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.
You'll change your mind when you fight your first daemon factory list or see a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list.
If you still like it afterwards, sure, whatever floats your boat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/25 19:06:27
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Whether you like something or not is always purely subjective.
Same with 40k. What do you want from 40k? You, for example, are a strictly casual player and for those, the changes aren't half as bad. Maelstrom might certainly be a lot of fun if you like randomness.
If playing in a competitive meta, 7th introduced some smaller good changes but also introduced terrible new things such as Unbound or multiple FOC allowance. Those have to be carefully looked into and, if necessary, be sorted out via a competitive ruleset.
If you like 7th, that's good for you, it's your game after all
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Changes rock, and the maelstrom of war missions rule. I'm glad the sky never fell.
Good thing i took all that salt!
I think it depends on what you mean by "the sky never fell." For some people it did. It was enough to make them quit 40k or at least skip out on this edition. That means less players and less profit for GW which its shareholders won't like.
The sky didn't fall all at once, but no one said it would. Rome didn't fall in a day.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
I'm not buying the rules either as I don't want to support a blatant rushed rip-off, but I will play games with 7th rules. I am a competitive dude but 7th is terrible in that regard and since I also am a ref, we will have quite a few rule councils coming up to balance 7th out. Until then, all tournaments will strictly use 6th rules.
On the other hand, I am a player with friends who just want to play 40k while having a drink. 7th might just do that. Objective cards, Unbound etc. is totally random and takes pretty much all skill out of the game. Which is good for some people. Why not? Randomness can be fun. Yahtzee is fun too
It's only fun, though, because I know the guys and nobody of us will bring donkey-cave lists like Riptide or mass summoning spam.
Going into a store to play random people (PUGs) will be horror with 7th.
dresnar1 wrote: 7th is the worst edition of 40k ever. No, not loving it.
Fire Jervis Jhonson.
Enough is enough.
I agree with firing Jervis.
- Edited by insaniak. Dakka's rule #1 applies to everyone, even people who work for GW -
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/26 01:43:50
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Sigvatr wrote: I'm not buying the rules either as I don't want to support a blatant rushed rip-off, but I will play games with 7th rules. I am a competitive dude but 7th is terrible in that regard and since I also am a ref, we will have quite a few rule councils coming up to balance 7th out. Until then, all tournaments will strictly use 6th rules.
really 7th edition didn't make a whole lot of changes. the only big differance from 6th to 7th is the psykic phase, unbound armies and the two new psykic disiplines.
that's easy eneugh to handle really.
disallow unbound, and maelfic deamonic powers and you've really removed the only potential trouble spots
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Sigvatr wrote: I'm not buying the rules either as I don't want to support a blatant rushed rip-off, but I will play games with 7th rules. I am a competitive dude but 7th is terrible in that regard and since I also am a ref, we will have quite a few rule councils coming up to balance 7th out. Until then, all tournaments will strictly use 6th rules.
really 7th edition didn't make a whole lot of changes. the only big differance from 6th to 7th is the psykic phase, unbound armies and the two new psykic disiplines.
that's easy eneugh to handle really.
disallow unbound, and maelfic deamonic powers and you've really removed the only potential trouble spots
Precisely!
What bothers us, however, is - if you remove those changes, what exactly does 7th bring to the table? It would be 6th with a few FAQ-ish updates. That is what angers us. 7th is a blatant, rushed rip-off.
Kain wrote: You'll change your mind when you fight your first daemon factory list or see a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list.
This is differnt from 6th edition how exactly?
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Kain wrote: You'll change your mind when you fight your first daemon factory list or see a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list.
This is differnt from 6th edition how exactly?
Oh I thought 6e was a crock load of gak with it's wave serpent spam, screamerstars, and reaver titans invalidating entire armies.
7e is simply shifting the bs around build wise.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
Daemon factory is an invented list that we have no reason to assume is even legal (not every daemon psyker gets every table daemons as a whole has, no reason to belive heralds will have daemology)
As for " a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list. ", what's exacly the problem here?
I'd love to play against that.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
Sigvatr wrote: I'm not buying the rules either as I don't want to support a blatant rushed rip-off, but I will play games with 7th rules. I am a competitive dude but 7th is terrible in that regard and since I also am a ref, we will have quite a few rule councils coming up to balance 7th out. Until then, all tournaments will strictly use 6th rules.
really 7th edition didn't make a whole lot of changes. the only big differance from 6th to 7th is the psykic phase, unbound armies and the two new psykic disiplines.
that's easy eneugh to handle really.
disallow unbound, and maelfic deamonic powers and you've really removed the only potential trouble spots
Precisely!
