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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I think this is why we all have so many arguments. Members post their opinions and views as facts. Then the instant someone else has a different opinion or view, they are attacked with no acknowledgement that they have a right to have and express their opinions.
In these threads, we are ALL correct as it is a purely personal question based on opinions and private views.

Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not an 'attack'.

Someone posts an opinion. Someone else will either agree with it, or disagree with it, or ask the first person to clarify their opinion. That's how discussion works.

You weren't attacked. You were asked to clarify your opinion.

Now can we all get back to the actual topic?

I tend to use qualifiers like "imo" or "I think" as much as I feel is necessary. When reading other peoples' comments I tend to assume they are just stating opinion unless they outright state it as fact.

But yes, you can avoid arguments more if you state things which are your opinion as being opinion instead of fact. For example, you said...

 EVIL INC wrote:
7th has more realism so I like it better.

Which is stating that 7th is more realistic... so naturally people are more likely to attack that statement. If instead you go for more of a "I feel like 7th is more realistic so I like it better" as you're leaving the door more open for people to oppose your opinion without actually attacking you.

Also if you assume when people attack your statements that they are actually attacking your statements instead of you personally it does change the perceived tone. Rarely do I intend an aggressive tone when typing a message... but I can understand how often people read my comments as if they had imagined an aggressive tone where no aggressive tone exists.

But whatever, this is going off topic.

5th was by far a leaner edition. 7th *may* be more fun due to the fact that my interest in winning the game goes out the window when so much of that is determined by randomness. Seems to be a better beer-and-pretzels game now, aside from the fact that there are a metric feth ton more rules now...

7th is the worst balance...it's a game with impossible balance due to randomness, which is very much beer-and-pretzels, but it's got an extremely convoluted rule set that has people arguing over the term "start of the game" in YMDC. If we can't even agree on when the game starts, I think it's time for a rewrite.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I think this is why we all have so many arguments. Members post their opinions and views as facts. Then the instant someone else has a different opinion or view, they are attacked with no acknowledgement that they have a right to have and express their opinions.
In these threads, we are ALL correct as it is a purely personal question based on opinions and private views.

Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not an 'attack'.

Someone posts an opinion. Someone else will either agree with it, or disagree with it, or ask the first person to clarify their opinion. That's how discussion works.

You weren't attacked. You were asked to clarify your opinion.

Now can we all get back to the actual topic?

My apologies. I was not saying I was attacked in this thread. It has happened in others for this very reason. Just putting it out there as a reminder to keep it from happening here. Again, sorry for the confusion, you were indeed very polite and respectful.
i was mentioning the phrases used by different posters stating it IS this or that instead of I think or believe it is this or that. There is a difference.

To keep it on topic, I would say that either 5th or 7th is a little slanted as it leaves out a lot of people who prefer something else and will just click on what seems the most populer in the thread. Depending on my mood and where I am oplaying, my opinion varies and is of course, influanced by the atmosphere I am looking for for that particuler game.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
5th was by far a leaner edition. 7th *may* be more fun due to the fact that my interest in winning the game goes out the window when so much of that is determined by randomness. Seems to be a better beer-and-pretzels game now, aside from the fact that there are a metric feth ton more rules now...

I would not call 40k in general a "beer-n'-pretzel game, first and foremost because of the great deal of rules. The advantage of a Beer-'n'-pretzel game is that they're easy to get into, simple to understand, and and don't take very long to play(but can make it more enjoyable if done right). A good example of this Betrayal At House On The Hill. It's the definition of "Unfair", but because playing it doesn't require a door stopper of a rulebook to play, it's enjoyable. Randomness is not a requirement, only giving enjoyment if done right.

Indeed, no game with an $85 rulebook and a $50 codex (just to get started with the basics of a single army) and hundreds of pages of rules, can really be considered "beer and pretzels" material anymore.

Not trying to be that guy but I understand that there are many people on here that may have been a fan of 5th edition or certain aspects of it, even I liked some aspects of 5th edition and miss them. However there are a lot of things in this edition that are awesome and way better then in any of the previous editions, the changes to vehicles for example.

The 7-th hate is an inheritance of the worst edition WH40K has seen. The 6-th. And that's all due to outragingly boor codex ballance.

All the new 7-th books and dataslates are slowly but steadilly recuperate a crippled mess left after 6-th.

The rules themselves are not comparable with 5-th. But from my gaming experience, they're much much better than 6-th.

And i remember quite well the boringness of metal bawxes edition where shooting angles and positioning meant little. My vote goes to 7.

Vehicles are a major example of dysfunction in this edition, to me at least.

