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.

jonolikespie 616944 7240773 a99529f9d9fdef06eca5f2ea8a980887. wrote:

You know it is entirely possible to look at a rulebook and decide you don't like the game in the same way you can look at a menu and know you wont like a meal without trying it based on the ingredients listed. You're presenting legitimate arguments in a deliberately absurd way.

I've played a single game of 6th when it came out and found the wound resolution and removal from the front mechanics tedious. I know 7th hasn't changed in any way I would consider meaningful way so I know I will dislike that.

You know, I've heard these "it doesn't take a chef to say that a meal is bad"-type of arguments before, but they tend to fall flat on so many opinions based on ignorance.
There are so many people who assume Lords of Wars are broken OP, but most of them only ever refer to Please don't use this term on Dakka like this. Reds8n C'Tan, refer to what people on the web says and assumes all LoW are broken.
I could go on and on with countless examples but the fact is that many of them don't have a single clue about what they're talking about or provides examples that are ludicrous:

"My truck blew up so that's 10S 4 hits on my Orks!"
Okaaay, so your enemy dedicated AP2/1 to kill a truck with 10 useless Boyz? What about the rest of your army? He doesn't have better things to shoot at? Then you're either badly losing or greatly winning, if that's your opponent priority, and don't give me the excuse that they are open-topped so they can be blown by AC's and the like, the odds are still small and priorities is still wrong.
"I hate the new Mob Rule! It kills so much, this one time, my Nob was the only one standing!"
So an average of D6 (3,5) S4 hits that brings you down to what, 1-2 wounds? This is not counting saves and FNP. So an average tax of 0-2 models to become essentially fearless is a massive nerf that cripples your entire army?

There was a lot of people who looked at the Tau and Eldar books and called them out to be bad dexes, it was almost universally agreed upon that the Wraith Knight was a gakky unit that would almost never see any table action, so yeah, while I agree upon the sentiment that one is able to judge a book by reading the rules, I'll still judge the vast majority of the player base to be incapable of doing so.

Its not hard to prove your own opinion right when you're using examples that entirely back your point.

What about everyone who read the rules, and looked at the changes like how cover was treated, or the changes to army list construction and made an informed opinion to not play because of that?

But yeah, it really doesn't take a chef to know you're eating dog gak. By the same token, you don't need to be a game designer to know 40k 7th is poorly designed, nor do you need to play 12, 120, or 1200 games to understand the difference form the last edition and decide its not worth the $100 price tag.

I think 7th is what 6th aspired to be. That said, I don't really think there are many too glaring issues with the rules per se (still not sold on Flyers; they're just a stupid scheme to sell plastic to everyone), but it's the balance or rather the lack of it that irks me.

My mate plays straight up Eldar with nothing too special in his list (3 WS, no wraithknights etc) yet fighting him always feels like an uphill battle. The power level of the codex without even going OTT with spamming is just ridiculous compared to any other codex. I'd very much like to enjoy a game against him but it always feels like a chore and in the end I usually lose badly. Unfortunately that has somewhat killed some of the fun for me.

But anyway, that's not so much of a 7th vs 6th issue but a "what's wrong with 40k currently" sort of issue.

I also have to mention that I quite like the Maelstrom of War missions. For me they bring a whole new tactical layer in list building and actual playing, however random the cards might be.

Eldar haven't been updated yet though. They are a 6th ed book, iirc.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eldar haven't been updated yet though. They are a 6th ed book, iirc.

The 6th edition books are intended for 7th edition, if the theme and cover style suggest. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th all had their own scheme for book format. 7th books seem to be following this fairly closely.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its not hard to prove your own opinion right when you're using examples that entirely back your point.

What about everyone who read the rules, and looked at the changes like how cover was treated, or the changes to army list construction and made an informed opinion to not play because of that?

But yeah, it really doesn't take a chef to know you're eating dog gak. By the same token, you don't need to be a game designer to know 40k 7th is poorly designed, nor do you need to play 12, 120, or 1200 games to understand the difference form the last edition and decide its not worth the $100 price tag.

Why should I provide examples which didn't prove my point? Wouldn't you call me out for contradicting myself then?
How is it that dakka is so willing to accept any of those nonsense stories about Mob Rule that wipes out entire armies, but when ever someone complain about how dakka is negatively biased on their critique and the vast majority of negative statements are hyperbole, then you're either flagged as a GW apologist, an arrogant douche who "crafts" examples or what ever.