What bothers us, however, is - if you remove those changes, what exactly does 7th bring to the table? It would be 6th with a few FAQ-ish updates. That is what angers us. 7th is a blatant, rushed rip-off.
it also explictly brings super heavies mainstream. something GW's clearly been pushing for awhile now.
A part of me is half expecting to see the gorkonought be a super heavy on par with the Knight
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
BoomWolf wrote: Daemon factory is an invented list that we have no reason to assume is even legal (not every daemon psyker gets every table daemons as a whole has, no reason to belive heralds will have daemology)
As for " a mishappen monstrosity of an Imperial Army across the table with Knights, Inquisitors, Grey Knights, and Guardsmen all in the same list. ", what's exacly the problem here? I'd love to play against that.
Given the current GW design team it is always best to assume the worst out of anything they produce rules wise.
And it's a mishappen monstrosity because it's essentially taking a dump on the long abused FOC. Back when allies were fist announced I was actually supportive, recalling the old days of allies in the past, I even liked dual FOC at 2k points. But then they started cramming in all these special detachments and add ons (almost all of them Imperial exclusive) and then said you can have as many FOCs as you can pay for.
At this point, what the hell is the point in the FoC?
Why even have different codexes for Imperial armies and not just lump them all together into a single doorstopper book?
- Edited by insaniak. Dakka's rule #1 applies to everyone, even people who work for GW -
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/26 01:42:29
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
What bothers us, however, is - if you remove those changes, what exactly does 7th bring to the table? It would be 6th with a few FAQ-ish updates. That is what angers us. 7th is a blatant, rushed rip-off.
Every edition since 3rd has been about iterative changes from the previous edition. The core way the game works (the characteristics table, how models move, shoot, fight in combat) hasn't changed much. Basically GW changes the curtain every few years and keeps the same ugly window.
As far as the core rules go they're fine. There really isn't any major issues in the core rules. The issue is in the codexes. Daemon factory being the only possible exception, but that exception still had to deal with the same reduced odds of getting powers off that everyone else does. To borrow Torrent of Fire's math on this:
Chance of Perils of the Warp: 5.5%
Now, some 7th edition odds.
We will assume an infinite dice pool to get a range of probabilities, which you can adjust based on the ML+d6 that you have available each round. Probabilities for WC1, 2, and 3. There are no 4s that we know of.
Chance of successful cast for a 1 Warp Charge spell:
So what does it all mean? Well, a few things. Previously, a Ld 10 Psyker had a 91.67% chance of successfully casting any power they are able. Now, in order to do so, you’ll need to throw 4d6 for a WC1, 7d6 for a WC2, or 9d6 for a WC3 to remain at or around the same level of success. That is a lot of dice, and that means a MUCH higher chance for perils: 6th edition was 5.5%, while on 4d6 you’re at 13.19%, 7d6 is 33.02%, and 9d6 is 45.73%!
Furthermore, all that nonsense about Invisibility being 6 shades of broken all of a sudden are two years too slow. That power remains exactly the same as it did then. Why didn't we notice it? Puppet Master and Divination. 7th didn't make it more broken, it just took away one of the toys we were used to playing with and we suddenly noticed something we hadn't been paying attention to that was staring us in the face the entire time.
As I said, the core mechanics of 7th are serviceable, and on their own are okay. The issue I see isn't with 7th, it's with the codexes that need some beating into submission through FAQs and Erattas to make them fit this new edition and address some of our concerns with them (I'm looking at you Wave Serpents).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/25 20:12:32
What bothers us, however, is - if you remove those changes, what exactly does 7th bring to the table? It would be 6th with a few FAQ-ish updates. That is what angers us. 7th is a blatant, rushed rip-off.
Every edition since 3rd has been about iterative changes from the previous edition. The core way the game works (the characteristics table, how models move, shoot, fight in combat) hasn't changed much. Basically GW changes the curtain every few years and keeps the same ugly window.
As far as the core rules go they're fine. There really isn't any major issues in the core rules. The issue is in the codexes. Daemon factory being the only possible exception, but that exception still had to deal with the same reduced odds of getting powers off that everyone else does. To borrow Torrent of Fire's math on this:
Chance of Perils of the Warp: 5.5%
Now, some 7th edition odds.
