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.

First game of 7th with my Sisters vs. Guard and had a blast. The maelstrom missions are brilliant, and for me are by far the best thing about the new edition. No more boring, dry missions waiting for turn 5/6 to come along to do a last minute objective grab. I felt like I was being rewarded for being aggressive with my army, something that Sisters aren't really known for. We had a two table set up with the other table a 6th edition table as my other friends in the gaming group are reluctant to try 7th, but the maelstrom missions had them really interested.

We played 2k points and both used just one main detachment in the end, plus I had an inquisitor allied in. Having said that when I was putting together my list I felt like I had loads of options, what with being able to effectively ally with myself. Also included a titan, who was pretty awesome despite costing 750 points, having the D nerf, and getting blown up in the last turn. I feel like the D rules are pitched perfectly now, and vehicles are just the right amount of survivable.

Also enjoyed the new psychic phase, I felt like it added something to the game, what with choosing how many dice to roll to try to avoid the double 6 and my opponent attempting to deny blessings.

Huge thumbs up for the new edition, nice work GW

You had a Titan in a normal 2k game? So mean, so mean.

Welcome to the 7th edition is awesome wagon

 Lobomalo wrote:
You had a Titan in a normal 2k game? So mean, so mean.

Welcome to the 7th edition is awesome wagon

Cleared it with my opponent first so he could tailor a list to take it out, he was really unlucky with his rolls or the titan would have been gone bottom of turn two and things would have been really different. Two vendettas and some bad boy Pask'd up Leman Russ' opened up on it but his dice let him down, both in shooting and also cover saves from smoke and camo nets in my turn. After that it was really hard for him, until in the last turn he rolled two 6s for pen table results and blew the titan up! Removing the ignores cover from D weapons has made them spot on imo. Taking a titan is a high risk strategy as if it gets taken out early you're facing a huge uphill battle.

And yes, all aboard the 7th is awesome wagon

Shhhh keep it down if the haters hear you they will pounce!!! I'm glad you loved it. I do as well. Its a great edition and I only have 4 games in so far. Maelstrom of War for life!!

I have been undefeated in my playgroup when we play Maelstrom missions.

Partially this is because my friends focus more on killing me where I focus on getting as many objectives as I can.

Wish the folks at my local store were so enthusiastic. Played two games and both times the losing side has moaned from the beginning before packing up on turn 3. Nothing to do with 7th, but we start the game and they clearly aren't even playing the mission, just reverting to the slugfest mentality. By turn 3, my team was up 10 vp to 1.

I really like the 7th ed changes, but these guys decide on turn one that they've lost, and spend the whole game moaning about how bad their dice are.

 TheSilo wrote:
Wish the folks at my local store were so enthusiastic. Played two games and both times the losing side has moaned from the beginning before packing up on turn 3. Nothing to do with 7th, but we start the game and they clearly aren't even playing the mission, just reverting to the slugfest mentality. By turn 3, my team was up 10 vp to 1.

I really like the 7th ed changes, but these guys decide on turn one that they've lost, and spend the whole game moaning about how bad their dice are.

Yes. The veterans, struggle hard in my experience. Less tactical forethought and more fist fights, at least this is how it is at my shop, I cannot say for others

lobbywatson wrote:Shhhh keep it down if the haters hear you they will pounce!!! I'm glad you loved it. I do as well. Its a great edition and I only have 4 games in so far. Maelstrom of War for life!!

Haha, I'm sure the cynics will show up soon

Lobomalo wrote:I have been undefeated in my playgroup when we play Maelstrom missions.

Partially this is because my friends focus more on killing me where I focus on getting as many objectives as I can.

Yeah it takes lots of armies out of their comfort zones [castle and roll dice]. Had to be really offensive with my Sisters [started all of my troops on the board in transports and zoomed them up] and I usually play them quite defensively, keeping troops in reserve.

We played one of the width length missions, I forget the name atm but we had 3 buildings spread out with an objective on each side and difficult terrain craters between them.

Using my friends DA army I rushed the 50 tactical marines in their Rhinos to the buildings, unloaded them, took the buildings and prevented him from getting a single objective. He did get first blood because of the terminators but at the end of turn 3 the score was 10-1

I like the new rules as well. I've played a few games so far with a pretty good mix of armies on both sides and a lot of the tweaks that have been made seem spot on. The changes to jink and FMC grounded tests have really tightened things up.

