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've been reading up, and I'd like to get back into 40k. I did not like 6th at all (I have the 4th ed rulebook on my shelf still though). I can see a bit of streamlining, and the DE codex is nicely laid out. I'm jusr trying to figure out if it's worth it.

My LGS still has a pretty good core of players, and I could borrow just about any army i want to. I just don't know if I'm sold on the game yet.

7th really isn't much different than 6th. Lords of War are now standard. Flyers still fly. Haters still hate. Wave Serpent is still relatively OP (despite claims otherwise). You can run a multitude of different FOCs, and fluff be damned, Eldar can summon daemons. Dark Angels can summon daemons. In fact every army with a psyker (except Nids and GK) can summon daemons. 7th edition is all about FORGING THE NARRATIVE!!! If you are not having fun you need to FORGE THE NARRATIVE harder!

I liked 6th, it had its teething problems - mostly psyhic power and codex based, but now 7e has just mangled everything. I've quit 40k because it was the final straw

Mostly alright.

Taking out the Skyfire/Interceptor interaction and thus nerfing a bunch of units that were clearly balanced around said interaction into complete uselessness whilst increasing the already drastic warping effect flyers have on list building is annoying, but otherwise I'm pretty much fine.

Quit, so.

7th is just 6th where GW decided to just say "screw it, put whatever you want on the table, however you want to dot it" along with more random tables.

7th is mostly 6th with some streamlining plus Daemon summoning. Basically everything that was silly in 6th is still silly, though slightly less so because the silliness has been broadened across all armies better.

I still play, but it's probably the biggest clusterfeth of rules in any TTWG ever. It just takes a bit of house ruling to make it playable.

I like the fact that flyers, skimmers, and bikes need to declare jink before dice are rolled. Other than that, it seems pretty much the same as sixth to me.

It's a bloated pile of cynical crap. There's like 17 steps before even playing a game. GW is so afraid saying no to crazy stupid crap because it might cost them a sale. I'll keep playing a far more toned down version of 7th and hope someday we can return to 40k not being apoc. When that happens I'll consider paying for rules again, at this point we';re just paying for suggestions.... incredibly expensive suggestions.

It killed my interest in 40k after 10+ years.

Not a fan myself.

I wasn't fond of the changes from 5th to 6th, and 7th really just doubled down on those changes without helping out too much in the core rules. Still lots of bloat, ambiguity, and balance issues.

That said, the codices that have been written in 7th have shown some steps to alleviate the most glaring external balance issues, but internal balance within each codex is still wanting, and a lot of flavour is being cut and re-sold as dataslates and supplements.

I think it's fun and when codices catch up with 7th, I think it'll be a blast. If you didn't like 6th, I doubt you'll like 7th. 7th is pretty much 6.5.

It's a mess.

6h edition introduced (or more accurately in most cases, re-introduced) a whole bunch of cool ideas in a ham-fisted and poorly edited fashion.

7th edition added more random silliness without actually fixing anything much, and has great gaping holes that GW show no interest in plugging up.

I'm just treading water waiting for 8th edition at this point, in the hope that this will be a repeat of the 3rd/4th/5th edition progression.

More and more I'm hoping 8th is more of a 2E-3E style reboot with the way things are going.

Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?

To answer the question; I have fun playing. The rules can be weird sometimes, and I really don't like the fact all the rules are spread out amongst multiple rule books, codexes, data slates, etc... I have been playing for a couple years now and really don't have a grasp of all the different rules for all the different factions. Haeckel I am not even sure of everything I can use as Orks. I rather like the variety 7th Ed allows with formations, unbound lists and maelstrom missions. Feels like my play on the table can affect the outcome. In the past it felt like 80% of the game happened writing a list. It is a bit better in 7th.

Edit: I forgot to add I play because it is BY FAR the easiest game to find other players. Just this weekend I played at a store and there were 24 people there participating in a tournament. I was off the week between Christmas and New Year and found 4 games to play, there is also a store that has pickup games every Tuesday night. So access to opponents is a big plus to the game for me.

Loborocket wrote:
Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?

