Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it

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.

**TheAvengingKnee**

evildrcheese wrote:
I've played a few games of 7th. 2 games of the old missions, and one maelstrom of war.

Commentary for the old missions in 7th, the rule set feels tighter and the games play better, everything scoring is cool and the I've encountered zero problems with the psychic phase.
I haven't experienced 'unbound' as my club has stated that pick up games should be battle forged, anyone wanting to play unbound is advised to pre-arrange or risk not getting a game, which seems to be a good policy.

The maelstrom of war game was a blast, I think I want to play these missions as my default choice, although it is annoying that I don't have the cards.

Overall I'm loving 7th, the games feel much more dynamic and interesting.

D

If people aren't overly nasty and just trying to bring the most broken list they can unbound really is no big deal, not having super scoring troops can actually hurt quite a lot. I would recommend trying some games of it before ruling it out completely, I know a lot of people at the flgs(including the people who run it) that I go to often were adamant about them being a bad thing but as we have looked at it unbound really is not so bad.

**tyrannosaurus**

Yonan wrote:

Going to have to disagree there. I love having a good background for games - but this implementation of tactical objectives is anything but tactical or narrative. There are proposed ways to fix it (in this thread iirc) but as is, really don't like the system. Peregrine summed up my opinions on the "narrative" of objective cards with this post:

Peregrine wrote:
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*

So you only have one unit in your army? Makes a lot more sense when in one turn one unit takes an objective then moves on, and another unit moves up to secure the same part of the battleground,. Also, some people make a lot of the unachievable objectives, but the rules allow you to discard, or you can put in place a very simple house rule.

**Yonan**

tyrannosaurus wrote:
or you can put in place a very simple house rule.

Which is the problem - us needing to fix the rules.

**Gunzhard**

Yonan wrote:
tyrannosaurus wrote:
or you can put in place a very simple house rule.

Which is the problem - us needing to fix the rules.

Yeah that hasn't been our experience at all, and many who have actually been playing these missions find them pretty suitable.

As for the narrative part - if you're putting a science fiction toy army down on a science fiction toy battlefield, and you cannot come up with at least a dozen reasons you might work towards a certain objective at a given time during the science fiction imaginary battle - well you just lack imagination.

**Kr00gZ**

Loved the two 7th Ed games i've played so far as well. Will be doing a Maelstrom based mission this weekend coming.

The flow is good I like the layout of the rulebook. Not much flipping around. As a Tyranid player the psychic phase is great as it makes me remember to do psychic stuff.

**tyrannosaurus**

Yonan wrote:
tyrannosaurus wrote:
or you can put in place a very simple house rule.

Which is the problem - us needing to fix the rules.

Didn't come up in the game I played, but allowing a discard of unachievable objectives is such a no-brainer it hardly even counts as a house rule.

**adamsouza**

I don't view them as shifting objectives as much as new objectives.

Go rescue that guy over there.

Now that you rescued him you leared the enemy respects honor. Go challenge some of their troops.

While earning their respect you noticed they aren't supplied very well. Go claim that objective they could use to re-arm.

Excellent, that statue over their has significance to them, go claim it.

**Yonan**

adamsouza wrote:
I don't view them as shifting objectives as much as new objectives.

Go rescue that guy over there.

Now that you rescued him you leared the enemy respects honor. Go challenge some of their troops.

While earning their respect you noticed they aren't supplied very well. Go claim that objective they could use to re-arm.

Excellent, that statue over their has significance to them, go claim it.

All of which are better fitting in a campaign rather than the short and hectic firefight that a tabletop game represents.

**Dragonzord**

Yonan wrote:
adamsouza wrote:
I don't view them as shifting objectives as much as new objectives.

Go rescue that guy over there.

Now that you rescued him you leared the enemy respects honor. Go challenge some of their troops.

While earning their respect you noticed they aren't supplied very well. Go claim that objective they could use to re-arm.

Excellent, that statue over their has significance to them, go claim it.

All of which are better fitting in a campaign rather than the short and hectic firefight that a tabletop game represents.

Why cant it be both?

**Yonan**

Dragonzord wrote:
Why cant it be both?

Such rapidly changing objectives actively detracts from the single battle as it eliminates multi-turn strategy and becomes ridiculous as fast units jet from one objective to another and then back again which does *not* represent a good narrative inside a battle. It might make for more action as it punishes gunlines and defensive play, but it's bad for the narrative and strategy - and there are other ways to improve the action without these crippling side effects.

**Slaanesh-Devotee**

I was going to apologise for impugning the sort of narrative you like with your battle and admit I was too black and white, but you're flat out denying that people who say they enjoy the narratives they get from the new missions can be having good narratives.

You're being narrow minded at this stage and there's no real point to conversing with you.

**Yonan**

I could qualify everything with - in my opinion - but that should be obvious should it not?

**Leth**

Not really, many people state their opinions as fact which is where the problems come from.

Also if it is an opinion than it is not a matter of right or wrong and thus not worth debating.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Leth wrote:
Also if it is an opinion than it is not a matter of right or wrong and thus not worth debating.

