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 hope it is ok to link to a blog on here?

I wrote a post on my gaming groups blog (previously mostly written for ourselves) with a few of my thoughts on 7th. If you're interested on another opinion, please check it out. I tried to pick out a few of the points that other people may have missed/glossed over.

Feel free to point out how wrong I am

Hope you enjoy

AND IT WOULD HELP IF I REMEMBERED TO POST THE LINK!!!

http://surreyspartansgaming.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/hobbits-musings-on-warhammer-40k-7th-edition/

Eh, I'm happy you're enjoying 7th.

I dislike a lot of the things you seem to like about this edition though.

I don't think shooting was cleaned up at all. The cleanest shooting we've had (that I've played, 5th and on) was 5th, which was a unit by unit method instead of model based. The model based system (and the new cover system) is actually quite a bit more tedious than 5th's. This was a problem with 6th as well.

I'm not a fan of a psychic phase. I think it was a poor fix for something that wasn't broken (mechanically speaking), and adds a whole lot of unnecessary dice rolling to wind up at the same conclusion. Blessings were, as a result of the new phase, nerfed which was needed, but I think its an unintentional by-product. There are a few other solutions to fixing the power of blessings than a psychic phase. But I get that's more opinion than anything, and while I enjoy rolling dice, I don't like rolling on needless tables that are incredibly random. Taking one wound for perils was simple and elegant, as you could 'Forge a Narrative' about was happening to your psyker.

Further, I don't think the balance of the game was helped at all. The removal of the FoC through Unbound, and the continued relaxing of the FoC through unlimited CADs widens the gap between armies that can bring a strong core supported by the same strong unit. Nothing was really done to help the balance issues internally among the codices, or externally between them, and assault is still the red-headed step child of dealing damage.

Overall, my impression is that of a rush job designed to pad their books before the year end. Nothing was done to really enhance the game, just change a few things and borrow ideas from other games they produce.

Mechanically speaking, its still clunky, has too many random tables that can drastically alter how the game plays (and actively work against the principle they tout of 'Forging a Narrative'), while introducing yet further (optional) random mechanics via the TacO cards, which have random rolls to determine the amount of VPs you get. There are still awkward rules, scenarios that aren't covered, contradictions that don't have a clean resolution, and USRs that range between super awesome to forgetting they exist worthless.

Balance wise, well not a lot has changed since we don't have any 7th ed books yet. Shooting is still ace, assault is still rough, and gimmicky builds are still strong.

All available in a more expensive set of books, two years before expected.

But hey, I'm genuinely glad you're enjoying it, and I plan on making tweaks myself to improve it so I can play with my army.

Either way, fairly well written thoughts on the game.

FYI area terrain does exist, actually more so than in 6th! Its just hidden. Ruins/Rubble/Craters/Battlements are all Area Terrain. So are woods if you are using the GW terrain piece! Its listed towards the back but its 5+ Area Terrain.


So far I have to agree that 7th is an improvement to 6th, and I though 6th was an improvement to 5th but had its own problem, Flyers and FMCs were originally tacked and broken especially FMCs and the 2++ rerollable shenanigans and the auto Psychic powers etc, and I thought 5th was a massive improvement to 4th.

Edit: @Blacksails, actually I don't think the new Psychic phase is slowing the game down, I actually think it will speed things up. Having Psychic powers all over the place and near auto success on LD10 really slowed things down and made them super reliable. I like the new dynamic, and don't even think Daemon Factory will be that big of a problem.

My biggest issue with 7th is more so from players than it is the game. Everyone is happy that 7th killed Taudar, but it didn't really do that as it did limit BB exclusively to Imperial and Eldar with Imperial really getting the biggest boost. Everyone cheers for the Phist-star and cheers that the Buffcommander is severly limited. Tau also have no means of psyker defense or denial. I've stopped taking Eldar allies of any kind because bringing a single Spiritseer will just mean that an enemy bringing any psykers will easily cancel out just about anything I would try for.

