7th edition being this bad is a good thing, in the long run.

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.

**da001**

Happygrunt wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

The point is, that fantasy which is less important for the company tanked and it prompted a redesign. 40k which is much more important to them has the opportunity to do the same, specially after this god awful edition, which is aiming to be the second terrible edition in a row.

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards). The battlefield will change and having an army capable of adapting to the changing environment (or ineptitude of High Command as part of my game turned out to be ) makes the game player better.

Honestly, at first glance, I like 7th more than 6th. There are a few small changes that make the game more interactive, with the psychic phase being a nice addition. Both myself and my opponent took very balanced lists (1k of mechanized IG vs 1k of Death Guard) and we were both interacting with each other during all parts of the game.

I would highly suggest that everyone tires 7th before writing it off as "6th but worse". There are some nice subtle changes that make the game very enjoyable.

I am not sold on the 'tactical cards' thing. How do you create a tactic if your goals are constantly changing? Doesn´t it make the game a completely random fight, with the armies racing from one place to another, and where a lucky card means more than any personal skill?

For the look of it, and saying in advance that I am yet to try it, it seems 7th is like a re-worked 6th. If you liked 6th, 7th is a better edition because it tweaks many little things. People who didn´t like 6th are being quite negative towards 7th, because it doesn´t fix what they think it was needed to be fixed. Also, there are very few changes for only two years and lots of money. Also, most of the background seem to be 100% the same thing we bought two years ago, word by word, and most of the artwork is old.

**Happygrunt**

xxvaderxx wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

And you generate enough that it would mitigate getting a bad card. Both my opponent and I pulled the card that gets you a VP for killing a gun emplacement... in a game with no gun emplacements. You know what we did? We rolled with it. Not everything in a game about dice is in your control and, I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH , battlefield objectives will change. As a commander, and as a player, you will need to be able to adept. Being able to adept to changes on the fly is an important skill.

I am going to make two pretty bold claims that will be gross generalizations, but this thread seems to be all about these, so here I go:

1. Anyone claiming 7th is bad without first trying it for themselves is looking for things to complain about and has no base for their accusations.

2. Anyone complaining about tactical objective cards needs to step back and look at how they play. Gone are the days with armies able to focus on one aspect of the game and still win. Adaptation will be necessary and play styles will change. Balanced armies WILL have an advantage over lopsided ones and that is how it should be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

da001 wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

The point is, that fantasy which is less important for the company tanked and it prompted a redesign. 40k which is much more important to them has the opportunity to do the same, specially after this god awful edition, which is aiming to be the second terrible edition in a row.

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards). The battlefield will change and having an army capable of adapting to the changing environment (or ineptitude of High Command as part of my game turned out to be ) makes the game player better.

Honestly, at first glance, I like 7th more than 6th. There are a few small changes that make the game more interactive, with the psychic phase being a nice addition. Both myself and my opponent took very balanced lists (1k of mechanized IG vs 1k of Death Guard) and we were both interacting with each other during all parts of the game.

I would highly suggest that everyone tires 7th before writing it off as "6th but worse". There are some nice subtle changes that make the game very enjoyable.

I am not sold on the 'tactical cards' thing. How do you create a tactic if your goals are constantly changing? Doesn´t it make the game a completely random fight, with the armies racing from one place to another, and where a lucky card means more than any personal skill?

There are more than enough ways to swap cards out/ discard cards to get rid of things you can't use. Your objectives don't change unless you complete them or discard the card. It's semi-random. I think tactical objectives may be a misleading name; the idea is that you have several small goals that fire-teams should be able to handle on their own as opposed to "Strategic" missions (the six missions from 6th ed) which require the whole army to focus one goal.

**Azreal13**

xxvaderxx wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

I need no evidence other than my own experience. If, in a few weeks, once I've played a few games you see me on here spitting feathers and complaining loudly about how bad 7th is, you are welcome to ask for an apology, but for the time being, I'm going to keep my own counsel and not wail about manufactured problems that have yet to affect me.

**Happygrunt**

xxvaderxx wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

So are you Frankie or Josh in the report? My question still stands; have you actually played the game yet?

**xxvaderxx**

Happygrunt wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

So are you Frankie or Josh in the report? My question still stands; have you actually played the game yet?

