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.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
40 points for a Piranha and two Gun Drones, right? Those Gun drones would be 24 points , which means the Piranha hull is 16 points. Two Fire warriors are 18 points (and those two Fire Warriors are currently piloting the Piranha.) Ergo, the Piranha itself is -2 points.

Well that's a load of nonsense. Why do parts of the kit that exist purely for cosmetic purpose and have no in game function get used as part of the point cost evaluation?

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
40 points for a Piranha and two Gun Drones, right? Those Gun drones would be 24 points , which means the Piranha hull is 16 points. Two Fire warriors are 18 points (and those two Fire Warriors are currently piloting the Piranha.) Ergo, the Piranha itself is -2 points.

Well that's a load of nonsense. Why do parts of the kit that exist purely for cosmetic purpose and have no in game function get used as part of the point cost evaluation?

Well, way to miss the joke there.

I keep trying to get people to let me use 14 armor Wave Serpents with 20 guardians inside that can shoot out, including with their plasma cannon. But no one will take me up on it.

Of course, I'm only up for that because no one plays Blood Angels around here anymore. I wouldn't have to see a Rhino move 18", 10 Blood Angels get out and shoot twice, charge with their Str 5/Ini 5, wipe out a unit, then consolidate into another unit.

People who think 3rd and 4th edition were better are just nostalgic.

If sixth isn't your cup of tea, so to speak, I'd suggest that you try to identify the parts of it that you don't like and then play the edition that didn't have those things.

However, as has been pointed out a number of times, if what you don't like is overpowered lists you're not going to find an edition that didn't have *some* way to break the game.

The changes to the rules from sixth to seventh are pretty easy to find in various reviews online; the psychic phase is the big one and the rest are largely cosmetic. It shouldn't be hard to just make a not of how the new rules work and use the sixth ed rulebook with a few footnotes.

Isn't 3rd ed the edition that had the generally considered worst codex's in the history of GW....where the dark elder one was the best of the bunch by virtue of being a brand new army and so actually getting fluff and whatnot.....I remember 3rd ed codex's being like 20 pages or so with non standard marines getting like an 8 page insert telling them what rules to ignore to play their army.

Which happened because people told them they didn't want fluff in their rulebooks....they just wanted to pay for rules.......

I could deal with 5th if it didn't have true line of sight, variable charge distance, 4+ cover, the really stupid wound allocation/save rules, and the impossible to destroy vehicle rules. Not sure if it was 6th or fifth that brought in the ignore cover mechanics but I'd do away with those too. I'd allow infantry troops to score. Flying would need a rework, all the flight rules have been trash.

True line of sight is one of those forge the narrative things. Its much better to have generic terrain rules. More than 3" in cant be seen, 5+ cover for anyone in terrain, behind terrain cant be seen. True line of sight really dumbs down the game making it a you shoot I shoot type of thing instead of strategic movement. 4th ed had the best rules for terrain.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

office_waaagh wrote:
If sixth isn't your cup of tea, so to speak, I'd suggest that you try to identify the parts of it that you don't like and then play the edition that didn't have those things.

However, as has been pointed out a number of times, if what you don't like is overpowered lists you're not going to find an edition that didn't have *some* way to break the game.

The changes to the rules from sixth to seventh are pretty easy to find in various reviews online; the psychic phase is the big one and the rest are largely cosmetic. It shouldn't be hard to just make a not of how the new rules work and use the sixth ed rulebook with a few footnotes.

None of the previous editions comes close to the strategic impossibilities that you can create in 7th. In 4th there was no unwinnable situation. There were things with more power but with good play and a little luck you could come out on top 99% of the time.

7th on the other hand you can lose before a model is put on the table. Good play is meaningless. Even good list building is meaningless if you use the cards. 40k used to be a strategy game. Now its really really expensive chutes and ladders for people dumb enough to give GW their money and pretend its not.

this thread is why GW will never make an edition everyone will like. Some people liked RT, others 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th. I quite liked 3rd and 4th, hated 2nd.

So i guess it's no surprise that the reaction to 7th is fairly negative. C'est la vie.

The game is what you make it, if you have a good group, alter it in the way that makes an enjoyable game. If you rely on pick up games at the local store....I sympathize. GW is not your friend.

I can't see why this thread hasn't got a poll. So that people can vote for their favorite edition.

Interesting that this should be mentioned, as it is similar to what I am currently undertaking for a friend and I - taking 5th edition as the basis (since its core rules seem the most sane) but fixing the more offensive/stupid elements and returning to earlier iterations of the more ridiculous Codices (Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Newcrons).