Gamewise, I'm still not sold. It's GW's job to sell me on a new edition and lure me into purchasing their product and they are doing a terrible job of it. If the company doesn't care to market it to me, then why should I even bother anymore?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the psychic phase.

Making a single Ld check for every power is quicker than rolling different pools of dice for each power. Plus the perils table and resolving those results.

I think the solution to the near auto pass Ld10 everywhere psykers was just to lower the average Ld of psykers. Leave Ld10 for the supreme bosses; Tiggy, Eldrad, Ahriman, Ld9 for upgraded psykers (like the Epistolary upgrade in the 5th ed marine book), Ld8 for near everyone else, and 7 for the weaker dudes.

Then again, I disliked a lot about 6th. I really dislike flyers, as one example. Such an awkward thing to have in a 28mm game.

*Edit* So I'm not accused of being a hate-mongering negative nancy, I should note that the new allies chart is a marked improvement.

I liked some of the changes made to 7th. Its still far from a great ruleset but its a good step forward.

Here's some of the improvements I gather.

1. No more complains on vehicles are useless / shot down on turn 1 / free 1st blood to opponents.
2. No more 50% on field start of game requirement
3. Everyone now has the rules on superheavies, superheavies D weapon tuned down for 40K play.
4. Troops choices are now more useful.
5. Jink applies to non moving units.

Personally I dislike it more than like it.

This is because: The Psychic phase takes too long and bothers me more than anything.

Sniper weapons were nerfed which just confuses me.

Now having to snapshot after jinking doesn't make much sense for me and I feel I've lost more than gained
.
Armies without psykers now seem more vulnerable to psychic powers without allying in higher point games.

A combination of the changes to Smash, FMC's and Vector Strike pretty much ruins my playstyle for Tyranids.

Although I won't complain about 7th (much) I do prefer 6th.

wufai wrote:
I liked some of the changes made to 7th. Its still far from a great ruleset but its a good step forward.

Here's some of the improvements I gather.

1. No more complains on vehicles are useless / shot down on turn 1 / free 1st blood to opponents.
2. No more 50% on field start of game requirement
3. Everyone now has the rules on superheavies, superheavies D weapon tuned down for 40K play.
4. Troops choices are now more useful.
5. Jink applies to non moving units.

I agree with all the above as well. Although the 50% reserves thing only just occured to me. That could be...interesting? I dont know. I do like that Troops are now even more key.

Blacksails, I understand a lot of the points youre raising, obviously we just have different ways of looking at the game. Its a shame you arent so happy with the changes in 7th. I do agree that the Psychic Phase can take a while, and until ive done it a few times itll probably be slow, but my Daemons basically skip their shooting phase so it all evens out there.
Yeah there are more random tables/elements, but I actually like those. I think I kind of accept that 40k is just a ridiculous laugh now, and dont mind too much about how 'competitive' (i hate using that word in this sense, but its the easiest way to get my point across) the system is. It may be im just lucky with my gaming group that this rule set just allows us all to have more fun with our toy soldiers and not care about 'balance' too much. Though as I said, I think 7th is a bit better than 6th.

Anyway, I hope 7th grows on you, or that you at least still enjoy the game!

I'm still going to find a way to enjoy the game, though I imagine it may be in spite of the rules, rather than because of them.

The tables I'm not bothered with; if I could pick my powers, or my warlord traits, or remove a few unnecessary ones (and rolling for VP, seriously awful game mechanic), I'd be happy. Its the excessive randomness and the fact that some of the results are useless, or otherwise completely situational. I would really like to know prior to the game what my warlord woke up today feeling like, or how bad of a case of amnesia my Primaris Psyker has.

For all the talk about 'Forging a Narrative', I feel like the game is actively working against that goal. It feels like its forcing a particularly random set of events and forcing the player to justify in their head why things are happening the way they are. I'd much rather be in more control of how the game flows, so that the objective I've pre-planned out in my head canon is what's happening on the table top. I place my objectives in a reasonable manner that'd make sense to occupy, then I decide which ones to go after based on my battle plan and what 'high command' would want, not what a series of cards tell me to do.