Already answered and yes, in fact the psi phase confirmed my suspicions this would be the same garbage fantasy was and the game has degenerated in several changes of getting unfair advantage by the shier luck of rolling the right number in a random roll X, which is not related to how i tactically use the army each turn, aka warlord trait, aka objectives drawn so on and so forth.

And no "house rule everything" is not an option.

**Relapse**

xxvaderxx wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:

That is a very bold claim to make. I am curious, have you, or anyway else making this claim, played the edition yet? Our local group was very happy with it and found that games that would normally be very one-sided ended up being very close (thanks to the tactical cards).

Which are randomly generated, thus you might as well could have flipped a coin and set the game even further in the opposite direction. But that is GWs usual answer to everything, "roll sixes" and now appended "or draw well".

So that would be no?

No it would not be a NO.

But since you need something on the record, here is a vid of someone starting at 1850 summoning demons up to 4k total points and getting screwed by random objective cards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMAAP6HWfw

I tried watching it, but couldn't force myself to get through a couple of minutes. Too much yelling and shaky camera work. Maybe I'll try later, skipping through the thing.

**BoomWolf**

You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

**Kain**

BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Did I NOT tell you that this HABIT of CAPITALIZING RANDOM WORDS is a pain to READ as this helpful EXAGGERATION of your typing QUIRKS should DEMONSTRATE?

**The Home Nuggeteer**

Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

**xxvaderxx**

BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Dude, heralds are anecdotal, you can use any caster that can summon them and spam horrors.

**The Home Nuggeteer**

I personally liked sixth(my first edition) and love 7th. I am just a casual gamer though.

**dresnar1**

BoomWolf wrote:
So....you have no clue what-so-ever how any of it works, and based on the fact you know there is a random element of cards, and that alone, in an OPTIONAL ALTERNATE GAME MODE, you conclude that 7th edition is terrible and in effect a dumbed down 6th.

You sir, need to get off our hobby, you just spoil our fun.

You sir need to stop being a GW apologist. Your basicly saying that even more randomness in the game is somehow making the game better? Really?

Why not just play the cards and call it a day if that is what decides the game?

Here is what is going on. Strategy doesn't dictate the outcome of a game, draws do. The vast majority of players play 40k for its strategic play. Strategic play has been on the decline since 5th. 7th removes what very little strategic play was left. If you enjoy 40k now you are a person that enjoys a good game of paper/rock/scissors over chess.

**xxvaderxx**

The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

To be honest i dont give a crap about JJ, i doubt he calls the shots design wise any way, marketing comes to him, and he does what ever to accommodate them.

**MWHistorian**

Happygrunt wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
Happygrunt wrote:

I am going to make two pretty bold claims that will be gross generalizations, but this thread seems to be all about these, so here I go:

1. Anyone claiming 7th is bad without first trying it for themselves is looking for things to complain about and has no base for their accusations.

2. Anyone complaining about tactical objective cards needs to step back and look at how they play. Gone are the days with armies able to focus on one aspect of the game and still win. Adaptation will be necessary and play styles will change. Balanced armies WILL have an advantage over lopsided ones and that is how it should be.

l.

1. I can argue with. I'm not looking for things to complain, But when I see something I don't like, I don't try to white wash it. I love 40k and want it to get better, but in my opinion of what I think is fun, it's getting worse.

2. You may be right. I haven't tried it. The objective cards may in fact be good, but unfortunately they're not the reason I'm not buying into 7th. That's more to do with the fact that they're not even hiding that its just a cash grab, they're destroying the fluff with armies that have no business being together, loyalist summoning demons, escalation in the main rules, unbound crap and not fixing what was wrong with 6th.

I actually liked 6th. I thought it was the codexes that were mostly at fault. I was hoping that GW would look at the complaints and fix them. Instead they just added random things that have nothing to do with what was driving people away.

**Azreal13**

The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

I disagree with the use of the word hate in almost every context it is used in in this board, but if you don't like the direction 40K has gone in latterly, you read any of his articles in WD or generally have a perspective on the game that extends back more than 6 years or so, when there were other people that also had a strong influence in development, it is very easy to attribute a lot of that which is unpopular to JJ's attitude to how he thinks the game should be played, and a substantial disconnect between that attitude and how many people outside of Lenton think it should.

