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.

tiger g wrote:
It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

Played 21 games in 7th so far, 19 of those with comped rules and I'd never go back to playing uncomped again.

 Zagman wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

tiger g wrote:
It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

Do you need to touch the fire to know you won't like the outcome?

I have played three games so far and I don't like 7th. Do I need to play a hundred more to satisfy you? Spend another $1000 to validate my opinion? What requirement do you need to take my opinion seriously?

Three games is a small sample size. I have to ask, did you bias yourself against 7th before playing your first game? If you went in thinking you'd hate 7th, you'll be right. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Going in I liked some of the changes, but was dubious about the maelstrom cards and neutral to the psychic phase. The cards are gimmicky and the psychic phase is a huge disappointment to me. Which is sad because I always have psykers in my army. I've played 40k since 1994 so I have a lot of experience with this game. Normally all I expect from a new edition is change, not improvement. IMO 7th is a step backwards.

But my question remains, how much time/money/experience will be required before you lot accept my opinion?

GrafWattenburg wrote:


On another note, I really don't understand why people who don't play the game any longer bother spending their time on a forum dedicated to 40k.

Really? There are like 87 other threads that talk about that.

Just to clarify: played 2 Maelstrom games, hated it. What Maelstrom does is nothing but making victory completely random. That might be fun for some people, and I don't want to tell those people that they must not have fun, but for anyone with a slight interest in fair and competitive games, you are better off staying as far away from Maelstrom as you possibly can.

So yeah, only playing Normal 40k with comped rules.

GrafWattenburg wrote:

On another note, I really don't understand why people who don't play the game any longer bother spending their time on a forum dedicated to 40k.

They love the universe and 40k was a passion. It requires a lot of time and energy to build, paint, and play it. How often have you gone cold turkey on something you love or are addicted to?

GrafWattenburg wrote:


On another note, I really don't understand why people who don't play the game any longer bother spending their time on a forum dedicated to 40k.

We play 40k for a long time and don't hate the game, we hate the poor effort GW puts into it nowadays. Take their lackluster rules, without buying of course, and work on an improved ruleset with fellow competitive players...and you get a better and still very enjoyable game.

oh yeah, I forgot to mention the psychic phase. SO I played Tau with some Eldar allies against GK/Inq. Each phase I only had a few dice to try and dispell anything while my opponent had 6 dice for every 1 I had. This meant I would really get no spells out the entirety of the game.

We played another game that was a team game and the same thing happened. He had so many dice that the few spells someone tried to get out where immediately canceled while he had so many spells going off that there was no real way to actually defend against it.

Easy fixes to this would be to cap the dice you generate and add in generic items that let you aid in dispelling something. Much like what Fantasy does. For some reason though, my $85 rule book, for a system I hate, couldn't spare a few pages for something to try and balance out the system.

 Zagman wrote:
Three games is a small sample size. I have to ask, did you bias yourself against 7th before playing your first game? If you went in thinking you'd hate 7th, you'll be right. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not sure how you can avoid bias when you have played previous editions and new rules have come in that you do/don't like.

Honestly, there are many aspects of 7th I don't like without ever having played a game, I know I won't like them because they go against the aspects I do like or enhance aspects I already didn't like.

i don't have a copy of the rulebook and we don't play maelstrom in my local group. Is that a house rule? are you supposed to play it at every game in the rulebook? so far i like the changes to mech, flying mcs and also the everything is scoring rules. it maintaisn the purpose of troops but also fixes that "well my tank is parked next to an unoccupied objective but i can't claim it" problem.

Mind you, I am a n3wb

 Zagman wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:

tiger g wrote:It is funny that the negatives never state they actually played one game of 7th.

I fully admit that I've never played a game of 7th. I also think 7th is objectively bad from a game design point of view because of the reasons Vaktathi stated above and more (daemon factory comes to mind).

The non achievable objectives is an easy fix, just discard anyone you cannot achieve and draw another. Most people are already playing with that house rule already.


Maybe you should give it a try, and go in with an open mind.

