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.

:: facepalms :: Guys... seriously...

This is what killed my interest in 40k back in 2011. The new Sisters dex had come out, and I liked it, and I posted such on the forums. And then everyone else tried to shut me down and told me that the Codex was bad and I was a bad person for liking it.

You people are awful. The second anyone posts anything positive about 40k, at least half a dozen of you have to jump on them and try to convince them how it's actually a bad thing. So, just stop, okay? Just fricking STOP this gak, and actually TRY to let people have fun with a game for once?

If not, then just go to the Warp.

:: slams door on her way out ::

I don't think anyone in this thread has said you're not allowed to have fun, but a lot have said that if you're having fun that's great, I'm not though so I'm going to talk about why not.

I like the Maelstrom of War missions. IMO, potentially scoring on each turn is much more balanced than shooting up the enemy then moving out to the objectives on turn 5.

I don't know why everyone treats the cards as something you have to do as soon as you draw them. You should look at the cards in your hand and determine a strategy to maximize your victory points over the course of the game. I have held a card for an entire game to take advantage of the d3 points. In a team game I played, I told my blood angel teammate: "Can you control objective 6 in 2 turns? OK, then work on that, I'm going to go to objective 4 and once we have those we can score the supremacy card"

It might help to think of it in terms of having 6 objectives and deciding how to prioritize them. Just because you don't have a card for an objective doesn't mean you don't want to control that objective. You want to deny the possibility of your enemy scoring that objective whether he has the card or not (yet), and be prepared to control the objective if you draw the card. If you control the objectives, you have a better chance of scoring the Supremacy card for example, as well as objective secured cards you draw. Try to set up the situations where you can capitalize on the situational cards (witch hunter, assassinate, etc) but don't allow yourself to be distracted just because you draw one of those on turn 2. If you play it this way, you won't get the sense of running around like a chicken with your head cut off.

As far as real life examples, everyone keep giving an example of a single squad frantically running from objective to objective. A company sized force (closer to the scope of a 40k game) can have quite a few different objectives during an operation, which can all change due to the actions of the enemy and/or adjacent friendly units.

- Secure the intersection at Checkpoint Alpha in order to provide freedom of movement for C Company (who are off the board to your left)
- [1st squad secures the intersection]
- Roger, checkpoint alpha secured
- FRAGO, Charlie has contact, proceed to grid xxxxxxx, observe and report
- [2nd squad moves to grid xxxxxxxx]
- Be advised there is enemy air in sector (turns out to be false)
- Alpha Company (off the board to your right) has crossed Phase Line Vengeance, attack Objective Xenos
- [1st and 2nd squads attack the objective and secure it]
- Eliminate the following enemy HVTs in your sector (enemy leadership)
- [The CO knife fights the enemy leader and kills him. Well.... OK not every card has a real-life analogy]

That didn't really take much imagination or thought.

None of this is going to change OP's mind that he had a fun game with Maelstrom.

Sure some people hate the randomness of the Maelstrom missions but really it's in the name:

Maelstrom - a situation in which there are a lot of confused activities, emotions, etc.

You guys are complaining / arguing about oranges tasting like oranges and in regards to the OP pointless and off topic in this thread.

Great some of you don't like the randomness of Maelstrom missions. You have the original missions still where where you can have your strategic and narrative games.

Equally great some of you have Maelstrom missions where you can enjoy some chaotic battles that you can easily write stories for. (Not talking about warlord traits, they suck for planning/story telling.)

Also I don't agree with the chutes and ladders statement, I think Maelstrom missions are more like Blackjack or Poker (random and exciting) and the regular missions or competitive play is more like Stratego (lots of strategies and as much as 40k can be balanced for both players or at least more so than Maelstrom).

Now people we don't need a Mod to tell us to create a new thread for why Maelstrom is horrible for strategy or to get back on topic do we?

I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched. Most of the game modes within said mission are just about a revolving door of objective grabbing with a few relatively easy "gimmes." However, the fact that these are completely random and can be weighted for or against a player with barely any player ability to control this means it's random for random-sake and not controlled probability, like your dice rolling.

