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.
I wasn't fond of the changes from 5th to 6th, and 7th really just doubled down on those changes without helping out too much in the core rules. Still lots of bloat, ambiguity, and balance issues.
This. I didn't buy 6th, and I'm not buying 7th. I prefer the 3E / 4E / 5E ruleset over the 6E / 7E series.
jreilly89 wrote: . I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. .
It really didn't.
Cover in 5th was determined off the unit majority. Now it's worked out per model, which is just painful.
Shooting in 5th was all done on a unit level. Now we resolve every single different weapon separately. Also painful.
Wound allocation in 5th was done in groups, and saved in bunches. Now we have a whole bunch of situations that require you to roll saves one... at... a ... time... Beyond painful.
And while we're on wound allocation, 'allocate to whoever you want' is a much easier system than 'allocate to the closest, and randomise half the time becuase it's not apparent who is the closest, or choose a model because they're in close combat'
And random. Random everything. Nothing 'simplifies' a game like having fourteen thousand* different tables to roll on before you even start the game.
*Statement may contain trace amounts of hyperbole.
To be fair, it was some years ago (maybe 5 or 8?) when I read the 5th rulebook. I just remember having a much harder time trying to get into it. Also, the whole experience thing for individual models really confused me.
Game is more fun to me now than it has been for the last 3 editions. It´s even gotten to a point that it interests me more than Warmachine does, it used to be the opposite in 5th and pretty 50-50 in 6th. There has been ridicilous/broken stuff in every edition, it´s not exactly something introduced with 7th.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
Most people like this don´t actually even play, and they probably haven´t played too actively for quite some time regardless of edition. There´s this personality type in the hobby that acts like they actually play and have vast firsthand experience of the rules and the game, but in reality they only play one game a month at best. I know a few people who are constantly talking in a way that makes them seem like active hobbyists, when in fact their 90% plastic "coloured" armies haven´t seen the table in years. They also talk a lot about the rules and 7th edition, while having no actual experience on it whatsoever ( these 2 spesific people. )
Just some weird compulsive need to talk the talk but not walk the walk. Keeping up appearances I guess.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/13 07:19:01
I don't like it. It made a lot of people drop the game, which combined with 3 out of 4 stores closing means the community is almost dead. The forcing to house rule everything is something I don't like, makes it bad for new players and people that return or play somewhere else. On top of that my army sucks against my 3 most common opponents making the actual gaming boring for me.
The idea that somehow w40k went from I play army X, because it is good and I like it, to I play army X with Y ally with FW and under supplement Z, makes me want to quit, but with so few people around it is impossible to sell my army.
If I could I would play 5th or 6th, had ton of fun back then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/13 07:19:44
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
To answer the question; I have fun playing. The rules can be weird sometimes, and I really don't like the fact all the rules are spread out amongst multiple rule books, codexes, data slates, etc... I have been playing for a couple years now and really don't have a grasp of all the different rules for all the different factions. Haeckel I am not even sure of everything I can use as Orks. I rather like the variety 7th Ed allows with formations, unbound lists and maelstrom missions. Feels like my play on the table can affect the outcome. In the past it felt like 80% of the game happened writing a list. It is a bit better in 7th.
Edit: I forgot to add I play because it is BY FAR the easiest game to find other players. Just this weekend I played at a store and there were 24 people there participating in a tournament. I was off the week between Christmas and New Year and found 4 games to play, there is also a store that has pickup games every Tuesday night. So access to opponents is a big plus to the game for me.
As you can see by the replies to your post, the people who dont mind the newer editions are openly attacked (and the harrassment is not only allowed and encouraged as well as joined in with by those "in power". This is why it is rare to see any positive remarks here. Those who would normally make them are afraid to.
For the OP...I find the current edition... different. Better in some ways than earlier editions, worse in others. It is all a matter of personal preference and opinion. Some of the things I like include allies and getting rid of consolidating directly into combat with a new unit at the end of the combat phase. Things I dislike are some of the aspects of the way the allies are implemented (abuses of abilities) and introducing superheavies and titans into mainstream (non-apoc/set up games).
