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 don't see the problem really. like OP stated, i think i'll like this edition. I still have to test play in a couple of days, but i believe that the tactical objectives bring the solution to most of my problems.. mainly
the 'i camp in a corner, ignore all cover and just shoot your army' players. With the objectives in game, if they don't move, they just lose because of victory points. Makes the game more mobile.
but hey, that's just my opinion

 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.

All that matters is it made you feel better. Plenty of other quality games on the market these days.

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).
Like: so you warlod rolled the same thing for 3 consecutive games? Ok them, you can choose him to have that as a permanent rule (you dont roll the tabble anymore).

Points? Those becames just tools for balancing the narrative, that is, the Narrator tell you X points, and place weathever he wants into the enemy force (strugling for balance, but not limited by it).

And so on.

I will not be buying this rulebook though...

 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'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!

Meh.

Memorable games and actions by models does not require random "forging a narrative" tables. I have just as many from WM/H as with a more random game of 40k, and it's nowhere near as random as 7th. The example given above is not even by said random tables, but by shooting, which is acceptable in randomness to most people.

Am I pumped for 7th ed "The House Rule Edition". Why heck yeah!!!

I finally don't have to buy a BRB To play at my flgs. Instead, I just make up whatever rules needed to run my "non-comp" list made up of nothing but Land Raiders, Monoliths and Pink Horrors.

Seriously, "Did any of you actually pay $85 US for a 200 page book that essentially tells you to make up your own rules?

This release was the first one since third ed that did not sell out at the game stores in my area. Anecdotal? We will see.

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).

What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?

 Kavish 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'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!

I think he might have been joking.

Also, go read the new SW FAQ and see what that does to your enthusiasm (hint: your runic staffs won't be denying as much as you think, and you won't be jawsing anything).

Makumba wrote:

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).

What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?

A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.

 Da Boss wrote:

Makumba wrote:

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).

What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?

A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.

Just to expand what Da Boss says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamemaster

40k started as a mix between role-playing games and strategy games. A Gamemaster was not needed but it was recommended, because the rules were just too much complicated and it helped a lot to have a 'referee' having decisions on the spot about how a rule was to be applied.

Having a Gamemaster also helps a lot in narrative games and campaigns. He/she is the one who prepare the setting, writing the story to be told, giving missions to the players and, well, constantly fixing the game whenever something appears broken. Instead of playing, the Gamemaster creates a world for the players to play, staying aside and above, only going down to their level when they ask for mediation. Like a god.

Some sick, wretched individuals like me take more pleassure from being a Gamemaster than from actually playing the game.

 Lobukia wrote:


Don't like:
Too much battle bro-fisting
Can't assault out of stationary vehicle... that's about it

Do you like a possibility to fail 2' charges?

 Da Boss wrote:

Makumba wrote:

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).

What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?

A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.

how does that work . you both come with your armies and then he does what , because I tried to find any rules for narrators in the rulebook , but couldn't find any.

Makumba wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Makumba wrote:

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).

What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?

A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.

how does that work . you both come with your armies and then he does what , because I tried to find any rules for narrators in the rulebook , but couldn't find any.

A GM is required for a story telling game such as D&D. The GM/DM/whatever acts as the narrator and guides the players through a story.
A strategy game doesn't need a GM because it's two players using the same rules facing off against each other.
But seeing as how now 40k needs a GM to keep everything straight means that the game is a mess of rules. A fun, narrative strategy game shouldn't require a GM except for unique, pre-arranged situations.

I've been playing 40k since literally the day it came out. This is probably the best edition.

Makumba wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

Makumba wrote:

The ramdomness is easily solved with house rules, wich are easy to do in a group of player who want to play narratively (at least if you have something like a Narrator or Game Master).

What is a Narrator or Game Master ,something like the store owner or something ?

A GM or Narrator is a neutral third party who arbitrates the rules to make sure both players have fun, and that the game tells a good story. More common in roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons but there's a fair tradition of it in Wargaming too, with narrative campaigns and so on.

how does that work . you both come with your armies and then he does what , because I tried to find any rules for narrators in the rulebook , but couldn't find any.