Besides, its not about being competitive either. I'm really growing a strong distaste for the words 'competitive' and 'casual'. I'm a casual player, but I enjoy a game that has clear rules, a modicum of balance, and a manner to determine the winner that lines up with being a result of player actions, not dice rolling for VPs or drawing cards. There's so much overlap between a 'casual' player and 'competitive' player that using these terms to split players into categories just divides an already fractured player base even more.

There are just players. Some are happy, some aren't. Ignore those who post gibberish or otherwise unhealthy posts (insults and such) and engage with those who post reasonably, even if those opinions don't line up with your own.

Again, I'm glad you enjoy 7th, and I can see why some people like it. Those that enjoyed 6th, will likely end up enjoying 7th. Those that didn't like 6th, I can imagine won't end up liking 7th, as it doubled down on some of the concepts introduced in 6th.

I'll likely just end up houseruling much of the things I don't like. Assign point values to powers/warlord traits and just pick them would probably be near the top of my list.

I don't understand why people think we are spending more time on Psychic powers. We now have a pool which takes seconds to generate. We are casting fewer powers per turn than we did before. Units know powers, not individual psykers so no duplicates. etc.

Have people forgotten how long the Daemons Shooting phase took with Flickering Fire. Or how long it took to resolve a ScreamerStar or a Seer Council, both of which are now much much quicker to resolve. Now, with a bit of practice the Psychic phase is going to take less time then all of the powers before. Not to mention casting Psychic powers in each players assault phase etc.

I'll have to agree to disagree. Frankly this and a few other things GW has done have finally pushed me away. Nowadays I will at best buy from eBay and we are basically trying to crunch Editions together to try to fix the game how we like it. It's flawed but it have a group of friends that I play with. It's somewhat humerous, I'm a player with a group of friends where we love fluff and playing campaigns whilst only playing as a group. We are basically the perfect target but each of us has just grown so bitter over the past few years that we have all moved to just care not for GW. Personally I think the psykers phase is a mess. I liked the old way and didn't mind reliable casts. These were top tier spell casters often times. That and they were usually just special weapons that you had to take a test for to succeed. A few were broken but most were horrid. That and it horridly hurt my Tzeentchian chaos daemon armada. I can't slug nearly as many shots and the FMC is an utter mess to me. I like part of it and hate another. It still didn't fix assault and it made things even more random.

Regardless, glad you are having fun!

If my armies were eldar and tzeench demos , I would probably like 7th too.

 Zagman wrote:
I don't understand why people think we are spending more time on Psychic powers. We now have a pool which takes seconds to generate. We are casting fewer powers per turn than we did before. Units know powers, not individual psykers so no duplicates. etc.

Have people forgotten how long the Daemons Shooting phase took with Flickering Fire. Or how long it took to resolve a ScreamerStar or a Seer Council, both of which are now much much quicker to resolve. Now, with a bit of practice the Psychic phase is going to take less time then all of the powers before. Not to mention casting Psychic powers in each players assault phase etc.

Yeah flickering fire is far shorter. By firing only a fragment of what they got to shoot

In all seriousness, it is just a bit frustrating that heralds and pink horrors don't really work like they used to and pink horrors are all together not really worth using as flickering fire users.

I'm also happy with 7th. It is broken and terrible as is, with Unbound and whatnot but, in my group at least, it's easy to either house-rule against this, or simply decide with your opponent that you will both bring Battle-Forged lists before the game. Maybe decide you won't summon much either.

Aside from that, I think the nerf to Blessings, the improvement to the Allies Matrix, the improvement to Vehicles, among other things, are welcome changes, no matter how small.

