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 like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall. I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember. There are some things you should discuss with your opponent before the game... It is what it is.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall. I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember. There are some things you should discuss with your opponent before the game... It is what it is.

How about discussing every facet of the game for two and a half hours to "resolve issues", only to find mid-game that you missed out that blast template damage resolution is impossible.

 vipoid wrote:

Salous wrote:
I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.

Just like the people who like the current rules are moronic GW fanboys who can't would think a bucket of manure was a solid ruleset if it had the GW logo on it.

Insulting strawman arguments just add sooo much to these discussions, don't they?

Indeed.

The "adaptation" line misses so much. This edition has been out now for over approaching a year and a half, it's not some newfangled thing that people just aren't "adapting" to. There are very real issues with the ruleset at a fundamental level trying to be mutually exclusive things and doing them all very poorly, exacerbated by increasingly absurdly imbalanced army books and loss of any sense of scale. "Pickup" play has been practically destroyed at this point, at least in my experience.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall. I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember. There are some things you should discuss with your opponent before the game... It is what it is.

The problem with this is that you continually run into problems the more complex a ruleset is, especially with 40k increasing it's scale and model count with every edition. You run greater risks of people just forgetting rules, of rules not sufficiently covering every instance they need to cover, of rules that simply don't function properly, and people increasingly simply abandoning many because they become burdensome (e.g. "mysterious" objectives).

I used to like getting all the Codex's and know what each army does and it all made a kind of sense to me.

With 6th/7th that all changed where only the hard-core would be able to collect all the documents that define all the rules of the game for all armies.
Please let me know if any of you actually have achieved this, I would enjoy knowing at least someone knows everything that is going on.
Maybe I am not all that trusting but I hate depending on my opponent to know his stuff, I like to know my opponent's capabilities rather than a surprise at a critical moment.

I CAN honestly say that when me or my friends craft a scenario, we DO have a really good time.
I just wish I did not have to depend on other games to play pick-up games with strangers.

 Talizvar wrote:

I CAN honestly say that when me or my friends craft a scenario, we DO have a really good time.

actually, that's one thing I've found 7E to be fairly good with.

When its possible to do so (it's usually not) I and my friends like to play "three-army skirmish". Two players play as attackers, and one player defends. Maximum points are usually under 500 points per side, and the "two players" do not use the same army. Each person uses infantry, and can pretty much do whatever they want. The games get quite personal, and often get resolved in a dramatic punch-up between favoured champions of each player.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember.

You realise that's not a point in their favour, right?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall.

The problem is, the complexity in GW's rules doesn't actually give you more options.

See, I like complex rules when they actually add to the game. I still love D&D 3.5 because I love the freedom offered by its rules. They're complex, sure, but the result is a great deal of freedom. You have rules for mixing classes, for adding templates to monsters and/or characters, for 'levelling up' monsters, for adding class levels to monsters, for creating your own monsters. P,us a *massive* array of spells, classes and feats. Basically, you had the rules to do just about anything. And, because there was DM running the game, you also had a great deal of freedom in what you could do (so you could use feats, spells and skills in imaginative ways - without the designers having to predict and rule them in advance).

In contrast, whilst 40k's rules are very complex, they offer virtually no freedom. Once your units are on the table, you have virtually options beyond where to move and what to shoot/assault. To put it another way, GW's rules are complex not because they need to be to give the players a vast array of options, but because they're badly-written and needlessly convoluted.

I love the game, yes, and love playing, but most of the people at my GW are real turdnuggets when it comes to super power gaming. Case in point an Ork player using feral ork boars as bikers and then adding an allied detachment of chaos demons to it... I loved the concept at first but he had to sully it with summoning stuff which I have a problem with.

Still, my most fun game recently was against cult mechanicus/skitarii non war con and even though I lost I legit had fun.

I wish I could change some rules but since I play pick up games at a local GW I don't think it would be good.

I am having a pretty good time. But it's about the same, maybe a little more, than the level of fun I had back in my initial heyday of late 5th edition.

The store I play at has a pretty big crowd of 40k players, some regular, some not. I've never really seen a 'TFG'. Of course, people bring the occasional strong army, but the players themselves are always easy to get along with, fun, or cool.

The rules themselves are not usually an impediment to the game, in my experience. It's a casual game - minutiae aren't too important, and as long as both players have played more than a few games, they know what they're doing. Pre-game discussions aren't more than a minute or two - or are spread out during deployment, setup, and getting a drink/having a smoke before getting down to the game.

