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

Ok some time has passed, and I was wondering how people felt about 7th, as compared to 6th. Was it worth the update? Has anyone's armies benefitted? Been hurt? The only thing I know much about is the Bound/Unbound thing, and was wondering how thats been working out too.

7th is the houserule edition. Most players leave out part of the rules like unbound, multiple focs etc. and you can see this reflected in tourneys

otherwise it's basically 6th with an improved challenge system, sturdier vehicles, sillier snipers and dangerous multi-storied ruins

So have you been enjoying it? Or think it was kind of a waste of an edition?

Well, 7th hasn't been good for GW.

For my friend and I 7th killed the game for us. Psykers force you to either go all in or all out at list making. The allies matrix is even worse now since it's basically "Imperium can run whatever they want" while basically nobody else can enjoy battle brother status. Except Eldar of course.

The Maelstrom missions are absolutely terrible. We played 4 games with them and every single one was decided on luck of the draw.
It really takes all the fun out of the game when it could basically just say "Play for 2 hours then after roll a die. Who ever rolled higher wins."
What's the point of playing at that point?

There are some good things about it, but after it came out we gave it a go and dropped the game almost entirely. The 40k community in my area pretty much did the same. They had 3-4 tournaments set up for 500-1000 point games to try out the rules. All tournaments were canceled because nobody showed up.

Regardless of how much someone can argue that the rules are better or more balanced than 6th, I can safely say that 7th killed our interest in my area.

yeah thats why our group calls it the houserule edition. We also avoid maelstrom of war like the plague. But on the other hand because it is so draw and luck based, it encourages non-competetive play. Too often people spend endless hours trying to wring every last drop of powergaming out of their armylists and spend lots of time tailoring it. When maelstrom of war throws all that out of the window, you might just give up and start fielding what you like instead of what is top tier, once again. It also gives low tier codexes like tyranids, dark angels and chaos a fighting chance against top tier armies like tau or space marines. As for eldar - well sadly they also take the cake here as speed and maneuverability helps a lot in maelstrom of war. Thats why eldar is the only real glaring OPed dex in 7th

KTG17 wrote:
So have you been enjoying it? Or think it was kind of a waste of an edition?

"was"? 7th isnt even 5 months old, mate. It's going to be around for a long time. My bet is at least till 2016 or something serious is going to happen to GW

 Sir Arun wrote:
yeah thats why our group calls it the houserule edition. We also avoid maelstrom of war like the plague. But on the other hand because it is so draw and luck based, it encourages non-competetive play. Too often people spend endless hours trying to wring every last drop of powergaming out of their armylists and spend lots of time tailoring it. When maelstrom of war throws all that out of the window, you might just give up and start fielding what you like instead of what is top tier, once again. It also gives low tier codexes like tyranids, dark angels and chaos a fighting chance against top tier armies like tau or space marines. As for eldar - well sadly they also take the cake here as speed and maneuverability helps a lot in maelstrom of war. Thats why eldar is the only real glaring OPed dex in 7th

Oh no, Eldar is OP in 7th? Yeah, they were in 6th, so no big surprise there.

And I've come to dislike Maelstrom of War, but I have to disagree with your statement. I have an easier time defeating/tabling my opponent using Tyranids while NOT playing Maelstrom. Tyranids lack most of the mobility necessary to win, unless you bring everything in your list to be fast. But who does that?

All-in-all though, Eldar and Tau got nerfed. My Necrons got buffed, a lot. My Tyranids got a little bit of both. I'm enjoying the edition for the most part. I will just never do a tournament even if my life depended on it. And I'm not looking forward to the rest of the 7th Ed. Codexes, if the trend continues.

 Sir Arun wrote:
7th is the houserule edition. Most players leave out part of the rules like unbound, multiple focs etc. and you can see this reflected in tourneys

otherwise it's basically 6th with an improved challenge system, sturdier vehicles, sillier snipers and dangerous multi-storied ruins

40k has been the Houserule edition for as long as I can remember. I wouldn't claim 7th is special in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
For my friend and I 7th killed the game for us. Psykers force you to either go all in or all out at list making. The allies matrix is even worse now since it's basically "Imperium can run whatever they want" while basically nobody else can enjoy battle brother status. Except Eldar of course.

