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 started in 6th so I only know 6th/7th. I like it. It has issues but I still like it. My tanks are cannot be blown up from a guy with a heavy bolter shooting from the rear, and that's a nice addition. I mostly like 7th because orks got a new codex though, so take my opinion with a trad of salt for that

Chaospling wrote:
@Those of you who complain about this:

- What's wrong with vehicles? Do they die too easily? If yes, is it all armies which it happens to and/or all armies which deal too much damage?...

My gripe is primarily with Dreadnoughts. They die too easily, and their shooting was massively handicapped with the removal of the free pivot in the shooting phase.

I've been playing since early 5th edition, so I can comment on 5th, 6th, and 7th ed.

7th is a hell of a lot better than the mess that 6th was. If I had to rate 7th, i'd put it on par with 5th. Sure, it's a little over-complicated with the whole psychic phase and everything else, but I don't think it's a bad edition at all.

Sometimes I feel that people blame the edition/codex for not being able to play their army the way they they want to play.

"My scouts keep dying in the last 10/11 games. They must suck. I should be able to charge a deamon prince with black mace."

Instead of

"My scouts keep dying. I may need to use some different tactics or strategy. I may even need to play against something other than 3 Imperial Knights."

 Inkubas wrote:
Sometimes I feel that people blame the edition/codex for not being able to play their army the way they they want to play.

"My scouts keep dying in the last 10/11 games. They must suck. I should be able to charge a deamon prince with black mace."

Instead of

"My scouts keep dying. I may need to use some different tactics or strategy. I may even need to play against something other than 3 Imperial Knights."

What people play against isn't always up to them (assuming they want games).

Likewise, "tactics" in 40k are relatively limited, and, particularly with a unit like Scouts, largely limited to Deployment and target selection 99% of the time

 Inkubas wrote:
Sometimes I feel that people blame the edition/codex for not being able to play their army the way they they want to play.

"My scouts keep dying in the last 10/11 games. They must suck. I should be able to charge a deamon prince with black mace."

Yes and no. More often, from my experience, it's people wanting to use units that they like, but those units simply not being worth putting on the table.
In part, it's simply a side effect of the I Go You Go system... You're always going to have units that will die before they get to do anything.

When that's consistently the same unit every game, you start to question the value of having that unit in your army.

Okay, I have learned what I wanted to know from this poll.

While it seems that every post I come across has people saying that 40k is absolute garbage now, these results show that a large majority is happy, or at least content, with 7th. The way everyone was talking I assumed you'd all just leave the hobby forever.

Haters are often a bit more active.

 kingbobbito wrote:
Okay, I have learned what I wanted to know from this poll.

While it seems that every post I come across has people saying that 40k is absolute garbage now, these results show that a large majority is happy, or at least content, with 7th.

These results show that two thirds of the people who are still posting in the section of the forum devoted to 40K are happy, or at least content, with 7th edition 40k.

That doesn't really tell you how many have already dumped it and are simply not posting here any more.

The way everyone was talking I assumed you'd all just leave the hobby forever.

Dropping 40K doesn't automatically mean leaving the hobby. There are plenty of other games out there.

 insaniak wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
@Those of you who complain about this:

- What's wrong with vehicles? Do they die too easily? If yes, is it all armies which it happens to and/or all armies which deal too much damage?...

My gripe is primarily with Dreadnoughts. They die too easily, and their shooting was massively handicapped with the removal of the free pivot in the shooting phase.

Ehh, I feel like they're actually stronger, as you need at least AP2 to blow him up. You can still glance him to death like nothing though

That's the point. You don't need to blow them up, because their lower HPs so easily anyway. And the 45 degree fire arc makes it much easier for the enemy to avoid return fire.

It killed my Interest after over twenty years. too unbalanced, not enough strategy ans too expensive. Also most poll choices end with "happy with 40k" so your poll is a tad skewed.

Add the options:
- Not happy with 40k and not happy with the poll
- Not happy with anything

 insaniak wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
Okay, I have learned what I wanted to know from this poll.

While it seems that every post I come across has people saying that 40k is absolute garbage now, these results show that a large majority is happy, or at least content, with 7th.