I would say, play whichever edition you want/can find people to play. Myself, I rarely play now, dont even bother with tourneys and am hoping the next edition will be better and good enough to get me playing more often. I'm not going to be one of those why say "I dont play" or " I quit" and then play anyway having made the statement to "prove a point" even though it was a lie that is proven by hanging out and posting on 40k sites. I will be honest and just say that I just cant find it worth it to make trips to the shop and play only on rare occasions.
clively wrote: "EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
jreilly89 wrote: . I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. .
It really didn't.
Cover in 5th was determined off the unit majority. Now it's worked out per model, which is just painful.
Shooting in 5th was all done on a unit level. Now we resolve every single different weapon separately. Also painful.
Wound allocation in 5th was done in groups, and saved in bunches. Now we have a whole bunch of situations that require you to roll saves one... at... a ... time... Beyond painful.
And while we're on wound allocation, 'allocate to whoever you want' is a much easier system than 'allocate to the closest, and randomise half the time becuase it's not apparent who is the closest, or choose a model because they're in close combat'
And random. Random everything. Nothing 'simplifies' a game like having fourteen thousand* different tables to roll on before you even start the game.
*Statement may contain trace amounts of hyperbole.
I'm all for bashing some of the current rules but 5th was by far the worst edition rules wise. I had never seen so many "I quit" and rules complaints threads back then. 6th was received very positively on these forums from what I remember. Flyers got hate but everything else seemed to be a change for the better according to the majority. Of course if you're a marine or guard player then 5th was the best and 4th and 6th/7th were/are terrible.
5th got a lot of complaints, like every edition does, I certainly found faults with it, but they certainly weren't worse than they are now. 5E had its issues, but I'd challenge the assertion that it bemoaned more than 6E/7E have been.
5E certainly had its problems, and I continually find myself surprised at how much I miss it because it was severely flawed, but there are significantly more longstanding issues with the 6E/7E paradigm than 5th, and it shows.
Stuff that in 5E was the the realm of internet hyperbole is common reality in 7th.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
- 7E is a battle between individual models, but with Codices that have better external balance.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
I only started playing in 6th edition, so can't really comment on earlier editions. I think the addition of tactical objectives is very very good. It may make the games slightly more random, but it also makes it possible to win in many different ways, and makes previously unused units suddenly shine. The 7th edition setup feels a bit more complicated but 6th for some reason, maybe because the 7th ed rules on that are quite poorly written. All in all I think 7th edition is better than 6th, the only really big change is tactical objectives and I like them, so...
Yeah, im enjoying 7th more than 6th. At first, I was perturbed by the amount of individualism in rolling (no more focus fire or majority saves) but actually, once you get the hang of it, it becomes really fast.
I was also a bit worried about the whole LoW/detachment/unbound rules making all armies super cheese fests, but to be honest that hasn't happened either. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'. It also helps that I play at a club where overly competitive play is frowned upon and narrative campaigns and casual armies are the norm - so probably quite close to how GW intended the game to work.
Generally, codex balance is much better in 7th and the two 'op' codices are both 6ed ones (tau/eldar). Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions. The release schedule means the meta changes so fast it's hard to build a single TAC competitive list, or one that relies around on gimmick, which I think is a good thing.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great. Is you want to play competitive tournaments, maybe not as much, but people like NOVA and LVO have put together pretty good rules packs limit craziness.
- 7E is a battle between individual models, but with Codices that have better external balance.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
It's the way the mechanics work really. In 5E, wounds could be allocated to the entire unit regardless of weapon range, you could take casualties from anywhere, cover was determiend by a majority of the unit being in cover or not, etc. Everything was done around the unit as a whole, rather than individual models, with the sole exception of how you allocated wounds taken by the unit which got real fiddly and abusive with multi-wound units. But aside from that, the mechanics were much more "unit to unit" than "model to model".