Except (barring specific codex related exceptions like Marines and Inquisition), the Imperium doesn't ally it takes new CADs because it's all the same faction and can't ally with itself. Sure the CADs act as Battle Brothers, but that's no different than any other army running multiple CADs of the same faction.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
7th is the houserule edition. Most players leave out part of the rules like unbound, multiple focs etc. and you can see this reflected in tourneys

otherwise it's basically 6th with an improved challenge system, sturdier vehicles, sillier snipers and dangerous multi-storied ruins

40k has been the Houserule edition for as long as I can remember. I wouldn't claim 7th is special in that regard.

Well, one could argue that it feels more-so like that, since there are a lot of unclear rules or things left out from 6th edition. But you are right, 40k has been, and probably will remain, a game of house rules.

 Sir Arun wrote:
yeah thats why our group calls it the houserule edition. We also avoid maelstrom of war like the plague. But on the other hand because it is so draw and luck based, it encourages non-competetive play. Too often people spend endless hours trying to wring every last drop of powergaming out of their armylists and spend lots of time tailoring it. When maelstrom of war throws all that out of the window, you might just give up and start fielding what you like instead of what is top tier, once again. It also gives low tier codexes like tyranids, dark angels and chaos a fighting chance against top tier armies like tau or space marines. As for eldar - well sadly they also take the cake here as speed and maneuverability helps a lot in maelstrom of war. Thats why eldar is the only real glaring OPed dex in 7th

Interestingly that's why I think Maelstrom should be played more: it gives armies that don't stand up well a better footing in the game. It's probably the best thing for balance GW's done in some time.

I really enjoy 7th edition.
It took the stuff from 6th that worked and made some fixes to improve the game.
Not everything is fixed, but hey, that would be expecting too much.

7th has some good ideas; maelstrom is a good idea, but the execution is slightly lacking and requires houserules to really become good, a more restrictive allied matrix is good, but unbound is a lazy fix to the problem of some armies being burded by really gakky troops (Tactical marines, I'm looking at you), and too much remains unfixed from 6th and earlier.

It was also $100 for a handful of tweaks and horribad brokenly, stupid irritating psykers. GW keeps incorporating the weakest elements of the fantasy ruleset into 40k, but none of the things that make fantasy better; cover being a modifier, not a save, snipers preventing Look out sir, specific weapons having multi-wound rules rather than the 2-dimensional instant death system, getting to take armour and invuln, armour saves being modified by certain weapons, rather than always working/not working at all, etc.

Instead we get psykers which dominate the game if you play heavily with them, random random randomness, armysize creep, and so on.

40k's ruleset is objectively bad, and needs an overhaul; its mechanics are obsolete compared to so many of its competitors, and unenjoyable compared to Fantasy, made by the same bloody company! I wanted, (but wasn't foolish enough to hope) that 7th would be the overhaul the game needed, butt he company's laziness, malice and incompetence remain quite concrete.

Right now, I'm in the process of trying to convince people to play 4th; it certainly isn't a paragon of balance, and still suffers from a lot of the archaic and nonsensical rules, but at least it's fun and has codexes which are heads and shoulders above present offerings, actually offering you the ability to make fluffy armies which work (mostly).

 MajorStoffer wrote:

It was also $100 for a handful of tweaks and horribad brokenly, stupid irritating psykers. GW keeps incorporating the weakest elements of the fantasy ruleset into 40k, but none of the things that make fantasy better; cover being a modifier, not a save, snipers preventing Look out sir, specific weapons having multi-wound rules rather than the 2-dimensional instant death system, getting to take armour and invuln, armour saves being modified by certain weapons, rather than always working/not working at all, etc.

Sir, you are now my favorite person, ever. <3

Thinking of Fantasy I want the movement system from there, as well as the charge rules (though without the whole "declare charges before moving" thing).

7th sucks.

7th with a lot of houserules is ok.

But the biggest problem with 7th is that half my gaming group has quit since it came out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thinking of Fantasy I want the movement system from there, as well as the charge rules (though without the whole "declare charges before moving" thing).

