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.

I'm confused. You're saying that nobody else in a military unit knows how to load or fire a BAR or Mortar? That there is no chain of command for when the/an officer dies? That people in the rear of a formation won't ever die to incoming fire?

40k is a heroic game, so heroes should be at the fore. It looks better and is more in-universe. But the rules prevent this, so the rules are wrong. Destroying feel in favor of a time-consuming tactical sub-game is a poor tradeoff.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:
7th edition has rejuvenated my gaming group. It's the best edition of 40k yet. The key is finding a group that wants to play the same style 40k as you, but that has always been true.
The ETC missions seem to be the best mission pack so far, in my opinion.

For an established group it works well: There are few limitations of playing whatever you happen to own.
Due to other games we play, we all tend to a mixed warfare approach since spam tends to be a bit of a yawn.

The most valid complaint I can think of is that the power levels of what can be fielded is so vast it does not allow for reasonably matched pick-up games within a given points value.

I agree. GW has opened the pandora's box so to speak, but if you have a good group to play with then all is good. I'm a bit spoiled as most of the people I play with I have known and played 40k with for about 20 years, so a lot of that conflict is gone.

When I play at one of my LGS however, I have to be 200% clear on what kind of game we're playing. They are much more of the "old school" 40k crowd. They tend to avoid the SPAM and have more high level fun lists (or low - mid tier tournament lists).

Some of my LGS, however, run very high level GT prep style tournaments, so I have seen some of the craziness (adamantium lance, pacific rim, etc..)

I have created a very versatile environment for me to play in. I can get a super competitive, or a super fluff battle almost at whim, so I know this needs to be taken with a heavy dose of salt.

I guess what I am driving at is... if people invest in a community and a group of good tempered players, then this should be the best edition yet, as it really integrates and includes almost any option you could imagine. I do realize this isn't possible for everyone, but this is the spirit that I believe GW is producing under.

ThatSwellFella wrote:
what i like about 7th is that it fixed the wording on some special rules which made RAW abusers scream with joy abusing said rules

Can you think of some examples?

 Crablezworth wrote:

ThatSwellFella wrote:
what i like about 7th is that it fixed the wording on some special rules which made RAW abusers scream with joy abusing said rules

Can you think of some examples?

well in 6th edition RAW wise, ignores cover USR didn't work on vehicles since it said that coversaves cant be taken against wounds caused with ignores cover rule(and since vehicles don't have wounds ignores cover apparently didn't work on them(slowed, but my group was actually considering of implementing that ruling)

I find myself agreeing with both sides of this thread.
I actually like 7th edition and think it fixed many issues that really brought down 5th and had minor fixes to 6th.
Yet I still think 7th is a far cry from a balanced and great rule set.
However that doesn't really matter to me since each army has to play by the same rule set. And 7th edition is one of the best externally balanced systems I've played since 2nd edition.
You have so many army designs and lists right now to play against that no two games ever feel the same and I honestly can't wait to see the results from LVO next month just to see how many different armies and lists make it in the top 10.
Right now I can't tell you who is going to win LVO.
It can go anywhere from Tyranids w 5 tyrants, elder WS spam, grey knight detachment w loth or tig and cents and flyers and siguran tanks, white scar bike star, necron flyers, tau suit spam, admatium lance, demons(hi belakor) greentide, or some out of left field BA/SW army. And while not every single army book is an ultra competitve army; even the worst and oldest army book such as dark Angels are at least slightly competitve and is no where near as bad of shape as army books from editions past where you could have an army on a shelf that was 5+ years and 2 completely different editions out of sync.

Honestly if 40k competition and balance is so broken then The following question should be pretty easy to answer.
Which army list do you expect to win LVO next month?
They allow most forgeworld and most LoW options so it should be pretty easy to guess which list is truly broken.

Just because you can't necessarily pick which army is going to win doesn't mean the game isn't broken. It just means lots of stuff is broken, which does not equate to balance.

You could say the same thing of 5th at its height. Would it be Vulkan-melta-spam SM's? Mechanized IG? Long Fang-spam Space Wolves? Mechanized shooty-gunline Grey Knights? Draigo-wing? Blood Angels? Ork Biker Nobz?