To answer the question; I have fun playing. The rules can be weird sometimes, and I really don't like the fact all the rules are spread out amongst multiple rule books, codexes, data slates, etc... I have been playing for a couple years now and really don't have a grasp of all the different rules for all the different factions. Haeckel I am not even sure of everything I can use as Orks. I rather like the variety 7th Ed allows with formations, unbound lists and maelstrom missions. Feels like my play on the table can affect the outcome. In the past it felt like 80% of the game happened writing a list. It is a bit better in 7th.

Metacritic principle. People get more pissed off by something they don't like than are happy about something they do like. If ten people play a game and there's an even split between folks who like it and folks who don't you're going to get two positive and four negative forum posts about it.

Loborocket wrote:
Funny that over 1/2 of the responses are really negative to the point of saying "it made me quit." Yet you are here reading/answering questions about a game you no longer play? Just seems strange to me. If you quit, why read the forums?

This has to be said every time this topic comes up, but disliking one aspect of what is a pretty varied game/hobby does not mean you have to quit entirely and never read or post about it.

The fact that I dislike the rules has no bearing on my enjoyment of the fluff, aesthetics, painting, and modelling 40k has to offer, not to mention that the game can still be enjoyed with friends. I may not like the rules, but I love a table with cool scenery and painted armies fighting each other.

Further, I'm sure some people are holding and keeping up with the game on forums in some hope that GW fix the game to be worth the price tag and time investment.

So no, it's not strange at all.

When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

Loborocket wrote:
When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

As I mentioned, 40k is a lot more than just a table top game, or rather has other aspects that don't directly relate to the table top crunch.

While I'm sure there are some people who all up quit and sold everything, I'm equally sure other people who quit still have an army or two or twelve for if GW ever sorts themselves out. These people might still collect, paint, model, and play unsupported GW games or other rulesets using their 40k models.

Not to mention the ability to play one of FFG's 40k RPGs to get your 40k fix without playing 40k.

All that to say, I don't think its weird, hyperbolic, or dramatic at all.

When you consider the thread is about how people feel about 7th, and given how long we're into its lifespan, its totally reasonable to have responses that amount to 'I quit'.

Further, this forum is more than a 40k board, so I'm sure some people who jumped to other games might see this thread and chime in.

All in all, its totally reasonable and perfectly sensible for people to chime in in threads like this stating it made them quit. Who knows, maybe the people who quit would come back if the game was changed for the better?

I actually like the tactical objectives, makes the game much more interesting and a lot less repetitive and the psychic phase is nice. not a big fan of a few things, like invisibility, unbound, and daemon summoning.

I'm personally having a blast with 7th, as well as the rest of my gaming club. Sure theres some rules issues, but the "ZOMG UNBOUND IZ BROKEN" and what not is way overstated on the internet. My recommendation is see what your local meta is up to than make your call to get back into it. I play 2-3 times a week and have a lot of fun, but as always, YMMV.

6th is basically 7th with minor fixes.
Psychic phase is added and a bit more fleshed out. No more garaunteed unstoppable psychic buffing every turn.

The army books are more balanced externally then I have seen since playing since 2nd edition. However you play dark elder and while you can now play some cool themed and potentially decent armies like coven. You won't be winning any major torunaments without an elder ally crutch. Or if your lucky they make the rumored harlequin supplement soon.

The game is a lot more open to house rules and interpretation but 90% of the people complaining about it on the forum literally quit and haven't played the game since before 6th. Having traveled for work all over the US the last year I've played in Tampa, Miami, Los angelos, Chicago, NYC, Connecticut, Las Vegas. The meta's are pretty much the same no matter where I played.. On the east coast people tend to follow the adepticon/NOVA house rules on the west coast it's more the LVO house rules. By this I mean on the east coast it's usually two detachments with forgeworld rules and LOW suoer heavies being agreed upon beforehand. On the west coast it's usually 2 detschments with forgeworld rules being more accepted and LOW superheavies being agreed upon before hand. I've litterally never seen anyone even ask to play unbound. You don't see articles even discussing the best unbound lists or see battle reps discussing unbound games beyond friendly encounters and yet people posting on the Internet likes to claim that they are constantly forced to play unbound Titan army everywhere they go. It's just nothing I've seen playing across the U.S. And makes me seriously question the fact people are just making this stuff up.