6E/7E introduced a lot more model specificness as opposed to unit specific mechanics. It didn't matter what kind of power weapon a model had, it was just S:user and Ignores Armor Saves whether it was a mace, sword, axe, or lance.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.
how offten do you play against eldar with non eldar armies? Or with IG vs GKs. Or IG vs blight nids. Or DAs vs tau.
. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'.
you mean where you play.
Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions.
Ever played them against a normal msu or eldar army with IG? It doesn't only look terrible for the IG player, it feels terrible when played too. It is "fun" for armies that can either spam resilient msu units or those with units that go further then 18" per turn.
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.
that is so bull gak. If anything 7th is good only for tournaments, because you either build an army for scenarios out of multiple books or pick an eldar army, failing that an ok army that is anti eldar. In casual games, half the codex are skewed against each other. How does a "casual" IG player win against a GK one ? how does a casual nid player, play at all, considering he either has the option to go skyblight or have a bad army. Or an eldar player, how does he make his army casual, by taking an unbound army of footslogging melee units ?
Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great. Is you want to play competitive tournaments, maybe not as much, but people like NOVA and LVO have put together pretty good rules packs limit craziness.
I completely agree with this. I get really tired of people constantly bemoaning the fact that you have to "house rule" everything, especially when they act like it's something new to X edition. There are definitely instances where the rules need clarification beyond what is in the BRB. I've played since 3rd edition, and I think there's nearly always been a point where interactions between certain rules needed a definitive clarification that didn't come from the rule book it self. Granted, GW used to be better about this via FAQ's. As Arbitorlan said, even if GW isn't doing this as actively as before (or at all), there are plenty of people in the community actively working to fix those kinds of rules interactions and probably doing a better job of it than GW could. At the least they are taking player/community input into account much more heavily than GW ever would or could. All it takes is a quick read of the boards and an equally quick read of perfectly free information to solve nearly any rules issues you could think of. Could GW do better? Yes. Will I rage quit because of a few discrepancies in the rules? No.
All that being said, my one wish, my greatest wish for the future of 40K is thus:
Dear GW rules writers,
Please learn the difference between a unit and a model and distinguish between them clearly when you write rules, That is all.
EVIL INC wrote: As you can see by the replies to your post, the people who dont mind the newer editions are openly attacked (and the harrassment is not only allowed and encouraged as well as joined in with by those "in power".
I forced myself to like 7th, as it is the current edition.
But, some things needed fixing and weren't, and others were broken. I can't think of anything that got fixed.
The tactical-card missions add a bit more fun to the game, though.
The good:
Shooting-by-type, to add a bit or tactics to the shooting phase. It takes a lot of the clunkiness out of the handful-of-colours dice rolls.
Jinking for lots of model types are now the same rule, and works like the old fliers version. Jink to get a save, but snap-shot the next turn.
Vehicles can only explode when hit with AV weapons (AP1/2)
Random objectives in some missions. It means gunlines have to move around a bit.
The bad:
Pinning got taken off snipers.
Focussed Fire got removed.
Daemon summoning arrived, for almost everyone.
Psychic save got added, taking up time for no real benefit.
Everyone scores! Even drop pods.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/13 10:13:18
I don't see where challenges got fixed, they were silly in 6th and just a different kind of silly in 7th, they're basically just a way to pick out and neutralize a units upgrade character (often the only thing possibly able to hit back effectively), Challenges are one of those micro-details that really just should have been left out.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
jreilly89 wrote: Also, the whole experience thing for individual models really confused me.
The what...?
EVIL INC wrote: As you can see by the replies to your post, the people who dont mind the newer editions are openly attacked (and the harrassment is not only allowed and encouraged as well as joined in with by those "in power". This is why it is rare to see any positive remarks here. Those who would normally make them are afraid to.
What are you on about? Nobody has been attacked in this thread. And there are people in this very thread making positive remarks. If there weren't, I'm even more confused about what they would be getting 'attacked' for...
Zande4 wrote: 6th was received very positively on these forums from what I remember.