 Blacksails wrote:

For all the talk about 'Forging a Narrative', I feel like the game is actively working against that goal. It feels like its forcing a particularly random set of events and forcing the player to justify in their head why things are happening the way they are. I'd much rather be in more control of how the game flows, so that the objective I've pre-planned out in my head canon is what's happening on the table top. I place my objectives in a reasonable manner that'd make sense to occupy, then I decide which ones to go after based on my battle plan and what 'high command' would want, not what a series of cards tell me to do.

Besides, its not about being competitive either. I'm really growing a strong distaste for the words 'competitive' and 'casual'. I'm a casual player, but I enjoy a game that has clear rules, a modicum of balance, and a manner to determine the winner that lines up with being a result of player actions, not dice rolling for VPs or drawing cards. There's so much overlap between a 'casual' player and 'competitive' player that using these terms to split players into categories just divides an already fractured player base even more.

There are just players. Some are happy, some aren't. Ignore those who post gibberish or otherwise unhealthy posts (insults and such) and engage with those who post reasonably, even if those opinions don't line up with your own.

I could not agree more whole heartedly. You've summed that up fantastically. Have an exalt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:
If my armies were eldar and tzeench demos , I would probably like 7th too.

I dont think the army you play should govern whether you enjoy the game or not. All the armies are still great fun, and all can still work great in 7th. Its down to the player and their group to create and atmosphere and community where everyone can enjoy their toy soldiers. If you feel an army is overpowered, then try to steer your friends toward fielding less dominating lists, and create a game where you both have a laugh. For example, I rarely summon much when I play my Daemons. Perhaps the odd unit of Horrors, Flamers or Hounds. It helps if im having no luck shooting. And sometimes its just plain funny to turn that Herald into a Bloodthirster when youre really getting destroyed

Im hoping your comment wasn't a jibe at me, though i suspect it was. I play Daemons because I love the Tzeentch fluff, the models, and painting bright colours is a nice break from my Dark Eldar who are, as the name suggests, dark in colour. I play Dark Eldar because I love everything about them, from the fluff to the models to the playstyle, the wargear, the variety of units, all of it.

And both armies have strengths and weaknesses in 7th. If they were both all powerful they'd be boring

Nice article, good read.

Just some criticism. We complain about GW and their spelling mistakes, you have a few of them. Just trying to get you better. Sometimes I love auto correct, other times I hate them.

Just want you to get better. Thanks for sharing the link, nice to see something positive for a change.

 HerbaciousT wrote:


I think I kind of accept that 40k is just a ridiculous laugh now, and dont mind too much about how 'competitive' (i hate using that word in this sense, but its the easiest way to get my point across) the system is. It may be im just lucky with my gaming group that this rule set just allows us all to have more fun with our toy soldiers and not care about 'balance' too much.

This is the point. People are divided. Personally, I've never understood gamers like you. There are a lot of people who want something more than chuckle. I'm not sure if you are into sports, but surely you can appreciate that a close, hard-fought match is more enjoyable than an outright drubbing.

 HerbaciousT wrote:
I think I kind of accept that 40k is just a ridiculous laugh now, and dont mind too much about how 'competitive' (i hate using that word in this sense, but its the easiest way to get my point across) the system is. It may be im just lucky with my gaming group that this rule set just allows us all to have more fun with our toy soldiers and not care about 'balance' too much.

I don't understand this attitude at all. Just having a "ridiculous laugh" is something you do with a $20 board game. I don't see any appeal in spending hundreds/thousands of dollars and months/years of painting on an army so that I can just throw some dice and not really care about the game I'm playing. I find it incredibly frustrating that GW's laziness and incompetence has broken the game so badly that the only way to enjoy it is to lower your standards to the level appropriate for playing a silly board game with a small child.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
*Edit* So I'm not accused of being a hate-mongering negative nancy, I should note that the new allies chart is a marked improvement.

I actually disagree about this. The 6th edition allies chart might have caused problems with competitive balance, but at least it recognized that non-imperial armies exist and deserve to have some options for allies. The 7th edition chart removes all of that, imperial armies get tons of battle brothers options, while non-imperial armies get almost nothing.