I will go on the record saying that if you don't like 7th because you don't find it fun, then fine, that's 100% legit and you won't ever hear me say that you should keep pouring money into an expensive hobby when you don't like it.
However, where I'll start getting jumped is when people compare 7th to any edition from 3rd and up, and say 7th is poorly made in comparison to those, when the former edition where much, MUCH, more inferior from balance and rule perspective. 3rd and 4th (especially 4th for me) had some fun and simple rules, but they came at the cost of major balance issues. The balance in both editions where horrible and you'd be a fool to think otherwise and don't even get started on 4th edition's "cover category" discussions, you fool yourself into believing that you actually spend 20+ minutes talking to an opponent before the game in 7th? How a bout spending 10-50+ minutes ON AVERAGE on each friggin' game EVERYTIME you had a new opponent to a pick up game in 4th, because you needed to be absolute sure that you both where 100% solid about what was defined as what, in order to avoid mid game discussions.
Since the atrocious rollercoaster rides of no balance we finally see GW tone down the absurd amount of special rules and streamlining the armies. Now we hear complaints about lack of flavour and what not, and you know what, fine if you had more fun in what ever edition you perceive more flavourful then have fun with that edition or quit because you don't like the new one, but don't for a second think that they ever had more balance or a better system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eldar haven't been updated yet though. They are a 6th ed book, iirc.

The 6th edition books are intended for 7th edition, if the theme and cover style suggest. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th all had their own scheme for book format. 7th books seem to be following this fairly closely.

I sincerely hope you're wrong on this matter. Their Ghosthelm doesn't seem like it's intended for 7th edition (it's too strong) and bringing Eldar down to 7th edition powerlevel like the rest of the other codices would really make 7th for a better game. Right now it's like, most armies can compete fairly well and there isn't really any army that roflstomps every single other army in the game with little to no difficulty... What's that? Eldar? Oh, yeah.. umh.. ignore those from the equation.

Weither or not a book was designed for 7th is irrelevant if now, in 7th ed, it is still the most current and therefore only legal codex to be used for that army. If it wasn't designed for 7th, or 7th not designed to work with it, then there should have been an update when 7th landed.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eldar haven't been updated yet though. They are a 6th ed book, iirc.

The 6th edition books are intended for 7th edition, if the theme and cover style suggest. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th all had their own scheme for book format. 7th books seem to be following this fairly closely.

Codex: Eldar was released in June of 2013, which puts its development as likely starting before 7th (if GW is still running a 15 month cycle on codexes that is). And just because the cover design is similar the internal layout of 6th and 7th edition books are drastically different. So no, Eldar was not likely "designed for 7th".

 Zewrath wrote:


Why should I provide examples which didn't prove my point? Wouldn't you call me out for contradicting myself then?
How is it that dakka is so willing to accept any of those nonsense stories about Mob Rule that wipes out entire armies, but when ever someone complain about how dakka is negatively biased on their critique and the vast majority of negative statements are hyperbole, then you're either flagged as a GW apologist, an arrogant douche who "crafts" examples or what ever.

No, but coming up entirely with examples that back your point completely ignores that your original point was built entirely on your own experiences and doesn't reflect anything more than that, while you seem to think its more representative of the entire gaming population.

Some people make uninformed decisions, some people make informed ones. Avoid blanket statements or hyperbolic ones like 'An absurd number of people do 'X'. In my experience, everyone I know has left the game after making an informed decision.

So no, I wouldn't accuse you of being contradictory. I'm accusing you of starting off with a completely false premise, or at the very least, a hyperbolic one with no real backing outside of your own experience.

Just because you read things on the internet that are poorly written doesn't mean you should start doing the same.

I will go on the record saying that if you don't like 7th because you don't find it fun, then fine, that's 100% legit and you won't ever hear me say that you should keep pouring money into an expensive hobby when you don't like it.

Well on this we can agree.

However, where I'll start getting jumped is when people compare 7th to any edition from 3rd and up, and say 7th is poorly made in comparison to those, when the former edition where much, MUCH, more inferior from balance and rule perspective. 3rd and 4th (especially 4th for me) had some fun and simple rules, but they came at the cost of major balance issues. The balance in both editions where horrible and you'd be a fool to think otherwise and don't even get started on 4th edition's "cover category" discussions, you fool yourself into believing that you actually spend 20+ minutes talking to an opponent before the game in 7th? How a bout spending 10-50+ minutes ON AVERAGE on each friggin' game EVERYTIME you had a new opponent to a pick up game in 4th, because you needed to be absolute sure that you both where 100% solid about what was defined as what, in order to avoid mid game discussions.
Since the atrocious rollercoaster rides of no balance we finally see GW tone down the absurd amount of special rules and streamlining the armies. Now we hear complaints about lack of flavour and what not, and you know what, fine if you had more fun in what ever edition you perceive more flavourful then have fun with that edition or quit because you don't like the new one, but don't for a second think that they ever had more balance or a better system.