Thanks for sharing your experience, I've not played with D weapons under the new rules yet so I'm pleased to hear that they've been re-balanced better.

 Lobomalo wrote:
We played one of the width length missions, I forget the name atm but we had 3 buildings spread out with an objective on each side and difficult terrain craters between them.

Using my friends DA army I rushed the 50 tactical marines in their Rhinos to the buildings, unloaded them, took the buildings and prevented him from getting a single objective. He did get first blood because of the terminators but at the end of turn 3 the score was 10-1

Can you come and do a clinic for the players at my flgs? They spend all their points on terminators that just walk slowly towards my battle lines, it's mind boggling that the marine players don't splurge on tactical squads. They think they can win with just terminators. But even if each of his terminator squads killed one of my squads per turn, I'd still have enough squads to claim more objectives than them.

This has been exactly our experience as well... we also love the Maelstrom of War missions but it does require coming out of that old slugfest comfort zone.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Wish the folks at my local store were so enthusiastic. Played two games and both times the losing side has moaned from the beginning before packing up on turn 3. Nothing to do with 7th, but we start the game and they clearly aren't even playing the mission, just reverting to the slugfest mentality. By turn 3, my team was up 10 vp to 1.

I really like the 7th ed changes, but these guys decide on turn one that they've lost, and spend the whole game moaning about how bad their dice are.

Yes. The veterans, struggle hard in my experience. Less tactical forethought and more fist fights, at least this is how it is at my shop, I cannot say for others

Lol, if only they were good at the slugfest. Then they could rampage and I could score vps and everyone could be happy. But they're all stuck on Death Stars, which suck against my IG.

Gonna agree the new missions are pretty great. Not sure why anyone would complain about scary changes though, the original 6 missions are still in there if someone really wanted to play them.

My only problem is that GW ran out of the dang mission cards. The chart is an okay substitute, but using a deck of cards works a lot better. I ended up borrowing someone's deck of magic the gathering cards and sticking post-it notes to each one with the mission card effects.

Yea, I just love how it encourages alternate army composition builds.

Also winning i all about the win objectives. Deathstars worked because of last editions win objectives and nothing more. They were never that good outside of that.

Now that those win objectives have changed you either play a different list or you will most likely lose.

Adapt and survive.

How do you do half the missions as sob? You don't have psykers , you can't destroy units in melee , you have low range shoting , even destroying whole units with it should be problematic at 1500pts.

Well we play discard cards you literally cant complete. For all the cards you cant complete they have a lot of similar ones (cant kill a psyker, flier, build, etc)

There are no destroy units in melee, only issue a challenge ones(even then sisters armies have the tools to kill in melee via hench sqauds)

If you are doing the missions correctly most of the objectives should be placed towards the middle of the board where you want to be advancing towards anyway as a sisters player which will also force them to come to you.

I wouldnt be to worried about it.

The objective cards feel like beerhammer with a twist

 Leth wrote:
Well we play discard cards you literally cant complete. For all the cards you cant complete they have a lot of similar ones (cant kill a psyker, flier, build, etc)

There are no destroy units in melee, only issue a challenge ones(even then sisters armies have the tools to kill in melee via hench sqauds)

If you are doing the missions correctly most of the objectives should be placed towards the middle of the board where you want to be advancing towards anyway as a sisters player which will also force them to come to you.

I wouldnt be to worried about it.

Couldn't agree more. After our first game we house ruled the same thing. Can't be done chuck the card away. Immediately draw a new one. It actually makes it pretty balanced.
I almost got tabled Monday night and I still won 9-8. My buddy even though he "lost" loved it. He couldn't believe how fresh it made it.

The cards I have found are a must have. I can't imagine doing it without them. Seems like the book keeping would be a major pain.

I play world eaters, I care nothing for this "objective" malarkey, blood is all I want, win or lose khorne wins!!!!

 Formosa wrote:
I play world eaters, I care nothing for this "objective" malarkey, blood is all I want, win or lose khorne wins!!!!

If he is playing for the objective cards then you are definately going to get more chances at it!!

I must say the way objectives work in 7th intrigues me, they sound much better than the vanilla objective grab in 5th and 6th at any rate, which I never really enjoyed tbh. I should really try a game and see if I can import some of the ideas into my games of 2nd.

Would any of you guys who've played 7th say the objectives have a more narrative feel to them, other than 'stand on random points 1-6 because' ?

