How do you feel about 7th?

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.

**Blacksails**

koooaei wrote:
I see so many complaints about tran ctans and such. But how is it really related to edition of the game? It's the problem of bad unit design.

Having LoW being an intrinsic part of the list building means the C'tan can pop up in anyone's list normally without warning.

In older editions, things like the C'tan would be Apoc only, which is a separate type of game you arrange knowing large stompy death machines will be common.

It is also bad unit design, but the link to the edition is that 7th made such units kosher for normal, everyday play.

There would be 95%* less bitching about the C'tan if Lords of War/Super heavy/Gargantuan stuff was removed from normal games and put back into its own separate Apoc game.

*That number entirely made, but sufficient to say 'a lot' of people.

**Accolade**

MajorStoffer wrote:
morgoth wrote:

Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.

What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.

Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).

So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.

One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.

I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.

Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.

The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.

My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.

GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.

If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.

If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.

One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.

To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.

The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.

Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.

That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.

Infinity? Bring the worst gak imaginable, and you still stand a chance, apply any sense whatsoever, and you should get a decent game, because despite having a rather large roster of units, special rules and potential army lists (if anything there's more than 40k, as very few units are objectively bad or "must takes") the game is, at its core, designed to be balanced, with a coherent points pricing system, benefits for sticking to a theme, significant playtesting, regular rule updates and tweaks (including basic unit profiles, if need be). The end result is something you can play pick-up extremely easily, build the list you want and not be punished for it, and have your personal skill at playing the game tested, not your ability to dredge out bizarre fluff-breaking combos out of dozens of rules publications/sources.

You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.

Oufff, that is a good post, Major, you really hit the nail on the head.

The biggest crime 7th has committed is that it has killed its ubiquity as a game that draws in all sorts of players, and even new ones. The prospects of keeping up with the game now is a price tag that even hardcore fans start to balk at (way waaaaay past the point and onlooker would have been thinking you were crazy).

Now more and more of what's left are players who have no qualms about dumping furniture-cost's worth of money into all-plastic armies to stay with the game, and it's just an elite club for that group. Which I guess is great if you enjoy 40k being an elite club that snubs all the other Wargame plebs, but there was a time when 40k was becoming almost popular.

**timetowaste85**

Sold all my gak. 6th and 7th are both terrible. 4th and 5th were strong because they were decent rules and not overly convoluted. These current rules are all about buying new DLC rules and escalating towards insanity. It should be a game, not research for a college dissertation to play.

**morgoth**

MajorStoffer wrote:
morgoth wrote:

Those lists you cited, they're not tournament legal or even tournament worthy. The Armored one is just a good example of a skewed list.

What you write makes me think you've been fielding the same gak for three editions, and it's now at its lowest, and you still haven't caught up to the fact that you're playing a garbage list/codex even worse than your average fluffy list/codex.

Or, the meta in your surroundings just got harder, more people playing better lists (not what your sniper kroot list looks like but who knows).

So tell us what you play and I'm pretty sure some posters around here will be able to point out what got weaker in your favorites.

In other words, this has nothing to do with the game system or the list building process.

One, your tone is unwarranted, check your attitude at the door if you want a mature conversation.

I only really want to comment on one facet of your response; if someone isn't bringing a TAC list, they're doing it wrong.

There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.

And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.

And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.

**morgoth**

MajorStoffer wrote:

Well, see, that just doesn't jive in 7th because an actual TAC list is impossible for most codexes, at least not without completely abandoning any semblance of theme or coherency. Most lists I've seen either exploit the strongest mechanic they have available to which the counter is uncommon or otherwise difficult, or play a themed army. How do Necrons counter psyker spam or summoning farm? How do Tau? How does Guard fight eldar bike spam in a maelstrom mission? How do Marines fight eldar? You can, in theory, unbound it up, slap together formations, use supplement dexes and dataslates to fill gaps, but at the end of the process you've got a list which is most emblematic of schizophrenia. I knew when I saw my first Inquisition-Guard-Clan Raukaan army that something had gone a little squirrely with the game.

Strangely enough, most competitive players have had no issues winning with Tau or Necrons or Marines.

MAYBE, just maybe, you are not getting this game.

MajorStoffer wrote:

The problem with the game is that if you don't list tailor, you're not going to have a good time because of that (and that implies both tailoring to each others strengths, and for the kind of game you want to have). I admit flat out I don't build the most powerful lists I could; both my armies are Forgeworld heavy, and I buy the models I like first, and try to make it so I have some options against most threats, but not without sacrificing the army concept I had originally come up with, i.e. 1st Company Marines, Death Korps breakthrough force, rather than "what are the most powerful toys I can use across the myriad of GW publications so that I can continue to not get stomped by someone who does." I refuse, I'm not playing that game.

Maybe, just maybe, your lists are as close to pure random garbage as it gets ?

