
BTW I'm not directing this at the above quote, it's just a common complain I keep seeing about this edition when it's pretty much the farthest thing from the truth in my possibly completely wrong opinion (impcwo).
Why are we speaking as though Unbound armies are the only way to throw whatever models you want into a game regardless of how little sense it would make to have the two (or three...or four) factions allying together?
Battle-Forged armies allow you almost as much flexibility to rape the fluff as Unbound armies do. You can make a perfectly legit Battle-Forged Grey Knights/Chaos Daemon list.
People arguing for that kind of freedom aren't people I take seriously.
Orktavius wrote: WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....Hold on there..........did you just say games Workshop, a company that operates on the basis of selling toy soldiers.....MAKES RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING MORE TOY SOLDIERS!!!!! :O
Mind totally blown.
How dare they make rules for a game whose sole purpose is to facilitate selling more cool toy soldiers help sell more toy soldiers. GET YER torch and pitchforks gents it's time for a good ol fashioned mob to storm GW.
Alright....I'll stop with the troll like sarcasm now...but really guys? As for the C'tan thing...isn't that like a minimum of 600-700 points? So it's a third of your army....and therefore you have less models than your opponent but the same power level...you know like that other game? Has it really come down to just blind flailing about complaining about anything and everything until something sticks? You name me one model company that doesn't make rules for the purpose of selling models and I'll mail you a cookie.
Whoa whoa whoa!
Way to just totally like not even understand what I was talking about bro.
Okay, annoying ignorant troll voice off.
I'm saying that the rules suffer because their main purpose is to sell models, not create an entertaining game. That's my problem with it. Ironically, if they did that, their shares wouldn't be dropping like they are and you'd see more people actually playing 40k.
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
here is a menu that has more options:
aids
cancer
broken glass
syphilis
rotten eggs
month old potatoe salad
human flesh
steak and French fries
here is one with fewer
aids
cancer
rotten eggs
steak and French fries
-------------------------------
Did more options help? Why is it I think I am able to predict what most players would like to eat for supper in both instances?
And question for the op: Have you ever played apocalypse? I think you'd love it.
Surprisingly, that has a lot more meaningful choices than 7th edition 40k.
ArmyC wrote: Change the way you play from a win/lose game to a story driven game.
The wide range of options we have now in list building is wonderful for stories, but not so great for win/lose pick up games.
Analogy: A neighborhood pick up basketball game. 8 friends get together, pick teams, play, call their own fouls, win or lose, have a beer afterward.
Wonderful.
7th edition pick up game. 8 friends get together, but one happens to be a former NBA player. Flip a coin to see who chooses first. Game over.
No Fun
Paradigm shift 7th edition pick up game: NBA guy plays with two guys, vs 5 on the other team with a no dunking rule.
Might be fun.
Change the way you play to story driven games and you will have fun.
I have a career and a family, my very limited game playing time consists of 3 to 4 hour windows once or twice in a month, often with very short notice, where I can go to the FLGS with my army and see who is there available to play a game.
How do you suggest that I change to story driven games in a way that allows me to still enjoy the game?
Here's the thing, though.Seasoned tournament players playing tournament lists will win just about every game they play against random "pick-up game" opponents. That has nothing to do with 7th edition. That's been the case in every edition, and for every tabletop war game that I can think of.
That is just not true of most games and also wasn't true in 40k until 6th edition hit. Also don't make the mistake of thinking that because I usually have a limited playing time that I don't have a competitive mindset or that I don't take part in tournaments for several gaming systems.
And my reply had nothing to do with winning or loosing anyway, it was to state that people that have a limited playing time each session and that rely on random pick-up games to get their "fix", really can't play a game that has the pre-condition that if you wan't to enjoy the game, you need to have extensive negotiations with your opponent about what each one is going to bring before the game even begins...
- getting pickup games might be harder. However, people showing up in 6e with triptide/tripdrake/seer council/taudar weren't exactly the most popular people were they? I agree this can and probably will continue to happen, but hopefully the wider player base will get used to playing a wider variety of lists.
And that is why most of the people that I know have already stopped playing the game during 6th edition and this "new" edition not only doesn't do anything to address these concerns, but instead exacerbates these problems by doubling down on the "no-restrictions" mindset...
Having recently read all the rules I see two problems with all this "freedom""
1) Even by accident it will be easy for two players to field armies of vastly different levels of power (Iron Fist mechanized group vs. anti-horde armies: rarely greater than S7 weapons).
2) The power gamer cranks his army to full power and gets all frustrated and angry that people will not play him.
I am very proud of my large collection and if I was to mix and match my favorite models that are all painted well it would also be a pretty good "cave face" army... so hard to figure out how to limit one's self.
How all this Psi power stuff will work out is going to take a few games to see, I suspect Eldar will be brutal in this regard.
Daemon summoning will be entertaining to say the least.
It is like they never left my CSM army list...
To summon daemons that can help summon more shall be interesting as well to figure out.
The vast majority of the rules changed little but the means to build an army and how victory points are gained is so random, there is little point in getting upset, it will all be determined by the laughing gods...
Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
I wish AM was a 7th ed dex, maybe it would have been better suited for it.
Makumba wrote: Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
Quite simply yes.
People who buy 1 army at 1500pts (or any points for that matter) and then don't buy anything else are the people GW hate. You make them no money, so now they either want to force you to buy more stuff (expand your army or start a new one) or they want you to quit. If you buy more stuff then they win. If you quit then it doesn't matter because you weren't buying stuff anyway.
GW want money, you either follow their plan and give them some, or walk away. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
This is also why veterans get a hard deal. GW don't want people with massive collections of models in a cupboard that allow them to play with whatever they have, they want them to buy new stuff because their old stuff is no longer good enough. The whole idea behind 7th is to shake up the game and make people buy more models.
Makumba wrote: Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
I wish AM was a 7th ed dex, maybe it would have been better suited for it.
Many armies did not lose anything in competitive value, in fact some armies (GK) are now more competitive and require no new models to your collection.