First I don't think it's broken, you may not like it or agree with it.
if you read what I said; I stated I know its a far cry from a balanced perfect ruleset.
However imho it's uninspiring ruleset ultimately doesn't matter since each army plays by the same restrictions.
And it is in my opinion that most armies including all the resources available to them are more balanced between each other.
While I am claiming the above.
You are claiming everything is broken.
Either way the game is more balanced and it ultimately doesn't matter
This is why it's hard for anyone to guess who is the best army right now.

You are completely wrong about 5th. You are combining several meta's and a period of like 5+ years into one point of balance.
We started with space wolves dominating at the end of 4th to turn into rino Rush and lead blowers and By the mid to end of 5th grey Knights had something ridiculous like a 60% army attendance at torunaments and like an 80% win rate Then necrons rolled in at the end to compete. It want really any balance other then who had the newest army book power creep.

gungo wrote:
I
Honestly if 40k competition and balance is so broken then The following question should be pretty easy to answer.
Which army list do you expect to win LVO next month?

Which list? Not which combination of codex's and data slates?


Even when lists get cute nicknames, it doesn't always tell you the exact compisiton of the collection of stuff errr ...army/list

 Crablezworth wrote:

gungo wrote:
I
Honestly if 40k competition and balance is so broken then The following question should be pretty easy to answer.
Which army list do you expect to win LVO next month?

Which list? Not which combination of codex's and data slates?


Even when lists get cute nicknames, it doesn't always tell you the exact compisiton of the collection of stuff errr ...army/list

As adorable as your comment is when someone says tyranid list w 5 tyrants the list is pretty much going to be a very close representation no matter who makes it. It's built around the tyranid detachment w 3 hq's and a cad with 2 hq's. When someone says greentide it's the greentide detachment and a cad. When someone says the grey night strike force detachment w a cad including tig or loth and cents and flyers and siguran tanks it's pretty freakin clear Or when someone says white scar bike star it's all built around the same core list. When someone says admatium lance it's that and a cad. Not really hard to follow. The minor flavor you change beteeen lists is minor chsnges that doesn't change the core of the list. You can find various people debating what's the best design of these specufic lists all over these forums. So these cute titles are pretty self explanatory and is the basis of every single minature game.

When I tell someone a fat Han list in xwing evreryone knows it's a Han falcon w c3p0, boost, falcon title and usually luke w 3 z95s. If someone takes gunner instead of luke and predator that doesn't change the fact that cute name doesn't represent the same list. You are arguing a point that doesn't matter the fact is there are general list and army designs that are balanced by the fact most of these army lists are comparable in quality. Take a moment and figure out the army list yourself it is as much a part of competitve play as playing well with the units you have. You just have more choices and are able to tailor those lists a bit more now to your liking.

My prediction is list nickname x will win.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
[spoiler]
I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking. If you can't handle people with different opinions then perhaps an internet forum isn't for you?
Also one of your solutions is "caring less." That means "drop your standards." That would be easier if GW didn't charge so much for sub standards rules.

Debate:

OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: I disagree, my meta isn't the same as yours, I've had a different experience.

Being a dick:

OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: This is BULL gak. Have you ever tried X combination? Have you ever tried Y combination? You're not having fun! You're wrong!

I'd suggest that, when faced with a bad matchup, 'caring less' means playing anyway and not getting all angry about a game of toy soldiers. Just play it anyway. It might be fun. I appreciate that there are other games out there that have a better standard of written rules and balance. Great. If 40k doesn't meet your high standard for a children's toy soldier game, go play one that does.

Does any of this mean 40k is objectively a 'good' or 'bad' game? No. There's no such thing. It might have a good/bad/balanced/realistic/unrealistic ruleset, but that's not the same thing. It's a game. So how 'good' it is is determined by how much you enjoy playing it.

The OP on this thread asks how YOU feel about 7th. There are a lot of people on here telling others that how they feel about 7th is wrong, or trying to 'prove' their experience of 7th is the right one. Maybe they should start another thread.


. Bazillions of edits for clarity...

Agreed.

A lot of people seem to take it personally when you're having fun with 7th or GW products at all.

 Crablezworth wrote:
My prediction is list nickname x will win.

In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.

gungo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
My prediction is list nickname x will win.

In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.