MajorStoffer wrote:

My armies have changed significantly across the editions, using what additions enhance the kind of game I want to play, but the problem with now versus then is that the difference between how I want to play and how a competitive person wants is massively more severe than what I experienced in 5th, and that has a lot to do with badly balanced codexes, very few "good" options per codex, and a complete lack of game structure allowing people to go hog wild.

Because what you play has gotten a lot worse over time and you're sticking with it. The world isn't worse, your world is, because of your decisions.

MajorStoffer wrote:

GW's intention may be in their own twisted little miniverse that the new no limits game is better for "Forging the Narrative," as you can now represent any kind of force on the table. That is theoretically true; my 1st Company is actually that now, rather than 1st company with two tacticals along for the ride, but it also allows stupid gak ranging from one-codex broken stuff from the teleporting invisible centurion star, Wave Serpents and Wraithknights, to multidex crap where what you think is a CSM army with a few daemon allies is actually Daemons primary, with Black Legion/Crimson Slaughter allies and two dataslates, or how now Blood Angels can get free power weapons and combi weapons for their all-elite army, where my codex-marine list is spending over 150 points on those things, putting me at an immediate disadvantage for playing the wrong colour of space marines.

Why do you want your badly designed list (let's call it fluffy, although why the feth would the DKOK lose a battle I don't know) to be on the same level as the best lists there are ?

MajorStoffer wrote:

If you're willing to hop between sources and otherwise not give a damn about the hobby aspect of the game, or the social element of not being a dick to each other, then yeah,7th can be fun.

Again, your local meta has shifted to competitive, and you're still refusing to see that's the only thing that happened.

MajorStoffer wrote:

If anything, it can be harder to play between two casual players; competitive players are mostly predictable, you're almost invariably going to lose if you aren't also being as competitive as possible in your list building (and really, 40k competitive vs casual distinction is in the list building, NOT how one plays the game at all, which is another critical flaw), but you know what to expect, and can adjust your list fairly easily to make it less of a roflstomp to a point, collection permitting. Between two casual players, even more negotiation and planning is requires because fundamental elements of the game are completely imbalanced and broken.

1. Build a competitive list (or hell copy it)
2. Play it for 20 games
3. Come back and share your experience.

Nobody cares what a fluff bunny thinks of competitive gaming, because he simply does not have a hint of experience on the topic.

MajorStoffer wrote:

One local player runs a psyker heavy 1ksons list with a notable Daemon presence; he has a bunch of 1ksons in rhinos, Ahriman and a lvl3 sorcerer, some havocs for fire support, a fire raptor for some killyness and some tzeentch daemons. There's no arguing the theme to his army; ever model is converted, customized, and fits the theme completely. However, neither of my armeis can fight his at all, full stop. Neither has any psychic defense, and are mostly close-ranged; my Guard has some tanks to reach out and touch people, but otherwise these are small arms/assault armies, and a skirmishing psyker army will decimate mine in both psychic and shooting phase, often with no resistance. I simply can't stop his powers at all, and just watch my forces evaporate. If we want to actually have fun, i swap out some stuff for additional AA to engage the Raptor, and he drops the daemons to reduce the psychic dice pool for raptors and a few other normal CSM toys. The only reason we can even do that is we know each other and our armies sufficiently well to tweak a fundamentally broken concept into manageable ranges.

So one of your local players has a really bad list, with Ahriman and Thousand sons and neither of your armies can fight his ? WHAT ?
How much more do you need to realize that you are playing one of the weakest lists possible and that puts you far behind before the race even starts ?

MajorStoffer wrote:

To be quite frank, those who haven't recognized their own excesses in abusing the formless, structureless nature of 7th have found themselves increasingly without opponents. People don't want to fight double CAD armies, or 5 sources armies, Serpent Spam, Wraithknights, Tau gunlines or Daemon factories as the imbalance in the game is so much more acute than it has ever been.

The only list, and I mean the absolute only list people refused to play against in 5th was Draigowing. Now, there's 3 people in my club who struggle to get a game without having their lists subjected to a full spanish inquisition because they like to optimize to the fullest extent, and the degree you can take that now with gimicks, badly designed rules, massively imbalanced core concepts that people don't want to fight them at all in general, because they know the kind of experience they'll get.

So your club is mostly anti-competitive. Many are. Some aren't.

MajorStoffer wrote:

Lists mattered in 5th. Lists are all that matter in 7th. Maelstrom mitigates that somewhat, but then your lists are still the most important element, and how lucky you get with objectives is the second part.

That is why I don't like 7th; it's imbalanced as all hell, doesn't make a good competitive or casual game, and is painfully predictable. You can put down two 40k armies, and based on the lists, terrain and mission, I know who will win almost every time.

And clearly you would know because you've been playing competitively in 5th and 7th edition.

You think you know who will win ? Hell you know nothing. I know nothing. Why don't you just go out and ask a very good player what he thinks about tabletop choices ?

MajorStoffer wrote:

You can imagine what game is getting my hobby money at present. I bought the last unit I wanted for my Death Korps, and will play them in stubborn defiance against anyone, as the Emperor would intend for it, but really, I'm waiting for the game to become legitimately fun again without requiring more work than a peace treaty and predicated more on what happens in the game, rather than one's ability to number crunch a list as if they were doing their taxes.