Here's the thing; comparing editions is natural, as ideally, each one becomes an improvement over the last in some capacity. Considering that the core mechanics of the game have hardly changed since 3rd (or so I'm told, I'm a 5th entry), its entirely acceptable to demand a noticeable increase in the quality of the rules. Instead, each edition is largely flawed in some serious ways, but different in where those flaws are in each edition.

7th made some steps forward with some areas over 6th. It also made several steps back. The end result is an edition that feels very similar with some ideas from fantasy ported over and an abomination of army list construction. As an edition, 7th is no more balanced than 6th; the basic idea of a psychic phase puts a few armies on their back foot and means they can't participate. That's a pretty poor design idea if you ask me. As a player from 5th, I can assure you the core rules of 5th were cleaner, simpler, and faster. This led to better gameplay overall, marred by vehicles that were too strong.

Each edition GW has put out has had issues. No one is saying 3rd, or 4th, or 5th was perfect. Far from it. But the move to 6th and reverting to a skirmish based ruleset designed around company level engagements, and the inclusion of LoW in 7th is a pretty bad design move. Its slow, clunky, actually hinders 'narrative forging' and promotes gimmicky gameplay rather than tactical gameplay.

As for my own personal opinion, I felt 5th was a solid edition. The two big balance issues were vehicles and assault. Both of those issues only needed minor changes in order to be brought in line. Codex balance issues aside, the most important aspect for a game is the actual gameplay, and 5th was leaps and bounds better than 6th or 7th. All of this model by model nonsense and randomly determining casualties or removing them from the front is tedious, slow, and does nothing to enhance tactical gameplay.

In a game as large as 40k is intended, you simply can't use a skirmish based ruleset. You need to use a proper company level ruleset and add in the few skirmish elements as needed. That's what 5th did right that 6th and 7th didn't.

Oh, and army construction. What a joke 7th is in that regards.

I really don't get your insistence that army list construction is a joke in 7th Blacksails. I get that you don't like it, but since it's mostly the same as the past with the differences being "no limit on the number of FOCs you can use as long as you meet the requirements", "taking different FOCs for an army nets different bonuses" and "codexes have special FOCs that allow the army to be differently organized", I'm failing to see what makes you call it an "abortion".

 Zewrath wrote:

 Thud wrote:

If you want the highground with regards to rationality or being reasonable, you need to dial it down with the logical fallacies.

And what about the fact that there are an absurd amount of people who judge 7th based on rumors and what they read on the web. I've seen countless of people saying that,
- they "quit some editions ago but 7th looks stupid"
-"Haven't played it yet, it looks like 6th so it's half assed and I won't bother."
-"Unbound is stupid, I quit when I heard that"
-"It's impossible to play pick up games because it clearly takes 20+ minutes to discuss with my oponent before we start a game"
-"Flyers looks dumb, and so does Super Heavies, I am going to assume that they can 1 shot half my army and they are totally OP"
-"I played 2 games of 7th edition, with the same lists I used from 6th, the same missions from 6th, it felt like 6th edition, I am totally shocked and appalled, and immidieatly quit playing 7th"
-"Daemonolgy is OP, I don't care that it takes 3 WC and any doubles causes perils, everyone will use them and I think it sounds broken. I also saw this wierd video on youtube where some random dudes plays with the wrong rules of 7th, summons 2k points. I don't care if that list still lost and had 0 offensive potential and still lost to a dude who made the worst SM list ever concieved"
-"In my shop my Ork/GK/what ever list that just got released player used the same list as before and now it doesn't work anymore, that's clearly a nerf and GW sucks. He sold his army"

Straw man argument, red herrings, take your pick. It's a wonderful sauce.

What "countless people on the internet" says about why, how, when they quit is completely and utterly irrelevant here. Not only are your claims unfalsifiable, but you have also purposefully phrased them to make your straw men appear stupider.

Argue arguments, not invented patsies that are conveniently stupid with arguments full of holes.

40k isn't national service, it's a hobby. The guys in my group who quit couldn't be bothered with it anymore. They didn't like what 40k has become, so they switched over to a game they do like. I still like 40k enough to keep playing, so I do. That's it. There's nothing stupid, irrational, or unreasonable about it.

