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.

 Blacksails wrote:

 FJ wrote:

One thing to know is this: Most people that play Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are CASUAL, but it's just the INTERNET that is dominated by the competeive scene. In real life it's easer to make a point about this, but on the internet you can't do this and not expect people to get emotional. This hobby is a big part of us.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask for some numbers.

Further, define casual. Plenty of people 'casually' go to tournaments/leagues just to get in a lot of games against nicely painted armies on nice tables. Further, how is the internet any more dominated by the 'competitive' scene than it is by the 'casual' scene.

You can even leave aside the tourney scene and still question that line of reasoning. I casually play competitive games all the time, from beer league hockey to Settlers of Catan to FPS team deathmatches. The suggestion that I don't want fair, balanced, comprehensible, and enjoyable rules in all of those because I don't do them 'competitively' is a little wild.

I see what the OP is saying, and I'd agree. I think with 7th, GW have embraced what 40k really is: a game for so many different people.

Some people don't give a crap about what's broken or what the Internet says, and they'll just like to stick some cool models on the table and have a game. For them, Unbound is perfect.

For more serious gamers, the only issue is the FoC shenanigans, something which is easy to house rule. A rule saying "Battle Forged only, max X detachments" is something that a lot of people will readily accept and, for those people, the game just got a lot better. The Allies chart is less broken, and changes to MC and Jink rules gave a much needed nerf to some of the more broken units in the game.

Yeah, 7th needs house-ruling, but with some minor changes implemented by a local club, it's one of the best editions we've had in a while.

If you're playing in a stable group, I'm sure you can make the game work for your group. But many of us are not in that position and rely on pick up games with strangers. For us, the stability of the game is a major bonus. Negotiating games is more difficult for this group.

Added to that, if I'm paying premium for your rules, I don't expect to have to fix them before I play, no more than I expect to have to sculpt parts of the minis myself.

Your attitude, frankly, reeks of "I got mine, so I don't care about your complaints, even if they are valid!"

I am glad you like 7th, and I hope you have fun with it. There's no need to use loaded language like "man up" just because I don't share your enthusiasm.

Yeah this seems a little strange. I do more hobby work than playing since I have a lot going on. But I never play anything but casual games anymore.

My 2 cents:

1. The rulebook is ridiculous. But so have all the latest codicies and rule books. They're rules. I don't want a hard bound copy of rules that expire in a few years. If someone wants them, fine, have it as an option. Let me buy a cheap-o rules pamphlet for 15 bucks or a down-loadable PDF.

2. Unbound or whatever seems silly. This is why - it does seem to make the game very difficult to play for pick up games and tournaments. Like I said, I really don't play those anymore, but lots of people do. If GW is giving carte blanche to casual gamers to do whatever they want and ditch the FOC. Guess what? We have been doing that since Rogue Trader. So I am missing the point of this and feel sorry for competitive players out there.

3. It seems like the pace of things at GW is just too fast. Like they just think that the way to deal with any problem is to slam out rules changes and new products, etc. I hope they realize this isn't a video game, and it takes time for people to get caught up and we can't just download a patch for 40k and be up to date.

Don't get me wrong. I am looking for the freaking 7 year old Ork update, but it seems like some of the other things they've released lately have been just slammed out change for the sake of change.

MOST of us (most) even those with a decent cash flow, aren't putting aside hundreds of dollars (or whatever your currency) each month for more 40k models. Plus, 85 bucks on a rules book? No that's money I could spend on models. I can just keep playing the existing/old rules and have more army options.



So whole thing seems kinda strange to me.

How can this thread still be open with all the venom and angst it contains.

I got chastised for helping a guy out with transports. Holy cow!

 Byte wrote:
How can this thread still be open with all the venom and angst it contains.

I got chastised for helping a guy out with transports. Holy cow!

Venom I lay at GW's feet

Angst isn't against forum rules.... i think

I'm totally pumped for this edition.

I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm totally pumped for this edition.

I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.

I don't know if you're joking or being serious.

 Gorgrimm wrote:


MOST of us (most) even those with a decent cash flow, aren't putting aside hundreds of dollars (or whatever your currency) each month for more 40k models. Plus, 85 bucks on a rules book? No that's money I could spend on models. I can just keep playing the existing/old rules and have more army options.



So whole thing seems kinda strange to me.

i agree here

 The Shadow wrote:
I see what the OP is saying, and I'd agree. I think with 7th, GW have embraced what 40k really is: a game for so many different people.

Some people don't give a crap about what's broken or what the Internet says, and they'll just like to stick some cool models on the table and have a game. For them, Unbound is perfect.