Real asymmetrical mission design is happening in other games and was happening in the 40k tournament scene prior to 7E where you could have players each having an overarching goal, but one player could be scoring objectives each turn while the other scored traditionally. That was, your army could be designed for a strategy in mind AND you could play to it on the table without being left to fate. Another game that does this well is Malifaux. While you may not always have to reveal you strategy to the opponent, you score more points if you do, making it even more of a mind game. There is an overall shared game objective and players choose two "schemes" from a pool of five that they both share.

After these missions are decided, then do players build their armies to play the game!

So you will always build an army on missions that you enjoy and excel at playing and your opponent will too. It's a great means to balancing a game out and ensuring that players will always get something close to their relative strength or desired outcome in the game. What Games Workshop has done is a half-hearted attempt at game design and mildly succeeded in selling you more trinkets to go along with it.

I can see why someone would enjoy the new mission structure, but knowing it fails miserably at real asymmetrical design and what it could have been in comparison to homebrew missions already in the 40k scene and what exists in other games means it's just another practice of futile frustration. There will be those games you do get boned with bad cards the entire game and your opponent can clear his hand first turn, making it all but silly to play out the rest of the game. Plus, you might not have an army equipped for said missions and the game types still favor the same flavors we saw in 7E. What's worse is it would probably bring back even harder forms of MSU spam, everyone's favorite of 5E, right?

 TheKbob wrote:
I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched.

Barely even counts as a house rule it's s obvious. And the rules allow for unachievable cards to be discarded if you stick by the rules. Maelstrom missions are absolutely fine for PUGs.

 TheKbob wrote:

After these missions are decided, then do players build their armies to play the game!

So you will always build an army on missions that you enjoy and excel at playing and your opponent will too. It's a great means to balancing a game out and ensuring that players will always get something close to their relative strength or desired outcome in the game. What Games Workshop has done is a half-hearted attempt at game design and mildly succeeded in selling you more trinkets to go along with it.

Obviously wouldn't work with 40k. You're comparing two different types of games with different scale battles. Couldn't really expect my opponent to wait while I put together my list, and I'd have to bring a tom of models.

 TheKbob wrote:
I can see why someone would enjoy the new mission structure, but knowing it fails miserably at real asymmetrical design and what it could have been in comparison to homebrew missions already in the 40k scene and what exists in other games means it's just another practice of futile frustration. There will be those games you do get boned with bad cards the entire game and your opponent can clear his hand first turn, making it all but silly to play out the rest of the game. Plus, you might not have an army equipped for said missions and the game types still favor the same flavors we saw in 7E. What's worse is it would probably bring back even harder forms of MSU spam, everyone's favorite of 5E, right?

Didn't feel like that in my game. Some turns went well for my opponent, some went well for me. My opponent couldn't rely on a gunline, which made my army [Sisters] more competitive and balanced things out a little. Also it felt like every turn mattered, rather than just the last. No-body is saying these missions are perfect, but that they are a positive step forward and can be refined in future editions. There's also a lot of scope for using them in a different way to that in the rulebook.

 TheKbob wrote:
I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design.

That's what makes it so frustrating. Deadzone did mission objective cards so much better and allowed for asymmetrical gameplay with great strategic and tactical depth. It's a far more accurate portrayal of objectives for a combat mission which makes it far more engaging to play with and dare I say it, forge a narrative with.

Fluxx: Grimdark edition!

 Gunzhard wrote:
Having the cards, which I realize are out of stock, could alleviate your Problem#1... just draw from a shuffled deck.

Problem#2 is a different kind of game, and going back to some earlier examples in this thread - your opponent likely won't know all of the things that you are trying to achieve in any combat anyway... but remember it works both ways for both sides.

Which is why the game ended in a tie. We both had no advantage over the other, so we did equally well.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
One more disconnect from being a wartorn battlefield instead of two people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.