I think the composition of the meta at my local store also plays a factor - about half the players are people new to the game, slow to buy new units [like me], or don't play much due to preferring to paint more. Imperial Knights are rare, Riptides are even rarer, and I've only seen one person with a 30k army of any kind.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What's it people don't like about the rules ?

Random psychic powers.
Random Warlord abilities
Random charge distance
Casualties from the front
Having to roll LOS and saves one at a time for mixed units
Model-by-model cover
Vehicles having wounds but no armour saves
Unbound army lists
Overwatch being additional rather than replacement shooting
Blasts not getting snap fire
Having a specific phase for psychic powers when multiple armies have no access to psykers
Special rules that do nothing except grant other special rules

Just off the top of my head. And that's not even touching things like blasts or psychic units where the rules are broken and GW just hasn't been bothered to patch them.

The frustrating part is how many of those rules are actually good ideas poorly implemented, or deliberate steps backwards from 5th edition, which was trying to move into being a unit based game instead of focusing so much on individual models.

There is also the random turn by turn objectives that either give you impossible goals of killing units that your opponent might not be fielding or going from objective to objective like you're trying to find where your warlord left the keys to his flagship.

That and the entire system of maelstrom missions are so bad to roll on and keep track of that the cards are effectively a tax on the game.

Personally, I also hate the move towards big models, at the expense of infantry and such.

Especially when said big models are amongst the most boring things in the game, because their rules are just a list of exceptions. "No, you can't do that to them. No, you can't do that either. No, that doesn't work. You certainly can't use that. etc."

Also, combat might as well be going on in a pocket dimension like we're playing a random encounter in Final Fantasy. There's this weird thing whereby being in combat makes you immune to a ton of rules for no adequately explored reason.

Moreover, we seem to be at the point whereby combat has a load of nonsensical constraints, to balance out a load of nonsensical bonuses. e.g. you can't assault from reserve, but you can assault further than you can run. You can't assault out of vehicle, but you can't be shot at in assault - even if you're 3 stories tall. etc.

I don't like random things like psychic powers to be honest... I suppose it's their idea of game balance.

Anyways I won't try to convince anyone that seventh edition is the best... For me like I said I felt it fixed a lot of things I didn't like about sixth edition which really took awhile to get used to. It will be interesting to see where they go with the next edition. Maybe it'll be simplified but I hope not overly so.

 vipoid wrote:
Personally, I also hate the move towards big models, at the expense of infantry and such.

Especially when said big models are amongst the most boring things in the game, because their rules are just a list of exceptions. "No, you can't do that to them. No, you can't do that either. No, that doesn't work. You certainly can't use that. etc."

So much of this. You can see it in the Tau releases with all these big suits (that fly in the face of the Tau fluff) that have special rules to make them extra durable or deadly instead of focusing on the rich fluff of Tau combined arms tactics and alien auxiliary forces. I much rather play against lots of killable enemies over a few giant mechs or some unkillable deathstar you throw dice at and have a positive result for 1 out of every 100 dice rolled.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't like random things like psychic powers to be honest... I suppose it's their idea of game balance.

You mean 'we can't be bothered balancing it, so we'll just make it random.'

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Maybe it'll be simplified but I hope not overly so.

I think the issue is that the system really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. The 3rd edition system was probably okay at the time, but it was never what you'd call 'solid'. And, all they've really done is constantly cram more stuff into it - including stuff like fliers, super heavies and magic (which is was never meant for). Hence why it's just become a bloated mess of rules, exceptions and random tables.

If they want to make them complex, fine, but they need a solid core first - so that they have something to build on and expand around.

 vipoid wrote:
Personally, I also hate the move towards big models, at the expense of infantry and such.

Especially when said big models are amongst the most boring things in the game, because their rules are just a list of exceptions. "No, you can't do that to them. No, you can't do that either. No, that doesn't work. You certainly can't use that. etc."

Also, combat might as well be going on in a pocket dimension like we're playing a random encounter in Final Fantasy. There's this weird thing whereby being in combat makes you immune to a ton of rules for no adequately explored reason.

Moreover, we seem to be at the point whereby combat has a load of nonsensical constraints, to balance out a load of nonsensical bonuses. e.g. you can't assault from reserve, but you can assault further than you can run. You can't assault out of vehicle, but you can't be shot at in assault - even if you're 3 stories tall. etc.