 Peregrine wrote:

I don't understand this attitude at all. Just having a "ridiculous laugh" is something you do with a $20 board game. I don't see any appeal in spending hundreds/thousands of dollars and months/years of painting on an army so that I can just throw some dice and not really care about the game I'm playing. I find it incredibly frustrating that GW's laziness and incompetence has broken the game so badly that the only way to enjoy it is to lower your standards to the level appropriate for playing a silly board game with a small child.

No one is looking at it like a cheap board game; they're looking at it like casual D&D players. The kind of game you're always going on about is an anachronism, a relic of an age before we'd perfected e-sports. GW has seen the writing on the wall and knows the competitive player market can't support the hobby at previous levels. So they're turning 40k into a casual narrative gaming experience. That's why out of the just over 150 in print missions for standard 40k, only 6 of them are suitable for tournament play (and barely that), only about two dozen of them are generic and the rest are about telling stories. They've got enough balance to it that it doesn't turn into another War of the Rings, but not so much as to suffer from the narrative limitations of previous editions.

When people say having a laugh, they mean having a good time with their friends and not taking it too seriously, not that the game they're playing doesn't matter. The past two years have been amazing for narrative and garage players, but total crap for the competitive scene. And that's by design, not accident.

Good article, but flat out no longer increases your cover save, you may want to edit that.

Massawyrm wrote:
GW has seen the writing on the wall and knows the competitive player market can't support the hobby at previous levels. So they're turning 40k into a casual narrative gaming experience.

Except there's nothing casual at all about a game that requires a $500+ buy-in from both players, hundreds of hours of hobby time, has a hundred pages of rules, and takes 3 to 5 hours to set up and play.

And there's nothing narrative about introducing more and more elements to the game that reduce player agency and reduce the coherency of any story you're trying to tell, especially when these random traits, events, and missions affect the things that often matter most for true narrative games - characters and objectives.

Massawyrm wrote:
When people say having a laugh, they mean having a good time with their friends and not taking it too seriously, not that the game they're playing doesn't matter.

Again, you miss the point. You can have a literal laugh with a $20 set of Cards Against Humanity, and many other really casual and very fun board or card games. Casual games like that require little up front investment, take no time to set up, and usually not much time to teach (and some of them can still be incredibly deep and compelling games).

Massawyrm wrote:
The past two years have been amazing for narrative and garage players, but total crap for the competitive scene. And that's by design, not accident.

No, any narrative you can create in 40k is by accident on the part of the designers (quite literally considering how many random tables there can be that affect a 40k game at a very high level). You can create narrative games using just about any wargaming ruleset if you have any imagination. 40k doesn't provide a single thing that actually enables narrative play. Truly great narrative games can be had far more easily with systems that DO support narratives, like games based around persistent rosters that gain experience or games that provide a framework for campaigns of linked games.

There's nothing actually narrative about 40k, it's just an excuse for sloppy writing. Just like there's nothing actually casual about 40k, it's a very expensive and intense hobby that's virtually impossible for a new player to get into.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


There's nothing actually narrative about 40k, it's just an excuse for sloppy writing.

.

Pretty much the truth of the matter. It is seemingly a way for GW to absolve themselves of responsibility. Many a narrative has been forged by the summoning of slaaneshi daemons by a farseer or a phiststar.

 AesSedai wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:


There's nothing actually narrative about 40k, it's just an excuse for sloppy writing.

.

Pretty much the truth of the matter. It is seemingly a way for GW to absolve themselves of responsibility. Many a narrative has been forged by the summoning of slaaneshi daemons by a farseer or a phiststar.

Agreed. For me a "narrative" game is one where I control the story of the game. 40k is too dictated by random actions that have too large an impact to the point where you have little to no control of any kind of cohesive narrative. The most "narrative" games I had in 40k were the ones that I made my own decisions on where to go and what to do. "I want to capture that objective because there's a techpriest with data that we need to fix our planetary defense system" and such things.

