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.

2) Psychic phase seems cumbersome but the one in 2nd edition was the same way, and at least it seems like you don't just get screwed if you can't or don't field a psyker to counter your opponents. There's a lot of panic about this so-called "daemon factory" but I don't think it's going to be as broken as everybody things in practice.

How many games against GK, eldar or demons have you played ? It is not just demons that roll around with a working list a lotof power dice per turn . GK can take small henchman squads in razorbacks and both give them power dice .

And let us not forget that the problem with eldar is not just the psychic powers. It is their powers on top of being ++2 with possible re-rolls , and tougher to kill serpents. Before those lists at least had to fear D weapons , now they no longer do .

No I didnt cheat, just didnt quite know the ordinance rules. The list is awful. Had no combos. Had more psykers than the eldar player. All things you just told me where impossible to play using guard. yet I had one of the most fun 40k battles in a long time using it. Im just trying to say your experiences arent like most of the worlds thats all. So when you say things like

So you destroyed serpents , which you shouldn't have , which then helped you win , because you had no ways to counter tanks . If those serpents were alive considering what was left alive out of your list at the end of the game one could easily imagine you being tabled. Not to mention the fire power he lost , the speed , the ability to contest with scoring serpents etc.

I killed one serpent yes. The other died to plasma. But yet again you are missing the point. The point is games dont have to be played the way you describe them. Nor is it anywhere near commonly played the way you describe.

I love how I get called a troll because someone asks what are the thoughts on 7th edition and I said it I think it has some problems.

So, what I learned: Not liking 7th = troll. Gotcha.

To the OP, there are much better games that use strategy, aren't won or lost in the list building phase and are cheaper to get into.
Warmachine has surprisingly deep and rich fluff with shorter but more intense games, Infinity is very tactical and far more gratifying if strategy is your reason for playing. (and the rules are free.)

I'm getting the feeling of playing an MMORPG. New area opens up in new update. If you've got friends to run the dungeons with, it's great. If you only have pick up groups for dungeons and half the time you get Leeroy Jenkins and the other half you get ninja looters, it's gonna suck.

So a new edition brings with it new rules and toys. If no one abuses in your group, that's great. If you only have pick up games, it's gonna be a mixed bag.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I love how I get called a troll because someone asks what are the thoughts on 7th edition and I said it I think it has some problems.

So, what I learned: Not liking 7th = troll. Gotcha.

To the OP, there are much better games that use strategy, aren't won or lost in the list building phase and are cheaper to get into.
Warmachine has surprisingly deep and rich fluff with shorter but more intense games, Infinity is very tactical and far more
gratifying if strategy is your reason for playing. (and the rules are free.)

probably because the OP wanted a factual list of differences between editions, and you basically placed your biased opinion into each of these changes with lashings of negativity. I don't have an issue with you disliking the game or stating that, but at least give the OP what he asked for, especially since he is possibly contemplating returning to the game. After that list, by all means state why you dislike those changes.

I have a few games of 7th under my belt now and have really enjoyed the process. Granted, I haven't player a lot of the so called 'spam" or "star" lists, and guess what? They're enjoyable as all hell. Psyker dice have been between 3 and 6 per side before the D6 roll. The tactical objectives have made the games more challenging and often very close.

If anything, I think the system is a little rules heavy and could do with a simplification process (many excessive D6 rolls could be abstracted into a simpler system to resolve effects without damaging gameplay).

If I were to summarize what I think of this edition so far, it would be a simple "a narrative is being forged through many random events". I can see this being a major issue with competitive players in tournaments etc, as so much of the game revolves around the result of the dice. Yes, you can mitigate some of these results, but the more dice that are rolled, the more random the results will be.
However, if your idea of a fun game is a laid back battle with friends where odd "narratives" can occur (when you roll that snake eyes for assault distance) then the game is a blast.