**dresnar1**

azreal13 wrote:
The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Murdius Maximus wrote:
You know JJ might be an actual person. So easy to hate and revile someone on a forum. Yes his rules may not be the most effective, but you can still play the game can't you? If a discrepancy arises and you can't solve it with your opponent then he is not the only one to blame. I'm not excusing the issues, but it is very tiring to see people hate so hard and be downright awful and know nothing of the guy. He probably has a family to feed, and just just because he is the head doesn't mean he doesn't answer to someone. Hate the company policy not the people.

From what I understand they don't hate him, they hate the fact that from what they think, he doesn't do his job right. Kind of like how there are always people that hate the president or prime minister(david Cameron is really cool) as they feel they don't do their jobs right.

I disagree with the use of the word hate in almost every context it is used in in this board, but if you don't like the direction 40K has gone in latterly, you read any of his articles in WD or generally have a perspective on the game that extends back more than 6 years or so, when there were other people that also had a strong influence in development, it is very easy to attribute a lot of that which is unpopular to JJ's attitude to how he thinks the game should be played, and a substantial disconnect between that attitude and how many people outside of Lenton think it should.

Who said anything about Jervis Jhonsons family? What does Jervis Jhonson's family have to do the quality of the rules he puts out?

There is a lot we know about Jervis Jhonson from the volume of articles he has put out giving a fairly definitive amount of information on his theory of game design. Jervis has been quite clear that he prefers games with random outcomes, Jervis loves random charts, Jervis prefers games ran by a Games Master. In his tenure as head of the rules department he coined the phrase "forge a narrative" and he has used that phrase to as an excuse for an increasingly unbalanced gaming system.

Jervis Jhonson fails to grasp one very simple point. You can "forge a narrative", play games with Dungeon Masters, have house rules with friends and still have a balanced, well thought out, minimal loop hole, often FAQ'D, rule set. It seems that Jervis is incapable of understanding that a competent rule set can still allow for they types of games he prefers.

Jervis Jhonson is horrible at his job. No one said he is horrible to his family, or his pets, or his neighbors. Nothing about Jervis Jhonsons' personal life has been stated by anyone. The only thing that has been said is that he is terrible at creating a competent set of rules. I'd go so far as to say my little sister, who doesn't even the play the game, could do a better job than Jervis Jhonson.

I don't understand GW at all. Since Jervis's tenure the company has continued to lose market share. They still allow him to pump out his drivel. Fire this guy already. My best wishes to him family though, just to be clear about that.

**BoomWolf**

xxvaderxx wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Dude, heralds are anecdotal, you can use any caster that can summon them and spam horrors.

The are "anecdotal" yet every single "daemon spawn farm" seems to rely solely on them doing the summoning, with no proof on reason to assume they can even try for summoning powers.
If you want to get it done though daemon princes (the one daemon codex unit that will have these powers for sure, probably some, or all, of the god-spesific big deamons too), meaning you are using a model of 230+ points (depending on daemon type) for every attempt to summon, and it eats an HQ slot each, and if you do peril, its the big, and few, guys that go down.

And the pink horrors that will likely fuel them will do noting except generate warp charges, meaning their 90-180 points are also sank into the summoning, so each "summon", to get 6-8 dice, will eat up over 300 points that do nothing else. is that that bad? is it all that different from tervigons?

dresnar1 wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
So....you have no clue what-so-ever how any of it works, and based on the fact you know there is a random element of cards, and that alone, in an OPTIONAL ALTERNATE GAME MODE, you conclude that 7th edition is terrible and in effect a dumbed down 6th.

You sir, need to get off our hobby, you just spoil our fun.

You sir need to stop being a GW apologist. Your basicly saying that even more randomness in the game is somehow making the game better? Really?

Why not just play the cards and call it a day if that is what decides the game?

Here is what is going on. Strategy doesn't dictate the outcome of a game, draws do. The vast majority of players play 40k for its strategic play. Strategic play has been on the decline since 5th. 7th removes what very little strategic play was left. If you enjoy 40k now you are a person that enjoys a good game of paper/rock/scissors over chess.