Still sucks for me, though. As, in a metaphysical sense, the implosion of my gaming group leaves me with fewer opponents, making it harder to arrange games, giving me less enjoyment from 40k.

 Thud wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 Thud wrote:

If you want the highground with regards to rationality or being reasonable, you need to dial it down with the logical fallacies.

And what about the fact that there are an absurd amount of people who judge 7th based on rumors and what they read on the web. I've seen countless of people saying that,
- they "quit some editions ago but 7th looks stupid"
-"Haven't played it yet, it looks like 6th so it's half assed and I won't bother."
-"Unbound is stupid, I quit when I heard that"
-"It's impossible to play pick up games because it clearly takes 20+ minutes to discuss with my oponent before we start a game"
-"Flyers looks dumb, and so does Super Heavies, I am going to assume that they can 1 shot half my army and they are totally OP"
-"I played 2 games of 7th edition, with the same lists I used from 6th, the same missions from 6th, it felt like 6th edition, I am totally shocked and appalled, and immidieatly quit playing 7th"
-"Daemonolgy is OP, I don't care that it takes 3 WC and any doubles causes perils, everyone will use them and I think it sounds broken. I also saw this wierd video on youtube where some random dudes plays with the wrong rules of 7th, summons 2k points. I don't care if that list still lost and had 0 offensive potential and still lost to a dude who made the worst SM list ever concieved"
-"In my shop my Ork/GK/what ever list that just got released player used the same list as before and now it doesn't work anymore, that's clearly a nerf and GW sucks. He sold his army"

Straw man argument, red herrings, take your pick. It's a wonderful sauce.

What "countless people on the internet" says about why, how, when they quit is completely and utterly irrelevant here. Not only are your claims unfalsifiable, but you have also purposefully phrased them to make your straw men appear stupider.

Argue arguments, not invented patsies that are conveniently stupid with arguments full of holes.

40k isn't national service, it's a hobby. The guys in my group who quit couldn't be bothered with it anymore. They didn't like what 40k has become, so they switched over to a game they do like. I still like 40k enough to keep playing, so I do. That's it. There's nothing stupid, irrational, or unreasonable about it.

Still sucks for me, though. As, in a metaphysical sense, the implosion of my gaming group leaves me with fewer opponents, making it harder to arrange games, giving me less enjoyment from 40k.

 Orock wrote:
Fast attack became all but impossible. Lets take a common scenario. Your truck blows up, who knew that 6+ ramshackle wouldn't save you huh? So you take 10 str 4 hits. 5 wounds. Now you take pinning. Fail because the nob is LD 7. So heap some more onto that. Then you fail morale. Have some more dead orks. I have had 3 times where the only member left was the nob.

Not quite invented patsies, the forum is full of people like this. Also, this forum seems to think that arguements is something you can only bring in some form of scientifical indisputable evidence and dismiss any arguements based on frequent observations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

Each edition GW has put out has had issues. No one is saying 3rd, or 4th, or 5th was perfect. Far from it. But the move to 6th and reverting to a skirmish based ruleset designed around company level engagements, and the inclusion of LoW in 7th is a pretty bad design move. Its slow, clunky, actually hinders 'narrative forging' and promotes gimmicky gameplay rather than tactical gameplay.

As for my own personal opinion, I felt 5th was a solid edition. The two big balance issues were vehicles and assault. Both of those issues only needed minor changes in order to be brought in line. Codex balance issues aside, the most important aspect for a game is the actual gameplay, and 5th was leaps and bounds better than 6th or 7th. All of this model by model nonsense and randomly determining casualties or removing them from the front is tedious, slow, and does nothing to enhance tactical gameplay.

In a game as large as 40k is intended, you simply can't use a skirmish based ruleset. You need to use a proper company level ruleset and add in the few skirmish elements as needed. That's what 5th did right that 6th and 7th didn't.

Oh, and army construction. What a joke 7th is in that regards.

Right, so we can agree to disagree on this matter then.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I really don't get your insistence that army list construction is a joke in 7th Blacksails. I get that you don't like it, but since it's mostly the same as the past with the differences being "no limit on the number of FOCs you can use as long as you meet the requirements", "taking different FOCs for an army nets different bonuses" and "codexes have special FOCs that allow the army to be differently organized", I'm failing to see what makes you call it an "abortion".