Ask the Zerg how much being in "assault" protects them from being shot, lol. In fact, stalker plus zealot wall backed up by colossus shooting is death for many Zerg builds.

 vipoid wrote:

 DJ Illuminati wrote:

The rules in the book are the most well written in decades

By what possible measure?

Comparing to the inane BS that plagued the previous editions,
Such as in second and 3rd edition we had multiple damage charts for pens and glances, sweeping combats from squad to squad, everyone played "rino rush" marine lists, skimmer were near unkillable with 6s to hit in combat, combat was sloppy and slow with multiple modifiers for everything last being outnumbered and last man standing,

4th brought us broken experimental flyer rules, and sloppy wound allocation rules as well as target priority checks, 5th was a solid rules set but many rules were ambiguous and combat armies were king for no reasonable cause,

6th and 7th I consider the same edition with 7th being a giant FAQ correction, the rules are more inline with being clear (not completely, but better) flyers are no longer a joke, and vehicles are no longer impervious to bad pen rolls......so yes, as someone who has played since 95, this is the best rules set they have released by far!

I would rather have a rule that can be a little muddy that a situation with no rule to use as a reference. If you use YMTC as a gauge of how bad the rules are, just take note of how many of those questions are RAW lawyers who are trying to twist a rule in ways to either benifit themselves or deny another player a rule. Then go back about 8 years in the threads and see how many of the YMTC threads were about actual rules that where unusable for either person. There may still be issues with the rules, but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........

If some of the guys on here were to stop whining about the game and actually try to embrace the new stuff you might see that the sky isnt falling! As for the game taking hours and needing tons of models to play, try doing a smaller game or play against better people who know their codex and dont take 1 1/2 hours for a movement phase.......

 DJ Illuminati wrote:
..so yes, as someone who has played since 95, this is the best rules set they have released by far!

As someone else who has been playing since then, I put it on a fairly even score with 4th edition, which was previously my least favourite edition.

5th edition had its ambiguities, certainly, and vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K. 6th/7th, by contrast, is a mess.

. ..but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........

Just to be clear, I never said that pulling models from the front is broken. I said that I don't like it.

It forces players to hide their characters and special weapons in the middle of units, which is (in many cases) uncharacterful and is problematic for template weapons. It was an uneccessary 'fix' for a problem that didn't actually exist.

Not being able to snap shoot Blast weapons was a big deal, because there was no corresponding price adjustment for the fact that anything with a Blast suddenly became considerably less useful than anything without.

Random charges I dislike because they are silly as currently implemented. Random charges were a necessary counterbalance to being allowed to measure distances whenever you want to... but should have come with a minimum distance. The idea that your assault unit might move 12", or might only be able to move 2", but won't know for sure until they actually try it is just absurd... It's too big a random variance, and makes no sense.

And I don't dislike Hull points. I dislike that they didn't come with a corresponding saving throw. If they wanted to make vehicles function more like infantry, I would rather they had gone the whole hog and just made all vehicles into Monstrous Creatures and done away with the separate vehicle section entirely.


It's really easy to dismiss opinions you disagree with as 'silly'... but they're not always just the result of someone being unable to adapt. I've adapted to multiple edition changes to date, and for the most part the experience has been positive. I just don't like the particular direction that GW chose to go in with 6th/7th edition, because I feel that it was a significant backwards step.

YMMV, obviously.

 DJ Illuminati wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 DJ Illuminati wrote:

The rules in the book are the most well written in decades

By what possible measure?

Comparing to the inane BS that plagued the previous editions,
Such as in second and 3rd edition we had multiple damage charts for pens and glances

With vehicles, now we get a situation where they *still* have a damage table, but a second overlapping kill mechanic with "wounds" now too (and no armor saves). The previous editions functionally had a unified chart (glances were just -2 to whatever a pen was) and they merged that into one chart back in 5E anyway.