 Leth wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I play world eaters, I care nothing for this "objective" malarkey, blood is all I want, win or lose khorne wins!!!!

If he is playing for the objective cards then you are definately going to get more chances at it!!

Hmm maybe if I attach a blood pack to an objective card and when I take it I can smash it really hard and fun will literally explode everywhere

 warspawned wrote:
I must say the way objectives work in 7th intrigues me, they sound much better than the vanilla objective grab in 5th and 6th at any rate, which I never really enjoyed tbh. I should really try a game and see if I can import some of the ideas into my games of 2nd.

Would any of you guys who've played 7th say the objectives have a more narrative feel to them, other than 'stand on random points 1-6 because' ?

I find it fun because in my head I forge a narrative even in competative games.

So for example if I get an objective in my table half I imagine my men are supposed to defend a strategic point. If it is in their zone I feel like I have to take out an enemy asset.

Middle we are both trying to control territory. If you get other cards you can easily imagine it on the tabletop. I have a lot of fun with it and I can do that while playing a super competitive game.

I do wonder if the objective taking aspect of the game would be better if they couldn't be taken by units that turbo boosted, ran, or moved flat out. It seems silly that little jetbike units can just run around taking points each turn (and I play Eldar).

I've played a few games of 7th. 2 games of the old missions, and one maelstrom of war.

Commentary for the old missions in 7th, the rule set feels tighter and the games play better, everything scoring is cool and the I've encountered zero problems with the psychic phase.
I haven't experienced 'unbound' as my club has stated that pick up games should be battle forged, anyone wanting to play unbound is advised to pre-arrange or risk not getting a game, which seems to be a good policy.

The maelstrom of war game was a blast, I think I want to play these missions as my default choice, although it is annoying that I don't have the cards.

Overall I'm loving 7th, the games feel much more dynamic and interesting.

D

Here's another post in favor of 7th edition.
The rule set works better, especially with everything scoring.
Maelstrom of war is definitely a blast.
Overall, certainly a change for the better.

Agreed.

The fact I'm a daemons player and haven't lost a game in 7th has absolutely no bearing on my opinion!

I do think that a toning down of summoning, Eldar and (to a lesser extent) Tau is all that it would take to really get the game back on the straight and narrow.

First try of Maelstrom last weekend, and loved it. My buddies and I create stories to our games as a matter of course, so the shifting emphasis around the field that the cards created gave us plenty of scope to story tell. However, if you aren't the sort that makes up background like that you might find the objectives feel artificial.

Also, I made up my own set of cards. Printed off a summary of each one, laminated and cut out. Because they're summaries, I need to check in for details on some objectivese, but it definitely made it easier to keep track.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
First try of Maelstrom last weekend, and loved it. My buddies and I create stories to our games as a matter of course, so the shifting emphasis around the field that the cards created gave us plenty of scope to story tell. However, if you aren't the sort that makes up background like that you might find the objectives feel artificial.

Going to have to disagree there. I love having a good background for games - but this implementation of tactical objectives is anything but tactical or narrative. There are proposed ways to fix it (in this thread iirc) but as is, really don't like the system. Peregrine summed up my opinions on the "narrative" of objective cards with this post:

 Peregrine wrote:
So do I, which is why I think tactical objectives are so unbelievably stupid. Having the objectives change so frequently prevents you from getting any kind of coherent story out of the game. Imagine the fluff of a game with random objectives:

Commissar: CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE! CHARGE!!!
*guardsmen start moving to the objective, taking heavy losses for every inch of ground they claim*
Commissar: CHANGE OF PLANS! GO CLAIM THE OTHER ONE!
*guardsmen abandon all of their hard-won territory and rush off to the other one*
Commissar: HAHA, JUST KIDDING GUYS! GO CLAIM THE FIRST ONE AGAIN!
*guardsmen all die trying to retake the objective they just abandoned*
Commissar: OBJECTIVES ARE STUPID! KILL THE ENEMY FLYERS!
Guardsmen: But sir, we already killed the enemy flyer, we can't kill it again.
Commissar: WTF IS THIS HERESY! *blam*
Commissar: FLYERS ARE STUPID ANYWAY! GUARDSMAN BOB, CAST YOUR SPACE MAGIC!
Guardsman: But I'm not a psyker! In fact we don't have any psykers in our army!
Commissar: HERESY IS EVERYWHERE!!!! *executes everyone*