So your real problem is that DKOK is not competitive ? well just say it instead of blaming it on everything else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Accolade wrote:
The biggest crime 7th has committed is that it has killed its ubiquity as a game that draws in all sorts of players, and even new ones. The prospects of keeping up with the game now is a price tag that even hardcore fans start to balk at (way waaaaay past the point and onlooker would have been thinking you were crazy).

Now more and more of what's left are players who have no qualms about dumping furniture-cost's worth of money into all-plastic armies to stay with the game, and it's just an elite club for that group. Which I guess is great if you enjoy 40k being an elite club that snubs all the other Wargame plebs, but there was a time when 40k was becoming almost popular.

The only thing that changed is your opinion of 40K.

It has always been crazy expensive, it has always had flavor of the Edition armies, and it has always had competitive and non-competitive players.

So what exactly is 7th related ?

**MajorStoffer**

Good lord Morgoth you are obtuse and needlessly belittling. I'm just bad at the game and thus what I say has no merit?

40k is an awful competitive game, and it has only gotten worse. This is a bad thing for competitive and non-competitive players, as more and more, list building is the chiefly exercised skill in 40k.

I'm choosing to move more and more to a game which is, at it's core, a tournament game with a tight ruleset and true, legitimate freedom of option, not merely the illusion of it overtop of a fundamentally broken game. I am not incapable of making a better, more competitive list. I am consciously choosing not to because it breaks what I enjoy about the game; the setting, the aesthetic and flavourful armies. The way the rules are structured encourages armies which represent none of that, and to be quite frank, if that is what I need to do to have fun in 7th, I'll simply stop playing. I certainly am reaching that point, and maybe you don't give a good god damn that players who don't think like you aren't enjoying the game, the obviously shrinking playerbase will eventually affect your enjoyment, where once that wasn't a concern. There's an exodus going on, and it's being spearheaded by the competitive players, at least in my area; they're sick of a fundamentally broken game which requires constant investments of hundreds of dollars to be even functional, the fluff-bunnies are more resilient, not being too caught up in stomping people, but the fundamental flaws of the game still makes it unenjoyable.

Every time I consider another army, or any additions to my existent armies, I always stop myself with "I'm not going to have fun with this once I'm done building and painting it."

I'm not alone with that, and that will kill this game more likely than not.

I still enjoy 40k against the right player in spite of its mountain of problems, but it requires an awful lot of work on both of our parts. That is a bad thing for a game, especially one which demands such a large financial investment. The game isn't growing; the GW figures only reinforce that, and that is due to a myriad of issues not least of which being the poor quality of the game rules themselves. It's not as much of a factor on someone joining, but it certainly is for someone deciding whether or not to keep playing. So long as it's effectively "free" for me to keep playing at this point, I will, but another bad edition which doesn't fix at least some of the underlying issues, or if my codexes get an update which kills what little enthusiasm I have left, I'll just box everything up and hope that in the future the game becomes something fun again, for everyone, not just those who will rules-hop, exploit broken mechanics and otherwise enjoy being belligerent and utterly miss the social aspect of this game.

Instead, I'll just play infinity and know what no matter who I'm up against, I can have fun and have a chance of winning.

**LordBlades**

morgoth wrote:
]

There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.

And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.

And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.

Thing is that, IMO at least some codexes have a lot easier time building powerful TAC lists than others.
Some codexes need to focus on a single facet of the game to the expense of almost all others in order to be competitive.

**Gunzhard**

Not to get off subject here; I love Infinity but it's not fair to compare it to 40k by any stretch.

Infinity manages a handful of models (many are nearly identical) and maybe one vehicle on a tiny board and it's still not perfect. There were(/are?) Tags that were pretty unbeatable (I haven't tried the newest rule yet though).

While 40k manages ...well it's not even the same ballpark. Aside from being a sci-fi miniatures game you really cannot compare them.

**morgoth**

MajorStoffer wrote:
Good lord Morgoth you are obtuse and needlessly belittling. I'm just bad at the game and thus what I say has no merit?

Everyone's opinion has merit.

What I'm telling you is that you have it all wrong.

You think the game changed when the only thing that changed and caused you to feel like you do is the relative power level of your own lists and the competitiveness of your local meta.

**Accolade**

I think in regards to what you're saying gunzhard, it's always worth considering that 40k's rules haven't changed much (minus tweaks here and there) since the 2nd incarnation, where armies had maybe one tank and a few squads of troops.

Of course, I'd agree that Infinity would have an...infinitely harder time balancing 40k-size games, 40k is essentially skirmish rules with all sorts of "take anything you want" tacked on top.

**morgoth**

LordBlades wrote:
morgoth wrote:
]

There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.

And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.

And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.

Thing is that, IMO at least some codexes have a lot easier time building powerful TAC lists than others.
Some codexes need to focus on a single facet of the game to the expense of almost all others in order to be competitive.