Well, to be fair, the back blurb on the new 40K rules set basically says that it's the latter. The "hobby" is collecting enormously expensive plastic toys, the game is just tacked on now to give you something to do with them, so 40K is (at least in the minds of whoever's in charge right now) just two (or more) people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Sorry, you've served and you are whining about the randomness of objectives? Where and when may I ask have you served? Outside of WW2 every conflict the US has been in has been a series of random objectives that the soldiers don't really know much about as they shouldn't have been there in the first place, hence why we lost Vietnam, Korea was a standstill, Iraq 1/2 were failures. Had objectives been clearly defined and thought out, the results of these would be different.

Disregarding the politics part of that, the real issue with the wars you note is that America didn't bring the full weight of its military to bear (and politics did have a part in that, too). If "rules of engagement" weren't around and the military was allowed to just go out and win the war, most of those would have been different. Actually, Iraq 1 *was* a military success, it ended with the Iraqi military crushed. Iraq 2 is... kind of hard to say much about without devolving into politics. It's not really something you could win with a military, so it's not something you could compare well to 40K.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?

Short answer is yes.
While we do have updates to information very fast, you can't expect every troop on the ground to get instantaneous updates about every issue on the field. Say for example I deploy with the intent of rushing forward to capture objectives then draw my initial cards. I get the one for shooting down aircraft/FMC , a home objective, and a challenge. Now every troop in my army now changes their entire plan to advance slower and more carefully since they have more time, keep on the look out for any enemy aircraft, and someone has to punch an enemy officer in the face. It made more sense in 6th where you were trying to capture/deny any objective you could and your army kept focus on this until the end. Turn by turn objectives means that everyone understands they have no logistical data aside from a few blurbs and are actively checking their tweets in between reloading to see if orders completely change what they're doing.
Imagine each objective was worth 1 point for each turn you had it.
There is strategy in deploying troops and planning to take objectives while denying others, while your points build up. The means you accomplish this will change with your opponent's actions, but you still control the overall goal for your army.
With random objectives you can try to spread yourself thin, or just hop on whatever cards you get. The strategy is almost non-existent since you have no idea where you will go next turn, how you will get it, and so on for each turn after.

Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?

An epiphany at last! Refreshing, is it not? It's a bit like playing backgammon...over the course of many games the better player will emerge victorious, but in a single match up the inferior player has an excellent chance of winning due to the game's reliance on die rolls. GW's incessant randomization has the same effect, leveling the playing field so anybody can win any given game. Whether one approves of this is a matter of personal taste.

An epiphany at last! Refreshing, is it not? It's a bit like playing backgammon...over the course of many games the better player will emerge victorious, but in a single match up the inferior player has an excellent chance of winning due to the game's reliance on die rolls. GW's incessant randomization has the same effect, leveling the playing field so anybody can win any given game. Whether one approves of this is a matter of personal taste.

But you're not suppose to win the game. Winning is rude and should be avoided at all costs. You're suppose to forge a narrative where both sides lose, that is the only way to be winners in GW's eyes.

Hah the negativity in here is palpable.

It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.

You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.

Bazinga

 TheKbob wrote:
That was, your army could be designed for a strategy in mind AND you could play to it on the table without being left to fate. Another game that does this well is Malifaux. While you may not always have to reveal you strategy to the opponent, you score more points if you do, making it even more of a mind game. There is an overall shared game objective and players choose two "schemes" from a pool of five that they both share.

After these missions are decided, then do players build their armies to play the game!

So you will always build an army on missions that you enjoy and excel at playing and your opponent will too. It's a great means to balancing a game out and ensuring that players will always get something close to their relative strength or desired outcome in the game. What Games Workshop has done is a half-hearted attempt at game design and mildly succeeded in selling you more trinkets to go along with it.

Glad you brought this up, I stole liberally from those objectives for an apocalypse game (no pre-draw and plan army though!) and it was funny as heck.

Almost everyone did not want to reveal their objectives and everyone drew the worst cards possible:
SOB saint had to die in challenge (??!!),
SM:BT had to kill Ork warlord,
Squats (modified for 6th edition) had to hijack a CSM troop transport (Landraider and wait until unoccupied),
DE had to hold ground,
Orks had to occupy enemy deployment zone a certain number of units (was going to do it anyway).