It's not just the list, it's also based on mission type and player skill, as well as terrain and luck of the dice. I'd say the list is 60% of the game, but you can't just deny those other factors. I've won games by VPs where one more turn I would have been tabled.

gungo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
My prediction is list nickname x will win.

In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.

And this is evidence of me and others not being omniscient or...?

Does any of this mean 40k is objectively a 'good' or 'bad' game? No. There's no such thing. It might have a good/bad/balanced/realistic/unrealistic ruleset, but that's not the same thing. It's a game. So how 'good' it is is determined by how much you enjoy playing it.

Rules are the game. If rules weren't the most important thing in a game, every Serbian basket ball team would come with AKs, and I don't mean in their bus like last years championships, but on the court.

It's not just the list, it's also based on mission type and player skill, as well as terrain and luck of the dice. I'd say the list is 60% of the game, but you can't just deny those other factors. I've won games by VPs where one more turn I would have been tabled.

Ok, there is more then enough match ups that end around deployment or rolling to get first turn. I play IG, if on the other side of the table is an eldar army or a GK army I know how it ends. I played those match ups for more then 5 months every week and I know how they end, no matter what mission is played.

 Crablezworth wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
My prediction is list nickname x will win.

In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.

And this is evidence of me and others not being omniscient or...?

No it's showing the fact people like you are so out of touch with the game that you argue balance when you honestly have no idea what's competitive or unbalanced. Given a simple and basic question of anyone who plays the game would know or have thier own opinion on if they bothered to play would at least have some semblence of a coherent and objectable thought on.

Instead you respond with amounts to I don't have a clue. But hey feel free to argue about a topic on 7th edition when you have no clue what's currently competitive, balanced, playable, working or not working in the game. You sound really informed!!!

gungo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
My prediction is list nickname x will win.

In other words you and everyone else here has no idea what list is broken or competitve enough to say with any certainty this list has the best chance to win.

And this is evidence of me and others not being omniscient or...?

No it's showing the fact people like you are so out of touch with the game that you argue balance when you honestly have no idea what's competitive or unbalanced. Given a simple and basic question of anyone who plays the game would know or have thier own opinion on if they bothered to play would at least have some semblence of a coherent and objectable thought on.

Instead you respond with amounts to I don't have a clue. But hey feel free to argue about a topic on 7th edition when you have no clue what's currently competitive, balanced, playable, working or not working in the game. You sound really informed!!!

I didn't realize we were exclusively talking about reece's version of 40k.


I'll make sure to tell everyone who has won a tournament last month it didn't count unless they've heard of the las vegas open...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm confused. You're saying that nobody else in a military unit knows how to load or fire a BAR or Mortar? That there is no chain of command for when the/an officer dies? That people in the rear of a formation won't ever die to incoming fire?

40k is a heroic game, so heroes should be at the fore. It looks better and is more in-universe. But the rules prevent this, so the rules are wrong. Destroying feel in favor of a time-consuming tactical sub-game is a poor tradeoff.

No... That's not what I said at all. I said don't use those examples because there is more to it than you are insinuating. Again I'd rather not go into exact detail, you'll just have to trust me. Which of course is at your discretion to do stand by no means have to. But in some instances what your implying is appropriate and in others it's not practical. Again, there are a lot of variables. If it was as easy as you're saying, I'd have shaved off a couple months of pretty intense training. I have a 5 month course specifically on the roles of the platoon leader in the Armor branch coming up soon- which will barely scrape the surface of anything not pertaining to that specific job. But again, it's up to you to decide if you'd like to believe me or not.

This set of rules is a conflicting one for me. On the one hand I like having to at least place some thought in the movement and placement of men in a squad, but on the other hand I don't like having to keep my aspiring champions in the back of the formation. There's benefits to both in my opinion, and I suppose I'd be happy with either form.

I'm not sure that 40k requires as much complexity as it has, considering that each Guardsman is completely interchangeable in stats and abilities. The rules apply a deliberate homogenization of the members of a unit. So, while I agree there might be more to my examples, [i]for the purposes of modeling an in-game unit[i], I disagree that such additional complexity or variables is helpful or useful.

There is an art to simplification for the best simulation.

Based on my understanding of reality and my experience in the military, while wearing my game designer hat, I'm not going to agree with your request to simply trust you.