That's the case for nearly every codex.

Do you think Eldar stand a chance outside of Mech ? they don't. Not against other power builds. So what easier time ?

Some codexes are just a lot less powerful and their TAC lists are not top 5.

Well there's only room for five in top 5 right ?

Either way, all that stuff is v6 and not v7, and when the new Tau and new Eldar come out in v7, they'll probably be properly in line with every other v7 release: good enough, nothing too crazy.

In my opinion, 40K has never been that balanced or that streamlined, GW are taking it towards more balance and more streamlining, I don't know how people can be disappointed by that.

**Gunzhard**

Accolade wrote:
I think in regards to what you're saying gunzhard, it's always worth considering that 40k's rules haven't changed much (minus tweaks here and there) since the 2nd incarnation, where armies had maybe one tank and a few squads of troops.

Of course, I'd agree that Infinity would have an...infinitely harder time balancing 40k-size games, 40k is essentially skirmish rules with all sorts of "take anything you want" tacked on top.

Well the "take anything you want" and even large scale games might be a turn off for you, but 40k can do that well. The newest Apoc book/rules are excellent, check my blog we do it fairly regularly. Just because some people don't want that and might even prefer a skirmish game doesn't change the facts. Infinity is entirely a different animal, it's not fair to compare them. That said, I do also love Infinity.

**LordBlades**

morgoth wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
morgoth wrote:
]

There is no tone, I'm just pointing out the problems in a perfectly calm manner.

And yes, if people are not bringing TAC lists, they're doing it wrong IMO.

And since that's the only thing anyone has been able to point as problematic with unbound so far, then maybe, just maybe, unbound is not a bad thing.

Thing is that, IMO at least some codexes have a lot easier time building powerful TAC lists than others.
Some codexes need to focus on a single facet of the game to the expense of almost all others in order to be competitive.

That's the case for nearly every codex.

Do you think Eldar stand a chance outside of Mech ? they don't. Not against other power builds. So what easier time ?

Some codexes are just a lot less powerful and their TAC lists are not top 5.

Well there's only room for five in top 5 right ?

Either way, all that stuff is v6 and not v7, and when the new Tau and new Eldar come out in v7, they'll probably be properly in line with every other v7 release: good enough, nothing too crazy.

In my opinion, 40K has never been that balanced or that streamlined, GW are taking it towards more balance and more streamlining, I don't know how people can be disappointed by that.

External balance I agree. It really is a very good thing that most 7th edition codexes have been landing pretty close to the same 'target' power level.

Internal balance however is just as bad or worse than before. I haven't seen a single 7th edition codex that had any semblance of internal balance (where at least some of the older codexes managed to).

What I meant by some codexes have an easier time doing TAC lists
Codexes like Eldar, SM or Tau (and Necrons maybe)benefit from having a few versatile units effective vs. all kinds of threats. Others din't. They need to include specialized units (often useless outside their intended role) for stuff like AA and whatnot. As such, they have a harder time fieksing a TAC list.

**MajorStoffer**

It's true, Infinity is extremely small in comparison, more akin to Rogue Trader in scale, but what I bring it up for is the overall design is tight and systematic. Pretty much every rule, stat and piece of wargear has a points value which combine together to create a given unit, which has allowed a fairly comprehensive roster of stuff to exist in fairly good harmony. Balance only gets wonky when the combo of gear is either too beneficial or too mediocre, at which point that particular unit gets an adjust outside of the default formula.

Jervis basically came out and said they give 40k units a points value which they "feel" it needs. There's nothing concrete, nothing comprehensive, nothing tested properly, just ideas thrown at a wall and seeing what sticks. It's a difference of philosophy which results in a very different experience at the end of the day. 40k doesn't even feel coherent anymore, just random releases coming out with no forewarning, no apparent direction with rules that are all over the place. Infinity has very formulaic unit design, and that's what it's good at, and I don't expect nor want 40k to emulate that system exactly, but it need some coherent direction and design. We've got a skirmish ruleset trying to handle company-sized engagements with DLC rulesets, no communication or avenue of feedback with mechanics borrowed, lifted or copied from other products in the studio's lineup with little thought behind their implementation beyond "RANDOM!" and years and years worth of "patches" piled up upon one another to keep everything pseudo-functional, but now the cracks have gotten too large, the game is sagging under its own bloat with a confused, poorly functioning ruleset which doesn't suit anyone particularly well.

What 40k needs is a complete reboot, with rules which match the scale of game it's supposed to be, with some sort of avenue for communication, a company not actively hostile towards its own customers which is tight enough to allow two random people to play a pickup game without massive imbalance between their armies, but open enough to allow customization and flexibility which is what made 40k so good during the "glory days" of 3rd and 4th edition.

There are so many little things they could do, even with their current system of $50-$100 patches that they choose not to; cover a modifier rather than a save, make the psychic phase work like the magic phase with actual structure, limits on excess and ways for non-magic armies to survive, give fliers a modifier to hit rather than flat "only on 6s" and increase their minimum movement distance in flier mode (moving 6'' more than a tank in a phase shouldn't equal nigh-impossible to hit), put actual restrictions on super-powerful units like Wraithknights, Imperial Knights and so on, and actually test and update via pdf obviously dysfunctional units like Wave Serpents.