If you had some wacky "powerbuild" army that relied on a very specific mechanic granted by battle brother rules you may be SOL but thats how 40k always has been, if you are building to powergame expect your army to be mostly invalid next edition.
if you are building a strong TAC your army will be mostly valid next edition, there may be 1-2 new models in the next codex for your army.
If you buy a small supplemental codex, expect for it to not be valid in 1-2 editions of 40k.
Also, AM may not have been released after the release of the 7th edition rules, but they were the last codex to be released prior, which means they are most likely made with 7th in mind as 7th was either done and waiting for a good market release cycle, or being completed around the same time the AM was being done.
Talizvar wrote: Having recently read all the rules I see two problems with all this "freedom""
1) Even by accident it will be easy for two players to field armies of vastly different levels of power (Iron Fist mechanized group vs. anti-horde armies: rarely greater than S7 weapons).
2) The power gamer cranks his army to full power and gets all frustrated and angry that people will not play him.
I am very proud of my large collection and if I was to mix and match my favorite models that are all painted well it would also be a pretty good "cave face" army... so hard to figure out how to limit one's self.
How all this Psi power stuff will work out is going to take a few games to see, I suspect Eldar will be brutal in this regard.
Daemon summoning will be entertaining to say the least.
It is like they never left my CSM army list...
To summon daemons that can help summon more shall be interesting as well to figure out.
The vast majority of the rules changed little but the means to build an army and how victory points are gained is so random, there is little point in getting upset, it will all be determined by the laughing gods...
Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.
Talizvar wrote: Having recently read all the rules I see two problems with all this "freedom""
1) Even by accident it will be easy for two players to field armies of vastly different levels of power (Iron Fist mechanized group vs. anti-horde armies: rarely greater than S7 weapons).
2) The power gamer cranks his army to full power and gets all frustrated and angry that people will not play him.
I am very proud of my large collection and if I was to mix and match my favorite models that are all painted well it would also be a pretty good "cave face" army... so hard to figure out how to limit one's self.
How all this Psi power stuff will work out is going to take a few games to see, I suspect Eldar will be brutal in this regard.
Daemon summoning will be entertaining to say the least.
It is like they never left my CSM army list...
To summon daemons that can help summon more shall be interesting as well to figure out.
The vast majority of the rules changed little but the means to build an army and how victory points are gained is so random, there is little point in getting upset, it will all be determined by the laughing gods...
Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.
I agree although I argue with the new rules it shall be even more common though.
Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.
There have always been imbalances in 40k, but never to the extent that exist since 6th came out, simply because in all other editions all the factions had strengths and weaknesses, but since the advent of the abomination that is the allies matrix a player can cover his chosen faction's weaknesses or crank its strength up to 11 by using complementary models from other factions that leave someone that chooses not to play like this in a serious disadvantage. And that is even before we throw Escalation into the mix...
Ignoring this fact and claiming that the complaints now are the same as those in editions prior to 6th is being at the very least naive or at the worst, dishonest.
Generally one has to purchase, clean, assemble and paint miniatures before playing a game. With MtG you purchase and put in sleeves (optional)
It doesn't really compare aside from the listbuilding aspect. IE top tier list/deck wins vs average list/deck irregardless or skill or luck most of the time.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
But this assumes that there existed a state of 40K where there were no OP units or lists. A counter-argument to your point might be: once you remove one layer of cheese, you open up the door for different levels of cheese.
But in any case, this again is not an issue of 7th. It is an issue for any game that offers variety in units and army composition. O'vesa Star, Screamerstar, Seerstar were broken right before 7th dropped. Farsun Bomb and Cron Air were broken before that. Draigowing and Psyback Spam before that. Leafblower and Nidzilla before that. Nob Bikerz before that.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
As of right now, the "Broken" army is Daemon Clown Car. To be honest, that is not all that scary given the new tools at our disposal. I'm sure there will be more broken armies after that that make Clown Car seem like a joke. There will always, always be ways to break this game. 7th has just given us the opportunity for quite a bit more variety.
Nope. The balance is broken and a broken balance kills the variety.
Also, I think your reasoning is wrong. It is not a matter of getting a 'perfect state' in 40k.
It is all a matter of how wide is the gap between a top list and a bottom list. It doesn´t matter if there is a small difference between army A and army B. It matters when the difference is so big that list B has no choice. It matters when the gap is so big it kills the fun for most players.
And getting more playable lists is an improvement in itself . To achieve for perfection is indeed foolish. We should try to improve the game for the sake of improvement itself, not because we are aiming for a 'perfect' situation.
To use again the 'banning people' example: by banning the player who randomly attacks other players with a knife, we improve the environment. Saying that it would be better to accept him because otherwise we should start talking about the 'no-shower' guy makes no sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kain wrote: "It is impossible to design a car that can completely eliminate fatalities from car crashes. Therefore we should not care if a badly designed car has higher fatality rates."
^Same thing I said, with less words.
I see that there is just some fundamental disagreement as to relative power level. I believe there are more opportunities in 7th for any standard player to overcome the likes of Deathstar nastiness we saw in 6th or Draigowing in 5th or whatever. And without resorting to one of a few specific netlists to do so.
7th has shaken things up. You are right in that there is now a wider disparity between the top level lists and the bottom level lists, because never before has it been possible to field an army made entirely of weak troops/[insert favorite low power unit here]. However, I can think of no gaming group that has armies representing the gamut of this bell-curve of 40K power.
Issues 1 & 2 that you referenced above are not problems unique to 7th edition. Both of those complaints were equally valid in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. I didn't play RT or 2nd so I don't know about those, but I'm guessing it held true there as well.
There have always been imbalances in 40k, but never to the extent that exist since 6th came out, simply because in all other editions all the factions had strengths and weaknesses, but since the advent of the abomination that is the allies matrix a player can cover his chosen faction's weaknesses or crank its strength up to 11 by using complementary models from other factions that leave someone that chooses not to play like this in a serious disadvantage. And that is even before we throw Escalation into the mix...