Instead now we get charts for D weapons, charts for mysterious terrain, charts for mysterious objectives, charts for random/maelstrom objectives, lots of charts for psychic powers, charts for Perils of the Warp, charts for Warlord Traits, charts for Deep Strike mishaps, charts for allies, etc.

skimmer were near unkillable with 6s to hit in combat,

We still have something of a problem with this, the Skimmer gap is still there with the Jink mechanic (particularly coupled with wargear and abilities that enhance/reroll/both/etc cover saves) dramatically increasing Skimmer utility over non-skimmer equivalents, and the Jink mechanic in general has tons of issues (Jink doesn't affect passengers at all, on Bikes it has zero effect on their ability to assault and can Jink in response to Overwatch, FMC's can Jink even when not flying, etc)

combat was sloppy and slow with multiple modifiers for everything last being outnumbered and last man standing

Relative to 2E, you might have a point, but 3E onward? With random charge distances, various initiative pile-in moves, pointless challenge mechanics, "look out sir" wound allocation gimmicks, etc are better how? At least being outnumbered and last man standing were all just Ld modifiers, but aside from that, CC has more slop and is more time consuming now than it was in earlier editions like 3E.

4th brought us broken experimental flyer rules

4th had no flyer rules outside of some FW stuff

and sloppy wound allocation rules

They weren't really sloppy, in fact they were probably the cleanest we've ever had (cover depends on majority of models in the unit being in cover, roll saves equal to wounds, owning player removes as many models of their choice equal to number of failed saves, if as many or more saves are forced as there are models in the unit, the opposing player can force the owning player to take a save on a model of their choice) with the one exception of mixed-save units. No weird "what's closer", or "is that specific model in cover" or spreading wounds through a multi-wound unit or anything.

as well as target priority checks

Aye those were dumb, and particularly harsh on the armies that relied most on shooting (Tau and IG)

5th was a solid rules set but many rules were ambiguous and combat armies were king for no reasonable cause

5th was probably the best set overall (not perfect, but best of what we've got). There was a pretty decent mix of shooting and killy armies that did very well, probably the best overall mix of any edition.

but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........

Why? There are valid concerns with lots of those. Pulling from the front doesn't really add much "tactical" play, but it does make special weapons easier to kill in mixed-role units and defang them relative to more mono-role units. Not being able to snap-shot template/blast weapons makes Invisibility absurdly broken and doesn't make much sense given the nature of the weapons. Hull points have legitimate gameplay balance issues and there's a clear gap between vehicles and MC's as a result, and, similarly, a big problem with heavy AT guns like Vanquisher cannons actually turning out to be *really* bad anti-tank guns due to the change to HP's over the damage table while reinforcing stuff like autocannon spam instead.

If some of the guys on here were to stop whining about the game and actually try to embrace the new stuff you might see that the sky isnt falling! As for the game taking hours and needing tons of models to play, try doing a smaller game or play against better people who know their codex and dont take 1 1/2 hours for a movement phase.......

people don't always have the luxury of veteran opponents, and while you can play fewer points, there's usually a pretty set standard that most people expect, and it just takes longer to play any particular sized game than older editions because there's just more to roll for.

 insaniak wrote:

 DJ Illuminati wrote:
..so yes, as someone who has played since 95, this is the best rules set they have released by far!

As someone else who has been playing since then, I put it on a fairly even score with 4th edition, which was previously my least favourite edition.

5th edition had its ambiguities, certainly, and vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K. 6th/7th, by contrast, is a mess.

. ..but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........

Just to be clear, I never said that pulling models from the front is broken. I said that I don't like it.

It forces players to hide their characters and special weapons in the middle of units, which is (in many cases) uncharacterful and is problematic for template weapons. It was an uneccessary 'fix' for a problem that didn't actually exist.

Not being able to snap shoot Blast weapons was a big deal, because there was no corresponding price adjustment for the fact that anything with a Blast suddenly became considerably less useful than anything without.

Random charges I dislike because they are silly as currently implemented. Random charges were a necessary counterbalance to being allowed to measure distances whenever you want to... but should have come with a minimum distance. The idea that your assault unit might move 12", or might only be able to move 2", but won't know for sure until they actually try it is just absurd... It's too big a random variance, and makes no sense.

And I don't dislike Hull points. I dislike that they didn't come with a corresponding saving throw. If they wanted to make vehicles function more like infantry, I would rather they had gone the whole hog and just made all vehicles into Monstrous Creatures and done away with the separate vehicle section entirely.


It's really easy to dismiss opinions you disagree with as 'silly'... but they're not always just the result of someone being unable to adapt. I've adapted to multiple edition changes to date, and for the most part the experience has been positive. I just don't like the particular direction that GW chose to go in with 6th/7th edition, because I feel that it was a significant backwards step.

YMMV, obviously.

"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Yes, please lets return to the days of Eldar Falcons being near indestructable, Landraider spam lists, and Drop pod dreadnaughts flooding the table. I remember 5th being nothing but gunline armies with Vehicle spam winning almost every game.

Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.

Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.

Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on. Dealing with random dice rolls are all about hedging your dice and accounting for the variables.......hence why people often bring more than one of a particular unit, you cant expect your unit to work perfectly everytime, your shots to wound everytime, nor are your charges guaranteed.....but planing and accounting for random dice alleviates that issue often.

Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years, it was always a point of complaints during the old days that I could shoot 40 shots into a guardsman squad and manage to kill everyone in the back of the squad but the flamer that was directly infront of me gets ignored for wounds when the owning player allocates wounds. Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire. It also gets the ability to be realistic as the Sargent or specialist of a squad should almost never be in the front, both in real life, and in 40k. When I was in the army there was a saying "You cant lead from the front", meaning that if the Sgt is in the front, not only will he not be aware of his squads position and status, but he is likely to be the first shot. Pulling models from the front is a simple rule, that is easy to understand, and easy to follow. So, yes, when I hear complaints about rules such as that, I do dismiss it as silly nitpicking. Just as much as me saying that "I dont like to play Monopoly because you only get $200 for passing Go and I feel it should be $500".

Yes it is very realistic for Kharne the Betrayer to be hiding in the back of his unit.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DJ Illuminati wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 DJ Illuminati wrote:

The rules in the book are the most well written in decades

By what possible measure?

Comparing to the inane BS that plagued the previous editions,
Such as in second and 3rd edition we had multiple damage charts for pens and glances

With vehicles, now we get a situation where they *still* have a damage table, but a second overlapping kill mechanic with "wounds" now too (and no armor saves). The previous editions functionally had a unified chart (glances were just -2 to whatever a pen was) and they merged that into one chart back in 5E anyway.

Instead now we get charts for D weapons, charts for mysterious terrain, charts for mysterious objectives, charts for random/maelstrom objectives, lots of charts for psychic powers, charts for Perils of the Warp, charts for Warlord Traits, charts for Deep Strike mishaps, charts for allies, etc.

skimmer were near unkillable with 6s to hit in combat,

We still have something of a problem with this, the Skimmer gap is still there with the Jink mechanic (particularly coupled with wargear and abilities that enhance/reroll/both/etc cover saves) dramatically increasing Skimmer utility over non-skimmer equivalents, and the Jink mechanic in general has tons of issues (Jink doesn't affect passengers at all, on Bikes it has zero effect on their ability to assault and can Jink in response to Overwatch, FMC's can Jink even when not flying, etc)

combat was sloppy and slow with multiple modifiers for everything last being outnumbered and last man standing

Relative to 2E, you might have a point, but 3E onward? With random charge distances, various initiative pile-in moves, pointless challenge mechanics, "look out sir" wound allocation gimmicks, etc are better how? At least being outnumbered and last man standing were all just Ld modifiers, but aside from that, CC has more slop and is more time consuming now than it was in earlier editions like 3E.

4th brought us broken experimental flyer rules

4th had no flyer rules outside of some FW stuff

and sloppy wound allocation rules

They weren't really sloppy, in fact they were probably the cleanest we've ever had (cover depends on majority of models in the unit being in cover, roll saves equal to wounds, owning player removes as many models of their choice equal to number of failed saves, if as many or more saves are forced as there are models in the unit, the opposing player can force the owning player to take a save on a model of their choice) with the one exception of mixed-save units. No weird "what's closer", or "is that specific model in cover" or spreading wounds through a multi-wound unit or anything.

as well as target priority checks

Aye those were dumb, and particularly harsh on the armies that relied most on shooting (Tau and IG)

Not being able to snap-shot template/blast weapons makes Invisibility absurdly broken and doesn't make much sense given the nature of the weapons.

Oh no, more rules for things that are optional, its almost like GW is trying to give us options other than Bolters and Lascannons! And am I seriously the only person thet enjoys the heck out of Maelstrom missions, or should we all jsut continue to play boring static games where nothing is worth points until the end of the game?

Yet the draw back to jinking is that the vehicle must now snapshoot, and yet they still go down quickly in CC where as back in 2nd they survived much better than they do now.