Ostensibly it wouldn't exist for a pick-up game, but pretend you're playing in a campaign with a map. Let's say you're playing Space Marines and your attacking a quadrant held by an Eldar player. The GM would come up with a scenario based on the scenario - for example, maybe the world is a lush jungle world with some ancient Eldar ruins, and your army goal is to seize some relic while the Eldar's objective is to hold the line until reinforcements can arrive. The GM decides that you'll be playing a mission with the relic in the middle on a jungle themed board with ruins with the Eldar force defending it and your army is allowed to Deep Strike on Turn 1 but not within 12" of the center; you win if you have uncontested control of the relic at any point after Turn 2, but the Eldar player wins at the end of Turn 6 if you don't (i.e. their reinforcements arrive and your strike force needs to retreat). Additionally, the GM also decides that the world has some dangerous monsters, and creates a random table that has a chance to spawn some weird monster that he decides to use Chaos Spawn stats for (the GM will control these creatures if any show up)

That's the general idea - the GM tweaks the scenario and comes up with the narrative behind the game and anything else that defines what you're playing, and can add ad-hoc modifications to fit the scenario or add additional things to the game. Of course as stated that's the domain of campaigns, not the more common "Hey I'm going to be at the game shop at 7 tonight if anyone is up for a game" kind of situations.

The problem in general here is that 40k touts itself as a wargame, meant for large scale games, but the whole concept of having a GM and a specific scenario lends itself to smaller skirmishes (like the original Rogue Trader), and random tables/cards are a poor substitute. The GM is meant to handle the actual "forge the narrative" part of the game, yet the GM isn't a required part and the game itself lends itself towards campaigns, but campaigns aren't a default part of the game when IMO they should be the focal point of 40k.

I think that I personally would be a lot more accepting of 40k (besides the prices, of course) if it was only intended to be done in a campaign and if there were solid campaigns for it. As it stands though, my local meta is entirely pickup games and the occasional tournament, no league or campaign, so the appeal of dealing with 40k is lessened because it's not suited to games outside of that, but in the same breath the company states that balance isn't their concern, competitive play isn't their concern and the game is ideal for 2000+ points when that just increases the imbalance, when IMO the ideal spot for 40k is around 1,500 point games as part of a full-blown map campaign or linked narrative.

You know what? I think I'm going to pull my 4th Ed book off the shelf and give it another look...

Consensus is still the same...

Casual friendly gamers are happy.

Gamers who prefer a tighter rule set for competitive play are unhappy.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Casual friendly gamers are happy.

Not all of them are, thats for certain.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Consensus is still the same...

Casual friendly gamers are happy.

Gamers who prefer a tighter rule set for competitive play are unhappy.

You seem to be implying the two are mutually exclusive.
They are not.

 Thud wrote:

 Kavish 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'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!

I think he might have been joking.

Also, go read the new SW FAQ and see what that does to your enthusiasm (hint: your runic staffs won't be denying as much as you think, and you won't be jawsing anything).

Oh ok. I guess I missed that with all the overt moaning on here. I don't care much for jaws. I've had limited success with it. I've been using divination or biomancy. The runic weapon thing has been coming for a long time. Oh well. +2 deny for Njal is not too shabby though.

I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?

 Kavish wrote:

It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?

Which has no relevance as an argument for the game when there are plenty of people who don't play in tournaments that don't like the current iteration or direction of the game.

Understand that definitions like 'casual' and 'competitive' and not mutually exclusive in the slightest, and the overlap between is significant. Further, alleged 'casual' players can still hold a negative opinion of a game that is poorly written and poorly balanced, because, much to the surprise of many, it impacts these so called 'casual' players as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:

 Thud wrote:

 Kavish 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'm entering a tournament next month and I can't wait to crush guys like you. I'm bringing space wolves in drop pods. Your casters are dead before you even get to use them. And if any survive, I'm denying them with my runic weapon. The tournament organiser has already laid down the rules (eg: battle forged only, no lords of war, etc...). It just takes a decent TO or a decent opponent and the game is very playable. There have always been people who play over powered list, and it happens in magic cards too, that's why they have a banned cards list. It always takes a while of people winning tournaments with it before it's banned. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never played against one of these scary internet lists of doom. And there is always a counter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps. I'm keen for this edition too. Vehicles got tougher, yay!

I think he might have been joking.