The fact you've stated Daemon Factory as a major problem makes me think you don't fully grasp 7th edition and the changes,mparticularily in the Psychic Phase. If you look through tactics, you'll see a thread I wrote in the limitations of Daemon Factories ie Summoning. If people are playing by the rules, Daemon Factory isn't terribly strong, and it certainly won't be winning GTs. Now, Summoning can be useful in some lists and scenarios, but as a list it doesn't work very well.

Maybe you should give it a try. There are certainly things I don't like, but many of those things I can easily avoid SHs, GCs, and Unbound. Keep an open mind, many of the knee jerk reactions about 7th have proven to be less problematic than originally thought.

I normally try to keep an open mind and at least try something before deciding I don't like it but in this case I will not be trying it as I know what I like and even a glance at 7th tells me its not right for me.
Any game with self propelled artillery on the table and squads drawing LoS on a per model basis doesn't know what scale it wants to be. I find that kind of bloat tedious at best.
Unbound I actually think could have been great, I'd love an army of nothing but night lord raptors or sternguard counts as deathwath, but the fundamental imbalances in the game ruin that.
The meta is a mess, I can accept that and buy what is good rather than what I like, or I can go unto every game knowing the guys at my FLGS who do play the meta will table me.
I dislike random elements and like to be able to say that I won through skill, not luck. That doesn't mean I want to play chess, I just don't see why I can't pick a warlord trait or buy Psyker powers.

My problem with 7th isn't the changes really, its the lack of any of the changes I needed to see to become interested again.

Played a couple games so far....

Non tzeench Daemons almost have to use the demonology. Nurgle especially doesn't have the staying power with psychic powers being less dependable. (And less of them)
Im not spending points on that anymore...gifts are better and I spend points on more stuff.

Vehicles are remarkably better. Walkers got a huge boost now that units cannot grenade spam you anymore. (1 grenade per unit per phase was a sneaky change.)

Super heavies are not OP anymore in a normal game.

Ap 1 weapons have a use again...that being said so do av 13/14 vehicles. (I am actually USING a land raider now lol.)

Maelstrom missions. Folks do one thing and you will love them...allow both player to pick out 15 in a deck before the game. MUCH more fun to be had that way.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:

 Red__Thirst wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

So let me get this straight: the outcome of the game was decided by you drawing better cards than your opponent, and you think this is a good thing?

The outcome of the game at the second turn when we had to call the game due to him having to leave suddenly was determined by, surprise surprise, random chance, in a game where everything is determined by dice rolls. You know, random chance. Had we played it out, who knows who would have won, or lost? A standard game is supposed to go on for five turns minimum, after all.
That said, It's a game, it uses random elements like many other games do (objectives in this case) which can be generated by dice rolls (how I prefer it) or by drawing cards for them.

As to your statement: Yes I think it is a good thing. That's my opinion. Do I like every nuance of 40k? No. Is it a perfect system? No. Do I still enjoy the game? Hell yes, I do.

I'm not coming on here defending Games Workshop, their principles, their decisions, or their design choices. I came on here, and please note the title of my thread, to offer my opinion on how 7th edition 40k plays. You won't change that opinion, and you're free to disagree with the opinion I expressed as you so vocally have in this, and other forums and threads in the past. It doesn't make your opinion more or less valid than mine, it just makes it different.

At the end of the day, I enjoy the changes that have been made, and the people I play with on the whole do as well. Que-sera-sera and all that jazz.

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of the reason behind my opening post, and the opinion expressed there-in.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

Just ignore Peregrine. He has a strong opinion and won't admit he's wrong. EVER.

Glad you're in enjoying 7th! I have yet to play a game of 7th myself so I can't say weather I like it or not, but glad SOMEONE isn't moaning about everything.


HOWEVER. Mark this day in your calendars everybody! I agree with Peregrine on something! 40k is a Dice game not a card game!