These results show that two thirds of the people who are still posting in the section of the forum devoted to 40K are happy, or at least content, with 7th edition 40k.

That doesn't really tell you how many have already dumped it and are simply not posting here any more.

Yeah, exactly. People often post "well if you don't like the game why are you still posting", the fact is I'm sure a lot of people HAVE gone. This poll needs to be considered in the context of it being in a 40k forum 7 months after the new edition was released, there aren't going to be nearly as many people hanging around who didn't like 7th edition.

I've been generally happy with the game. I started right around the tail end of 5th (At least a few games anyway, when I began to experiment and study up on what army to play), then solidly played through 6th. I'm liking 7th more than the past editions thus far.

As others have already stated, 7th has its issues. There are things I'd like to have improved (I'd love Walkers to be more useful, same for Troops). I'd also love for 40k to implement some force restrictions in a manner similar to Fantasy. Example would be 1 flier at 1500 points, 1 super heavy at 2k points, then getting more allowance for said units the bigger the game got. Just to keep SOME of the silliness out. I understand this would flip off the IK players who play a strict IK only list...but come on, having a codex for a single model IS stupid. I'm sorry. Especially a codex for a SUPERHEAVY. I truely do not believe they should be used in average sized games. I just don't.

I'd like anti tank (AP2) to be less prevalent. As an Ork player, it doesn't really bother me that hard as such weapons tend to be wasted on Boyz. Though it does hurt when I wanna play a fun Kan/Dread list, but know it's pointless unless I really negotiate a game.

Things could be tweaked and the game would be absolutely fine as it stands. Some want a total rework of the game. That could be useful, but is pretty drastic. Just 'shrink' the game down a little (as in lessen the amount of absurd models in normal games and AP spam, silly rules) and make us actually THINK in a game.

 kingbobbito wrote:
Okay, I have learned what I wanted to know from this poll.

While it seems that every post I come across has people saying that 40k is absolute garbage now, these results show that a large majority is happy, or at least content, with 7th. The way everyone was talking I assumed you'd all just leave the hobby forever.

Metacritic syndrome. Folks who are unhappy talk more.

I'm still here because the models are cool, I'm holding out against hope that eventually we'll end up with a game that's more playable, I'm pretty invested in the lore, and 40k is a very interesting space to play around with house rules in; I can dislike the state of the game without wanting to set all my models on fire and run away screaming.

So basically 7th killed off the dwindling number of people playing 40k in my area, didn't get a chance to play it as no one bothered to get the new rule book and my FLGS stopped stocking 40k fairly soon after. But knowing the group and myself having more random tables to roll on wouldn't have improved things, especially considering how much we loved 'mysterious terrain' and 'what buff for no apparent reason will this objective give me or will it pointlessly explode as I stand within claiming range but outside the large blast template'.

But you gotta remember I don't play this edition so I don't have an opinion and shouldn't really post on a 40k board or somesuch nonsense.

The game fails to come anywhere close its lore, making its prized narrative all-but impossible for me to forge.

I am a roleplayer at heart which means that I am quickly pushed away by this.

Too many codicies and supplements. GW either needs to streamline or at least package/deliver things in a way that's easier to keep track of.

All and all, I'm happy though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
Okay, I have learned what I wanted to know from this poll.

While it seems that every post I come across has people saying that 40k is absolute garbage now, these results show that a large majority is happy, or at least content, with 7th.

These results show that two thirds of the people who are still posting in the section of the forum devoted to 40K are happy, or at least content, with 7th edition 40k.

That doesn't really tell you how many have already dumped it and are simply not posting here any more.

Yeah, exactly. People often post "well if you don't like the game why are you still posting", the fact is I'm sure a lot of people HAVE gone. This poll needs to be considered in the context of it being in a 40k forum 7 months after the new edition was released, there aren't going to be nearly as many people hanging around who didn't like 7th edition.

There might not be a big quantity still posting, but the ones that do make enough noise for the rest of them. They're largely the reason I frequent other 40k forums these days.

If fully a third of the customer base that are actually still active on the forums is unhappy with the state of the game, suggesting that the actual percentage of unhappy campers would be considerably higher... Well, that should make a reasonable amount of noise.