Well Unbound is a joke because its the absence of army list construction rules. That alone leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Multiple CADs is a lesser version of Unbound, being that you have to fill your troop and HQ slots before adding another, but it still leaves you questioning why there's even a FoC in the first place if the whole purpose was to challenge players to make an army that fit within the confines of a chart. It just defeats the purpose of even imposing a limitation in the first place. Why bother having elites, fast attack and heavy support, when you given enough troops and HQs (which in strong armies aren't a tax) you have effectively unlimited options for strong FA, elites, or HS units.

The entirely different FoC we're seeing now are what should have been implemented a long time ago. The difference being that the game would also do away with multiple CADs and force you to pick one chart or another. Its like how 30k armies are constructed. There are multiple FoC to choose from, and each comes with benefits and/or drawbacks. That's a good way of doing army construction.

As I've said multiple times across many threads, GW has a lot of good ideas, its the execution that kills it. With the different charts we have now, it falls flat with being able to take multiple of them, or that they're only found in expensive supplements. That and not every army has them...yet, I suppose.

Basically, there was nothing wrong with 5th's way of building armies. It had two limits; the chart and points. Now, the only limit is points, essentially. It doesn't help balance the game, and the better way to give players more options is to offer different types of FoC to choose from and stick with one.

That's why I see it is as a joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zewrath wrote:

Right, so we can agree to disagree on this matter then.

Sure.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Thud wrote:

If you want the highground with regards to rationality or being reasonable, you need to dial it down with the logical fallacies.

And what about the fact that there are an absurd amount of people who judge 7th based on rumors and what they read on the web. I've seen countless of people saying that,
- they "quit some editions ago but 7th looks stupid"
-"Haven't played it yet, it looks like 6th so it's half assed and I won't bother."
-"Unbound is stupid, I quit when I heard that"
-"It's impossible to play pick up games because it clearly takes 20+ minutes to discuss with my oponent before we start a game"
-"Flyers looks dumb, and so does Super Heavies, I am going to assume that they can 1 shot half my army and they are totally OP"
-"I played 2 games of 7th edition, with the same lists I used from 6th, the same missions from 6th, it felt like 6th edition, I am totally shocked and appalled, and immidieatly quit playing 7th"
-"Daemonolgy is OP, I don't care that it takes 3 WC and any doubles causes perils, everyone will use them and I think it sounds broken. I also saw this wierd video on youtube where some random dudes plays with the wrong rules of 7th, summons 2k points. I don't care if that list still lost and had 0 offensive potential and still lost to a dude who made the worst SM list ever concieved"
-"In my shop my Ork/GK/what ever list that just got released player used the same list as before and now it doesn't work anymore, that's clearly a nerf and GW sucks. He sold his army"

If only there was a thread specifically for people listing the exact reasons for leaving 40k. Perhaps something like that could be educational.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
5th was a mess of parking lots, death stars and MSU spam. Not to mention people constantly jumping from whatever was the Best Marine book of the month to the next one to gain an advantage in the game.

5th may have made Transports very effective, but remember that Glancing hits could still destroy them with a good roll, and Melta Guns were destroying vehicles on a 4+.


Real warfare is a mess of parking lots and MSU spam. As for Deathstars, I don't really remember that being a serious problem in 5th. 6th was far worse when it came to Deathstars.




If you look at what worked very well in 5th edition, it was pretty much:

Purifiers in Psybacks backed up by Psyrifledreads.

Mech Vets in Chimeras with Melta or Plasma Guns backed up by Manticores and Vendettas.

Plague Marines in Rhinos backed up by Obliterators and supported by Lash Sorcerers.

Deathwing (everybody gets a TH/SS)

Blood Angels Las-Plas Razorback spam

Dark Eldar Venoms & possibly Beast Pack

Drop Marines with Melta Guns and Flamers backed up by Vulkan.

Orks running the Kan Wall or Battlewagon Rush.

Not Dark Angels, they were stuck with 4th edition TH/SS for quite sometime and Terminators were always a niche army, there's a reason why they were the worst of Space marines for the longest time since they couldn't get razorback spam with dakkadreads. Not to mention Tyranids were just boned by DE and transporthammer, Tau were pretty meh, Eldar was pretty meh (though both were meant to take advantage of 4th's skimmer rules which made them horribly OP then..)

Typically it was either "Have good mech or go home"

Is 7th better than 6th?

Simple answer, Yes.

Why? A majority of the rules, even though small tweeks from 6th are better.
Charging into/through cover is better
FMC grounding tests are better (markerlight hit grounding you was stupid)
Challenges are better with the overspill.
Vehicles are better as it's harder for them to blow up.