Ignoring this fact and claiming that the complaints now are the same as those in editions prior to 6th is being at the very least naive or at the worst, dishonest.
This is what I am referring to. In the past the game was played differently, the paradigm has shifted and presented new ways to play.
However, I'll say this as regards allies: 7th has really, really toned down the ally abuse by severely limiting the number of Battle Brothers (which were the worst offenders). Sure, you can ally with anything now, but at an often debilitating cost.
Also, the accusations of naivety and dishonesty aren't necessary.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
I see that there is just some fundamental disagreement as to relative power level. I believe there are more opportunities in 7th for any standard player to overcome the likes of Deathstar nastiness we saw in 6th or Draigowing in 5th or whatever. And without resorting to one of a few specific netlists to do so.
A fundamental disagreement indeed.
Now the standard player have zero chances against many specific lists. If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn. Because there are a handful completely broken units/lists.
But you seem to think otherwise, so let´s agree to disagree and let´s try to enjoy the game anyway.
7th has shaken things up. You are right in that there is now a wider disparity between the top level lists and the bottom level lists, because never before has it been possible to field an army made entirely of weak troops/[insert favorite low power unit here]. However, I can think of no gaming group that has armies representing the gamut of this bell-curve of 40K power.
I fielded penal legion, lesser daemon, spawn (in 5th) and many, many 'weak' units in 5th without any problem. I actually won against leafblowers and razorspams with 'bottom level lists'.
Now that would be completely impossible. As other people are saying, the gap between the lists is bigger. I think the game got broken in 6th, with the coming of flyers: at the beginning of the edition, you either got a flyer/fortification or you had zero chances. From there on, it has gone worse and worse.
So I don´t see how this 'new paradigm' make the game more enjoyable. And, by the way, I don´t think that the people who made it were trying to create something enjoyable. It seems broken, rushed and untested. A 95% copy paste and a number of random changes.
Which is why I wouldn´t call it a 'paradigm', it is more like 6th edition version 0.2. No fundamental changes, just a logical 'progression'. People who liked 6th are liking 7th, and people who disliked 6th disliked 7th even more, for the same reasons, because it is 'the same dog, with a different collar'.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
I see that there is just some fundamental disagreement as to relative power level. I believe there are more opportunities in 7th for any standard player to overcome the likes of Deathstar nastiness we saw in 6th or Draigowing in 5th or whatever. And without resorting to one of a few specific netlists to do so.
A fundamental disagreement indeed.
Now the standard player have zero chances against many specific lists. If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn. Because there are a handful completely broken units/lists.
But you seem to think otherwise, so let´s agree to disagree and let´s try to enjoy the game anyway.
7th has shaken things up. You are right in that there is now a wider disparity between the top level lists and the bottom level lists, because never before has it been possible to field an army made entirely of weak troops/[insert favorite low power unit here]. However, I can think of no gaming group that has armies representing the gamut of this bell-curve of 40K power.
I fielded penal legion, lesser daemon, spawn (in 5th) and many, many 'weak' units in 5th without any problem. I actually won against leafblowers and razorspams with 'bottom level lists'.
Now that would be completely impossible. As other people are saying, the gap between the lists is bigger. I think the game got broken in 6th, with the coming of flyers: at the beginning of the edition, you either got a flyer/fortification or you had zero chances. From there on, it has gone worse and worse.
So I don´t see how this 'new paradigm' make the game more enjoyable. And, by the way, I don´t think that the people who made it were trying to create something enjoyable. It seems broken, rushed and untested. A 95% copy paste and a number of random changes.
Which is why I wouldn´t call it a 'paradigm', it is more like 6th edition version 0.2. No fundamental changes, just a logical 'progression'. People who liked 6th are liking 7th, and people who disliked 6th disliked 7th even more, for the same reasons, because it is 'the same dog, with a different collar'.
When you say " If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn." That is 100% true, but again, not an issue that arose because of 7th. Choosing units at random in a codex will very nearly always result in a bad army due to lack of synergy. This has definitely been the case in every edition of 40K, and is definitely intentional. Strategy for any wargame that allows you to construct an army with differing units begins in the list-building phase.
Also, when you discuss your lists that include "Weak Units", that's not really the situation I'm describing. You could always include weaker units in lists, and actually when properly supported weak units can become very good. I was saying that in 7th you could hypothetically create an army made up entirely of weak units, meaning that, yes, the "weak" end of the bell curve is more disparate than ever from the "strong" end.
And I have to say, even though you may accuse GW of many things, I do believe they still have a goal of making a fun and enjoyable game. Like I said, many of their practices are not wise in my opinion and even occasionally cringe-worthy, but at the end of the day I do think that they expect the players of the game to enjoy themselves.
I also do think the word "paradigm" definitely applies to 7th, even if you view it as an extension of sixth. It is an expanded paradigm, to be sure, but at this point saying that you will limit yourself to one detachment or faction just because its the way things used to be done is the same as saying that you aren't going to play with special characters (or will require opponents permission) because that's the way things used to be done. It's a self-imposed limitation that's great if it works for you but doesn't reflect the new tools of 7th.
Reading these threads gives me the impression that posters have lost their imaginations, requiring rules to replace the ability to think. What if I want to play a company of Thunder Warriors supported by the Custodians? For me, that's Orks and Grey Knights. What if I want to field a lone Aspirant defending his land by literally 'herding' mega-beasts into the enemy? For me, that's an Imperal Knight and Tyranids. Are those combinations go together? On the table, definitely not; but as fluffy counts-as, definitely yes. 7th let's me use my imagination to workout a list I want to play, tell a story I want to tell, and model my army the way I want it to look.
Do you have to play against me? No, not really. But I can turn down game with people I do like to play, either. Note how I said "people" and not "armies". It doesn't matter at all to me what you take in your army in a game we agreed to play, because like playing against you and I know we will have fun. But I won't play Richard over there, no matter what he brings to play, because Richard is a ... someone I don't enjoy playing against.