We've got a gigantic gap between skimmer and non-skimmer vehicles again, most vehicles are still way too easy to kill through HP stripping (particularly non-skimmers), and the changes to the vehicle damage chart that were supposedly made to address that issue from 6th mean that actual anti-tank guns are less effective in their role and purpose, particularly with regards to medium and light vehicles, while much lighter multi-shot weapons are often much more effective (point for point invested) in regards to killing vehicles.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Vehicles are a major example of dysfunction in this edition, to me at least.

We've got a gigantic gap between skimmer and non-skimmer vehicles again, most vehicles are still way too easy to kill through HP stripping (particularly non-skimmers), and the changes to the vehicle damage chart that were supposedly made to address that issue from 6th mean that actual anti-tank guns are less effective in their role and purpose, particularly with regards to medium and light vehicles, while much lighter multi-shot weapons are often much more effective (point for point invested) in regards to killing vehicles.

Please, name imballanced skimmers from 7-th ed codexes.

That's the problem with horrible power creep aproach of 6-th ed codexes.

 gmaleron wrote:
However there are a lot of things in this edition that are awesome and way better then in any of the previous editions, the changes to vehicles for example.

I have to agree as far as that there are some cool ideas in 6th/7th edition... but for the most part, the implementation of them is frustrating.

Hull Points were a good idea, but left vehicles too easy to take out from Glancing fire and should have been balanced out by the addition of a saving throw.

Snap Shots are a good idea, but should have been applied to Blasts. As is, the value of Blast weapons took a severe plunge.

Warlord Traits are an awesome idea... except for the random aspect meaning your Warlord changes from battle to battle (which sucks from a narrative point of view) and range from awesome to useless (I don't know how many times I managed to roll Counter Attack for my Wolf Lord...)

Challenges are a cool idea... but making them something that is more or less compulsory for everyone makes no sense, and with the wild power range between everyone's characters are just grossly unfair for some armies.

Overwatch returning is a good thing... but making it an additional attack rather than replacing normal shooting is whacked, and Wall of Death from units like Flamers is just insanely overpowered.

Look Out Sir! is a great, flavourful addition... except that it reduces you to rolling saves 1 at a time. When a unit can be wearing 30 or 40 shots from a single enemy unit's shooting, that's just painful.


All of those are things that in theory I would have quite happily seen added to the 5th edition ruleset... but the actual implementation of them just leaves me scratching my head and wondering what the hell GW were thinking.

Well, there are some bads, that's for sure. For example, i strongly dislike random wound allocation. It's just so time consuming to place this 2 mob rule wounds on someone from my 30-strong choppaboyz squad. But i approve death of the closest mechanics cause it makes positioning important resulting in much more tactical possibilities. On the other hand, it's created tank characters who conveniently look out the unwanted wounds on a 2+.

There are goods and bads but the whole direction is good imo.

 koooaei wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Vehicles are a major example of dysfunction in this edition, to me at least.

We've got a gigantic gap between skimmer and non-skimmer vehicles again, most vehicles are still way too easy to kill through HP stripping (particularly non-skimmers), and the changes to the vehicle damage chart that were supposedly made to address that issue from 6th mean that actual anti-tank guns are less effective in their role and purpose, particularly with regards to medium and light vehicles, while much lighter multi-shot weapons are often much more effective (point for point invested) in regards to killing vehicles.

Please, name imballanced skimmers from 7-th ed codexes.

That's the problem with horrible power creep aproach of 6-th ed codexes.

The *one* 7E book that runs skimmers that's been out for 4 days with practically unchanged vehicles from 3rd edition?

Either way, fundamentally, Skimmer tanks and skimmer armies have advantages over their non-skimmer counterparts. Not only do they have access to a 4+ save whenever they want, they can do so even when immobilized and without any effect on on-board passengers. This makes for a drastic increase in effective lifespan next to non-skimmer counterparts which may or may not have (or have to pay for) smoke launchers for a single-use 5+ save (which prevents both *all* shooting, not just snapshots, and moving Flat Out). On top of that, they often, if not ubiquitously, have access to cover-save enhancing wargear which means they can sit in the open with a 3+ save. Additionally, if Fast, Skimmers gain additional movement over Fast non-skimmers on top of ignoring all terrain they move over.

Tracked tanks historically have tried to counterbalance that by either being cheaper or better armored, but this has only ever balanced out in 5E (3E and 4E skimmer rules were likewise heinously imbalanced, culminating in the Invinci-Falcons of 4th Edition) and many Skimmers share similar points costs and AV's with non-skimmer tanks. There are far too many parallels between tracked and skimmer tanks at the current time where there are *very* clear gaps in effectiveness. One may have noticed that, by and large, the only armies running large numbers of tanks that have been placing and winning at events in the current edition (and in 6th) are Skimmer armies.