The game is not perfect and the newest edition didn't magically fix the game however what I really like about 7th is armies are a lot more balanced against each other. Everything is updated and I'm not waiting 5 years and 2 editions to play my armies again. Most of the insane Broken tournament combos have been weakened. There are still great units like wave serpents however putting unstoppable combos together have been drastically reduced. Many of the old Death Stars have been weakened or eliminated entirely. I may not have the strongest tournament army but you can still have a chance no matter which army you play (with a few minor exceptions)

 insaniak wrote:
It's a mess.

6h edition introduced (or more accurately in most cases, re-introduced) a whole bunch of cool ideas in a ham-fisted and poorly edited fashion.

7th edition added more random silliness without actually fixing anything much, and has great gaping holes that GW show no interest in plugging up.

I'm just treading water waiting for 8th edition at this point, in the hope that this will be a repeat of the 3rd/4th/5th edition progression.

I really hope its nothing like 5th. I tried to get into 5th, but it was too damn complex. I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. Yeah, there are wonky rules, but 5th made my brain hurt.

I don't see how 5th is any more complex, the only thing that I think is more complex is wound allocation (admittedly one of 5E's glaring faults), but aside from that almost everything was simpler. No psychic phase, no HP's on top of a damage table, no random tables for mysterious terrain or objectives, no wildly random Maelstrom missions, far fewer special rules, no Flyers/FMC's, no crazy army construction rules, no Warlord traits, etc.

I mean, the codex books themselves were a little crazier than the newer 7E books, but 5E's core rules were certainly far less complex than 6E or 7E's.

6th and 7th don't really inspire me.

Been playing since RT, and i still do, but less and less 40k is getting played these days, in favor of other games.

I still like the setting, the fluff (well, most of it) and the models, but the game is a mess right now ruleswise...

 jreilly89 wrote:
. I feel like 6th actually simplified a lot of stuff. .

It really didn't.

Cover in 5th was determined off the unit majority. Now it's worked out per model, which is just painful.

Shooting in 5th was all done on a unit level. Now we resolve every single different weapon separately. Also painful.

Wound allocation in 5th was done in groups, and saved in bunches. Now we have a whole bunch of situations that require you to roll saves one... at... a ... time... Beyond painful.

And while we're on wound allocation, 'allocate to whoever you want' is a much easier system than 'allocate to the closest, and randomise half the time becuase it's not apparent who is the closest, or choose a model because they're in close combat'

And random. Random everything. Nothing 'simplifies' a game like having fourteen thousand* different tables to roll on before you even start the game.





*Statement may contain trace amounts of hyperbole.

I don't see much point in the level of detail or amount of rolling required for the current wounding system when at the same time they essentially turn all terrain into area terrain making flanking to deny cover pretty much impossible if you're pretty much playing anything with a base as area terrain. Remember kids, citadel brand treees .

I like 7-th. It looks like 6-th at the first glance but it has changes some of which are significant. The most notable changes have come with psy phase which is a mixed bag, i like it more than the old system, however, and maelstorm missions that have shaken the games and made them more dynamic and tactical to some extent.

I've been thinking about quitting in 6-th. And almost stopped playing completely. But than 7-th came and now i'm back and liking what's happening. The hate towards flyers and LOW is a bit overrated imo. There are some problematic things coming from escalation books but both regular and forgeworld stuff tends to be just fine! Partially because of maelstorm missions, actually.

Another thing is that 7-th ed codexes are WAY better ballanced than 6-th ed powercreep. Other than GK which is a monobuild minidex unfortunately. Is not so bad for the opponents other than being a bit tiresome cause 90% GK players field the same stuff the same ways and games are mostly decided turn 1.

Loborocket wrote:
When I responded 4 folks basically said "I quit." If you quit and want to read the forums fine. I just think it is weird and perhaps a bit hyperbolic for dramatic effect.

I quit 40k proper in 2008 and I still read the forums.