Now, if its a tournament, I will bring a tournament legal list, and expect to face other tournament legal lists. If I chose wrong, played wrong, or had to face Richard, that's on me, not the game.
At the moment, I'm liking what I see in 7th so far. Giving it a few months to see how the meta shacks out.
Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
God forbid you have a fourteen second conversation with your opponent about what type of game mode you'd like to play. It's downright impossible! That's why magic players are constantly having to play their standard decks vs commander decks!
To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere
jeffersonian000 wrote: What if I want to play a company of Thunder Warriors supported by the Custodians?
Apocalypse let you do that...
Technically not because there are no rules for either of them or any rules that really represent either force in a satisfactory manner. Not even Forgeworld's Horus Heresy books have touched on those yet.
StarTrotter wrote: To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere
Then be prepared to have your game options limited, same as if you only brought one deck format. Or maybe find the space to pack two troop units and keep your options relatively open.
StarTrotter wrote: To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere
Then be prepared to have your game options limited, same as if you only brought one deck format. Or maybe find the space for two troop units and keep your options relatively open.
I only meant to say there is a slight difference between bringing several decks and several different armies
StarTrotter wrote: To be fair there's a massive difference between decks and 40k models. One you can have in nice and neat packs with minimal space. The other involves chugging them around everywhere
Then be prepared to have your game options limited, same as if you only brought one deck format. Or maybe find the space for two troop units and keep your options relatively open.
I only meant to say there is a slight difference between bringing several decks and several different armies
You don't have to bring several different armies just enough models that would allow you to play in any of the game modes you're willing to partake in. In reality it's several different lists, which is a big difference.
Sorris wrote: Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
How much are you selling it for? Seriously.
There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.
And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.
Sorris wrote: Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
How much are you selling it for? Seriously.
There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.
And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.
I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.
It doesn't mean a grot army is good.
Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.
Sorris wrote: Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
How much are you selling it for? Seriously.
There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.
And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.
I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.
It doesn't mean a grot army is good.
Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.
The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.
Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.
Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.
If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.
Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.
Sorris wrote: Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
How much are you selling it for? Seriously.
There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.
And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.
I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.
It doesn't mean a grot army is good.
Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.
The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.
Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.
Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.
If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.
Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.
A man without tastebuds has no business being a food critic.
And yes, it is the only build if you want to compete in a meta with Transcendant C'tans, Annihilation barges, Seer-stars, Daemon Factories, Iron Hands Gunlines, Astra militarum gunlines, maximum overdakka Tau, Reaver Titans, Primarchs, Mechanicus lists, and so on.
It's a terribly written book and I feel dirty for buying it.
I stopped playing the 6e/7e codex a while ago and simply use homebrew stuff, much like how I use homebrew versions for every army outside of Vassal.
Less stress, less feelings of futility, more fluff accuracy, more flavour, more fun, more balance.
Trying to run the Tyranid codex as anything but psychic choirs and Skyblight swarms in a cut-throat hyper-comp meta is like trying to dickbox an Abrams tank to death.
Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, and all their paste eating friends can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to treat their fecal droppings they call rules with anything but contempt.
Sorris wrote: Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
How much are you selling it for? Seriously.
There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.
And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.
I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.
It doesn't mean a grot army is good.
Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.
The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.
Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.
Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.
If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.
Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.
A man without tastebuds has no business being a food critic.
And yes, it is the only build if you want to compete in a meta with Transcendant C'tans, Annihilation barges, Seer-stars, Daemon Factories, Iron Hands Gunlines, Astra militarum gunlines, maximum overdakka Tau, Reaver Titans, Primarchs, Mechanicus lists, and so on.
It's a terribly written book and I feel dirty for buying it.
I stopped playing the 6e/7e codex a while ago and simply use homebrew stuff, much like how I use homebrew versions for every army outside of Vassal.
Less stress, less feelings of futility, more fluff accuracy, more flavour, more fun, more balance.
Trying to run the Tyranid codex as anything but psychic choirs and Skyblight swarms in a cut-throat hyper-comp meta is like trying to dickbox an Abrams tank to death.
Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, and all their paste eating friends can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to treat their fecal droppings they call rules with anything but contempt.
You sound pretty upset, so I'm not going to engage any further. Sorry you haven't found success with your army.
However, this is also getting pretty far off topic. I'm sure there are several threads to debate the efficacy of the Tyranid codex available to us.
Sorris wrote: Your kinda forgetting that there are entire codex's that are new and almost worthless to play now (unless you like losing every time)
I'm hoping I can find some poor sob to buy my painted tyranid army on ebay so that I can grab some more units to add to my AM army to make it more playable in 7th edition.
Hopefully I can sell em before the price goes to far down.
How much are you selling it for? Seriously.
There are several 'nid players around here who have consistently been wrecking face. I don't think it's a weak codex at all, especially with the ability to open up multiple detachments.
And no, I'm not even talking about the dataslates, although those make them much more competitive.
I could beat a multiple seerstar army with nothing but grots if I roll well.
It doesn't mean a grot army is good.
Alternatively: Howling banshees are terrible, awful units and an absolute joke. The Eldar codex is still perhaps the strongest mono-codex (though there is argument to be made for the daemons) because it has a wide variety of strong units and strong builds.
The Tyranid codex has one strong build: FMC spam.
Also, anecdotes are not valid evidence.
Hah I'm not trying to provide evidence. I'm saying I've been impressed with new Tyranids.
If someone doesn't like playing them they should sell them.
Also FMC spam is not the only strong Tyranid build. It is their strongest build probably but not the only strong build.
A man without tastebuds has no business being a food critic.
And yes, it is the only build if you want to compete in a meta with Transcendant C'tans, Annihilation barges, Seer-stars, Daemon Factories, Iron Hands Gunlines, Astra militarum gunlines, maximum overdakka Tau, Reaver Titans, Primarchs, Mechanicus lists, and so on.