It was a mess and VERY fun since sitting back and destroying the other guy was not vital to the objectives, the Squats stalking the landraider had many very confused and the player laughing his guts out.

Trying to kill a SOB saint on purpose is harder than one would think, we just thought the player was insane bloodthirsty.

There are very good ideas in those objectives, the GW list is rather... uninspired in comparison but a step in the right direction (just missed the plot though...)

<edit> Gosh-darn - ON TOPIC 7th is not that different than 6th with more flexibility for army selection, what I listed above in a modified "house" game could closely be done in 7th (including making a functioning Squat army from bits and pieces of codexes) so the fun is there...

 Gunzhard wrote:
Hah the negativity in here is palpable.

It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.

You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.

Have you considered a career in politics?

 Gunzhard wrote:
Hah the negativity in here is palpable.

It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.

You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.

You can notice the negativity past all the hyperbole and the forest of straw men? Your perception is keener than mine.

 Pouncey wrote:
:: facepalms :: Guys... seriously...

This is what killed my interest in 40k back in 2011. The new Sisters dex had come out, and I liked it, and I posted such on the forums. And then everyone else tried to shut me down and told me that the Codex was bad and I was a bad person for liking it.

You people are awful. The second anyone posts anything positive about 40k, at least half a dozen of you have to jump on them and try to convince them how it's actually a bad thing. So, just stop, okay? Just fricking STOP this gak, and actually TRY to let people have fun with a game for once?

If not, then just go to the Warp.

:: slams door on her way out ::

Hence why I got out of this conversation lol. There is too much negativity on the internet as a whole and it bleeds out. This edition is amazing, I have been having a blast and as have those I have been playing with. Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.

I agree, Lobomalo. This forum is extremely negative. (cue someone calling me a hypocrite for posting negatively about their negativity). I lurk on here mostly to marvel at the hate and read some of the few constructive posts before the negative people hijack them.

Our group has been having a great time with 7th so far. I've played since 2nd edition and for me each edition has been better than the last. I fought a battle against a Revenant titan recently and it was really fun. I didn't win but I had a good chance too had I not rolled so lousy. I saw someone beat a Stompa with 10 meks in it the other day by playing to the objective cards. I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Hah the negativity in here is palpable.

It's funny to me that the 'anti-narrative' crowd think of themselves as being tactically superior.

You don't get to call yourself any sort of tactician, when you require the most watered down version of the game, with basic 3 missions, nothing unexpected (random) where you might have to think on the fly, everything controlled and everything you can plan for in your list - while simultaneously wielding one of the current top tier lists... that just means you need a handicap.

We just REALLY don't like Apocalypse.

I CAN design a list for the whole APOCALYPSE scene. But what people who dislike that stuff are REALLY saying is that they DON'T wanna' play Apocalypse type games. If we wanted that flavor of game, we'd ask you for it.

Personally I dont think that's asking for a Handicap. I think its just a really fundamental difference of opinion on how many people we want to be able to enter and stay in this hobby.

Big fan of the cards.

Our games have been getting very intense with people in it until the last turn.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.

I only recently started wargaming, I have no idea how they used to be - I just know that 40k rules could be so much better. I love 40k, I dislike GW due to the policies and actions and the rules due to their cumbersome nature and lack of balance. That seems quite a reasonable distinction to me and quite rational.

 Mentat wrote:
I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.

How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.

There is nothing that is any more "poorly thought out" in 7th than there was in previous editions. Each edition has had issues that people complained about incessantly. I'm sorry that certain deathstars don't work anymore but its time to rethink lists and playstyles when a new edition comes out. Honestly if you want a more balanced system with better scenarios there are a lot of games that do those things better. But for me and most of our group, nothing beats 40k for fun games.

 Mentat wrote:
There is nothing that is any more "poorly thought out" in 7th than there was in previous editions.