It was at first, yes. On the surface, it had a lot going for it. It was only once people started actually playing it that the issues became apparent.
Of course if you're a marine or guard player then 5th was the best and 4th and 6th/7th were/are terrible.
And given that the majority of players are marine players...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I don't see where challenges got fixed, they were silly in 6th and just a different kind of silly in 7th, they're basically just a way to pick out and neutralize a units upgrade character (often the only thing possibly able to hit back effectively), Challenges are one of those micro-details that really just should have been left out.
Allowing spill-over wounds was definitely an improvement. As you say, though, it doesn't change the fact that challenges, at least the way they were implemented, just don't belong in the game.
At the very least, they should have been optional with a bonus for choosing to fight a challenge, rather than being detrimental for refusing... It simply doesn't make sense for at least half of the armies in the game to feel pressured into accepting a challenge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/13 10:31:28
Loborocket wrote: When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
I quit 40k proper in 2008 and I still read the forums.
Wow! Kind of sad really. 6-7 years of reading a forum for a game you are no longer playing? You do know there are other games and hobbies out there right?
You must have a lot of time on you hands. Maybe look here for a new game you can get excited about instead of trolling on a past love.
Loborocket wrote: When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
I quit 40k proper in 2008 and I still read the forums.
Wow! Kind of sad really. 6-7 years of reading a forum for a game you are no longer playing? You do know there are other games and hobbies out there right?
You must have a lot of time on you hands. Maybe look here for a new game you can get excited about instead of trolling on a past love.
Ease up on the condensation. You do realize that Dakka has more topics than just 40k.
Sure thing! You post your way I will post mine.
I realize there are topics other than 40k, but THIS thread is about 40k and the category it is under is 40kGeneral Discussion, so I stand firm I think it is weird to read AND POST to a forum/thread you have self identified as "QUIT" 6+ years ago. Anyone is free to do it I suppose just as i am free to think it is weird.
The problem to me is that this attitude somewhat poisons the well of this forum to hear/see all the negativity coming from people who have again self identified as a person who has quit. That is fine QUIT, read posts if you still have a passing interest, but leave the negative posts on the sidelines. I really don't want to see it. It is un-necessary and bitterness never looks good on anyone.
Yes I realize I can move on to another forum or ignore the negative posts/users but I would just rather not have to do that.
Actually I think the moderation of this forum in general is not all that great and many things get out of hand quickly and carry on way to long. In the interest of that, I will self moderate and discontinue posting to this particular thread.
RunicFIN wrote: Game is more fun to me now than it has been for the last 3 editions. It´s even gotten to a point that it interests me more than Warmachine does, it used to be the opposite in 5th and pretty 50-50 in 6th. There has been ridicilous/broken stuff in every edition, it´s not exactly something introduced with 7th.
Loborocket wrote: Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?
Most people like this don´t actually even play, and they probably haven´t played too actively for quite some time regardless of edition. There´s this personality type in the hobby that acts like they actually play and have vast firsthand experience of the rules and the game, but in reality they only play one game a month at best. I know a few people who are constantly talking in a way that makes them seem like active hobbyists, when in fact their 90% plastic "coloured" armies haven´t seen the table in years. They also talk a lot about the rules and 7th edition, while having no actual experience on it whatsoever ( these 2 spesific people. )
Just some weird compulsive need to talk the talk but not walk the walk. Keeping up appearances I guess.
I've "played" 40K for over 20 years, starting with a boxed set of marines vs. orkz (gretchin waaaaaggghhh *splat*). Still have the wargear codex, etc. In that time, I've actually only played a hand full of games.
I collect and paint minis, trade 'em, and play lots of digital based IP (big fan of DoW series). I also, however, do not claim to know jack gak about the current workings of the rules nor try and steer a conversation one direction or another. If anything, the rues seem overly complicated for quick/friendly games (and I actually like the rules for WHFB better if I'm honest). So, there are some of us who are here and just like talking about the fluff/rules/whatnot but not as an authoritative source.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
~1.5k
More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts 