It's a terribly written book and I feel dirty for buying it.
I stopped playing the 6e/7e codex a while ago and simply use homebrew stuff, much like how I use homebrew versions for every army outside of Vassal.
Less stress, less feelings of futility, more fluff accuracy, more flavour, more fun, more balance.
Trying to run the Tyranid codex as anything but psychic choirs and Skyblight swarms in a cut-throat hyper-comp meta is like trying to dickbox an Abrams tank to death.
Phil Kelly, Robin Cruddace, and all their paste eating friends can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to treat their fecal droppings they call rules with anything but contempt.
You sound pretty upset, so I'm not going to engage any further. Sorry you haven't found success with your army.
However, this is also getting pretty far off topic. I'm sure there are several threads to debate the efficacy of the Tyranid codex available to us.
As far as i'm concerned real competitive 40k died with 5th edition.
6th edition was a huge step towards making a story and having a laugh,.
7th edition takes it even further. this game is no longer about winning a tournament, it's about making a really cool story and having a really fun, dramatic, narrative filled game.
Well, for the last three pages everyone has been focussing on the FoC changes, which are only part of the paradigm shift.
The real change comes with the ways the Maelstrom missions play out. The BattleForge/unbound changes were CLEARLY designed to work with the Maelstrom missions - as people who take unbound armies to a Maelstrom mission are about to find out.
The fundamental difference in 7th edition is the fact that VP are freely available EVERY PLAYER TURN. So, in 7th ed, you aren't playing 5 turns in a game, you are playing 5 games of 1 turn consecutively. And killpoints, well they don't really show up that much at all.
And, that makes a HUGE difference to every game. Because, in 7th, it is no easier to table an army than in 6th, in fact it is harder because of the slight nerf to D weapons.
The person with a battleforged 1500 point army is going to discover it is FAR easier to get victory points than the power gamer who brought 3 models and can't get a VP because 1 space marine ended up within 3".
So, as the battleforged army accumulates victory points, the unbound player rapidly runs out of time to kill all the models.
The power lists of 7th ed will contain highly mobile superscoring units, like bike troops, troops with superscoring drop pods (hello Space Puppies!), deepstriking troops, troops with superscoring transports (Fast BA transport anyone? Particularly a LR?)
Because in a Maelstrom mission - if you don't get to the objective and score EVERY turn, you are losing.
And that is how the game balancing will work. In a Maelstrom mission, unbound lists start at such a huge disadvantage that you'd be silly to bring one.
Detachments mean that means you can still create a silly combo, but when it comes to play, CtA and Desperate allies can literally lose you the game....in a single turn.
Think of it like basket ball....each team is trying to block 1 basket, because a 2pt lead is enough.
It's now the same in Maelstrom. If you don't get at least 1 victory point in your turn...well, you are losing (doubly losing in fact, because you don't get to draw new cards). Having lumbering powerful units that *might* be able to table the other in 6 turns...well, don't bother bringing that.
And given the number of units/ways that invul saves are available....well people relying on D weapons better get some loaded dice, because you'd better roll all 6s.
The sky is not falling - that is just the light of a new dawn.
legolooney wrote: As far as i'm concerned real competitive 40k died with 5th edition.
6th edition was a huge step towards making a story and having a laugh,.
7th edition takes it even further. this game is no longer about winning a tournament, it's about making a really cool story and having a really fun, dramatic, narrative filled game.
...and i love it
Whatever you're smoking, I want some. Really though, you seem like a jovial, light-hearted person. 7th introduces the worst abuses of fluff since 40k started in '87. Grey knights summoning demons, Eldar consorting with Slaanesh. Certainly the game is not about winning a tournament, nor is it about forging a narrative (don't drink the kool-aid). The game is merely a vehicle designed to push product. Never before has the veil been more transparent, the veneer thinner. Notice how as editions get more and more sloppy and open to abuse (or flexible and fun and dramatic), the mantra of forge the narrative is repeated with greater frequency? For you, and people like you, this is Great News; for others, people like me, who want to enjoy a tactical game with foundations based on the application of strategy, "forge the narrative" is a rally cry, dripping with sarcasm.
I've never understood the pew pew crowd, satisfied with putting whatever on the table, walking their forces slowly across the table making sound effects and having a great time. I enjoy myself in spite of GW's best efforts, but that means I have pare away the obvious marketing masquerading as rules.
MarkCron wrote: Well, for the last three pages everyone has been focussing on the FoC changes, which are only part of the paradigm shift.
The real change comes with the ways the Maelstrom missions play out. The BattleForge/unbound changes were CLEARLY designed to work with the Maelstrom missions - as people who take unbound armies to a Maelstrom mission are about to find out.
The fundamental difference in 7th edition is the fact that VP are freely available EVERY PLAYER TURN. So, in 7th ed, you aren't playing 5 turns in a game, you are playing 5 games of 1 turn consecutively. And killpoints, well they don't really show up that much at all.
And, that makes a HUGE difference to every game. Because, in 7th, it is no easier to table an army than in 6th, in fact it is harder because of the slight nerf to D weapons.
The person with a battleforged 1500 point army is going to discover it is FAR easier to get victory points than the power gamer who brought 3 models and can't get a VP because 1 space marine ended up within 3".
So, as the battleforged army accumulates victory points, the unbound player rapidly runs out of time to kill all the models.
The power lists of 7th ed will contain highly mobile superscoring units, like bike troops, troops with superscoring drop pods (hello Space Puppies!), deepstriking troops, troops with superscoring transports (Fast BA transport anyone? Particularly a LR?)
Because in a Maelstrom mission - if you don't get to the objective and score EVERY turn, you are losing.
And that is how the game balancing will work. In a Maelstrom mission, unbound lists start at such a huge disadvantage that you'd be silly to bring one.
Detachments mean that means you can still create a silly combo, but when it comes to play, CtA and Desperate allies can literally lose you the game....in a single turn.
Think of it like basket ball....each team is trying to block 1 basket, because a 2pt lead is enough.