For more serious gamers, the only issue is the FoC shenanigans, something which is easy to house rule. A rule saying "Battle Forged only, max X detachments" is something that a lot of people will readily accept and, for those people, the game just got a lot better. The Allies chart is less broken, and changes to MC and Jink rules gave a much needed nerf to some of the more broken units in the game.

Yeah, 7th needs house-ruling, but with some minor changes implemented by a local club, it's one of the best editions we've had in a while.

I agree here too. I also think that its not too hard for a couple of strangers to just discuss something before they play, competetive or not. I always ask if we could do ''no flyers'' every time and its fine, for instance.

 FJ wrote:

I agree here too. I also think that its not too hard for a couple of strangers to just discuss something before they play, competetive or not. I always ask if we could do ''no flyers'' every time and its fine, for instance.

Unless of course that person has brought flyers as a large part of their army. If you have to pre-arrange things its absolutely no use for pick up games.

Sadly, this edition seems like an updated 6th with some of the flavor removed and 2 expansions thrown on top. The psychic phase is nearly a complete waste of time. Now that casting is a 50/50 shot or slightly better, many more of your casting rolls will fail than before. Now add the fact that they can be nullified quite easily if that is what you are trying to do and after that, if you are using witchfire, go ahead and roll to see of you hit with your usually well above average BS. On top of psychic powers doing nothing half the time, you now have to deal with an insane, near instant lose a game table that is perils of the warp. . I played a maelstrom of war game this weekend which went 5 turns. I had a lvl2 sorcerer with 4 powers including force. Psychic powers were only able to be used in 2 turns. The other 3 turns of the psychic phase was a whole lot of rolling dice for no reason at all, ultimately. Why make a fancy new psychic phase and make a wise general NEVER take psykers. It is just too random to ever rely on the powers going off when you need them to.

I like 40k and will be playing 7th ed as soon as I have read it.

WHat gets my goat is having to shell out for reprints of the same art work that is in all the bloody books!

 MWHistorian wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm totally pumped for this edition.

I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.

I don't know if you're joking or being serious.

Within the context of the discussion, it doesn't really matter.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm totally pumped for this edition.

I have a tournament with a bunch of newish players coming up in a few weeks. I can't wait to mercilessly crush every single one of them with my Infinite Daemons Summoning army.

I don't know if you're joking or being serious.

Within the context of the discussion, it doesn't really matter.

Exalted, well played, touché (I think that covers all possibilities).

After quiting GW because of 6th, i really enjoyed the 7th.

They dont solved any of the problems of 6th, and added new ones, but now the game really have the feeling of fluff/narrative before rules...

It is a good system for narrative, it is bad for competitions. Still, competitive wargame have better (and free) rules around, so if this is an issue, people can simple migrate into another system (in the same world).

On plus: looj at all those random stuff, that will be fun as hell to play in a narrative way.

I mean, take a "game master" who say "this is the scenario, bring the armies you want up to x points, those units are forbiden".

Now it need really campaing rules, with XP for warlords, and it is done...

I have to ask how is random stuff fun to play in a narrative way? I've personally always been annoyed with random warlord traits, psyker traits, speed of getting mutations, not getting to buy some to show your exploits, random perils that erase your mind, randomer psyker powers, random objectives, random VP, and that's not even mentioning my CD's army that is filled with random upgrades/rewards as well as the storm. To me at least, it just slows things down.

It is a good system for narrative, it is bad for competitions. Still, competitive wargame have better (and free) rules around, so if this is an issue, people can simple migrate into another system (in the same world).

If a shop doesn't run the game , then they will have no place to play and I doubt shop owners are going to be jumping on non GW systems , specialy in parts of the world which PP or CB ignore as a market.

 StarTrotter wrote:
I have to ask how is random stuff fun to play in a narrative way?

Because randomness creates unpredictable events that are memorable, and its this kind of event that will feed and guide a 'narrative'. For example I had an IG squad Sgt who managed to kill a bike mounted Chaplin in 2 consecutive games with his lasgun, or my Praetorian with a grenade launcher who never missed, or my Commissar who always managed to roll hatred on the Tyranid attack table or....

There is definitely a place for randomness in wargames. Have things gone too far? Possibly but a game with very limited and tightly controlled randomness would lose its soul, just like 3rd ed did. Warlord traits and such like should have a points cost and be selectable but I am completely fine with things like random charge distances and the Eye of the Gods table.

That is one game. How is it good , if you can't do the same thing over again. Lets say you even kill a chaplain , which is hard to imagine in the first place as the only place where chaplains were used in 5th or 6th was death company .
If the whole game was driven by I roll 2x6 and I win , it would make no sense at all to even start .
Or did you mean you had a chaplain fight 5-6 power ax armed sgts in a blob and die to them , that I can imagine.

 Palindrome wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
I have to ask how is random stuff fun to play in a narrative way?