That isn't an attack on you or your experience. It simply means that I won't believe you without a better reason to do so.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not sure that 40k requires as much complexity as it has, considering that each Guardsman is completely interchangeable in stats and abilities. The rules apply a deliberate homogenization of the members of a unit. So, while I agree there might be more to my examples, [i]for the purposes of modeling an in-game unit[i], I disagree that such additional complexity or variables is helpful or useful.

There is an art to simplification for the best simulation.

Based on my understanding of reality and my experience in the military, while wearing my game designer hat, I'm not going to agree with your request to simply trust you.

That isn't an attack on you or your experience. It simply means that I won't believe you without a better reason to do so.

Fair enough, as it said it was your decision and I'm not offended. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree as I really don't feel that restating everything I've been taught is a good use of anyone's time.

I'm mixed on the issue about dropping weapons. I know probably one of the main reasons why is because the way they were doing the whole precision shot rules and model vice unit wounds. Personally I figure it should be based on leadership. If the unit isn't fleeing they should be able to recognize that a special/heavy weapon is needed for one task or another. If the is fleeing then they might have a reason to lose special weapons.

But I'm not a rule designer so I can't say much on that issue.

 Crablezworth wrote:

I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.

Could you be a little bit more condescending perhaps? I think we can all agree that opinions vary. "Fan boy exuberance"? I haven't seen a single case of that in this thread, if anything the thread is filled with anti-fanboy sentiments. I don't really mind getting some new perspectives (even if I don't agree with them), but the discussion is way more interesting if people actually write what they think (and why they think so) instead of trying to characterize other people or make unfounded assumptions.

I wouldn't say that maelstrom missions are more tactical, but it adds another dimension to the game which means that you cannot use the same kind of strategy as you used to do. I think it makes the games more dynamic, things happen all over the board during the entire game instead only during the last two turns. It also forces you play a bit unsafe and take risks that you may not have needed to take before. For me this means that the battles are more interesting and fun. Yes, they might be a bit random at times, but in my experience it usually evens out over a game. Almost all of the maelstrom games I've played have been close calls, where the win is decided in turn 5 or 6. Of course, we always play with the house rule that mission cards that are impossible to complete can be switched out.

Do you really feel that strongly about maelstrom missions that you would refuse to play someone with a different opinion? I find that a bit extreme, but well, to each their own.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
I've been reading up, and I'd like to get back into 40k. I did not like 6th at all (I have the 4th ed rulebook on my shelf still though). I can see a bit of streamlining, and the DE codex is nicely laid out. I'm jusr trying to figure out if it's worth it.

My LGS still has a pretty good core of players, and I could borrow just about any army i want to. I just don't know if I'm sold on the game yet.

to low quality to warrant such prices, rules are strewn out to much and balance is muck.

New purchases are currently on hold for the time being.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I know probably one of the main reasons why is because the way they were doing the whole precision shot rules and model vice unit wounds.

Both of which are stupid things to have in a game like 40k. This isn't a small-scale skirmish game where every detail needs to be represented, it's a large-scale game that needs a lot of abstraction to function properly. Just drop the whole "every model is a special snowflake" concept and only care about the status of the whole unit. The assumption that someone else picks up the melta gun after a sniper kills the first guy might not be 100% accurate, but it's a close enough approximation for a game with titans that can kill the whole squad in a single shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gruntl wrote:
I think it makes the games more dynamic, things happen all over the board during the entire game instead only during the last two turns.

That would be nice, if the things that happen every turn had any connection at all to the previous events in the game. Rolling dice on the random "who gets points this turn" table as often as possible is not really something to praise. Nor should we forget that things happen all over the board every turn in a conventional game, even if they don't immediately lead to VP scoring.

Personally, I liked being able to choose which models died in a unit to avoid losing the "good" weapons. Currently, flamers are really hosed (pun intended) because unlike other special weapons, they HAVE top be at the front to be effective without hitting your own guys.
Now, I can totally understand the idea of other guys in the unit not being able to effectively pick up a special or heavy weapon and use it. That is a bit of actual realism. Not to say they couldnt use it, but the key word is "effectively".
But then to allow for that bit of realism, you would need to add in a whole new set up rules and charts for each different special or heavy weapon which would add to the so called bloat.
I would say easier to just allow the owning player to pick the guy to remove or possibly allow special or heavy weapons a type of look out sire roll to see if there is anyone else in the unit who is able to effectively use the weapon.