It's now the same in Maelstrom. If you don't get at least 1 victory point in your turn...well, you are losing (doubly losing in fact, because you don't get to draw new cards). Having lumbering powerful units that *might* be able to table the other in 6 turns...well, don't bother bringing that.
And given the number of units/ways that invul saves are available....well people relying on D weapons better get some loaded dice, because you'd better roll all 6s.
The sky is not falling - that is just the light of a new dawn.
Very well said and another aspect of the paradigm shift that is of incredible importance.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
When you say " If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn." That is 100% true, but again, not an issue that arose because of 7th. Choosing units at random in a codex will very nearly always result in a bad army due to lack of synergy. This has definitely been the case in every edition of 40K, and is definitely intentional. Strategy for any wargame that allows you to construct an army with differing units begins in the list-building phase.
I get the impression I was able to do that in pre-GK 5th. Get a Codex, pick a theme or a fancy unit, and make an army out of it. Get some random stuff, add a few tweaks and the result, while clearly weaker than an optimized list, more often than not was able to give a hard time to anyone. If I get some random units now and I face, say, a 9 Riptide list, not only I lose: I lose without any form of fight.
Unbalance has been there since forever, but it is the width of the gap what matters. Anyway, in my opinion this started to be an issue in late 5th, which is why this is not a '7th Edition Paradigm Shift'. The Grey Knights Vs Chaos Daemons matches of late 5th were the first time I saw a noob player utterly crushing a veteran player in turn 2 due to the list.
Also, when you discuss your lists that include "Weak Units", that's not really the situation I'm describing. You could always include weaker units in lists, and actually when properly supported weak units can become very good. I was saying that in 7th you could hypothetically create an army made up entirely of weak units, meaning that, yes, the "weak" end of the bell curve is more disparate than ever from the "strong" end.
So you are taking about the possibility of taking a army completely made up of, say, Pyrovores, thus creating an army unfluffy, unfun and uncompetitive?
That´s... true, I guess. But it really doesn´t matter. Even if the number of possible/legal lists is bigger, the number of viable / enjoyable / playable / [put your usable-equivalent word here] is far lower.
And I have to say, even though you may accuse GW of many things, I do believe they still have a goal of making a fun and enjoyable game. Like I said, many of their practices are not wise in my opinion and even occasionally cringe-worthy, but at the end of the day I do think that they expect the players of the game to enjoy themselves.
Believe it or not, I thing that´s the real problem. I am not talking about the developers, but about the person taking the decisions.
The Codex GK is a good example, in my opinion: it was a completely broken thing that enraged many customers and caused the lost of many, many players. But the sales were excellent: many tournaments had 50-60% of the players playing GK and many players bought an army, because it allowed them to win more games. Did it benefit the company in the long-term? Did the momentary boost in sales compensate losing so many long-time players?
In the long term, probably the answer is no. But in the short term, yeah sure. And that´s what matter for many companies: you create benefits now, the higher the better. You take the money, and then try to get more benefits, no matter how.
Another option would be to aim for the long term: you create a quality product and have your customers happy. Many companies nowadays implement some form of CRM, Customer Relationship Management, which is a new name for something older than history: treat your customers as if they were valuable to you. You enforce a quality standard in your products. Eventually, your company will become healthier.
Looking at GW´s decisions since late 5th, I think they are moving to a short-term policy. Fast releases of very low quality, many times not even proofread, expecting the players to keep paying abussive prices thanks to winning-greed and nostalgia. Creating an artificial boost in sales, then another, then another one.
So I don´t thing 7th is aimed at 'fun' and it is broken because of incompetence. I think it is broken on purpose, and aimed at getting money. The sales of Daemons are soaring. Competitive players are switching (again) to the new black. The cycle continues. It is the so-called 'perfect (for the company) unbalance' you can also see in videogames.
Will it work? Only time will tell. I think they fear the coming of 3D printers, so they are trying to harvest the fruits of the original members of the Studio (who are no longer there to protect their creation) before the storm comes.
I also do think the word "paradigm" definitely applies to 7th, even if you view it as an extension of sixth. It is an expanded paradigm, to be sure, but at this point saying that you will limit yourself to one detachment or faction just because its the way things used to be done is the same as saying that you aren't going to play with special characters (or will require opponents permission) because that's the way things used to be done. It's a self-imposed limitation that's great if it works for you but doesn't reflect the new tools of 7th.
I don´t think so. The paradigm shifted in 2011.
It was in late 5th. When moving from Daemonhunters to GK, they took out some very specific rules and concepts, and added new ones. It was a 180º turn. After the massive success (in spite of the harsh critics), they applied the new concepts to all their products, first slowly and then at full speed. 7th is a progression of 6th: Formations, Dataslates, double FOCs, allies... unbound is only the next logical step in the path they have chosen.
Makumba wrote: Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
Quite simply yes.
People who buy 1 army at 1500pts (or any points for that matter) and then don't buy anything else are the people GW hate. You make them no money, so now they either want to force you to buy more stuff (expand your army or start a new one) or they want you to quit. If you buy more stuff then they win. If you quit then it doesn't matter because you weren't buying stuff anyway.
GW want money, you either follow their plan and give them some, or walk away. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
This is also why veterans get a hard deal. GW don't want people with massive collections of models in a cupboard that allow them to play with whatever they have, they want them to buy new stuff because their old stuff is no longer good enough. The whole idea behind 7th is to shake up the game and make people buy more models.
How is buying an army not giving them money . I have not heard about a GW program to give every new player a free 1500pts army, if there is I would like to collect my free one.
Also, AM may not have been released after the release of the 7th edition rules, but they were the last codex to be released prior, which means they are most likely made with 7th in mind as 7th was either done and waiting for a good market release cycle, or being completed around the same time the AM was being done.
Then tell me how does an AM army deal with a demon summoning list or eldar in 7th ed? Because both armies out melee and out shot me. I can't use half the mission cards , because I don't have enough psykers to cast 3 powers per turn , win even one melee or have more fast moving troops droped on objectives turn 1-2 then any of those lists , or SM or nids.