I am not GW apologist, i'm a 40k player that is having fun, and your attitude towards the game makes me have more fun if you just stop being a part of it.

I'm basically saying that it is an OPTION you dont even have to play with! the "regular" missions are still there, to be played, and the card-based ones are an alternative, if you don't like it, DONT FREAKING PLAY IT.
And yes, randomness IS a part of gaming. how much, when and where is a delicate matter of balance, and each game needs his own amount.
Do you want no randomness at all? lets remove dice rolling then? randomness are a part of this game, for better or worse. and random objective is a thing that many games do, and do it well, because once the objectives are stale, the game gets stale, and if you cant be sure about the objectives-you prepare yourself to all of them, or make calculated choices of what to focus, and what to ignore.

Now, if you bothered noticing that the objectives are placed before choosing sides, meaning that most of them will be mid-field, and that most cards refer directly to objectives, and the others are based on an action you yourself do, rather then the enemy, you would notice that once you get your cards you can thinker how to use them, how to get them to work for you, and how to deny your opponent of using his. they are all achievable, and make you think on-the-fly rather then plan ahead, and thats another type of game that is also quite fun for many of us, myself included.
Though if you do not enjoy planning on the fly, you can stick to armies that do not get random abilities (necrons, tau, sisters, anyone not running spykers are completely expectable) and playing missions that do not have as much random factors (eternal war, the 6th edition ones), while those of us that do enjoy it go with changing objectives, throwing altar of war on each other, and generally creating a mess of things (as war should be-a bloody mess where nothing is predictable)

Seriously, how can someone bitch so much because he was given additional options he may or may not play with, as he chooses.

**Kain**

The intent is to convince people to stop feeding GW's bad habits with money so they either change their bad habits or die out like a company that mistreats it's customers should. If it's making you want to play the game less then it's working.

**BoomWolf**

Its not making me want to play any less, I enjoy the game.

I just wish your type were not a part of it, as your attitude is harmful for gaming in general, not just 40k.
I would not want guys with this attitude in my Game of Thrones games, my battlestar galactica games, my munchkin, MTG, LoL, plantside, civilization, PoE or any other game in existence for that matter.

**Kain**

BoomWolf wrote:
Its not making me want to play any less, I enjoy the game.

I just wish your type were not a part of it, as your attitude is harmful for gaming in general, not just 40k.
I would not want guys with this attitude in my Game of Thrones games, my battlestar galactica games, my munchkin, MTG, LoL, plantside, civilization, PoE or any other game in existence for that matter.

What's that phrase the Americans have? "The Customer is always right?" If there is substantial customer dissatisfaction, then the Company is doing something wrong and should change course, or it should suffer, perhaps even die if the dissatisfaction is sufficient.

Entertainment businesses exist purely to profit via pleasing the masses. If they do not please the masses, they do not deserve to profit.

**BoomWolf**

Except that they do not please you personally, and you see it as a good reason to try to ruin it for people that are pleased, and that's being a douche.

**loki old fart**

BoomWolf wrote:
Its not making me want to play any less, I enjoy the game.

I just wish your type were not a part of it, as your attitude is harmful for gaming in general, not just 40k.
I would not want guys with this attitude in my Game of Thrones games, my battlestar galactica games, my munchkin, MTG, LoL, plantside, civilization, PoE or any other game in existence for that matter.

Please stop assigning people to groups. Definitely stop telling them to quit gaming.
If the thread upsets you so much, walk away from it for a while.

**dresnar1**

BoomWolf wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
You ARE aware that the entire "super summon" list is based around the fact heralds can get daemology, and there is no basis for that "fact".
Heralds don't have EVERY power demon armies got, they got very specific ones. in case of tzench-divination and tzench.

Dude, heralds are anecdotal, you can use any caster that can summon them and spam horrors.

The are "anecdotal" yet every single "daemon spawn farm" seems to rely solely on them doing the summoning, with no proof on reason to assume they can even try for summoning powers.
If you want to get it done though daemon princes (the one daemon codex unit that will have these powers for sure, probably some, or all, of the god-spesific big deamons too), meaning you are using a model of 230+ points (depending on daemon type) for every attempt to summon, and it eats an HQ slot each, and if you do peril, its the big, and few, guys that go down.