I'm still a fan of the Cover system as well as the armor reduction rules from Fantasy...

 krodarklorr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thinking of Fantasy I want the movement system from there, as well as the charge rules (though without the whole "declare charges before moving" thing).

I'm still a fan of the Cover system as well as the armor reduction rules from Fantasy...

Oh I'm not against those, I was just saying that something else I think that should carry over.

I've been having fun with it, but it's mostly just 6th with more stuff lumped onto it. While I love 40k and enjoy the game very much, the speed of the rules releases has kept me from buying a 7th ed rulebook yet. When the mini rulebooks drop in price I'll grab one, but til then I'll just be playing with my friends' copies.

The sheer number of books and cards and dataslates you might have at any given time kind of brings things back to 2nd edition in a way, and not exactly in a good way. There's just a lot to think about and I think a simplification/streamlining of the game is due.

What MajorStoffer said.

 Sir Arun wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
So have you been enjoying it? Or think it was kind of a waste of an edition?

"was"? 7th isnt even 5 months old, mate. It's going to be around for a long time. My bet is at least till 2016 or something serious is going to happen to GW

I meant the decision to do 7th. Based on what many are saying, it seems kind of like its '6th Edition with a few bandaids". Even its release felt the same, since they just recycled the existing DV starter set (and didn't even change the scenerios). Since I already have 6th, I wasnt going to bother with a new starter set, but had they released a new one, I would have. It just felt half-assed.

I just feel that if you are going to do a new edition, it should come wth more of a splash, and this one felt like business as usual.

But then, I didnt gauge how everyone thought of 3rd to 4th, or 4th to 5th, or 6th to 7th.

I really dont like the new psychic phase or Deamonology. I feel like both of those are a mistake. It leaves certain armies at a major disadvantage (Necrons and Tau) and makes the game even longer then it already was. I know for apocalypse matches when we had 45,000 points per side we houseruled psycher powers back to 6th edition and removed daemonology all together.

I don't have a particular preference but thats because I find it easy to ignore 7ths issues.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
yeah thats why our group calls it the houserule edition. We also avoid maelstrom of war like the plague. But on the other hand because it is so draw and luck based, it encourages non-competetive play. Too often people spend endless hours trying to wring every last drop of powergaming out of their armylists and spend lots of time tailoring it. When maelstrom of war throws all that out of the window, you might just give up and start fielding what you like instead of what is top tier, once again. It also gives low tier codexes like tyranids, dark angels and chaos a fighting chance against top tier armies like tau or space marines. As for eldar - well sadly they also take the cake here as speed and maneuverability helps a lot in maelstrom of war. Thats why eldar is the only real glaring OPed dex in 7th

Interestingly that's why I think Maelstrom should be played more: it gives armies that don't stand up well a better footing in the game. It's probably the best thing for balance GW's done in some time.

This is why they exist. It's an easy form of balancing armies by pinning victory conditions to something other than the strengths of most net-lists.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thinking of Fantasy I want the movement system from there, as well as the charge rules (though without the whole "declare charges before moving" thing).

I'm still a fan of the Cover system as well as the armor reduction rules from Fantasy...

Oh I'm not against those, I was just saying that something else I think that should carry over.

I know, as am I. I feel 40k doesn't work realistically in a lot of areas, like Fantasy does.

Personally I feel both editions are attempts by GW to reposition the game into a sandbox, but without really any clear idea of what that means, or how to achieve it. GW's aim, aside from "Sell MOAR!", isn't really clear at all as to how they expect the game to be played, as they've left it so open that a generic "pick up" game is now a very messy affair.

6th was an edition that didn't really quite work. 5th had *major* issues and was by no means a perfect edition (Kill Points, vehicle shooting rules, wound allocation, etc), but could be made to work well enough to play, particularly with someone you never met before. 6th started to get much messier, expanding the scope of the game both downward (challenges and such) and upward (inclusion of flyers, first attempts at including superheavies in normal games, etc), while 7th took most of 6th and just started dumping anything and everything GW came out with into "normal" play. There's all the options in the world now, but there's so little focus that arranging a pickup game can take 20 mins just to decide the ground rules, and balance is worse than it has been in a decade probably.