But none of that is forthcoming, GW demonstrates no desire to do anything constructive or to better their product, merely to release new products as quickly as possible, relying on inertia more than anything else to keep generating admittedly decreasing revenue. They don't care, at the end of the day. That's why 7th is mediocre at best, and that's why, increasingly, I can't be bothered to care. This has been one of my favourite hobbies, for which I loved building armies, testing them out, tweaking, adjusting, experimenting and actually looked forwards to the next release.

Now? I only have a kind of perverse pleasure in wondering what GW will break next, what awful business decision they will undertake and how better they will make an enemy out of their customers and playerbase. 7th has soured me enormously, I make no secret of that, and I know I am not alone on that front.

It really has been the advent of 7th which has seen an explosion of non-GW games in my area. Before, even during 6th which was no prize pig itself (mostly, imo, due to bad codex balance more than the core rules),, people really looked down on other games; Warmahordes was for the ultra-competitive, Bolt Action/Flames of War was for the Grognards and the malcontents, no one had even heard of Infinity. With 7th, however, we've got 9 Infinity players, only two people *don't* have Warmahordes armies (one being myself), half a dozen Bolt Action armies, more X-Wing than I could shake a stick at, a bunch of Star Trek: Attack Wing players and a bunch of people got into the Vampire: Masquerade larp of all things, and while everyone still loves the idea of 40k, the game and the company just pisses people off, competitive or casual. No one's selling their stuff, which I think speaks to the love people have for 40k; they want it to get better, they want to be able to have the kind of fun they had with the game as recently as 2 years ago, but no one's buying more and we haven't seen, or even heard of a new player in months at any of the local clubs.

The writing is on the wall that all is not well in the grim darkness of the 41st millenium.

**morgoth**

LordBlades wrote:

Internal balance however is just as bad or worse than before. I haven't seen a single 7th edition codex that had any semblance of internal balance (where at least some of the older codexes managed to).

What I meant by some codexes have an easier time doing TAC lists
Codexes like Eldar, SM or Tau (and Necrons maybe)benefit from having a few versatile units effective vs. all kinds of threats. Others din't. They need to include specialized units (often useless outside their intended role) for stuff like AA and whatnot. As such, they have a harder time fieksing a TAC list.

Err.. What older codexes had good internal balance ? I may never have seen them tbh.

Eldar, SM, Daemons, Tau and Necrons are just powerful codexes. They don't have an easier time doing TAC lists, they just have better everything, including TAC lists.

Eldar have no AA but enough pseudo AA to handle few flyers, and enough resilience and staying power to handle many flyers.

Necrons don't give two gaks about snap firing, and are flyer spammers themselves.

Marines ride on the GravStar, which of course doesn't care about airborne firepower.

Daemons ride on the ScreamerStar, exactly the same kind of deal.

Tau will just bash your head in, can easily deal with anything as long as it's shooting.

Imperial Knights are way too resilient to bother about flyers.

In other words, if the Eldar were a little bit less resilient, the Necrons couldn't spam planes as effectively, the Marines didn't have the GravStar, the Daemons the ScreamerStar and the Tau were a bit less powerful, they would be exactly like the v7 codexes in power and TAC-ability.

Imperial Knights are a skew build that will find counters in time.

So no, no codex has a better time with TAC lists specifically, just a better time with lists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MajorStoffer wrote:

What 40k needs is a complete reboot, with rules which match the scale of game it's supposed to be, with some sort of avenue for communication, a company not actively hostile towards its own customers which is tight enough to allow two random people to play a pickup game without massive imbalance between their armies, but open enough to allow customization and flexibility which is what made 40k so good during the "glory days" of 3rd and 4th edition.

40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.

What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.

40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.

**LordBlades**

morgoth wrote:
[

40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.

What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.

40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.

From a purely practical point of view, a game that is 'better than ever' doesn't cause the company built around it to decline in sales year after year.

40k is getting better lately, I agree, but it's still far from a good game.

It's not a good competitive game due to randomness and tons of balance issues.

It's not a good casual game because if you bring what you want and your opponent brings what he wants you can easily end up with very one sided games.

It's only a good game if you have a stable group of friends that are 40k fans to play with and as such you can tailor armies for fun games as well as enjoy the game more than.other superior rulesets just because it's 40k.

**morgoth**

LordBlades wrote:
morgoth wrote:
[

40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.

What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.

40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.

From a purely practical point of view, a game that is 'better than ever' doesn't cause the company built around it to decline in sales year after year.

40k is getting better lately, I agree, but it's still far from a good game.

Isn't the decline just WHFB though ?

All I'm saying is 40K is getting better and I enjoy playing it. So it must be a good game for some at least.

Yes I appreciate the improvement in rules and recognize that there's a lot of room for improvement.