And the pink horrors that will likely fuel them will do noting except generate warp charges, meaning their 90-180 points are also sank into the summoning, so each "summon", to get 6-8 dice, will eat up over 300 points that do nothing else. is that that bad? is it all that different from tervigons?

dresnar1 wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
So....you have no clue what-so-ever how any of it works, and based on the fact you know there is a random element of cards, and that alone, in an OPTIONAL ALTERNATE GAME MODE, you conclude that 7th edition is terrible and in effect a dumbed down 6th.

You sir, need to get off our hobby, you just spoil our fun.

You sir need to stop being a GW apologist. Your basicly saying that even more randomness in the game is somehow making the game better? Really?

Why not just play the cards and call it a day if that is what decides the game?

Here is what is going on. Strategy doesn't dictate the outcome of a game, draws do. The vast majority of players play 40k for its strategic play. Strategic play has been on the decline since 5th. 7th removes what very little strategic play was left. If you enjoy 40k now you are a person that enjoys a good game of paper/rock/scissors over chess.

I am not GW apologist, i'm a 40k player that is having fun, and your attitude towards the game makes me have more fun if you just stop being a part of it.

I'm basically saying that it is an OPTION you dont even have to play with! the "regular" missions are still there, to be played, and the card-based ones are an alternative, if you don't like it, DONT FREAKING PLAY IT.
And yes, randomness IS a part of gaming. how much, when and where is a delicate matter of balance, and each game needs his own amount.
Do you want no randomness at all? lets remove dice rolling then? randomness are a part of this game, for better or worse. and random objective is a thing that many games do, and do it well, because once the objectives are stale, the game gets stale, and if you cant be sure about the objectives-you prepare yourself to all of them, or make calculated choices of what to focus, and what to ignore.

Now, if you bothered noticing that the objectives are placed before choosing sides, meaning that most of them will be mid-field, and that most cards refer directly to objectives, and the others are based on an action you yourself do, rather then the enemy, you would notice that once you get your cards you can thinker how to use them, how to get them to work for you, and how to deny your opponent of using his. they are all achievable, and make you think on-the-fly rather then plan ahead, and thats another type of game that is also quite fun for many of us, myself included.
Though if you do not enjoy planning on the fly, you can stick to armies that do not get random abilities (necrons, tau, sisters, anyone not running spykers are completely expectable) and playing missions that do not have as much random factors (eternal war, the 6th edition ones), while those of us that do enjoy it go with changing objectives, throwing altar of war on each other, and generally creating a mess of things (as war should be-a bloody mess where nothing is predictable)

Seriously, how can someone bitch so much because he was given additional options he may or may not play with, as he chooses.

I'm a tournament player. I like to win using strategy.

You seem to be a person more in line with Jervis Jhonsons game design theory. I see the rules as being a part of the game to reduce player division. You seem to believe you can just work everything out in an endless stream of casual games where each player some how agrees with each other which rules to follow and which to ignore. For you if a player wants to play unbound and you don't then its K cause you don't have to play them. I'm a person that feels that dividing a dwindling player base is a bad thing. Your a player that is K with running out and buying 80 demons because of new broken rules intended to make you do just that. I'm a player that sees a cash grab for what it is. You're a GW apologist. I'm calling a spade a spade.

You will have more fun if I don't play the game? Me playing or not playing should have very little impact on your enjoyment of the game. However, you should care if I quit. The player base is dwindling for 40 k and has been for some time. If I, a die hard fan of over 20 years, quit how many others like me will do the same? How soon till you show up to play a game and can't find anyone playing the game you want to play, further exacerbated by you finding an individual willing to make changes to the rules you agree with?

No one is saying get rid of randomness. We are saying randomness shouldn't be the primary source for a win. Dice rolling isn't about randomness, it's about playing the odds. Good playes make decisions on those odds when moving their units. Often tipping the odds in their favor incase of undesirable outcomes. Drawing cards from a deck is random with no counter strategy to good or bad luck.

**Kain**

BoomWolf wrote:
Except that they do not please you personally, and you see it as a good reason to try to ruin it for people that are pleased, and that's being a douche.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

And I'm far from the only person who thinks that Jervis and co are making mistake after mistake.