This is to say nothing of the vastly increased cost of the game compared to just a few years ago, particularly in startup costs and the sheer amount of stuff one needs, on top of dataslates, mission cards, etc.

I think in hindsight, after more years have passed, people will remember 6th and particularly 7th as something that is "seemed cooler than it really was".

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally I feel both editions are attempts by GW to reposition the game into a sandbox, but without really any clear idea of what that means, or how to achieve it. GW's aim, aside from "Sell MOAR!", isn't really clear at all as to how they expect the game to be played, as they've left it so open that a generic "pick up" game is now a very messy affair.

6th was an edition that didn't really quite work. 5th had *major* issues and was by no means a perfect edition (Kill Points, vehicle shooting rules, wound allocation, etc), but could be made to work well enough to play, particularly with someone you never met before. 6th started to get much messier, expanding the scope of the game both downward (challenges and such) and upward (inclusion of flyers, first attempts at including superheavies in normal games, etc), while 7th took most of 6th and just started dumping anything and everything GW came out with into "normal" play. There's all the options in the world now, but there's so little focus that arranging a pickup game can take 20 mins just to decide the ground rules, and balance is worse than it has been in a decade probably.

This is to say nothing of the vastly increased cost of the game compared to just a few years ago, particularly in startup costs and the sheer amount of stuff one needs, on top of dataslates, mission cards, etc.

I think in hindsight, after more years have passed, people will remember 6th and particularly 7th as something that is "seemed cooler than it really was".

Like 2nd edition!

 Thud wrote:
7th sucks.

7th with a lot of houserules is ok.

But the biggest problem with 7th is that half my gaming group has quit since it came out.

No offense, but you gaming group is a bunch of idiots.

Even if they disagree that 7th is an improvment over 6th (and it is, it REALLY is.) they could have just kept playing 6th as if 7th didn't happen.



7th compared to 6th is basically some rebalance of how skimmers and FMC works so they are no longet quite as absurdly overpowering, some USR cleaning, new psyker works, alternate game mode (malstorm, yes its ALTERNATE, you still got the same 6 missions from 6th too, how on earth people manage to complain about extra game modes ruining the game when the old remain the same baffles me.) and some other touches. (like the unbound/battle forge army building setups)
And the "all or nothing" psyker line of thought is a mistake, the best is a SINGLE psyker. gains the most from the random warp dice, but didnt cost much if you got out-psyked.
The only houserule I feel 7th need, is to nerf "master of ambush" trait to be just d3 infantry, rather then 3 non-vehicles, like the CSM trait. other than that everything is smooth as long you are playing with actual human beings that give a damn about having a nice game.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Thud wrote:
7th sucks.

7th with a lot of houserules is ok.

But the biggest problem with 7th is that half my gaming group has quit since it came out.

No offense, but you gaming group is a bunch of idiots.

Even if they disagree that 7th is an improvment over 6th (and it is, it REALLY is.) they could have just kept playing 6th as if 7th didn't happen.

Or, they could have just concluded that "this gak has gone too far, screw it, I'm starting Warmachine." Which they did. And they are enjoying it. If that makes them idiots in your book, then, well, mate...

Apparently now they don't have to have debates on what should and should not be allowed, alter their lists based on what's fair to take or not, or spend ludicrous amounts on, quite frankly, appallingly poorly written rules. It's like they have a hobby where they don't have to make massive amounts of effort to actually enjoy it.

Unfortunately for me, Warmachine is the only other game that has gotten serious traction around here (it's way more popular than 40k) but it doesn't appeal to me at all. Had it, I would have gone there as well. For now, I'll keep lobbying for Firestorm Armada and hope for a cool-looking 28mm game to come out.

Non-eldlar psykers actually work in 7th that's a huge plus. really 7th brough most of my areas gamers back in to start playing again.

 Thud wrote:

Apparently now they don't have to have debates on what should and should not be allowed.

Yaknow, I keep hearing this claim, but never, even for pickup games, have I needed more than 20 seconds of debates on what is "kosher", and even these 20 seconds are only because I always bring up the "master of ambush" nerf.