But if we're talking rules and competition I'd be playing Starcraft II, not some half obscure miniature game.

If it's friends and beer and pretzels, board games, because all of my friends don't feel like miniatures.

For miniatures however, as they are the reason we even play those complex expensive games, 40K has at least a decade on everything out there.

**Arkaal**

I stopped reading after discovering the part on organisation chart and how the player who choose to respect them get compensated for doing so.

I told myself that I will only play with my friends.

Didn't happened yet!

**MajorStoffer**

GW's sales have sunk between 2 to 5% per report since just after 6th's release.

6th's drop brought a lot of people back into the game, saw a lot of people get into the game and saw a brief renaissance as most of the early 'dexes were pretty solid without being one-trick ponies compared to the 5th ed books, and only Necrons and the Heldrake really were well outside the norm, there was also a big spike in licensing revenue with the release of Space Marine and the last DoW2 expansion in that timeframe if I recall correclty, over twice what they're bringing in now.

Since then, GW's been on a steady decline in revenue, with Fantasy only accounting for about 8% of their total revenue (hence the End Times to try and rejuvenate that flagging system).

In terms of objective external balance, the most recent codexes have been an improvement, and none of the dataslate/formation stuff has been way out of line (though I'm pretty sure every non-BA player feels cheated by the BA formations). However, their internal balance is still absolute pants, and your own posts Morgoth only reinforce that.

Marines: bring centstar or die.

Eldar: Bring Wave Serpents/Wraithknights/Wraithguard

Necrons: Croissants ahoy

Daemons: inventors of the re-rollable 2++

Having these killer app lists is not indicative of a healthy system, where you either bring one of those lists or you pack up your army and go home.

In the most recent codexes, there remains awful internal balance and nonsensical rules which act only as evidence that GW either doesn't care or doesn't know what they're doing. Dark Eldar basically had their entire previous army concept invalidated in favour of becomming an assault army of all things. The whole shoot and scoot skirmisher army got nerfed really, really hard, but Coven is now ace. Time to buy a whole new army if you're a Dark Eldar player. Orks almost completely lost any kind of viable Elite army; no more Nobs as troops, Cybork is barely worth the time, and Flash Gitz got less random (one of the only things to get less random in the entirety of 7th, and an ork unit no less!) but lost survivability and stormboyz are excellent. Every single codex is now defined by a handful of good units, one or two superb, mind-blowingly awesome units and a bunch of garbage ones, with gaping holes in many armies.

The game isn't healthy, it's still possible to have fun, and having an existant club is absolutely critical where people understand one another and can force the game to work, in a way befitting their interests, but a game which charges $100 for the basic rules, $50 per codex or supplement, and $15+ for less than 20 page DLC, of which only a paragraph or two are rules shouldn't need more work to set up than Linux.

There is some evidence that game balance will improve, broadly, as codexes get replaced (I hope no one was attached to their two year old $50 Chaos book), but I don't think a few more patches on a seriously flawed, and massively overpriced product will stop GW's decline. It's slow, but absolutely inexorable, and I don't think the company has the capacity, will or creative talent to rectify that. Their "improved" codexes absolutely kill the one traditionally defining factor of 40k; choice and flexibility.

You don't play a codex, a theme or an army anymore, you play a netlist or you don't get to have fun against someone who does.

I am sorry if my disgust in the devolution of one of my favourite pastimes from an enjoyable, flexible, but slightly flawed game to a dysfunctional mess is irksome, but it is not so simple as just "go play something else;" I love 40k, I love my Imperial Guard army, I love my Space marines, I'd love to do a Freeboota army, but GW no longer wants my love, my money or my respect, and only after completely losing all hope in them, and seeing how much more positive an experience I can have with other products has resulted in me looking elsewhere, but that longstanding love of the 40k product, in all its forms keeps me looking back, hoping that some day, some how it might once again become something great.

This is not anger, nor mere frustration, but despair and exasperation. If one enjoys the new model of extreme powergaming, where the 40k universe is little more than a thin veneer on top of increasingly tacky models and wonkier rules, all the power to you. I for one have no interest in that hobby, and will hold out so long as I am able.

If I don't stick with PC games with glaring balance issues for more than a month, why on earth should anyone put up with GW's massive flaws, incompetency and malice for the prices they charge and the time their hobby demands?

**LordBlades**

morgoth wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
morgoth wrote:
[

40K needs nothing. It's better than ever, and getting even better.

What you need is to stop caring about 40K and play the games that you like better.

40K is not going to magically turn into what you enjoy today.

From a purely practical point of view, a game that is 'better than ever' doesn't cause the company built around it to decline in sales year after year.

40k is getting better lately, I agree, but it's still far from a good game.

Isn't the decline just WHFB though ?

All I'm saying is 40K is getting better and I enjoy playing it. So it must be a good game for some at least.

Yes I appreciate the improvement in rules and recognize that there's a lot of room for improvement.

But if we're talking rules and competition I'd be playing Starcraft II, not some half obscure miniature game.