Psychic powers are better, and here is why.
Yes, they are better, as they are NOT as powerfull!
You can not cast all the powers you have each turn.
You can attempt to stop all powers, not just the ones targeted at you. True it may not have much of a chance, but you have some chance.
Thought.... it requires more thought for what to do. In 6th the Eldar player with four psychers could cast all their powers, given their two units all the re-rolls they wanted. Now if they roll a 1 on the d6 they may only be able to get two of the four powers they want that turn off, and even on a 6 may not get them all.
To all the Tau and Necron players, yes you cannot compete in the phase, but they have spent points on people with these powers, which may not work, you spent the points on people with guns, which may not hit, so you have both spent points on things which give you a chance to win.

Now there are some problems with codex's and the Eldar being the main one. Yes it seems overpowered, and WHY does a shiled fire further than most guns, LETS GET THE ERRATA OUT WHICH SAY THERE WAS A TYPO AND THE SHEILD IS 6" NOT 60"

I have a player at my club who wont buy the new Ork codex, as he hates the 'mob rule' and can't play with his all bike army anymore. I think he's an idiot ONLY FOR NOT TRYING IT.
I've played with the orks, and the Mob Rule did not bother me, neither does the change in how your army of composed. As I can look at the book and see what goes with what and how I can make a list from that.
Maybe I have the benifit of not playing orks since 2nd ed (When I came back in 6th I would not play them until a new codex came out, not due to not liking it, but it was so old and made for two editions previous, I thought I would just wait for the new book, and play CSM & Daemons till then. when it did come out, I got it and played with it) so I could not compare it to the previous editions, so could not hate it. I think it's fun, and has multiple play styles in it, with loads of possabilities.

Why do the posts that are positive of 7th edition always refer to people who don't as "idiots"?

 Accolade wrote:
Why do the posts that are positive of 7th edition always refer to people who don't as "idiots"?

Because when ad hominem is all ya got ad hominem is all you'll use.

 Zewrath wrote:
Not quite invented patsies, the forum is full of people like this. Also, this forum seems to think that arguements is something you can only bring in some form of scientifical indisputable evidence and dismiss any arguements based on frequent observations.

Is that the best you can do?

When I called you on straw man arguments, you up the ante and create a straw man Thud?

Try harder.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well Unbound is a joke because its the absence of army list construction rules. That alone leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I guess it's different perspectives but I see Unbound as a great narrative tool, and a great way for new players to get into the game with just the stuff they think is cool. I get that it can be abused, but I haven't seen anyone actually do it.

 Blacksails wrote:
Multiple CADs is a lesser version of Unbound, being that you have to fill your troop and HQ slots before adding another, but it still leaves you questioning why there's even a FoC in the first place if the whole purpose was to challenge players to make an army that fit within the confines of a chart. It just defeats the purpose of even imposing a limitation in the first place. Why bother having elites, fast attack and heavy support, when you given enough troops and HQs (which in strong armies aren't a tax) you have effectively unlimited options for strong FA, elites, or HS units.

About the only army I can see right now that benefits from the proposed idea of multiple CADs is the Eldar army. And even with a single CAD they're a monster just because of how broken the Wave Serpent is right now. Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see the multiple CAD thing being a benefit for anyone else to that same degree. And we've had ways to take multiple FOCs a long time now, they've just taken it and gave it clear cut rules on how it works and how it all interacts now.

 Blacksails wrote:
The entirely different FoC we're seeing now are what should have been implemented a long time ago. The difference being that the game would also do away with multiple CADs and force you to pick one chart or another. Its like how 30k armies are constructed. There are multiple FoC to choose from, and each comes with benefits and/or drawbacks. That's a good way of doing army construction.

Actually 30k has a single FOC, but can take Rites of War with specific models that give bonuses for certain things (like Deep Strike on Terminators) but pair it with restrictions.

 Blacksails wrote:
As I've said multiple times across many threads, GW has a lot of good ideas, its the execution that kills it. With the different charts we have now, it falls flat with being able to take multiple of them, or that they're only found in expensive supplements. That and not every army has them...yet, I suppose.

I agree the execution isn't perfect, but I still wouldn't call it an "abortion". It's good, it's just not perfect.

 Blacksails wrote:
Basically, there was nothing wrong with 5th's way of building armies. It had two limits; the chart and points. Now, the only limit is points, essentially. It doesn't help balance the game, and the better way to give players more options is to offer different types of FoC to choose from and stick with one.

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

 Blacksails wrote:
That's why I see it is as a joke.

I guess I'm just not seeing it as being so dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:
Why do the posts that are positive of 7th edition always refer to people who don't as "idiots"?