Having basically started with 7th edition, I must say I like it a lot. I have a few issues here and there, like when using a grenade in melee combat is it still a Blast or are you literally hitting the guy with the grenade and thus not using the explosion effect, or the ease in which the people in my play group seem to beat my non-flyers with ease, very annoying for me as a Tyranid player.

I don't know what it was like in previous editions but I have heard a great deal of pros and cons for them all, but so far, this edition is fine.

 AesSedai wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:


I think I kind of accept that 40k is just a ridiculous laugh now, and dont mind too much about how 'competitive' (i hate using that word in this sense, but its the easiest way to get my point across) the system is. It may be im just lucky with my gaming group that this rule set just allows us all to have more fun with our toy soldiers and not care about 'balance' too much.

This is the point. People are divided. Personally, I've never understood gamers like you. There are a lot of people who want something more than chuckle. I'm not sure if you are into sports, but surely you can appreciate that a close, hard-fought match is more enjoyable than an outright drubbing.

Im not saying I wouldnt like it more balanced, but there are plenty of other games I play that are far more balanced and 'competitive', and thats what I want from them. Im happy with what I get from 40k, which is a way to play a great, fun game with my mates that everyone can enjoy, with models we like and have worked hard on, and in a setting that we all are intrigued by. The games can still be tense and hard fought. I find mine often are. Because none of us seek to exploit rules or armies, or build broken and often boring lists. We use the units we like most, often regardless of their effectiveness.

If I want a tactical, optimized and competitive game ill play Infinity. If I want space combat that ranges from tactical and skillful to hilarious and explosive ill play X-Wing or Firestorm Armada.

40k isnt built how some people want it to be. I know that sucks for the people who do want it to be that highly balanced and competitive beast. I honestly wouldnt mind it being a bit more like that. But it doesnt seem like that is what GW wants the game to be. And some of us are ok with how it is. Why not enjoy the game for what it is and find other games that fill the other niches in your gaming needs, as it were?

Im not seeking to antagonise people with this, im just stating my opinion and trying to help.

 HerbaciousT wrote:

 AesSedai wrote:

 HerbaciousT wrote:


I think I kind of accept that 40k is just a ridiculous laugh now, and dont mind too much about how 'competitive' (i hate using that word in this sense, but its the easiest way to get my point across) the system is. It may be im just lucky with my gaming group that this rule set just allows us all to have more fun with our toy soldiers and not care about 'balance' too much.

This is the point. People are divided. Personally, I've never understood gamers like you. There are a lot of people who want something more than chuckle. I'm not sure if you are into sports, but surely you can appreciate that a close, hard-fought match is more enjoyable than an outright drubbing.

Im not saying I wouldnt like it more balanced, but there are plenty of other games I play that are far more balanced and 'competitive', and thats what I want from them. Im happy with what I get from 40k, which is a way to play a great, fun game with my mates that everyone can enjoy, with models we like and have worked hard on, and in a setting that we all are intrigued by. The games can still be tense and hard fought. I find mine often are. Because none of us seek to exploit rules or armies, or build broken and often boring lists. We use the units we like most, often regardless of their effectiveness.

If I want a tactical, optimized and competitive game ill play Infinity. If I want space combat that ranges from tactical and skillful to hilarious and explosive ill play X-Wing or Firestorm Armada.

40k isnt built how some people want it to be. I know that sucks for the people who do want it to be that highly balanced and competitive beast. I honestly wouldnt mind it being a bit more like that. But it doesnt seem like that is what GW wants the game to be. And some of us are ok with how it is. Why not enjoy the game for what it is and find other games that fill the other niches in your gaming needs, as it were?

Im not seeking to antagonise people with this, im just stating my opinion and trying to help.