Hopefully, enough for GW to finally hear it.

Thank you guys for answering my questions about vehicles and AP2 so thoroughly - interesting reads.

About the Maelstrom objectives - I understand that trying to see these as following the background is quite difficult because "Why do I certainly have to go there?" - "Now I have to go there and now back again" "Now I have to issue a challenge for some reason." And technical it's strange to receive points for doing nothing and receive impossible missions, we all know these.

Could dynamic objectives work at all on both levels?

Would faction specific objectives be impossible to balance?

I'm asking because even though I would prefer a game which is very close to the background and which "makes sense", I really like the dynamics of Maelstrom objectives.

But maybe someone is the complete opposite of me and don't want this kind of dynamic no matter how well implemented.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So basically 7th killed off the dwindling number of people playing 40k in my area, didn't get a chance to play it as no one bothered to get the new rule book and my FLGS stopped stocking 40k fairly soon after.

Actually most people I know who left 40k with 7th never really played it. So I wouldn't put the blame on 7th itself, but rather on 6th. That was the edition which literally killed 40k in my area.

Tournaments had to be houseruled extensively to prevent things like Tau/Inquisition/Eldar from happening, but some of those rules were so poorly though out that ended making the game unplayable for some armies. Pickup games often degenerated into shouting matches. Flamewars and vitriolic arguments shattered our small-ish but formerly peaceful online communities. When the rumors about unbound hit, one side of the fight thought GW was in fact giving victory to the other, and promptly quit. And when the new allies table made the rounds online, team Taudar called nerf and quit as well. Now all that remains of the once lively local 40k scene is a bunch of veterans who retreated into their own gaming groups and the kids who were either sheltered from the fray by the local GW, or simply too young to get entangled in petty club/forum/store politics.

Im overall happy with 7th. It fixes some of the glaring mistakes of its predecessor, and makes up for its chronic imbalance by adding some much-needed variety, but I feel the wounds left in the wake of 6th may be too deep to heal - My friends and I jokingly talk of a "lost generation" of 40k players, who got hooked in their 20s but won't be playing it into their 30s.

I was thinking about this last night, and realised that the vast majority of my issues with 7 th actually come from the one thing: wound allocation.

There are certainly other things I don't like (all the random, unbound, dataslates, the unfinished psychic rules)... But those are all things that i could put up with if the game was otherwise still fun.

But the wound allocation rules, and specifically having to remove from the front neutering templates and leaders, and the regularity with which you wind up having to roll saves one at a time, just bites.

And because wound allocation is ultimately such a key, fundamental part of the game, that effectively kills the game for me.

 insaniak wrote:
I was thinking about this last night, and realised that the vast majority of my issues with 7 th actually come from the one thing: wound allocation.

There are certainly other things I don't like (all the random, unbound, dataslates, the unfinished psychic rules)... But those are all things that i could put up with if the game was otherwise still fun.

But the wound allocation rules, and specifically having to remove from the front neutering templates and leaders, and the regularity with which you wind up having to roll saves one at a time, just bites.

And because wound allocation is ultimately such a key, fundamental part of the game, that effectively kills the game for me.

It is by far the worst thing about 7th. It's plain terrible. Time-consuming, complicated and gamey. I enjoy 40k, but I hate wound allocation.

Wound allocation to me, while I think it's poorly implemented, seems to be more of an issue for some armies than others.

I find the scope & scale creep, along with the army construction madness to be far more detrimental to my enjoyment typically than wound allocation.

I find myself seeing a far larger number of armies that either I look at and think "well that's a fluff abortion, how is that legal? Oh right, and it's being done to give X capability", or see armies and think "well, half the armies here have no response to that, and they're going to just crush them effortlessly".

While the latter has been an issue to some degree in every edition, I've never seen it on quite the same scale so consistently, and particularly so divisively, usually with formations that half the playerbase has embraced with glee (usually because it allows them to do something absurd like arrive from deep-strike reserve turn 1 and assault) and the other half avoid like the plague.

I think the new Necron codex is simply going to enhance these problems.