If I were to streamline the system for competitive play I would put in a place a strict 6" charge distance (for everything), no dice to move for difficult terrain unless bulky (-2") or vehicular (dangerous terrain test) but no running through terrain in the shooting step etc. Take out most of the random D6 issues and let player skill decide the result (for this to occur, many codices would need some major adjustments). Of the top of my head would be changes to some of the so called "stars" such as removing the jetbike as an option for farseers and warlocks unless in a specific Saim Hann dataslate (which would mean the inclusion of bike sqds and vypers etc).

bullyboy wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I love how I get called a troll because someone asks what are the thoughts on 7th edition and I said it I think it has some problems.

So, what I learned: Not liking 7th = troll. Gotcha.

probably because the OP wanted a factual list of differences between editions, and you basically placed your biased opinion into each of these changes with lashings of negativity. I don't have an issue with you disliking the game or stating that, but at least give the OP what he asked for, especially since he is possibly contemplating returning to the game. After that list, by all means state why you dislike those changes.


If I were to summarize what I think of this edition so far, it would be a simple "a narrative is being forged through many random events". I can see this being a major issue with competitive players in tournaments etc, as so much of the game revolves around the result of the dice. Yes, you can mitigate some of these results, but the more dice that are rolled, the more random the results will be.
However, if your idea of a fun game is a laid back battle with friends where odd "narratives" can occur (when you roll that snake eyes for assault distance) then the game is a blast.

If I were to streamline the system for competitive play I would put in a place a strict 6" charge distance (for everything), no dice to move for difficult terrain unless bulky (-2") or vehicular (dangerous terrain test) but no running through terrain in the shooting step etc. Take out most of the random D6 issues and let player skill decide the result (for this to occur, many codices would need some major adjustments). Of the top of my head would be changes to some of the so called "stars" such as removing the jetbike as an option for farseers and warlocks unless in a specific Saim Hann dataslate (which would mean the inclusion of bike sqds and vypers etc).

He asked for our thoughts and opinions, which I gave. What was opinion, I stated as such. Here's what I said.


I see my opinion labeled as such, but I don't see anything factual incorrect. (The following isn't what I think, just using it as an example.) Maybe you should stick to the facts and stop trying to white-wash the game with nothing but blind optimism. (back to normal) See how useful that is? Not at all. The OP asked for thoughts. I gave them. That doesn't make me a troll.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I love how I get called a troll because someone asks what are the thoughts on 7th edition and I said it I think it has some problems.

So, what I learned: Not liking 7th = troll. Gotcha.

To the OP, there are much better games that use strategy, aren't won or lost in the list building phase and are cheaper to get into.
Warmachine has surprisingly deep and rich fluff with shorter but more intense games, Infinity is very tactical and far more gratifying if strategy is your reason for playing. (and the rules are free.)

While I understand that you might have moved onto another system I think that telling people to play them instead of the game they're obviously interested in is.. kinda questionable. I mean.. okay, I know that some people might want to spread the good news about them finding their better fix somewhere else, but making posts like that in a thread like this one doesn't strike me as a great thing.

That being said I am starting Warmachine(went for Cygnar) and I was having a lot of fun with it, but again, OP made this thread about another game.

Well, that, and the fact that not everyone cares just about the system as it is - 40k has very specific fluff and design style that neither of the games you mentioned has, nor the scale. Some people just want to play bigger battles and Warmachine gets EXTREMELY uncomfortable at bigger points(basically anything past 75pts is a pain in ass) while Infinity seems to be even less suited for that due to even smaller scale of the battles. So.. yeah, don't get me wrong - I am not trying to bash you or anything - I heard a lot good about Infinity and I find Warmachine to be overall much better system than 40k, but there's no way it would give me what 40k gives in many fields, be it modelling, fluff(come on, WM's fluff is.. warmachine-ish ), army design or scale of battles and when I hear that I could be better off playing some other game is.. silly as 40k is fairly unique as a game while there are craploads of various skirmish games around.

Just my 2 cents.