As people have pointed out, what is the point of having factions if you can take any unit you want?
What was the point of GW spending thousands of man hours creating a rich background if Eldar can ally with Slaanesh?
It used to be you chose an army for the tactical options and built your list around their strengths and weaknesses. For example, Imperial Guard gave you great armour but mediocre infantry, and you adjusted your tactics accordingly. Now, you can pick whatever you want to compensate for having that mediocre infantry.
If GW were honest and said models first, rules secondary, I would respect that, but what we have is a horrible mish-mash of a game. Is it epic in 28mm or is it small scale RPG?
Makumba wrote: Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
Quite simply yes.
People who buy 1 army at 1500pts (or any points for that matter) and then don't buy anything else are the people GW hate. You make them no money, so now they either want to force you to buy more stuff (expand your army or start a new one) or they want you to quit. If you buy more stuff then they win. If you quit then it doesn't matter because you weren't buying stuff anyway.
GW want money, you either follow their plan and give them some, or walk away. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
This is also why veterans get a hard deal. GW don't want people with massive collections of models in a cupboard that allow them to play with whatever they have, they want them to buy new stuff because their old stuff is no longer good enough. The whole idea behind 7th is to shake up the game and make people buy more models.
How is buying an army not giving them money . I have not heard about a GW program to give every new player a free 1500pts army, if there is I would like to collect my free one.
I'm going to have to disagree with a couple of statements here. Firstly, if GW's aim was to force people with collections to buy more models, then they have failed dismally. They should not have put the Maelstrom missions into the book if they wanted to do that. As I said earlier, highly mobile, superscoring units are the new black when it comes to Maelstrom missions. So those drop pods (in fact the entire Space Wolves collection) - now gold. BA fast transports. Gold. Ravenwing/Deathwing? Gold. Any scoring biker/jet bike units? Gold.
Certainly, 7th ed is going to be tough on so called lesser armies playing eternal war missions. It is there, where you have to last for 5 turns (min) that power discrepancies show up the most.
So, a person with a TAC 1500 pt list - probably not going to do too badly in a Maelstrom mission. It is certainly not a given that they will get smashed. And BA/DA/SW - well, they should be happy, because their speed over the ground is now worth paying for.
Also, AM may not have been released after the release of the 7th edition rules, but they were the last codex to be released prior, which means they are most likely made with 7th in mind as 7th was either done and waiting for a good market release cycle, or being completed around the same time the AM was being done.
Then tell me how does an AM army deal with a demon summoning list or eldar in 7th ed? Because both armies out melee and out shot me. I can't use half the mission cards , because I don't have enough psykers to cast 3 powers per turn , win even one melee or have more fast moving troops droped on objectives turn 1-2 then any of those lists , or SM or nids.
This, I'm finding difficult to understand. In an edition where superscoring troops and their dedicated transports are THE advantage to have, where more troops is definitely better, vehicles are harder to kill and you can bring multiple detachments so you effectively don't have any slot limitations.....AM are one of the last armies I'd expect to have a problem. However, I don't have the codex and know squat about their units, so you may be right. It's just surprising that THE mechanised blob army is having problems.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
When you say " If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn." That is 100% true, but again, not an issue that arose because of 7th. Choosing units at random in a codex will very nearly always result in a bad army due to lack of synergy. This has definitely been the case in every edition of 40K, and is definitely intentional. Strategy for any wargame that allows you to construct an army with differing units begins in the list-building phase.
I get the impression I was able to do that in pre-GK 5th. Get a Codex, pick a theme or a fancy unit, and make an army out of it. Get some random stuff, add a few tweaks and the result, while clearly weaker than an optimized list, more often than not was able to give a hard time to anyone. If I get some random units now and I face, say, a 9 Riptide list, not only I lose: I lose without any form of fight.
Unbalance has been there since forever, but it is the width of the gap what matters. Anyway, in my opinion this started to be an issue in late 5th, which is why this is not a '7th Edition Paradigm Shift'. The Grey Knights Vs Chaos Daemons matches of late 5th were the first time I saw a noob player utterly crushing a veteran player in turn 2 due to the list.
It looks like we have a different definition of random here. When you say "random" you mean "based around a variety of themes or units derived from a codex that may or may not be commonly thought of as competitive or fluffy". I thought you meant meant random, as in, "I am going to pick units completely at random from my codex to play with".
Spoiler:
Also, when you discuss your lists that include "Weak Units", that's not really the situation I'm describing. You could always include weaker units in lists, and actually when properly supported weak units can become very good. I was saying that in 7th you could hypothetically create an army made up entirely of weak units, meaning that, yes, the "weak" end of the bell curve is more disparate than ever from the "strong" end.
So you are taking about the possibility of taking a army completely made up of, say, Pyrovores, thus creating an army unfluffy, unfun and uncompetitive?
That´s... true, I guess. But it really doesn´t matter. Even if the number of possible/legal lists is bigger, the number of viable / enjoyable / playable / [put your usable-equivalent word here] is far lower.
I guess this is the part I'm taking issue with. When you say, "Even if the number of possible/legal lists is bigger, the number of viable / enjoyable / playable / [put your usable-equivalent word here] is far lower.", what are you basing that on? What are the top super-lists that work to the exclusion of all others? If you are just talking about spamming power units, keep in mind in 6th it was possible to field up to five Riptides, five wraithkights, nine wave serpents and so on. As has been pointed out by others, there is a point of diminishing returns.
Spoiler:
And I have to say, even though you may accuse GW of many things, I do believe they still have a goal of making a fun and enjoyable game. Like I said, many of their practices are not wise in my opinion and even occasionally cringe-worthy, but at the end of the day I do think that they expect the players of the game to enjoy themselves.
Believe it or not, I thing that´s the real problem. I am not talking about the developers, but about the person taking the decisions.