All people have opinions but not all opinions are equally valid and not all opinions are equally shared, hence debate.

There will be people who like and people who don't like each new edition. Though it seems to me that many of the 7th edition changes are more divisive and IMO divisive changes are not a good thing. Things that create rifts in the community because a large portion of people don't like them aren't good for the community and aren't good for the health of a game.

**Col. Dash**

I had a fairly positive first game as well last weekend.Now we did play 7k each for our first game but I love all the wacky stuff that goes on. Having a fighter crash directly on a primarch is hilarious. Especially when he simply swipes it out of the sky and keeps going. It worked to my favor but still not a fan of carry over wounds from challenges. Stupid he can hit people and not get hit back.

**Leth**

Col. Dash wrote:
I had a fairly positive first game as well last weekend.Now we did play 7k each for our first game but I love all the wacky stuff that goes on. Having a fighter crash directly on a primarch is hilarious. Especially when he simply swipes it out of the sky and keeps going. It worked to my favor but still not a fan of carry over wounds from challenges. Stupid he can hit people and not get hit back.

You can hit the guy in the challenge, he is just the last guy that can be allocated wounds.

However if he is the only guy left, you can smack him all you want

**Ralis**

About the best analogy I've heard relating to 7th ed is

"If 6th Ed was 60% good, then 7th Ed is 80% good"

I've enjoyed both games I've played so far, Even if I've not played a Maelstrom mission due to lack of cards. But I've very much looking forward to the chance too!

**AllSeeingSkink**

Ralis wrote:
About the best analogy I've heard relating to 7th ed is

"If 6th Ed was 60% good, then 7th Ed is 80% good"

I've enjoyed both games I've played so far, Even if I've not played a Maelstrom mission due to lack of cards. But I've very much looking forward to the chance too!

Firstly, that's not an analogy. Secondly, eh, I think 6th ed was about 50% good and 7th about 50% good, they just shuffled what was good and what was bad.

**ninjafiredragon**

Leth wrote:
Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.

Um no. This is not true. scoring objectives is a wonderfull gain and a bonus, and can win the games, but that is not the only reason people take a deathstar.
Since you have obviously never faced a seerstar, let me give you the round up. They shoot 6-9 S9 guns at you re rolling to hit. Then they charge with 25+ wounding on 2s re rolling to hit attacks. sometimes re rolling to wound, and sometimes making you re roll amro saves.
Then they jump out of combat thanks to hit and run and eat another unit next turn.
The seer star can reliably kill a unit every turn. Whether it be tanks, MCs, or infantry, its gone or at least severely diminished.

@OP The maelstrom missions are great as long as neither you or your opponent is play eldar. Then there just plain stupid.

**portugus**

I enjoyed the new missions as well. I love sending my units forwards to take the fight to the enemy and now I get rewarded for it by going for objectives. Also I made my own deck of objective cards with everything that is on the the "official" deck in about 30 minutes using index cards and a pen.

**TheSilo**

portugus wrote:
I enjoyed the new missions as well. I love sending my units forwards to take the fight to the enemy and now I get rewarded for it by going for objectives. Also I made my own deck of objective cards with everything that is on the the "official" deck in about 30 minutes using index cards and a pen.

Index cards! Heresy! Good idea though. I've had no problem using the dice system and pen/paper though.

I also love having a real tactical reason to move my troops forward, off the gunline. And infiltrators and scouts are super important now since they can plop on an objective before turn one, or outflank onto a backfield objective.

**TheAvengingKnee**

My FLGS did a 7th ed non-tourney to give people a chance to get together and try 7th, the reactions were all pretty good, I had a lot of fun.

**Leth**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
Leth wrote:
Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.

Um no. This is not true. scoring objectives is a wonderfull gain and a bonus, and can win the games, but that is not the only reason people take a deathstar.
Since you have obviously never faced a seerstar, let me give you the round up. They shoot 6-9 S9 guns at you re rolling to hit. Then they charge with 25+ wounding on 2s re rolling to hit attacks. sometimes re rolling to wound, and sometimes making you re roll amro saves.
Then they jump out of combat thanks to hit and run and eat another unit next turn.
The seer star can reliably kill a unit every turn. Whether it be tanks, MCs, or infantry, its gone or at least severely diminished.
@OP The maelstrom missions are great as long as neither you or your opponent is play eldar. Then there just plain stupid.

Yep and the mission win conditions of last edition that had kill points being a significant part of the score prevented people from taking MSU, which was the main counter to death stars. The death star being able to contest multiple objectives was also part of what enabled them to win. A death star will kill 1, maybe 2 units a turn. When there are 20 units on the tables they will lose because they got a 1000 points invested into killing a 35 point rhino or drop pod every turn which they have to try and kill if they want to win.

Those str 9 guns dont ignore armor so are not likely to kill much outside of failed rolls. Those re-rols to hit, re-rolls to wound, and re-rolling armor saves all require psychic powers now that are not reliable at all, you are very unlikely to get the perfect storm of powers off every turn.

Also I have played against(and sometimes beat) all of the death stars of old, when you change the win conditions to something not relying on last turn contests they tend to not hold up as well.