I always thought it odd that when there were intervening enemy models between you and your target, the target got a cover save but none of the screening units took damage.

Is it all of a sudden my Orkboys are thinking,

"Oi Boss, dem gits are 'ween us a' dos lemon rusts"
"Ya ya slopperin' skun'ead fire da rokets OVA' their heads"
*Boyz fire over them some rockets impact the Imperial Guardsmen*
*Guardsmen are unharmed from stopping a rocket with his face*
"Gud job boyz 'e didn't 'urt a single hummie AN' we hit dos lemon rusts a bit to!"

As for someone who spent most of his games in competitive environment, I actually hated 5th edition. Not really because of the rules as more like 99% of your games was:

Me: my power armored army's metal bawx number 1 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 2 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 3 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 4 shoots at this. My 2 rhino bawxes moves here. Your turn.

Opponent: okay, my RED power armored army's metal bawx number 1 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 2 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 3 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 4 shoots at this. My 2 rhino bawxes moves here. Your turn.

Repeat this step until turn 5.

Me: AMAGAWD FLATOUT/TURBO-BOOST-SMOKE

Opponent: AMAGAWD FLATOUT/TURBO-BOOST-SMOKE

Me: Good game bro, sick tactics.

Opponent: Yeah man, good game, sick tactics indeed.

Looking back at why I didn't like 5th was perhaps mostly because of the tournament setting I constantly played, the fact was no one took anything but THE list whenever they played an army. If you told me I was facing an IG/BA player, I knew exactly what to expect and if my opponent varied his list from THE list, 90% I knew he would lose which was almost always correct. My annoyance was that if you played anything else than what was dictated by net lists/meta, you would always perform worse than the mechlist min/max'er.
As for private and local games, I actually remember them as quite enjoyable and easy to play, now that I compare them to 7th edition and I realize perhaps that was its biggest strength, as long as it stayed out of the min/max'ing mentality.

Metal Bawxes-Hammer is why I initially voted for 6th edition over 5th when this topic came up a couple months ago, but then it occurred to me that while metal bawxes-hammer was extremely irritating, it was only one part of the game. That was really like, the only truly irritating part of 5th edition I can think of. Via simple arithmetic, the number of things that pissed me off in 6th was far greater numerically than the number of things that pissed me off in 5th.

And, adding to that, very few of the things that were bad in 5th edition were fixed in the latter ones. To wit, most of those problems (like Death Stars) actually got worse.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

And, adding to that, very few of the things that were bad in 5th edition were fixed in the latter ones. To wit, most of those problems (like Death Stars) actually got worse.

Out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate on this matter? (Mostly about the former part, the Death Stars requires little to no explanation).

Things like wound allocation shenanigans didn't get any better, just different. Where 5th was about musical wounds, 6th and on is all about micro managing model placement and gaming LoS with ICs. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Considering the fix for 5th's wound allocation on a select number of problem units was exceedingly simple, it leaves you scratching your head why they decided to go with their current route.

Vehicles (cheap transports really) went from being too durable (or at least too unpredictable) to being too flimsy with the addition of HPs. Seventh helped by making the table a little more forgiving, but vehicles are still largely inferior to MCs.

Those were the big ones for me anyways. I'm sure Blaxican will elaborate further.

vipoid wrote:

Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?

IThe third edition rule books and codexes, had really fun scenarios in back and I still try to play them often. It seems like GW dropped them because of the players. The scenarios often had asymmetric points limits and alternate FOC, which made them a bit more exciting no matter which codexes were used - e.g. Meatgrinder. However, it seems like players spent more of their time at home, tinkering with their personally optimized fantasy list, and wanted to bring it down to the shop and match it up against a stranger's to prove they were better at making lists / buying models. Random missions seem like one place that GW are attempting to force players to do something other than line up on opposite sides of the table and bash each other.

Zewrath wrote:

Looking back at why I didn't like 5th was perhaps mostly because of the tournament setting I constantly played, the fact was no one took anything but THE list whenever they played an army. If you told me I was facing an IG/BA player, I knew exactly what to expect and if my opponent varied his list from THE list, 90% I knew he would lose which was almost always correct. My annoyance was that if you played anything else than what was dictated by net lists/meta, you would always perform worse than the mechlist min/max'er.
As for private and local games, I actually remember them as quite enjoyable and easy to play, now that I compare them to 7th edition and I realize perhaps that was its biggest strength, as long as it stayed out of the min/max'ing mentality.

