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.

Hi, sorry if this is posted in the wrong thread.

I have just noticed that there is a 7th ed rule book in stores now? Does this mean 6th edition is obsolete now?? I thought 6th was only released 2 years ago?

Was planning on buying dark vengeance box set but if it comes with the 6th ed rules is there any point?.

Any info would be great, thanks

Tuboh

The new dark vengeance kit comes with a mini 7th ed rulebook.

but yes, after two short years ANOTHER core rulebook came along and replaced the 6th edition rulebook.

Jeez...they sure know how to make money huh... I really hope it's not going to be a 2 yearly thing with edition rules, the cost is painful..

Either way, thank you for clearing that up for me!

For all we know, it could turn into a 1-year cycle.

7th Ed is here... And, it's worse than sixth!

lliu wrote:
7th Ed is here... And, it's worse than sixth!

Well, while I would tend to agree, 7th wasn't a total feth up. There were improvements to problem areas, like vehicles and psychic powers going off at random times, but the inclusion of other aspects like Unbound, LoW, Maelstrom, and a continued string of poorly worded rules and bloat, means to me that at best 7th was a sidegrade.

For more money.

And I didn't like 6th much either.

Some people will complain about everything that is new.

7th is better than 6th is pretty much every way, and 6th was better than 5th in almost every way too.

GW wording is cluncky, yea.
Malstorm not for everyone? so? there is still the same ethernal wat if you prefer them, you really don't have to play malstorm, its not even the default.
LoW are an excellent addition to the game and makes room for more kinds of armies, adding variety and interest to the game.

Honeslty the only real complaint I have about 7th is that the new "master of ambush" trait is too good. nothing else stings me there, at least not anything I remember, and if I don't remember-its probably not a serious issue.

 Tuboh wrote:
Jeez...they sure know how to make money huh... I really hope it's not going to be a 2 yearly thing with edition rules, the cost is painful..

Either way, thank you for clearing that up for me!

Given that their profits have been fairly flat for the past several years, I'd hazard to say that GW really *doesn't* know how to make money, they only know how to keep their head above water... but there's only so long that you can do that before you are either rescued by someone else, or you drown.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Some people will complain about everything that is new.

No, people will complain about things that to them, are worth complaining. Probably best you don't start posts with gross misrepresentations of peoples' arguments.

7th is better than 6th is pretty much every way, and 6th was better than 5th in almost every way too.

Purely subjective. There are many facets of 6th which people didn't like that weren't fixed, and a lot of the change to 7th was a sidegrade. The actual quality of the game has not improved, through basic things like complexity vs depth, balance, poor wording, lack of editing, and increased cost.

GW wording is cluncky, yea.

Which is a pretty important thing for a wargame to do away with.

Malstorm not for everyone? so? there is still the same ethernal wat if you prefer them, you really don't have to play malstorm, its not even the default.

Still an addition to the game that was poorly thought out and implemented. Maelstrom is a part of 7th edition, and therefore, an issue people will have with the game.

LoW are an excellent addition to the game and makes room for more kinds of armies, adding variety and interest to the game.

Again, purely subjective. You may enjoy, but clearly, many do not. Having a better implemented rule for them (like HH books), or as a purely optional supplement like Planetstrike would have been better. We already had Apoc for superheavies anyways.

Honeslty the only real complaint I have about 7th is that the new "master of ambush" trait is too good. nothing else stings me there, at least not anything I remember, and if I don't remember-its probably not a serious issue.

And for you, that may be the only complaint, but for others, many of the issues with 6th weren't addressed, and fixes to problems went too far and created more issues than previously. Not to mention the joke the army building rules are.

You can think 6th was better than 5th in every way, but you'll find many disagree, and with very valid reasons. Frankly, I hate all the added randomness that has no reason existing other than being a lazy excuse for not having to properly balance things like powers and traits.

I'd happily take vehicle spam and wound shuffling over the Unbound, LoW, psychic shenanigans 6/7th brought about.