Because some of us can't have a close group of friends or close acquaintances that share a similar idea of what the game should be and without that a decent game is hard to find. Stomping someone or getting stomped isn't much fun. And if it isn't fun, there's not much reason to play.

I've found 7th much more fun and balanced than 6th. Sorry but i am glad FMC got nerfed. They needed it.
The smash nerf was a bit harsh, but really if you go full force to smash something... Normally only do it once (though I feel making smash attack master crafted would.be nice) but I cant charge from reserves, you shouldn't get to charge the turn you stop swooping :p.

 raiden wrote:
I've found 7th much more fun and balanced than 6th. Sorry but i am glad FMC got nerfed. They needed it.
The smash nerf was a bit harsh, but really if you go full force to smash something... Normally only do it once (though I feel making smash attack master crafted would.be nice) but I cant charge from reserves, you shouldn't get to charge the turn you stop swooping :p.

FMCs can still be great, I know Nurge DPs are just ridiculous.

220 pts with Nurgle, Wings, and Warp Forged Armor, 245 if its ML1.

Jinking its has a 2+ Cover Save all of the time, Gliding or Swooping and it has a guaranteed chance of getting the Summoning Primaris. You also have a decent chance for Incursion, or Cursed Earth.

The 365pt monstrosities with every possible upgrade are gone, but there are still some gems left or

235pt Slaanesh DP with Wings, WarpForged Armor, and Lash. Stays Flying, can Vector Strike, and gets 2d6 S6 Shots per turn. 260 if he is ML 1.

Definite Gems in FMCs left, we just have to realize they can't do everything they did in 6th. It was seriosuly damn near impossible to stop FMC Spam.

I dont think the army you play should govern whether you enjoy the game or not. All the armies are still great fun, and all can still work great in 7th. Its down to the player and their group to create and atmosphere and community where everyone can enjoy their toy soldiers. If you feel an army is overpowered, then try to steer your friends toward fielding less dominating lists, and create a game where you both have a laugh. For example, I rarely summon much when I play my Daemons. Perhaps the odd unit of Horrors, Flamers or Hounds. It helps if im having no luck shooting. And sometimes its just plain funny to turn that Herald into a Bloodthirster when youre really getting destroyed

Eldar players post new codex seem to have ton of fun . In general what I have been told about eldar , is that they were unfun to play for a short time between start of 6th and new 6th eldar codex. in 2ed they ruled all, in 3ed they were the same , in 4th they were super OP . So an eldar player had maybe 2 years of little or less fun with eldar , if he started in 2ed. Now on the other hand nid players hate themself since 5th ed codex. Chaos players whine since they lost 3.5 . IG is like a meteor , they were never fun longer then half an edition. I mean the last codex was maybe fun to play for what 4 months and then 7th came out , and everything that was suppose to be good about it stoped working and what was nerfed stayed nerfed.

 HerbaciousT wrote:
Im happy with what I get from 40k, which is a way to play a great, fun game with my mates that everyone can enjoy, with models we like and have worked hard on, and in a setting that we all are intrigued by. The games can still be tense and hard fought. I find mine often are. Because none of us seek to exploit rules or armies, or build broken and often boring lists. We use the units we like most, often regardless of their effectiveness.

But why do you have such low standards for 40k? Why are you willing to invest the huge amounts of time and effort into playing it, and then settle for less than other games? All of these things you enjoy are also found in better games, so why is it ok that 40k is only playable in the most casual environments with people who make a deliberate effort to avoid its problems?

But it doesnt seem like that is what GW wants the game to be.

GW doesn't want it to be anything. They just want to cut costs as much as possible, and that means publishing rough drafts as finished products without any meaningful playtesting.

Why not enjoy the game for what it is and find other games that fill the other niches in your gaming needs, as it were?

Because "what it is" is garbage. The things competitive players hate about 40k aren't the result of GW making an amazing game for a different group of people, they're the result of GW publishing garbage and throwing a "forge the narrative" label on it as an excuse for why they don't need to write better rules.