Also, go read the new SW FAQ and see what that does to your enthusiasm (hint: your runic staffs won't be denying as much as you think, and you won't be jawsing anything).

Oh ok. I guess I missed that with all the overt moaning on here. I don't care much for jaws. I've had limited success with it. I've been using divination or biomancy. The runic weapon thing has been coming for a long time. Oh well. +2 deny for Njal is not too shabby though.

I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?

Thank goodness for Kavish! All those tourneys I've attended over the years, all the people I met, all the games played, all pointless!! Yay, Kavish said 40k isn't for tournament play! All of us who have played in and enjoyed tournament play, we had it wrong.

From now on I'll do it Kavish style, hold up my models and go, "pew, pew, pew, I got you, yay rules don't matter!!!". Yeah that's how you do it, like I did when I was 5 years old.

You know why these rules appeal to the five years and under crowd? They were written by Jervis Jhonson.

Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc36Is_6yZw

 Kavish wrote:
I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?

You wrongly equate "balanced" and "well-written" and "concise" rules with "tournament". Yet mostly every other tabletop miniatures game out there has well-written, concise and for the most part balanced rules that can appeal to both casual and tournament gamers; 40k alone has ambiguous rules, blatantly admits that balance is of little concern and outright gives the finger to competitive gamers as an audience.

It is possible to have both. Just look at, well... virtually any other miniatures game. Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, Kings of War, Hail Caesar, the myriad of Napoleonic and Civil War games, even DBA for all its pedantry is concise and well-balanced (although that particular game goes a bit too far to the right in the balance spectrum IMO) and yet each of these games can satisfy tournament and casual players alike. Why? Because their rules are actually well thought out and written to be concise to avoid ambiguity and the 40k standard of "roll a die for it". There isn't some magical divider (well seemingly outside of 40k) whereby a concise and unambiguous rules set cannot be used for noncompetitive play.

40k is a great game for narrative gaming and campaigns (especially if you have a neutral GM to arbitrate things), and an extremely poor game for anything other than that. Yet as I said above, 40k pretends to be a game that can satisfy all spectrum of gamer, when it really can only appeal to the noncompetitive crowd. And 40k stands alone in this regard - no other game requires such a level of "Here's a bunch of rules, pick what you want to make your game" as 40k does.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?

You wrongly equate "balanced" and "well-written" and "concise" rules with "tournament". Yet mostly every other tabletop miniatures game out there has well-written, concise and for the most part balanced rules that can appeal to both casual and tournament gamers; 40k alone has ambiguous rules, blatantly admits that balance is of little concern and outright gives the finger to competitive gamers as an audience.

It is possible to have both. Just look at, well... virtually any other miniatures game. Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, Kings of War, Hail Caesar, the myriad of Napoleonic and Civil War games, even DBA for all its pedantry is concise and well-balanced (although that particular game goes a bit too far to the right in the balance spectrum IMO) and yet each of these games can satisfy tournament and casual players alike. Why? Because their rules are actually well thought out and written to be concise to avoid ambiguity and the 40k standard of "roll a die for it". There isn't some magical divider (well seemingly outside of 40k) whereby a concise and unambiguous rules set cannot be used for noncompetitive play.

40k is a great game for narrative gaming and campaigns (especially if you have a neutral GM to arbitrate things), and an extremely poor game for anything other than that. Yet as I said above, 40k pretends to be a game that can satisfy all spectrum of gamer, when it really can only appeal to the noncompetitive crowd. And 40k stands alone in this regard - no other game requires such a level of "Here's a bunch of rules, pick what you want to make your game" as 40k does.

Pffftbahahaha! *wipes tears out of eyes* In all seriousness, I get what you are saying but it's horrid even for narrative gaming and campaigns. Not everything works like it should. You say it appeals to the noncompetitive crowd. Thing is, I'm noncompetitive, I play this game with friends and we slap down some of the worst models in the game sometimes. That said, the games are horrid even for us. Certain armies get blatant advantages, some matches become foregone at turn 1. There are so many crazy broken things it breaks one's will and certain styles of play are punished heavily for no reason (try to play a Ksons army or even a Tzeentchian CSM army). We can make our own house rules but there's only so far we can go. We want balanced rules because broken rules mean only one thing to competitive players. It means you get stuck with those lists. Casual players? We'll grab what we love and suffer with them and that's where imbalance shows up the worst.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
I'm not an overly competitive player at 40k so I like the rules. It's always been this kind of game since 2nd edition when I started. It's just about having battles with cool models. It's just not a tournament game! It never was! When will people accept it?