Because randomness creates unpredictable events that are memorable, and its this kind of event that will feed and guide a 'narrative'. For example I had an IG squad Sgt who managed to kill a bike mounted Chaplin in 2 consecutive games with his lasgun, or my Praetorian with a grenade launcher who never missed, or my Commissar who always managed to roll hatred on the Tyranid attack table or....

There is definitely a place for randomness in wargames. Have things gone too far? Possibly but a game with very limited and tightly controlled randomness would lose its soul, just like 3rd ed did. Warlord traits and such like should have a points cost and be selectable but I am completely fine with things like random charge distances and the Eye of the Gods table.

Yes, randomness creates memorable, unpredictable events. But I would argue that it is a bad thing. For example, I had 500 points of my army run off the table just the other day because I rolled double sixes for their leadership check twice. Even with a re-roll, they still failed. That effectively ended the game. Did my opponent out-think me? Did I use poor strategy? No, and no. What did I learn from this game? Don't roll double sixes.

Hour of setup time, takes an hour to play two turns, then an hour to put everything away. 3 hours of wasted time for a game that none of us enjoyed.

MadmanMSU wrote:

Yes, randomness creates memorable, unpredictable events. But I would argue that it is a bad thing.

The only alternative to things like that is to have a very tightly constructed ruleset with completely predictable actions, chess for example. I'm not very fond of chess.

 Palindrome wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:

Yes, randomness creates memorable, unpredictable events. But I would argue that it is a bad thing.

The only alternative to things like that is to have a very tightly constructed ruleset with completely predictable actions, chess for example. I'm not very fond of chess.

That's the only alternative you can think of? You have a poor imagination.

The other option is a tighter ruleset that allows player skill to determine the outcome more. Yes, some randomness is necessary, but it shouldn't be the level that GW has now. Good memories should come from when you did something cool like out thinking your opponent or beat back odds that were against you, not "I pulled a card and rolled for how many victory points I got." That's not what makes a game memorable.

The difference between the different types of randomness you guys are talking about is the difference between risk and uncertainty.
You can make judgements based on risks. You can't make judgements based on uncertainty.

So, rolling to hit vs. a high WS opponent is a risk- I can clearly see my chance of success and decide whether it is worth it or not.

Drawing random objectives or rolling random warlord traits introduces uncertainty- I have no real information about what is going to be a good move until I see my cards or take the roll, so I cannot plan until I receive them.

The lack of ability to plan reduces player agency, and for some of us that really reduces the fun of the game. Palindrome, pretty much every thing you pointed to in your examples were examples where you knew the risk. The things people most often have problems with are uncertainties.

 MWHistorian wrote:

That's the only alternative you can think of? You have a poor imagination.

If you had been paying attention you would have seen that I was explaining that there will always be 'bad' results in any game involving a random factor and the only games in which these 'bad' events can't occur is those with no random elements. Incidentally 'bad' events can also create memorable games in a good way.

Today I sent GW an e-mail stating my reasons that I will no longer be buying any of their product.

I listed my complaints about 7th ed coming too soon, too expensive, too random and breaking the fluff.

I also listed their lack of support for my favorite faction, Sisters of Battle.

Do I think it will do any good? Not at all.

Lol check the FAQs and tell me you still think this.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Today I sent GW an e-mail stating my reasons that I will no longer be buying any of their product.

I listed my complaints about 7th ed coming too soon, too expensive, too random and breaking the fluff.

I also listed their lack of support for my favorite faction, Sisters of Battle.

Do I think it will do any good? Not at all.

Well done anyway.
I do believe that if everyone leaving the game did the same, they would listen. But most people just quit and say nothing.

Also, what about playing an older edition, or using a fan-made set of rules? There are a lot of small groups developing home-made systems, or going back to 2nd, 5th, 3rd or even RT.

The FAQs have confirmed that I won't be continuing with 40k for the foreseeable future.

I don't care about 'competitive' games but the sheer idiocy of the Malefic powers just beggers belief. Not only is it fluff heresy of the highest order it is also quite possibly the most broken thing that GW has ever done. Well done GW, well done. The sooner you crash and burn the better, at least someone competent may pick up the pieces and do something postive with them.

 Palindrome wrote:
The FAQs have confirmed that I won't be continuing with 40k for the foreseeable future.

I don't care about 'competitive' games but the sheer idiocy of the Malefic powers just beggers belief. Not only is it fluff heresy of the highest order it is also quite possibly the most broken thing that GW has ever done. Well done GW, well done. The sooner you crash and burn the better, at least someone competent may pick up the pieces and do something postive with them.

I'm a fluffy/casual player as well and these changes hurt me worse than it does the competitive players.

We're all just players, and crappy changes are crappy for all of us.