In addition to the previous poorly thought out stuff, there is the addition of the psychic phase and battle cards which are both deeply flawed so yes, there *are* more poorly thought out things since not only does GW not fix existing problems, they introduce new ones. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy them (I enjoy the anime Sword Art Online for example, but I accept that it's bad), but enjoying them doesn't mean they're not bad.

There is at least a chance that blessings wont work now. As opposed to the slight chance they wouldnt in last edition. I like this psychic phase better and it somewhat reminds me of 2nd edition. If you are talking about daemonology.... well its not worth it for most non daemons. I have fought daemons but they only had about 18 warp charges. I have not fought a daemon force optimized for summoning yet but i look forward to that. Im not convinced its as bad as made out to be by the panicnet.

Unbound doesnt concern me either.

Overall i think this is my favorite edition so far, but still need to get some more games in.

Our group is really having a lot of fun with it.

 Yonan wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.

I only recently started wargaming, I have no idea how they used to be - I just know that 40k rules could be so much better. I love 40k, I dislike GW due to the policies and actions and the rules due to their cumbersome nature and lack of balance. That seems quite a reasonable distinction to me and quite rational.

 Mentat wrote:
I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.

How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.

Actually, I was quite satisfied with 6th, even with its faults. I've been playing since RT and I like change when its for the better. 2nd was a huge change but it was better. 5th was better than 4th, etc. It's not change we don't like, it's arbitrary changes that don't improve the game that we don't like. What pushed me away was GW pushing further away from balance, making escalation a part of the actual game, lack of structure for army building, obvious cash grab edition, and too expensive. One of those by themselves wouldn't do it but all together, yes.

And I'm completely up for trying new things. I've been trying other games. Big changes but I've found they have better rules and I have more fun with them for less money.

Stop characterizing people with complaints, Lobomalo. (badwolf?)You clearly don't understand anything we've been saying. You may think the game is fun and that's fine, but at least try to understand why people are leaving.

You know, I think I'd be far less forceful in my opposition if GW fans would stop mischaracterizing me and actually took the time to understand what's going on.

 MWHistorian wrote:
And I'm completely up for trying new things. I've been trying other games. Big changes but I've found they have better rules and I have more fun with them for less money.

Stop characterizing people with complaints, Lobomalo. (badwolf?)You clearly don't understand anything we've been saying. You may think the game is fun and that's fine, but at least try to understand why people are leaving.

You know, I think I'd be far less forceful in my opposition if GW fans would stop mischaracterizing me and actually took the time to understand what's going on.

I think this is pretty spot on. Suggesting people don't like change is a silly assertion. It's a much larger change to drop GW games to go play a new game which many people - vets and new players like myself - have been doing. That pretty clearly shows that change isn't the problem.

One of those by themselves wouldn't do it but all together, yes.

Rule problems are like guardsmen. One isn't a problem. You can even deal with 10, but 100?

You don't find it enjoyable anymore, then decided to move on, and that is perfectly reasonable.

Trying to convince me that mission cards and the psychic phase are crap, because you think they are, is not appropriate in a thread titled "Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it"

Please have that discussion in a thread where it is on topic, so people whoe are interested in that topic can discuss it, without blatantly annoying people who don't.

 adamsouza wrote:
You don't find it enjoyable anymore, then decided to move on, and that is perfectly reasonable.

Trying to convince me that mission cards and the psychic phase are crap, because you think they are, is not appropriate in a thread titled "Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it"

Please have that discussion in a thread where it is on topic, so people whoe are interested in that topic can discuss it, without blatantly annoying people who don't.

Part of why the OP enjoyed it was the mission cards. It was suggested that the cards were good for people who liked a background for why they were fighting, and if you don't like a background for why you're fighting then they're pointless. That's pretty insulting, especially given one of the reasons we say we don't like the cards is because we think they do the opposite of that. Don't forget it takes two to tango - if no one wanted to discuss the cards on the "pro" side here, there would be no discussion. So not only is it on topic, but your assertion that it's us "negatives" derailing is also false.