The 7th edition powers are far better balanced than 6th edition ones.
Now only invisibility is a cheap trick, and unlike 6th precience, not as easy to cast, and not as automatically reliable to get. there are very, very little psychic shenanigans you can even TRY now.
Still imperfect, but by all means a step forward.

And yes, not every problem in 6th was fixed, but not getting everything fixed, and even a derp or two does not mean the general outcome is not still better. the good is simply enough to overshadow the bad, and the things that were not changed are not part of the equasion of "is it better", because they were already as they are. maybe they SHOULD change, but fact is the act of not moving out of a hole is not putting yourself in a hole to being with.

Not going to argue about any of the other taste things you presented there, but when someone who has not even seen 7th edition rules is told that they are "worse than sixth!" for no reason at all, just because (he didn't even present an opinion there), or that it's "a sidegrade at best" I feel the need to say that no, its not. its a step forward, a good step forward, and most things there are outright improvements.

Now, I didn't say YOU specifically is one of those who complain about anything new, but I know such people who never even tried 7th and cry on how much malstorm, new psyker rules, LoW, whatever are terrible (without even trying any of it ONCE mind you), and said the exact same things two years ago about flyers, allies, common psyker tables in general and everything else 6th introduced back then, yet now they seem to use all of them without even flinching, even when opponents are not.

The powers being better balanced is hardly something to point out as a positive. There are still incredibly underwhelming powers everywhere, all they did was nerf the worst power offenders. They also didn't fix the fact that you have to roll for them , instead of 5th's perfectly fine method of selecting powers.

Its a pretty hard argument to claim that 7th is overall a better game. There issues that were fixed, namely when powers went off, and vehicle damage springs to mind, but they didn't address the other issues that are tied along with those very changes; the psychic phase is now more tedious in terms of number of dice rolled and charts consulted than the old system, for no real difference, and vehicles and MCs still have glaring power differences.

When you factor in additions like Maelstrom and Unbound, it really put the book back a few pegs. While I'm sure there are people who enjoy that, from a game design perspective, they're pretty awful. Unbound being an effective absence of army creation rules, and Maelstrom being a very poor implementation of asymmetric objectives.

I've said many times previously, and I'll repeat it here. GW's biggest problem when it comes to rules isn't the idea or concept; its the execution. Maelstrom has the capability to be really cool, but random cards that can't be completed is a joke for any level of gameplay. Unbound doesn't open up creative options, if anything, it stifles it. What GW should have done is offer different force org charts and/or allow for more force org swapping with appropriate unit selections. Giving people restrictions and obstacles to work around will create far more unique and creative lists than simply removing all limits.

And don't forget a continued lack of proofreading, poor and clunky rules, and an increased price. You'd think by their 7th edition they'd have mastered the basic ability to spell correctly. An edition that requires a FAQ on day 1 because your players already found glaring issues does not speak highly to the quality of the rules. Especially for the obscene price point.

Its dubious indeed to make any sort of definitive statement that 7th is better than 6th. Its much more honest to place it in the sidegrade, a little bit better but a little bit worse, one step forward one step back category. Which isn't to say people can't enjoy it, but from a technical viewpoint, its still a mediocre product in the wargaming market.

I simply disagree, 7th compared to 6th is one step back, fire steps forward.

Sure, the net gain of 4 steps might not seem like alot when you are halfway through a 2 mile walk, but its a gain.

I believe the general 40K population enjoys the 7th edition, in fact I've heard it said that it's what we've been waiting for.

 Kelly502 wrote:
I believe the general 40K population enjoys the 7th edition, in fact I've heard it said that it's what we've been waiting for.

I've heard quite the opposite.

Obviously the people who enjoy it and are sticking around are going to say it's exactly what they wanted.

The people who left are more likely going to another game and you won't hear from them, with exceptions obviously.

Everything Ive read indicates 7th did not sell very well, and was out paced significantly by other ruleset releases from other companies.

I started in 6th edition a few years ago, in fact probably when it was first introduced. And ill be honest 7th ed really alienated me, just when I was getting comfortable with the game.

I wonder how many more gamers are like that which may have been lost in the change?

Locking since this is not a proposed rule and the question has been answered.