You wrongly equate "balanced" and "well-written" and "concise" rules with "tournament". Yet mostly every other tabletop miniatures game out there has well-written, concise and for the most part balanced rules that can appeal to both casual and tournament gamers; 40k alone has ambiguous rules, blatantly admits that balance is of little concern and outright gives the finger to competitive gamers as an audience.

It is possible to have both. Just look at, well... virtually any other miniatures game. Malifaux, Warmachine, X-Wing, Kings of War, Hail Caesar, the myriad of Napoleonic and Civil War games, even DBA for all its pedantry is concise and well-balanced (although that particular game goes a bit too far to the right in the balance spectrum IMO) and yet each of these games can satisfy tournament and casual players alike. Why? Because their rules are actually well thought out and written to be concise to avoid ambiguity and the 40k standard of "roll a die for it". There isn't some magical divider (well seemingly outside of 40k) whereby a concise and unambiguous rules set cannot be used for noncompetitive play.

40k is a great game for narrative gaming and campaigns (especially if you have a neutral GM to arbitrate things), and an extremely poor game for anything other than that. Yet as I said above, 40k pretends to be a game that can satisfy all spectrum of gamer, when it really can only appeal to the noncompetitive crowd. And 40k stands alone in this regard - no other game requires such a level of "Here's a bunch of rules, pick what you want to make your game" as 40k does.

Fully agreed. I'm a fluffy, casual player and I want better written rules that allow more balanced armies. That would let my fluffy penitent SOB list to put up a fight against most other lists. As it is the fight wouldn't last long enough to be amusing for either party. As a casual player, I want better rules and not the current' "whatever goes" mess we have now.

Played 40k since 1987. Rule set 6.5 (lets be honest about it) does not take care of GW's main problem

The cost of getting into the game.

I want to see new blood entering this hobby.

This rule set + the cards = too expensive for the average player to game.

Reason for the new rule set that has completely went off their 4 year plan?

Money. GW needs the money.

Simple because their customer base is small compared even to 2010 levels.

So have fun playing the game at your home or within your close niche of friends.

I'll go my indie game store that used to have GW players and play X-wing, because that is where the Meta is at.

Have fun storming the glass castle.

Wow! I didn't expect to get such a strong reaction. Nobody HAS to use the overpowered lists you know. If they do, tell them to GTFO. It's pretty simple to me. We have a pretty strong 40k scene here in Canberra, Australia. I have no shortage of opponents and can think of only two guys who play nasty lists (Venom spam, and the guy I ran into today who's Daemons army is now a daemon factory). I don't have to play those guys. And if I end up facing them at an event, it will be an interesting novelty to see what daemon spam is like (it will certainly look impressive). I've played against the venom spam guy before and it wasn't much fun, but since then I got a buch of drop pods, so he won't be staying out of my range anymore!

 Kavish wrote:
Wow! I didn't expect to get such a strong reaction. Nobody HAS to use the overpowered lists you know. If they do, tell them to GTFO. It's pretty simple to me. We have a pretty strong 40k scene here in Canberra, Australia. I have no shortage of opponents and can think of only two guys who play nasty lists (Venom spam, and the guy I ran into today who's Daemons army is now a daemon factory). I don't have to play those guys. And if I end up facing them at an event, it will be an interesting novelty to see what daemon spam is like (it will certainly look impressive). I've played against the venom spam guy before and it wasn't much fun, but since then I got a buch of drop pods, so he won't be staying out of my range anymore!

You're right, nobody has to use overpowered lists, but who's to judge someone if that's the kind of games they enjoy playing/building? Telling them to GTFO isn't any better of an attitude to have than the person playing strong/broken lists.

Turning down a game because of a list isn't so much of a solution as it is a symptom.

Reaction at our FLGS, who've already run one tourney, seems overwhelmingly positive. Surprisingly so. Especially to the more dynamic, fluid nature of the game.