**BoomWolf**

"The truth"? its a game, there isn't right and wrong here as its a matter of personal preference!
I refuse to believe you really believe think everyone has the same tastes.
Is he making mistake after mistake? not really. he has great ideas, he's only rather bad at polishing them. he just needs someone to take his ideas, and properly polish them.

Edited for rudeness - MT11

dresnar1-as said, the "altar of war" is still an option, so why rage about the fact there is another one too?
And all this "play MY way attitude" is the issue, not the fact there are multiple options.
I am play a bound army, I prefer to have a "hold no bars" type of game where everything is kosher and that I can throw altar of war in, mess around with the card objectives and all that-but I have no problem played against an unbound army, or stick to eternal war missions if that's more comfortable for the opponent.
A game is not a job, its a social interaction meant for fun, part of it means that you need to reach mutual agreements on some basic things, like what game do you play to begin with-and you can see it in any game.

lets look at MTG for example. we got the "standard", "extended", "EDH", "commander", "archnemesis", "FFA", "THG", "empror" and tons of other list-restriction types, or alternate mods that throw the "normal" pacing of the game to the wind, you can even combine several game types at once to create new types (emperor archnemesis, extended FFA, EDH standard....) and it WORKS.

Munchkin? there are a bazillion expansions with various degrees of matching between theme, you will usually play one of them, but even then you need to choose what version, and may players mix and match versions (apocalypse+cothulu, space+axe cop, bits+basic, any other combo you can come up with), play a game where even the rules don't quite stay the same, and everyone has a blast.

You know why? because there are basic rules for the "basic, hold no bars" type of game, and from there on each pair or group chooses what direction they want to play, based on personal preferences and tastes. there is NO reason why 40k shouldn't be the same, where you have the "generic-everything is on" style, and from there on every specific game is set to the constrains that fits the players.
How HARD can it be to reach a simple agreement over a game?

And when it comes to tournaments-they all make up their own missions and rules ANYWAY. in EVERY game. only the most solid of games that have no options what-so-ever play by strict base rules, as that's all there is. each turny only needs to define itself as "this is a X type turny" or "this is a Y type turny", and players will go to the ones they like, knowing what the expect in each one.
And even going to one that is not your usual game type can be alot of fun, you won't bring your usual list (or maybe you will, as it includes your usual plus extras), and you won't fight your usual opponents-but its OK, because you KNEW that's the kind of turny it is.

The first rule of gaming people-its a game.

**George L.**

out if interest, how many of you have actually played 7th before deciding it sucks. Personally Im ot iterested in 40k anymore, 6th kinda killed it for me but people could atleast give it a chance.

On the flipside, if 7th sucks we might get some new blood on the warmachine scene

**dresnar1**

BoomWolf wrote:
"The truth"? its a game you smartass, there isn't right and wrong here as its a matter of personal preference!
I refuse to believe you are actually stupid enough to think everyone has the same tastes.
Is he making mistake after mistake? not really. he has great ideas, he's only rather bad at polishing them. he just needs someone to take his ideas, and properly polish them.

dresnar1-as said, the "altar of war" is still an option, so why rage about the fact there is another one too?
And all this "play MY way attitude" is the issue, not the fact there are multiple options.
I am play a bound army, I prefer to have a "hold no bars" type of game where everything is kosher and that I can throw altar of war in, mess around with the card objectives and all that-but I have no problem played against an unbound army, or stick to eternal war missions if that's more comfortable for the opponent.
A game is not a job, its a social interaction meant for fun, part of it means that you need to reach mutual agreements on some basic things, like what game do you play to begin with-and you can see it in any game.

lets look at MTG for example. we got the "standard", "extended", "EDH", "commander", "archnemesis", "FFA", "THG", "empror" and tons of other list-restriction types, or alternate mods that throw the "normal" pacing of the game to the wind, you can even combine several game types at once to create new types (emperor archnemesis, extended FFA, EDH standard....) and it WORKS.

Munchkin? there are a bazillion expansions with various degrees of matching between theme, you will usually play one of them, but even then you need to choose what version, and may players mix and match versions (apocalypse+cothulu, space+axe cop, bits+basic, any other combo you can come up with), play a game where even the rules don't quite stay the same, and everyone has a blast.