If you got away from stuff like tourney lists, which were partly codex problems, the rules were def more fun.

At least part of the bawkses available had to do with a silly decision on BA. In third edition codexes, I think it wasn't possible to take razorbacks for assault squads, only rhinos. Blood Angels In fifths edition had assault squads as troops for a background reason to do with how much they like flying. Somehow, they got the option to something dumb. Outside of tournament stuff, you didn't see this having much effect due to the hobby/background problems with BA crouching in cramped boxes vs. jumping.

Ofc, if blood angels hadn't had razorback troops, they just would not have been played as much and the parking lots would have been IG and regular marines instead.

We also seem to be approaching the opposite of 5th in terms of damaging vehicles. In 5th, glances had an unfortunate tendency to do nothing (not so much because of the core rules, but because most codices had been given ways to ignore crew shaken/stunned - so they couldn't suppress vehicles, as they were supposed to). So, you really needed to penetrate vehicles to cripple or destroy them.

Nowadays, it's penetrating hits that seem ineffective - when it's usually pretty easy to just glance vehicles to death.

pelicaniforce wrote:

IThe third edition rule books and codexes, had really fun scenarios in back and I still try to play them often. It seems like GW dropped them because of the players. The scenarios often had asymmetric points limits and alternate FOC, which made them a bit more exciting no matter which codexes were used - e.g. Meatgrinder.

I wish I could find my 3rd edition book, because I'd be interested in trying some of those missions for a change.

pelicaniforce wrote:
However, it seems like players spent more of their time at home, tinkering with their personally optimized fantasy list, and wanted to bring it down to the shop and match it up against a stranger's to prove they were better at making lists / buying models. Random missions seem like one place that GW are attempting to force players to do something other than line up on opposite sides of the table and bash each other.

Random mission type, I can understand.

Random mission objectives each turn in maelstrom missions... not so much. Virtually every single game, one side ends up with 3 easy missions (e.g. destroy one unit with shooting, capture two objectives on their table edge), whilst the other side ends up with virtually-impossible missions (capture every objective on the map, capture a heavily-defended objective on their opponent's board edge, Slay the enemy warlord when he's currently in reserve etc.). And, when one person gets ahead, it's very hard for the other player to recover (since the lead player is refreshing more objectives - thus increasing his chances of drawing more 'easy' ones, whilst the other player is stuck discarding one impossible mission and desperately hoping that he gets something more usable. But, of course, there's no way for him to draw extra cards - so he's still behind with little way to catch up).

In theory, I like the idea of having objectives every turn, but I don't think it was well executed. It just seems to come down more to luck of the draw (in terms of the cards you get), rather than the tactics you employ. Likewise, having random victory points is just bad game design. It's just not something that should ever be random.

Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.

For me, it's the god awful wound allocation system that grates the most. It's complicated, exploitable, and VERY time consuming. Going back to the owning player picks models would be so much better in my mind.

I preferred 6th to 5th - 7th I have not (and not likely to do now) bought but I have read it and whilst some things improve it - a lot (Force Organisation and Psychic phase) isn't better IMO.

I kinda like the 6.5 we are working on

 MWHistorian wrote:
Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.

I agree with you on some of these.
Fortunately, you dont have to play maelstrom games unless you and your opponent agree to. It's an optional set of rules that I find most players totally ignore.
Lords of war- I agree. I feel that they should be like maelstrom, optional. A player just cant effectively prepare for them unless they tailor for it.
Unbound- They have negatives but I think the positives are just too easy to exploit.
loyalists summoning...thats a toss up.Fairly easily explainable by renaming the daemons to be something like cyborgs or something (assembling spare battlefield rubble to create cyborgs that have the same stats as whatever daemon or some such. It would be way broken to only give one faction the option.
there are no armies that do not have access to psychers. Even tau can ally in some. So if a player doesnt want them, they dont have to but if they do, they can. advantages of having one is a toss up. They can also be a waste of points.
Allies I feel liven the game up and add flavor.I dont like the roken combos that battle brothers give though. Of course, if you dont like allies, dont take them, problem solved.

With the tanks, it is llike a lot of other stuff, just a matter of taste. I like the realism of them getting torn up by heavy weapons fire without them blowing up. Not every tank kill is an awesome explosion, most are simple breakdown due to massed weaker weapons fire. The meltas and las cannons still rule on one shot kills and punching through heavier armor.Again, a matter of personal taste.