With the exception of certain armies, very rarely do you find a CC where you have more than 2 initiative steps to worry about. Challenges are optional,and Look out sir is optional.

correct, 3rd gave us VDR to build flyers and FW gave us rules for them but they were unusable, and even if you did try to have a dogfight, it was a mess

Do you not remember being able to shoot through 12 inches of forest and losing line of sight to anything more than 6" into terrain, or any of the other arbitrary rules of what cover was (back when everything was a 4+ cover) Also we didnt have many multiwound models back then. I personally like the new wounding system as it rewards people for thinking tactically rather than seeing a conga-line of 20 ork boys get a cover save because the 10 in the back are in cover.

Especially at a time when the Meta was Gun-line armies





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Yes it is very realistic for Kharne the Betrayer to be hiding in the back of his unit.

Yes, It is realistic for Kharne to not only use his men as meatshields, but then engage the opponent in a challenge when he does get to CC (both rules courtesy of 6/7th)

An element of randomness is good and all but the amount of randomness GW stuffs into 40k is absurd. Why can't we just buy our psychic powers/warlord traits? Why does Eldrad only know what powers he's going to take a few seconds before the battle start? Why does Marneus Calgar have varying levels of competence prior to a battle? Why is every point of interest on the battlefield either a bomb, a targeting array or an archeotech grav-wave generator? What does all of this randomness add to the game? Couldn't they just include these rules and make them optional?

Also, when you think about it Maelstrom of War missions are quite silly when you think about it.

"Commander! I need you to take the bunker! It is of the utmost importance!"

"Yes sir!"

"Commander, you've taken the bunker! We have decided that this was indeed a great victory and will add significantly to our success here on the battlefield! Now, we need you to send some troops to seize hill 442!"

"The one I was just on?"

"It is -very- important!"

"The one I have a line of Guardsmen near?"

"Are there any on it?"

"No."

"Then get them on that hill!"

"Commander, good job moving your troops 10 feet! Now, we have identified that you must destroy a unit by shooting it to death! If you shoot 3 or more, this will make victory even more likely!"

"Yes sir!"

"Commander! Now we need you to go find an enemy officer and dispatch him in close combat! This is of the utmost importance to our success here!"

"Why?! You just told me to kill the enemy by shooting!"

"Right, but if you could kill an enemy officer in close combat that would be really nice. OH! And it is of tactical importance that you eliminate an enemy flier!"

"But there are no enemy fliers"

"Oh. What a shame".

If you're a big fan of "Whac-a-mole" than Maelstorm is great.

In 7th the conga line of Orks leds back to a shield generator now. Yeah, Big improvement.

Kharn doesn't know what meat shields are. Those are targets in his way.

You've convinced me. All editions of 40k are crap.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
An element of randomness is good and all but the amount of randomness GW stuffs into 40k is absurd. Why can't we just buy our psychic powers/warlord traits? Why does Eldrad only know what powers he's going to take a few seconds before the battle start? Why does Marneus Calgar have varying levels of competence prior to a battle? Why is every point of interest on the battlefield either a bomb, a targeting array or an archeotech grav-wave generator? What does all of this randomness add to the game? Couldn't they just include these rules and make them optional?

On this point I agree completely, I miss paying points to pick the Psychic power I want, and at my LFGS we dont bother with Mysterious Terrain or Mysterious Objectives as it is too much book keeping and the terrain rules punish anyone that isnt playing SM.

I have a blast, when I am able to play, unfortunately I am not able to get games going, makes me pretty said.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If you're a big fan of "Whac-a-mole" than Maelstorm is great.

In 7th the conga line of Orks leds back to a shield generator now. Yeah, Big improvement.

Kharn doesn't know what meat shields are. Those are targets in his way.

You've convinced me. All editions of 40k are crap.

I am a fan of having to think on my feet and make decisions as to if I want to go after the objective listed or discard the card. Maelstrom also gives non SM armies a chance to score early points before they get pounded by the end of the game.
I also hate the Mysterious Objectives, but even then the shield generator only gives them +1 for a 6+ in the open, its tolerable.
Kharne does what he wants!

Maelstrom does not do that. Eldar certainly need another boost, they're so under powered against SM.

Not the mysterious objective, but the limited edition terrain piece of crap that shows up in a lot of tournament armies.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Maelstrom does not do that. Eldar certainly need another boost, they're so under powered against SM.

Not the mysterious objective, but the limited edition terrain piece of crap that shows up in a lot of tournament armies.

I am also talking about DE, AM, Tyranids, Sisters, Tau, Orks, ect.

If your talking about the Void Shield Generator, then I am quite sure you are mistaken on how it works.

Ah, Void shield Generator!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Ah, Void shield Generator!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.

Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.