I'm fairly fond of 7th and don't call people idiots.

My biggest gripe about 7th (beyond them maybe needing a little more time to more tightly tune how things were written) is that I wish it came with a list of changes for what is different from 6th so I'm not hunting for things that were removed completely.

 MWHistorian wrote:

If only there was a thread specifically for people listing the exact reasons for leaving 40k. Perhaps something like that could be educational.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page

While it was an interesting read, the subject wasn't about people leaving GW, it's about how people make wrongful claims about 7th edition with opinions based on hyperbole and ignorance.

@Clockworkzion: you're pretty nice and I've never seen you be attacking towards posters, I should probably not have said "always." I've just seen "idiots" popping up multiple times from some of defenders of 7th and I'm wondering why it's necessary for people to be arguing like that.

 Accolade wrote:
@Clockworkzion: you're pretty nice and I've never seen you be attacking towards posters, I should probably not have said "always." I've just seen "idiots" popping up multiple times from some of defenders of 7th and I'm wondering why it's necessary for people to be arguing like that.

I appreciate that you noticed. I try very hard to attack points, and not people, as well as try to make sure I don't post while wearing my bum as a hat. Honestly, I figured you weren't meaning "everyone" who likes 7th, but I felt that offering a less aggressive post was still in order.

Honestly I feel the biggest issue with 40k lies not as heavily in the core rules but in the codexes. If they stick to the toned down, more balanced books like these others have been I feel the game will come out feeling a lot better, even with the issues the core rules do have.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I guess it's different perspectives but I see Unbound as a great narrative tool, and a great way for new players to get into the game with just the stuff they think is cool. I get that it can be abused, but I haven't seen anyone actually do it.

I don't agree with either of those points any deeper than as bandaids for the current state of the game/GW. Unbound is nice for new players, but the real solution would be to make the game for accessible in terms of prices, starter boxes, and starter rules/scenarios.

As for the narrative aspect, I also don't buy it. The game is naturally narrative, and the FoC is a very logical, narrative-centric way to build an army. The solution to certain builds not being capable in traditional charts was to include more force org swapping/trading or offering different charts altogether. There's not a whole lot Unbound actually does that you couldn't do before it was codified. You always had the option to just play with whatever you want if your opponent was cool with it.

And really, Unbound as a rule is about as lazy as it gets. It'd be like reading the rules for Monopoly about how to travel around the board, and then have a paragraph right after telling you you have the option to ignore it and just pick your favourite properties. Its the absense of rules writing. Its just...lazy.

About the only army I can see right now that benefits from the proposed idea of multiple CADs is the Eldar army. And even with a single CAD they're a monster just because of how broken the Wave Serpent is right now. Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't see the multiple CAD thing being a benefit for anyone else to that same degree. And we've had ways to take multiple FOCs a long time now, they've just taken it and gave it clear cut rules on how it works and how it all interacts now.

Its not so much it being a balance issue as it is a game design issue. It begs the question why you have a chart in the first place if your only constraint is taking more troops and HQ. Any army can benefit given they have strong troops/HQ, which is a number. IG can easily fill their mandatory slots with cheap and effective units and just spam whatever other slot they feel like.

It just feels like its killing diversity in being forced to explore a full Codex to bring an army at the 2000pts, where you quickly max out on your slots, forcing you to find solutions elsewhere. Then again, the balance of the game doesn't help in either situation, so its a bit of a moot point until the game balances itself out.

Actually 30k has a single FOC, but can take Rites of War with specific models that give bonuses for certain things (like Deep Strike on Terminators) but pair it with restrictions.

I thought the new books added different charts entirely, some with multiple LoW, or more fortifications? I could be mistaken, but I swore my HH book 2 has different charts.

Either way, its a great idea and should have been implemented a long time ago.

I agree the execution isn't perfect, but I still wouldn't call it an "abortion". It's good, it's just not perfect.

Did I actually say abortion? If I did, that was a little strong, but I'll stick with joke. And I'll add lazy.

Again, the new modified charts are cool and a good idea. They'd be awesome if multiple CADs went away, Unbound dissappeared from the annals of history, and allies took a beating from the nerf bat and changed in some significant way.

Then you'd have multiple ways to build an army (picture a core of 'common' charts with minor variations and bonuses and then each codex would have one or two special ones) without breaking anything and giving the player a challenge to make everything work.

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

I can't remember such a thing myself. I think it was in 6th that double force org above 2k was introduced. Wasn't a fan, but at least it was restricted both in the number of charts and the points level.