Well, risk is too a dice game, with a combination of cards, but you either can play it as a purely dice game or the combination of both, and in both cases it has a solid gameplay, but lets not forget that risk have a couple of years with this system, so its time enought to change and pacht the problems, even they take the system to very boundrys with the lastest rule set, evolution, it was a hell of fun, of couerse that rule system have their problems as some faction could get really op perks, but with time and with the born of a new rule set or expasion that problems could be fix it; as the same, 40k 7th edition is the firts try with the card system, so to be fair doesn´t have to be perfect, i accept that it has its problems, but hey walt disney park was a mess the firts year it opened its gates
They make a try with the implemetation of the cards, it gives mix results, yes, but aty the same time you arent forced to play always with cards, it comes as a option, i will give it to all the complain on the internet about the maelstorm if it was the only way to play the game and the old mission were take out of the ruleset, but thats not the case, its a option and as option you can always giv it a try, if dont like it then never come back to the option.
On resume, 40k should what you want to be: a purelely dice game or a dice-card game

 anyeri wrote:

On resume, 40k should what you want to be: a purelely dice game or a dice-card game

Several people keep throwing around the "dice game" moniker as if it means the game is always entirely to chance. Let's, for a second, leave off the instances where a bolter at 25" gets no shots, 24" gets one and at 12" or less gets two, which greatly changes outcomes, and look at dice as a mechanic.

Now the dice mechanic in Warhammer 40k is terrible. There's no way to cut it if you play most other games in the past several years. You have to essentially memorize a math formula or table to work out how to manipulate a D6 across multiple actions for the same unit's action (high roll, low roll, high roll; to hit, to wound, saves). However these are not purely random in the sense you are still rolling against probability; you have a ballistic skill, a strength vs. a toughness, and an Ap/weapon type versus a save. A player with plasma guns can navigate these towards a beneficial target, such as something with a 2+ armor save, to maximize their effectiveness; or to put it in game design terms, weight the probability for success.

Where Games Workshop fails is that they have too many elements purely on random effects. Warlord traits, psychic powers, warp storm tables, maelstrom objectives, etc. all operate on a straight random roll. You cannot plan for these and only hope, at best, that they do not hinder your overall strategy of army composition.

In many other games, the mechanics are more straight forward and fully rely on weighted probability. Of the games I have played, Malifaux, Infinity, and Warmahordes, they all use target numbers with weight probability in the form of modifiers and additional dice to a single roll (or multiple for Infinity). Each of these actions are always upon the players choice, the tactics, to weight the probability. We play with dice because the final random element makes for excitement. Pure random does not make for excitement when you understand this core fundamental of game design that uses dice. You can see pretty much this notion across most other games, be it miniatures, RPGs, and board games. The fact that GW has unintuitive mechanics that are closer to chutes and ladders versus weighted probability that benefits tactics more and more so in their rules means they are going the wrong way for their intended market.

If wargamers wanted to play a game of random chance, they'd play board games such as Kings of Tokyo or Relic. Fun games, but they are of minimal investment and don't require hours of preparation and hundreds to thousands of dollars in investments to play.

TL;DR: Not all random is made the same way from a game design perspective. Games Workshop inclusion of pure random chance makes for a bad wargame making 40k more a board game; the most expensive board game you can hope to ever play.

Further: This is why some people hate Mathhammer because it exposed the engine of the game. To hate on people leverage a game that allows for this means you're really hating on the game. A better designed system would make it more of tactical decisions based upon strategic choice versus completely arbitrary outcomes.

I'm actually enjoying 7th, my Guard and SM armies made the switch pretty seamlessly and I've had a ball with armies full of Leman Russes.

That being said, the Maelstrom cards are stupid, it's a competitive scene gimmick that doesn't belong in non competition settings.

Also, while I play armies lacking in psykers, I'm a big fan of the new psychic phase.

 Frankenberry wrote:

That being said, the Maelstrom cards are stupid, it's a competitive scene gimmick that doesn't belong in non competition settings.

I'm curious on what you mean that Maelstrom cards being a competitive scene gimmick. I have not heard this before.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:

That being said, the Maelstrom cards are stupid, it's a competitive scene gimmick that doesn't belong in non competition settings.

I'm curious on what you mean that Maelstrom cards being a competitive scene gimmick. I have not heard this before.

yup, first time i hear this too. It's the opposite for most people.


for me 7th is awesome, i stopped playing 6th after 8 games, but now I'm now painting like crazy preparing my armies for more games

Shshilo - incorrect on grenades, you may only THROW one grenade per phase. The rules for melee with grenades are exactly the same as before