If it's friends and beer and pretzels, board games, because all of my friends don't feel like miniatures.

For miniatures however, as they are the reason we even play those complex expensive games, 40K has at least a decade on everything out there.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy 40k as well, but I feel it has way more bad aspects than good aspects.

Me and my friends simply liked the setting of 40k from Dawn of War games way before we got enough dispsable income to get into tabletop wargames.

We talked about it several times and we all feel pretty much the same: if WH40k wasn't set up in the 40k universe butin some random settimg we had no prior attachment to we would haven't picked it up and instead would have gone for one of the vastly better systems out there, probably Warmahordes (which most of us plant to pick up ad a 2nd system after we have a 40k army done anyway).

As it is right now, we just feel enduring the bad rules is worth it for us to put 40k miniatures and not generic SF miniatures on the table. I can't help the feeling that we are having fun DESPITE the 40k rules and not BECAUSE of them.

**AnFéasógMór**

Best edition of 40k I've ever played. Of course, I started with Stormclaw, so that probably doesn't count for much.

**Talizvar**

I have played all editions.
Some token attempt was made to balance an army within it's codex.
That has steadily slipped until what we have now.
We now substitute models for others in separate codexes to keep some semblance of theme.
The permutations outside of contained codexes are too much to even attempt at balance.
"Best ever" game system indeed, first time I stopped playing completely for other games ever.
I have a big enough collection to make some ungodly mixes, but at the end of the day, it just looks stupid to field no matter how "competitive".
Lots of options but what makes a good game is carefully considered limitations.

**JohnHwangDD**

koooaei wrote:
I see so many complaints about tran ctans and such. But how is it really related to edition of the game? It's the problem of bad unit design.

The problem is that the C'Tan is designed with a 7E "ADD ALL THE CHROME!!!" philosophy. It's an unwieldy confusion of chrome for character.

**Archonate**

7th is a bit better than 6th I think.

4th was the golden age of rules. Not perfect but clear enough that players didn't get nearly so bogged down by the rules quagmire that we have today. There was more focus on the gameplay and tactics.
7th feels like GWs attempt to slowly crawl its way back to those blissful days.
We'll see what they do when 8th edition hits stores later this year.

**morgoth**

text removed.

Reds8n

**LordBlades**

morgoth wrote:

I think the whole rules problem is way overhyped.

Honestly, the 40K rules have some downsides and all, but mostly they're not *that* bad.

But maybe if you were to point out what you think isn't working well, in 40K proposed rules for example, we can have a discussion about that.

I think a lot of things are either bad, poorly thought or flat-out unnecessary.

Starting from the base premise of the game: roll 1d6. It's way too granular (even the most inept marksman hits a fly at 100m 1/6th of a time) and average results have an equal chance to occur as extreme results. Switching to 2d6 would greatly improve the game IMO.

Radomnes. Everything in 40k is a die roll. With the new necron codex even what you get to do in the shooting phase is a die roll. Every new codex adds more random tables to roll on, further lessening player agency and the control you have over the game. Add to that what I consider unneeded dice rolls, lie 2+ to Wound rerollable ine of the assasins gets. How often will you fail it (1/36 chance) and how often wilo it really matter that you've failed it?

Balance. I simply dislike that you can't simply.putyour army on the table and play, you need to negotiate with your opponent beforehand.

A lot of specific rules: cover (why on earth does a marine gain no benefit from cover when shot by lasguns, but does when shot by the same guarfsmen with plasma guns?), skyfire (why is a plane movimg 18 high up in plain sight harder to hit than a jetbike moving 36 around terrain?), unit types (what does MC do that couldn't be achieved by either infantry or vehicle classification fir example?), twin-linked and quite a few others.

**Talizvar**

"How do I feel about 7th?"

Disappointment, confusion on why steps cannot be taken now to make it better.
Why is it so resistant to fundamental change until a new big rule book release?

- That the rules could have easily been cleaned up with a strong eye to "murder your darlings".

- Change more things to be "choices" rather than a successful die roll.

- Continue to populate / control the "special rules" in the main rule book and less temptation to creating new ones in codexes.

- Granular rule sets for kill-team, "normal" and Apocalypse battles should be defined better for "balance" rather than one-size fits all.

- Some formula needs to be made for calculating a points cost value for a given unit at least for a guide, the overpriced and underpriced units are a bane to the game.

- Impose much greater restrictions / penalties to 2+ codex lists (increased point cost, further objective taking limitations, leadership / command penalties).

- Use much more formal to-the-point rules writing (put a box around core rules and write fluffy / friendly writing around it for examples).

- Suggest due to the various legal issues around models use this release model:
Initial codex with existing models and released new models at time of publication.
Release "supplements" for waves of new models or a really fancy insert in the model kit / blister.
Re-release the codex with all the updated models (more money! they should like that).