I guess I'm just not seeing it as being so dark.

Its just really, super lazy. Poor game design, and feels like they're reaching for something new and exciting to move product when the old system worked perfectly and other areas needed greater attention than the perfectly functional 5th ed FoC.

 Zewrath wrote:
How is it that dakka is so willing to accept any of those nonsense stories about Mob Rule that wipes out entire armies, but when ever someone complain about how dakka is negatively biased on their critique and the vast majority of negative statements are hyperbole, then you're either flagged as a GW apologist, an arrogant douche who "crafts" examples or what ever.

'Dakka' is not a single, compound entity with a single opinion on anything. The fact that there are people in this very thread with differing opinions on 7th edition should be ample illustration of that fact.

..., but don't for a second think that they ever had more balance or a better system.

A 'better' system is entirely subjective.

For me, 5th edition was a 'better' system, because it had finally started moving towards being a squad-level game, with more rules interacting at a unit level instead of mucking about with individual models. 6th and 7th edition have been a massive step backwards from that. Mixed armour forcing armour saves to be taken one at a time, cover being calculated for individual models, individual movement rates within units... it's messy, and slows things down.

That combined with the fact that 7th was clearly rushed out unfinished, and the apparent disinterest on GW's part in providing any sort of errata or FAQ support, does leave me rather nostalgic for 5th edition. YMMV.

 Thud wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
Not quite invented patsies, the forum is full of people like this. Also, this forum seems to think that arguements is something you can only bring in some form of scientifical indisputable evidence and dismiss any arguements based on frequent observations.

Is that the best you can do?

When I called you on straw man arguments, you up the ante and create a straw man Thud?

Try harder.

Zzz. Not really, you also missed the point, but what ever floats your boat.

 Blacksails wrote:

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

I can't remember such a thing myself. I think it was in 6th that double force org above 2k was introduced.

Nope. It was in there from 3rd edition (when the FOC was first introduced)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eldar haven't been updated yet though. They are a 6th ed book, iirc.

The 6th edition books are intended for 7th edition, if the theme and cover style suggest. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th all had their own scheme for book format. 7th books seem to be following this fairly closely.

Codex: Eldar was released in June of 2013, which puts its development as likely starting before 7th (if GW is still running a 15 month cycle on codexes that is). And just because the cover design is similar the internal layout of 6th and 7th edition books are drastically different. So no, Eldar was not likely "designed for 7th".

I disagree. This is not a valid argument to say Eldar werent designed for 7th.

Yes, the internal layout is very different. But mostly it's visual stuff like miniature pics instead of artwork, armory after photo section instead of before it, removal of armylist section etc.

If you look at the FAQ/Errata for most armies, there's very little updating from 6th to 7th. Just one liners got added for psykers "may choose daemonology discipline", and some keywords changed to faction instead of army etc.

Only real new thing 7th ed codexes bring to the game is formations and tactical objectives for maelstrom of war.

Eldar also arent in any actual need of updating except being the only codex GW released to date in their 25 year history where a version from a previous edition is too powerful in the new one and actually has to be toned down

 Sir Arun wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Eldar haven't been updated yet though. They are a 6th ed book, iirc.

The 6th edition books are intended for 7th edition, if the theme and cover style suggest. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th all had their own scheme for book format. 7th books seem to be following this fairly closely.

Codex: Eldar was released in June of 2013, which puts its development as likely starting before 7th (if GW is still running a 15 month cycle on codexes that is). And just because the cover design is similar the internal layout of 6th and 7th edition books are drastically different. So no, Eldar was not likely "designed for 7th".

I disagree. This is not a valid argument to say Eldar werent designed for 7th.

Yes, the internal layout is very different. But mostly it's visual stuff like miniature pics instead of artwork, armory after photo section instead of before it, removal of armylist section etc.

If you look at the FAQ/Errata for most armies, there's very little updating from 6th to 7th. Just one liners got added for psykers "may choose daemonology discipline", and some keywords changed to faction instead of army etc.

Only real new thing 7th ed codexes bring to the game is formations and tactical objectives for maelstrom of war.

Eldar also arent in any actual need of updating except being the only codex GW released to date in their 25 year history where a version from a previous edition is too powerful in the new one and actually has to be toned down

What about chaos 3.5?

3.5 armies didn't seem to be better then eldar 4th ed build or nid spaming cheap carnifexs and infiltrating stealers.
Also the 3.5 codex was never played in 5th. chaos and DA were the last two codex in 4th ed, just before I started to play.