We will assume an infinite dice pool to get a range of probabilities, which you can adjust based on the ML+d6 that you have available each round. Probabilities for WC1, 2, and 3. There are no 4s that we know of.
Chance of successful cast for a 1 Warp Charge spell:
So what does it all mean? Well, a few things. Previously, a Ld 10 Psyker had a 91.67% chance of successfully casting any power they are able. Now, in order to do so, you’ll need to throw 4d6 for a WC1, 7d6 for a WC2, or 9d6 for a WC3 to remain at or around the same level of success. That is a lot of dice, and that means a MUCH higher chance for perils: 6th edition was 5.5%, while on 4d6 you’re at 13.19%, 7d6 is 33.02%, and 9d6 is 45.73%!
Furthermore, all that nonsense about Invisibility being 6 shades of broken all of a sudden are two years too slow. That power remains exactly the same as it did then. Why didn't we notice it? Puppet Master and Divination. 7th didn't make it more broken, it just took away one of the toys we were used to playing with and we suddenly noticed something we hadn't been paying attention to that was staring us in the face the entire time.
As I said, the core mechanics of 7th are serviceable, and on their own are okay. The issue I see isn't with 7th, it's with the codexes that need some beating into submission through FAQs and Erattas to make them fit this new edition and address some of our concerns with them (I'm looking at you Wave Serpents).
Invisibility was changed to forcing snap shots (thus meaning you're not allowed to fire blasts at it) and you only ever getting to hit an invisible unit on a 6 in assault.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
it also explictly brings super heavies mainstream. something GW's clearly been pushing for awhile now.
A part of me is half expecting to see the gorkonought be a super heavy on par with the Knight
Escalation was released in 6th and made superheavies a core part of the game
Something the Knight codex put the final nail in the coffin in the arguments that Super Heavies not being a part of the core game too. 7th just out a nail in the coffin that Stronghold Assualt isn't part of the core game as well by having it be the only way to take fortifications for your army.
Codex: Fortifications is a go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kain wrote: Invisibility was changed to forcing snap shots (thus meaning you're not allowed to fire blasts at it) and you only ever getting to hit an invisible unit on a 6 in assault.
Sorry, you're right it did change a little. Before it was Stealth, Shrouded and if you were fighting in close combat against an invisible opponent you were WS1.
Basically it's immune to Ignores Cover, immune to blasts (though I feel Blasts really should be allowed to snap fire, just not Overwatch) now, and slightly harder to hit if you're punching them, but on the flipside you have a chance to deny them as well. And the powers in general are harder to cast and easier to perils on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/25 20:18:49
I think the reason some people are upset with 40k lately is because the game has been taken too seriously. It says in the book, "it's just a game, you're free to play how you want, these are just guidelines", but so many people are used to the less than stellar wargaming communities in many areas that they are on the lookout for rules lawyer WAAC players who run netlists.
I suspect GW is trying to do two things:
1) sell models, obviously
2) shift the paradigm from games of "super strict RAW interpretations" to "loosely played games where fun is most important", i.e., they are trying to make 40k more like pnp games like Dungeons and Dragons in this sense
In D&D, the rules aren't something anybody typically spends time arguing over, in decent groups anyway. The goal of the game is to have fun, so that every single game of D&D is houseruled to some extent. Of course the difference between D&D and 40k in this context is that 40k actually has a clear winner, but I would like to see a shift in 40k where this kind of play is normal. Instead of going by the book Judge Dredd style, both players agree on certain houserules if necessary. The problem is that 40k players aren't nearly as open to houseruling as roleplayers.
Am I excusing GW for writing crap rules? No, games are always better with well-written rules. But I think a more casual approach to the rules would save several people a lot of butthurt.
Now that I have realized this, I care a lot less about 7th edition making assault suck, because everybody and their grandmother knows that assault sucks, so before the game is started you can just houserule assault to suck less. Experiment with things, make up stuff, see what works, and most importantly have fun. This really hurts those who only play pickup games, which honestly are most of my games, but with time I hope more people stop being so anal about technicalities in the game.
“Idleness is the enemy of the soul; and therefore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout reading.”
― St. Benedict of Nursia, The Rule of Saint Benedict
The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers
2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
The Mendicants Polaris, Chaos Warband, Deviant Sect of Word Bearers 