You know why? because there are basic rules for the "basic, hold no bars" type of game, and from there on each pair or group chooses what direction they want to play, based on personal preferences and tastes. there is NO reason why 40k shouldn't be the same, where you have the "generic-everything is on" style, and from there on every specific game is set to the constrains that fits the players.
How HARD can it be to reach a simple agreement over a game?

And when it comes to tournaments-they all make up their own missions and rules ANYWAY. in EVERY game. only the most solid of games that have no options what-so-ever play by strict base rules, as that's all there is. each turny only needs to define itself as "this is a X type turny" or "this is a Y type turny", and players will go to the ones they like, knowing what the expect in each one.
And even going to one that is not your usual game type can be alot of fun, you won't bring your usual list (or maybe you will, as it includes your usual plus extras), and you won't fight your usual opponents-but its OK, because you KNEW that's the kind of turny it is.

The first rule of gaming people-its a game.

Sorry man, if the rules aren't good it's not a good game. Here are the problems:

a.These rules aren't good.

b. It's a obvious cash grab.

For A there is no excuse. Jervis Jhonson sucks and needs to go.

For B the company has no respect for its customers. The game isn't for games by gamers. We are all a bottom line, once the game implodes the golden parachutes come out and were left holding the malformed bag.

**BoomWolf**

A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

B-its a company, everything they DO is a cash grab, and an obvious and admitted one, just like every other company on the planet, including every other game maker.

JJ needs to go? maybe. maybe not. he's not doing a spectacular job, but not a horrid one either.

And "The game isn't for games by gamers", seriously? do you think there is ANY game that fit that description out there?

EDIT for the second part you added during me writing:

If the cards are your problem, play the regular missions rather then the alternates, as said a million times. stop complaining about something that is not in the core of the game.

And warmachine is exactly the same in that aspect, except too small yet for people to notice it and deconstruct as quickly. if you believe otherwise you are misguided. (heck, they started the "giant models are awesome" theme already!)

**dresnar1**

George L. wrote:
out if interest, how many of you have actually played 7th before deciding it sucks. Personally Im ot iterested in 40k anymore, 6th kinda killed it for me but people could atleast give it a chance.

On the flipside, if 7th sucks we might get some new blood on the warmachine scene

Played yesterday. I rolled my eyes so many times I sprained one of them. The game made me cross eyed (till it heals). I'm considering suing. Anything as bad as 7th should come with a warning label.

On another note a 11 year old beat the store owner who is quite good. He just drew the right cards and won. Nice eh!

I primarily play Warmachine. Awesome game. Hope to see more people that prefer strategy games to leave the listbuilding/exploit/random win game that 40k has turned into.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BoomWolf wrote:
A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

B-its a company, everything they DO is a cash grab, and an obvious and admitted one, just like every other company on the planet, including every other game maker.

JJ needs to go? maybe. maybe not. he's not doing a spectacular job, but not a horrid one either.

And "The game isn't for games by gamers", seriously? do you think there is ANY game that fit that description out there?

Uhhhh yeah? Have you not payed attention to what is gobbeling up GW's market share? If Jervis Jhonson payed attention to what the players wanted he wouldn't have put out this edition.

You want to meet the President of Privateer Press? Go to some of their big tournaments and go ahead and play him in a game.

Edited for rudeness, do not use that word please. - MT11

**Kyutaru**

BoomWolf wrote:
A-what exactly is so bad about the 7th edition rules? except the "demon factory" that is based on pure assumptions that brake the current structure of the daemon codex to even allow it?

We are still referring to the same rulebook, right? Forget playing the game, have you guys even read the book yet?

"Unless otherwise noted, all Psykers, other than those belonging in the Tyranids Faction (p.118) can generate powers from the Daemonology Discipline"

"Psykers with the Daemon special rule can manifest Malefic powers as they would any other psychic power, but they cannot generate Sanctic powers at all.
All other Psykers that attempt to manifest Malefic powers suffer Perils of the Warp (p.25) on a Psychic test that includes any double, whether the Psychic test was successful or not."

Nothing forbids a Herald from taking the Daemonology powers so they fall into the category demanded by this new discipline that "everyone" gets to use it.

Except Tyranids because feth those guys.