I don't remember much of 3rd or 4th (I didn't play many games of either), but unkillable Falcons certainly feature in my memories, so I'd advise (with bias of course) taking a similar path to myself.

bullyboy wrote:
this thread is why GW will never make an edition everyone will like. Some people liked RT, others 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th. I quite liked 3rd and 4th, hated 2nd.

So i guess it's no surprise that the reaction to 7th is fairly negative. C'est la vie.

Somebody posted a poll (Sir Arun I believe) asking whether seventh was better than sixth. The poll was roughly 60% in favour of seventh, but the posts were almost universally negative.

The vitriol directed against seventh is misleading: angry people are louder, content people are generally quiet. This holds true of all things online, comments are generally driven by anger. So I don't think that the response to seventh is actually negative overall, it's just that the people that don't like it are writing angry posts online while the people that like it are busy having fun and gaming.

See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/24/anger-internet-most-powerful-emotion/2863869/ by way of source/example.

Every edition people have bitched like mad about generally everything. For now they whine on and on about the demon factory like they did at the start of 6th about flyers. It'll pass and turn out to be nothing like it always does.

Orktavius wrote:
Every edition people have bitched like mad about generally everything. For now they whine on and on about the demon factory like they did at the start of 6th about flyers. It'll pass and turn out to be nothing like it always does.

These kinds of posts don't really help the conversation. There are people that are legitamately leaving or at least not buying into 7th. I know a few and tomorrow I'm selling my Space Marine army. They have criticisms of 40k that aren't being addressed.

The real question is: will enough people leave to make a difference. That's what I'm curious to see.

2nd edition was awesomely fun when dealing with small armies. 1k to 1.5k was/is pretty fun. Although melee-heavy armies that are also numbers heavy, like Orks and Tyranids, can be a real pain because of the HtH mechanics of 2nd.

4th/5th is good for dealing with large armies that need a more streamlined ruleset than what 2nd edition would give.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Every edition people have bitched like mad about generally everything. For now they whine on and on about the demon factory like they did at the start of 6th about flyers. It'll pass and turn out to be nothing like it always does.

These kinds of posts don't really help the conversation. There are people that are legitamately leaving or at least not buying into 7th. I know a few and tomorrow I'm selling my Space Marine army. They have criticisms of 40k that aren't being addressed.

The real question is: will enough people leave to make a difference. That's what I'm curious to see.

And yet these same kind of threads pop up every edition as every editon/codex/supplement/white dwarf ruleset/anything GW does causes threads like these. Frankly I don't give a damn, not your game anymore? cool, have fun with another one. Nothing GW puts out will ever satisfy everyone, for every person raging on the interweb about how they will quit the game I'm betting there's 10 who think it's the coolest thing ever and just don't give a crap about posting about it. Satisfied customers say far less than disatisfied ones which means on the internet it always looks like the entire community is raging mad when really it's just a tiny insignificant faction. It happens, can't please everyone and there's no point in trying...so really, you quitting doesn't affect the conversation much either, frankly it's expected everytime GW puts out a rulebook that some will quit and others will come back or new customers will love the new rules.

No one asked you to come into the thread Orktavius. You don't like that people complain? Ok, don't come into the threads titled as such.

It isn't simply an "I'm quitting, Waah!" thread, it's an "I want to play a better version of the game, where do I start?" thread.

But no, you're right Orktavius, it's so much easier to whine in a thread without reading it.

TL;DR: No one asked you to come in, you're hardly contributing anything useful, feel free to leave the thread whenever.

I love it when people come into a thread and whine about people expressing legitimate complaints and calling it whining. Also this new edition has been more polarizing and drastically different. Whether enough people leave is enough, we'll see. As for me, the game is too different than when I started.

 TheKbob wrote:
Play 5th ed and bring in a few changes 6th (and the clarifications from 7th) and you'd be golden.

This. There was nothing wrong with 5th edition that 6th edition fixed aside from the rules for fliers and the fixed rules for cover. The flier rules, on the other hand, totally broke a number of units (night scythes and vendettas). I'd rather be playing 5th than 6th edition even with the flier rules omitted. Heldrakes wouldn't be nearly as bad as they were in 6th (with the torrent flamer) if they were just skimmers. Vendettas weren't really undercosted in 5th, before they had the flier rules.

7th edition is a fething turd. Has nothing to do with a cup of tea - you're smart to leave it behind. Why support a company that treats you like an idiot?