I like that you now see a greater variety of lists instead of 15 sarbon copies of the same current fad ube army that are identical except for the paint jobs on them at every event.

codex creep. Earlier editions were bad for that. Everyone waited with baited breath to see how the new one as going to outdo the last and then rush to buy it. I'm liking the new lets try to keep the armies at equal power without overloading the new ones.

Special characters lessening... not a great thing. Wasnt fond of their overwhelming presence before though. Took away their specialness when they wee no brainers.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.

I agree with you on some of these.
Fortunately, you dont have to play maelstrom games unless you and your opponent agree to. It's an optional set of rules that I find most players totally ignore.
Lords of war- I agree. I feel that they should be like maelstrom, optional. A player just cant effectively prepare for them unless they tailor for it.
Unbound- They have negatives but I think the positives are just too easy to exploit.
loyalists summoning...thats a toss up.Fairly easily explainable by renaming the daemons to be something like cyborgs or something (assembling spare battlefield rubble to create cyborgs that have the same stats as whatever daemon or some such. It would be way broken to only give one faction the option.
there are no armies that do not have access to psychers. Even tau can ally in some. So if a player doesnt want them, they dont have to but if they do, they can. advantages of having one is a toss up. They can also be a waste of points.
Allies I feel liven the game up and add flavor.I dont like the roken combos that battle brothers give though. Of course, if you dont like allies, dont take them, problem solved.

With the tanks, it is llike a lot of other stuff, just a matter of taste. I like the realism of them getting torn up by heavy weapons fire without them blowing up. Not every tank kill is an awesome explosion, most are simple breakdown due to massed weaker weapons fire. The meltas and las cannons still rule on one shot kills and punching through heavier armor.Again, a matter of personal taste.

I like that you now see a greater variety of lists instead of 15 sarbon copies of the same current fad ube army that are identical except for the paint jobs on them at every event.

codex creep. Earlier editions were bad for that. Everyone waited with baited breath to see how the new one as going to outdo the last and then rush to buy it. I'm liking the new lets try to keep the armies at equal power without overloading the new ones.

Special characters lessening... not a great thing. Wasnt fond of their overwhelming presence before though. Took away their specialness when they wee no brainers.

It was the direction of the game that all this stuff points to that I don't like.
Also, see my complaint about psykers? What came next wasn't random. You just said "ally something in." I don't like the idea that you have to ally at all. If I play Tau, I want to play Tau. I played SOB and didn't want to ally anything in. (thematically and the required cost of buying another fething expensive dex.)

 MWHistorian wrote:

Also, see my complaint about psykers? What came next wasn't random. You just said "ally something in." I don't like the idea that you have to ally at all. If I play Tau, I want to play Tau. I played SOB and didn't want to ally anything in. (thematically and the required cost of buying another fething expensive dex.)

I agree completely.

I might be more charitable towards allies if it was even remotely based on fluff choice. However, all I've ever seen is someone running out of OP units in his own book, and so uses allies to borrow the OP units from a different army as well. It's just boring.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Neither. 2nd (with a few rules changes) is the only edition worth playing.

Ye gods, someone who agrees with me.

I think that 2nd was much better than the succeeding editions, and the most recent edition has been the worst yet. I could go into all kinds of minutia about the little rules, and the way GW is going, and this and that... but it all boils down to that the older editions were consistently more fun. For me it went from being so fun and spontaneous to feeling downgraded, to just feeling like I'm being had every time I buy or play anything new from GW.

 EVIL INC wrote:


With the tanks, it is llike a lot of other stuff, just a matter of taste. I like the realism of them getting torn up by heavy weapons fire without them blowing up. Not every tank kill is an awesome explosion, most are simple breakdown due to massed weaker weapons fire. The meltas and las cannons still rule on one shot kills and punching through heavier armor.Again, a matter of personal taste.

That's what the old vehicle damage table did, and portrayed rather well (e.g. once immobilized and guns were inoperable, the vehicle was destroyed). Tanks don't just take X number of hits and then shove off, either they get blown up or something critical breaks and the crew abandon the vehicle.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's what the old vehicle damage table did, and portrayed rather well (e.g. once immobilized and guns were inoperable, the vehicle was destroyed). Tanks don't just take X number of hits and then shove off, either they get blown up or something critical breaks and the crew abandon the vehicle.

Exactly. If we want to discuss realism, the old table was more realistic than shaving off HPs.

I think for me the frustrating things are those that add a random element to the game. The more random something is the more frustration it causes. That was vehicles in 5th, some games you got penetrated repeatedly and just got glanced other times, pen, explode every time. 7th has a lot more of this, psychic powers (in every way), super heavy rules, charging, tons of random codex stuff. Etc.