- Take a good look at what each model does and it's purpose, does it perform?
Rhino: "common" armor personnel carrier? Performs role? Cost correct? Transport only? Not assault platform? What can be used for assault?
Drop Pod: One way transport anywhere on board. Assault platform?
Predator Tank: Armored shooting platform. Role? Troop or vehicle killer.
I think when there are too many models that may compete for the same role: that is when they lose-out, or the chance to use another army's more effective units happens.

There is too much garbage models and too much must-take models in the game that there is some confusion of how points cost is even considered as a game balancing mechanic.
Due to access of a huge catalogue of poorly balanced model costs, we have the criminal differences in list builds that do not even have the benefit of being contained within a single codex. All the built-in liabilities and benefits are thrown out the window.

More restrictions not less, this rule system is like a spoiled child that has never been told "no" and will just keep demanding more.

**Chaospling**

Some of you think that the Psychic phase is a problem as it seems unfinished or rushed and that the Magic phase of Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition I presume) is much better. Could you elaborate on this?

**MajorStoffer**

Chaospling wrote:
Some of you think that the Psychic phase is a problem as it seems unfinished or rushed and that the Magic phase of Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition I presume) is much better. Could you elaborate on this?

The psychic phase allows unlimited warp charges and is extremely simplistic; roll X 4s to succeed, roll X 6s to cancel, modifier only if target is a psyker.

Risk of failure on my psychic powers is extremely low, and are extremely difficult to counter, especially in the volume it can reach. There is little structure; you either have enough dice/psykers to cast or cancel things, or you don't and lose the psychic phase.

Fantasy places hard caps on how many "power die" re: warp charges can be generated or used on a given power. Additionally, powers have a specific "target number;" the total value of the dice rolled, plus any modifiers the caster/army might have. If the cast is successful, the defender must use their own dice pool to match the value rolled, plus modifiers. Items exist for single-use autocast or autodispell, and even an army with no or few casters can, in their turn, dispell "ongoing effects:" buffs and debuffs or DoT attacks. Rolling specific values can result in irresistible force, either casting or dispelling, which can not be changed in any way.

Both games have stupid broken powers and obscenely powerful casters, but Fantasy has a lot more steps in place to mitigate abuse and is much more formulaic rather than random, and in general, since only Lord or Hero units, generally, provide any kind of power dice, it's much harder, points wise, to cram in major magic usage; big powerful casters are massively more expensive than any non-Apocalypse unit in 40k, ranging up to 1000 points for Nagash (otherwise known as giant feth-off cannonball bait).

In fantasy, I can play against a magic-heavy list without much magic, and if I'm smart I can keep my army intact long enough to slow down the psychic barrage. In 40k, your only counter to major psychic spam is psychic spam or the Celuxes assassin.

**Arbiter_Shade**

Chaospling wrote:
Some of you think that the Psychic phase is a problem as it seems unfinished or rushed and that the Magic phase of Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition I presume) is much better. Could you elaborate on this?

Okay. First off at the very base your psychic powers are based on a roll of 1d6 and you add more dice based on the levels of your psykers. This is a problem when you have armies like Grey Knights and Necrons facing off against one another in that one army doesn't even exist within a phase of the game and the other one has more psykers than they know what to do with. Next you have to roll a number of 4+'s equal to the mastery rank of the power you are manifesting, this is irritating because it is so random with very little you as the player can do to modify it other than throw more dice at it and hope for the best. Then after you case the power your opponent has to roll a number of 6's to cancel it equal to the number of 4+'s you rolled, this is a ludicrous system that benefits the psyker far to much. Now I know you can modify that roll but you will at best break even with the person casting and even then very few armies are capable of reaching that point. So going back to our situation where you have a Grey Knight player vs a Necron player, the Necron player can't do anything to stop the Grey Knight player other than hope they can get lucky. With the advent of 6th and 7th psykers are becoming more and more powerful but the armies without or limited access to them are not seeing any changes while psyker heavy armies are becoming far to powerful.

In WHFB you roll 2d6 to determine how many casting dice you have, your opponent gets a number of dispell dice equal to the highest of the two dice you rolled. So a roll of 2d6 that gave you a 4 and a 5 would give the casting player 9 spell dice and his opponent 5 dispell dice. Then you channel with your casters which is rolling a die for every caster and getting an additional power/dispell dice for every 6 you roll. This can be modified with some basic magic items so that you can get a channel on a 5+. Next spells in WHFB have a casting value that all you need to do is equal or exceed in order to cast your spell. So for a spell level 14 you need to roll 14 on how ever many dice you want to allocated to that power, to help you out you get to add the caster level of the wizard casting the power to the die roll as well as modifying it with magic items. So a level 4 wizard would only need to roll a 10 to cast a power level 14 spell. To dispell a spell you do the exact same process with one of the defending armies casters, you roll however many dispell dice you want and add the caster level of the wizard that is attempting the dispell.

So you have a situation in WHFB where the casting player has a bit of advantage by having more dice to play with than the defending player but the defending player is never at a point where they can do nothing to defend themselves. In 40k there really is no defense against casting other than hoping the psykers player rolls so poorly that the power doesn't go off.