**Lobomalo**

TheSilo wrote:
Lobomalo wrote:
We played one of the width length missions, I forget the name atm but we had 3 buildings spread out with an objective on each side and difficult terrain craters between them.

Using my friends DA army I rushed the 50 tactical marines in their Rhinos to the buildings, unloaded them, took the buildings and prevented him from getting a single objective. He did get first blood because of the terminators but at the end of turn 3 the score was 10-1

Can you come and do a clinic for the players at my flgs? They spend all their points on terminators that just walk slowly towards my battle lines, it's mind boggling that the marine players don't splurge on tactical squads. They think they can win with just terminators. But even if each of his terminator squads killed one of my squads per turn, I'd still have enough squads to claim more objectives than them.

Gladly. I'll dance around them all game lol. Really, against DA, Terminators are only scary on that initial turn they Deep Strike, which didn't help him much as he chose turn 2 to do it, and he went second, which allowed me time to kill off every bike he had except for the one he put with Sammael lol

**Savageconvoy**

I like the idea of the objective cards, but think some slight improvements could be made. Maybe being able to remove 3 cards before the game starts and your opponent removes 1 more from your deck.

The first time I played using the objectives we started off with 6 cards and I drew 3 objective cards and 3 impossible cards. Of the 3 objectives I could claim 2 with the third being in the far back corner.

My opponent on the other hand drew the one for psychic powers in a GK army, a few for his objectives, and another for d3 points for killing 3 units. This really did skew the battle really early on.

**Leth**

We just house rules that any cards that are impossible can be instantly discarded and re-drew. Keeps it simple without having to go through the deck each game

Also for the tournament this weekend I recommended that all D3s be set at two

**NathanD298**

Got my first game of seventh coming up on Friday - honestly cannot wait!! Glad to see it's not all negative

**Savageconvoy**

I just don't like the objectives if you aren't using cards, since it's a lot of extra book keeping especially since there are three different kinds of "Objective 1 good" .

I like the idea of "every turn matters" and tallying up points for what you did in your turn. However, it could have been done completely differently in my opinion. Objectives lay down the same way before table sides are picked and points are earned for each turn you control an objective. Maybe even make mission specific ones that give points for removing entire units of a specific FOC slot.

**ninjafiredragon**

Leth wrote:
ninjafiredragon wrote:
Leth wrote:
Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.

Um no. This is not true. scoring objectives is a wonderfull gain and a bonus, and can win the games, but that is not the only reason people take a deathstar.
Since you have obviously never faced a seerstar, let me give you the round up. They shoot 6-9 S9 guns at you re rolling to hit. Then they charge with 25+ wounding on 2s re rolling to hit attacks. sometimes re rolling to wound, and sometimes making you re roll amro saves.
Then they jump out of combat thanks to hit and run and eat another unit next turn.
The seer star can reliably kill a unit every turn. Whether it be tanks, MCs, or infantry, its gone or at least severely diminished.
@OP The maelstrom missions are great as long as neither you or your opponent is play eldar. Then there just plain stupid.

Yep and the mission win conditions of last edition that had kill points being a significant part of the score prevented people from taking MSU, which was the main counter to death stars. The death star being able to contest multiple objectives was also part of what enabled them to win. A death star will kill 1, maybe 2 units a turn. When there are 20 units on the tables they will lose because they got a 1000 points invested into killing a 35 point rhino or drop pod every turn which they have to try and kill if they want to win.

Those str 9 guns dont ignore armor so are not likely to kill much outside of failed rolls. Those re-rols to hit, re-rolls to wound, and re-rolling armor saves all require psychic powers now that are not reliable at all, you are very unlikely to get the perfect storm of powers off every turn.

Also I have played against(and sometimes beat) all of the death stars of old, when you change the win conditions to something not relying on last turn contests they tend to not hold up as well.

My whole post was relating to when you said that deathstars worked last edition....
This edition they got worse. And I agree.

**Accolade**

Savageconvoy wrote:
I like the idea of the objective cards, but think some slight improvements could be made. Maybe being able to remove 3 cards before the game starts and your opponent removes 1 more from your deck.

The first time I played using the objectives we started off with 6 cards and I drew 3 objective cards and 3 impossible cards. Of the 3 objectives I could claim 2 with the third being in the far back corner.

My opponent on the other hand drew the one for psychic powers in a GK army, a few for his objectives, and another for d3 points for killing 3 units. This really did skew the battle really early on.

Yeah, objective cards seem like one of the largely accepted things about 7th. The consensus seems to be that they could have been tuned up a bit before release. Some people have taken to make the changes and others are frustrated that these fixes are required in the first place. I just really wish GW would play-test this game just a

ing little bit.

Most of the changes mentioned are pretty unambiguous, which is why it's not worth groaning over in many people's opinions. But if someone at GW had sat down and posed a couple of scenarios to the rules authors, there wouldn't even be a discussion. It's like the rules team is sitting in a room stoned and one guy occasionally blurts out a good idea and everyone else "woahs". Then the next day they read back the notes and copy them into the game verbatim.

EDIT: OP thanks for the story. It is also interesting to hear different people's perspectives on this stuff.