Yeah, people tend to get their emotions up when they expect/want to play a competitive game and get their butt handed to them.
That person may have not done anything really wrong either.

So many things GW chooses to lean on randomization as the core mechanic I am surprised I do not have to roll on occasion for "deviation" when moving my models (every move roll for leadership to see if they go where planned! new rule!). The main beef brought up was psychic powers and leadership abilities where they each suffer from amnesia until the day of battle.

It is perfectly possible to have fun, there is so much going on in a game I find it hard not to. You just have to remind yourself this is not a competitive game, there is not enough fixed rules / points / abilities for models to operate within to be sufficiently tactical. The meta changes so quickly that being away from the game for 6 months seems like a new game coming back.

I find people who "really like to win" are drawn to 40k because they only have to research a netlist and with minimal effort they can start "beating" veterans of the game on occasion: fast effort vs. reward. The confusion is that GW needs to clearly state that their rules are for tabletop war-game RPG: they are quite good for creating the backdrop and fielding any battle you choose with few limitations. We have had some terrific "epic" scenario battles that I think few games could match. But for pickup games I have abandoned 40k: it is too subject to "abuse" to have a friendly game with a stranger.

When GW can get it to the point where I could field X points of "fast attack" and pit it against the same points in "artillery" and against the same points in troops and each of those are a close battle, then I think they could be on the road to a more competitive game. They could always field those rules separate like apocalypse but it could be "tournament warfare edition". If Battletech can field "Alphastrike" for large tactical battles with still tons of detail, the 40k setting would be perfectly possible to update as well. All GW has to do is choose to engage their gaming customers a little more rather than delude themselves they are only collectors: it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

gruntl wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.

Could you be a little bit more condescending perhaps?

But see, this is the problem, people can tell you nicely or in a condescending tone but your reaction will be the same, you feel judged because people don't enjoy what you enjoy. I can't dispute that you have fun playing maelstrom but I have no interest in playing maelstrom missions. We can ttoally agree to disagree, until someone makes the claim the maelstrom is "more tactical", I'll have disagreements with that.

 Talizvar wrote:
So many things GW chooses to lean on randomization as the core mechanic I am surprised I do not have to roll on occasion for "deviation" when moving my models (every move roll for leadership to see if they go where planned! new rule!).

You are aware that 40k 7E has random charge distance, right? Also random movement through rough ground. OTOH, with assault being terrible in 7E, maybe you haven't personally experienced it?

Anyhow, the random is supposed to make the game so that the better player doesn't always win, and the increasing random is supposed to give the underdog even more chances to beat a stronger opponent. I'm kinda dubious about this in practice.

I Like 7th a lot, having played 6th and 1 or 2 games of 5th.
I don't experience flyer spam, flyrant spam, riptide spam, wave serpent spam, ect in my local area, 'cause we understand the need not to be dicks and play every game like its the final of some super tournament.
I like the new vehicle table and new phase, which means the powers aren't just randomly done in shooting.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I Like 7th a lot, having played 6th and 1 or 2 games of 5th.
I don't experience flyer spam, flyrant spam, riptide spam, wave serpent spam, ect in my local area, 'cause we understand the need not to be dicks and play every game like its the final of some super tournament.
I like the new vehicle table and new phase, which means the powers aren't just randomly done in shooting.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

So seeing as no one is a dick, do you guys every have any disagreements?

The reason I ask is, you name powerful/annoying units and their apparent absence where you play then move right on to "people" . Are units the problem or people?

This is why comments like this don't pass the smell test for me because sll I see is "only dicks run into issues playing this game" and I'm sure that's not what you're saying but it comes off as that.

Just to contrast with what you're saying, we've had an INCREASE in issues and bad air when we try and make what we think are more "casual" or laid back or fluffy lists because there's no real metric to go by and its subjective as all hell. I'm at the point where I'd rather my opponent bring what they feel is a strong list and I will do accordingly rather than have everyone tone police each other and make character judgements of one another based on what units we take.

I don't buy that anyone enjoying the game is existing in some utopia, I can totally buy that people are enjoying 7th but I tend to believe the more honest accounts with a bit of nuance, rather than the rose coloured glasses stuff.