The Codex GK is a good example, in my opinion: it was a completely broken thing that enraged many customers and caused the lost of many, many players. But the sales were excellent: many tournaments had 50-60% of the players playing GK and many players bought an army, because it allowed them to win more games. Did it benefit the company in the long-term? Did the momentary boost in sales compensate losing so many long-time players?
In the long term, probably the answer is no. But in the short term, yeah sure. And that´s what matter for many companies: you create benefits now, the higher the better. You take the money, and then try to get more benefits, no matter how.
Another option would be to aim for the long term: you create a quality product and have your customers happy. Many companies nowadays implement some form of CRM, Customer Relationship Management, which is a new name for something older than history: treat your customers as if they were valuable to you. You enforce a quality standard in your products. Eventually, your company will become healthier.
Looking at GW´s decisions since late 5th, I think they are moving to a short-term policy. Fast releases of very low quality, many times not even proofread, expecting the players to keep paying abussive prices thanks to winning-greed and nostalgia. Creating an artificial boost in sales, then another, then another one.
So I don´t thing 7th is aimed at 'fun' and it is broken because of incompetence. I think it is broken on purpose, and aimed at getting money. The sales of Daemons are soaring. Competitive players are switching (again) to the new black. The cycle continues. It is the so-called 'perfect (for the company) unbalance' you can also see in videogames.
Will it work? Only time will tell. I think they fear the coming of 3D printers, so they are trying to harvest the fruits of the original members of the Studio (who are no longer there to protect their creation) before the storm comes.
This is a very interesting topic, though it is also highly speculative. You'll get no argument from me that GW makes a number of the decisions they do in order to make more money. However, they are also a very uniquely positioned business, because they are required to play both the long game and the short game with their customer base, and depend on both new blood and recurring revenue from veteran players.
I don't want to get into this too much, because like I said it is highly speculative. All I can definitively say is that I have fun playing 40K, and will continue to have fun playing 40K, and I don't think that my having fun is a mere byproduct of the slothful machinations of an evil company.
Spoiler:
I also do think the word "paradigm" definitely applies to 7th, even if you view it as an extension of sixth. It is an expanded paradigm, to be sure, but at this point saying that you will limit yourself to one detachment or faction just because its the way things used to be done is the same as saying that you aren't going to play with special characters (or will require opponents permission) because that's the way things used to be done. It's a self-imposed limitation that's great if it works for you but doesn't reflect the new tools of 7th.
I don´t think so. The paradigm shifted in 2011.
It was in late 5th. When moving from Daemonhunters to GK, they took out some very specific rules and concepts, and added new ones. It was a 180º turn. After the massive success (in spite of the harsh critics), they applied the new concepts to all their products, first slowly and then at full speed. 7th is a progression of 6th: Formations, Dataslates, double FOCs, allies... unbound is only the next logical step in the path they have chosen.
I agree with you to a large extent. This is a paradigm shift that has expanded upon the groundwork laid in 6th edition. The unique aspect of this shift compared to that is probably best summed up as this: 6th massively increased your options under the old force-org chart, whilst 7th has made the force-org chart completely optional. This distinction will force players to completely rethink their notions of list design and even internal and external codex balance, which is why I believe it is worthy of being deemed a unique paradigm shift.
Lots of stuff and I think we have moved to a common ground.
I think the reference to GW being 'evil' deserves some attention. While sometimes it is hard for me to refrain using this word, I don´t think the company is 'evil' for thinking in the short-term. It is just the way many companies work. Given that they have moved slowly for many years and the sudden change we have seen in the last two years, I think there is something in the environment (thus my reference to 3D printers) that they think it is forcing them to change. With the 2011 GK Codex proving that a change in the objectives was economically possible, they... created a new paradigm.
The lists you mentioned (five Riptides, five wraithkights, nine wave serpents) are all part of the new paradigm. The worst list in pre-GK 5th (9 Vendettas) was something of an ancestor. It was not near the same level of unbalance, but it is still a good example of game-breaking rule/unit before the change. But it wasn´t a real problem. Not until 6th and the change on Flyers, a single rule that, in my opinion on purpose, broke the game to create an increase of sales of Flyers and Fortifications in the short-term, at the cost of a drop in quality.
So yes, there has been a paradigm shift. I think it was in 2011 but the game is now changed.
But, it is for the good?
This is a matter of opinion but in my opinion the answer is 'no'. I play mostly for the background, and I want to be able to bring that background to live. And the new paradigm attacks the background in two fronts:
- First, by changing the background itself. The changes in the background section in the Rulebook (and in every Codex) move the setting to a brighter place, with the Imperium and the Emperor being 'good guys', the marines being 'noble and heroic' and the background entries simplified into a single script: force x comes, marines goes to protect humanity, force x defeated. Over and over. I like the background because it is dark and complex, I don´t like a story so simple that it can be described in twelve words: 'bad guys attack people, good guys protect them, good guys always win'. I am not able to bring the background to live if the background changes into something I just want to kill with fire.
- Second, by giving the tools to new players to hurt the background. There was a time when I was always recruiting. Whenever I tried to get new people in the hobby, someone eventually pointed out that it is aimed to 12 year old boys without lacking proper education. I could easily flood these people with classical and cultural references before, and eventually get some people into the complexity of the setting. You are not pushing around some plastic toys, you are recreating some epic stories that stirs your very soul. But then you get some rules that completely break the rules of this very setting in the name of 'everything is allowed', creating players who completely ignore the setting and see this game as some form of competition... as if winning or losing with some plastic models was a matter of importance. I am not able to bring the background to live if the player in front of me fields Farseers invoking daemons, and openly mock the background as something senseless, childish and dumb, and point at the Codex: Grey Knights or similar to prove his point beyond any doubt.
This is a hobby game. It is the most expensive wargame out there, requires building, painting, and finally playing games. The rulebook came out 2 years after the previous one and costs 80 dollars with a rather crummy rulebook in several ways. People are upset arguably because they don't like the direction 
My group just makes co-
