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 wanted to write this post in response to the large number of threads proposing modifications to 7th edition for both casual and tournament play.
Most of the threads written thus far take issue with the following changes to army list composition and the Psychic Phase:
- Malefic Daemonology (Specifically the Primaris power)
- No caps on the number of warp charge dice an army can provide
- Unbound army construction
- Multiple detachments in Battle Forged armies
- "Come The Apocalypse" allies
All of these new additions to the rules shakes up the paradigm considerably, to the point that there are now numerous ways to destroy a list constructed with the 6th edition force-org chart in mind, even in its most expanded form.
However, this is the issue that I have seen with every thread and complaint to date. They are still operating under the 6th edition paradigm and do not take into consideration the fact that we are now in a new phase of the game, with entirely new methods of constructing play. I will offer a brief analogy first, and then dive into what I feel we as players need to consider and embrace if we are to continue enjoying Warhammer 40,000 for the rest of this edition and beyond.
For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
In most ways, Warhammer 40,000 plays very similarly on the tabletop to how it has been played since 3rd edition. The Psychic Phase is the only major shake-up in this regard, with most other rules changes being refinements more than anything. If you had a solid handle on the mechanics of the game in 6th edition, you still have a solid grasp on them in 7th. However, there are new threats to face and new tools to face them.
Let's just take a look at Malefic Daemonology and Summoning as an example, with the most "broken" of said summoning lists, Tzeentch Daemons. From the perspective of a 6th edition army constrained by one force-org chart (now called "combined arms"), this is indeed a very difficult army to face. However, limiting yourself to army construction in that way is not what 7th edition is about. Unlike 6th, where massively bolstering the force-org chart in various ways was considered cheesy because it fundamentally altered the one laid out in the main rulebook, the rulebook now explicitly offers the option to heavily modify or even completely throw out the old army compsotion rules.
Think about this from the perspective of someone just picking up the game. A twelve year old kid walks into a game store and buys 7th and looks at the way armies are constructed. Why would he look at the Combined Arms Detachment and Allies Detachments and think "Hmm, guess I'll just use those two and ignore everything else available to me?" Why would he completely disregard Unbound armies? He wouldn't. I wouldn't if I were just getting into the game. I'd look at those options and wonder why everyone who limited themselves to just those options were nerfing themselves so hard.
Summoning hundreds of extra points of daemons seems scary, but the only army that can easily do that also relies on Psychic Powers for offensive output. By summoning those extra points of daemons, they also neuter themselves in the early game. Do you think an 1850 point army that effectively doesn't shoot or assault for the first two turns of the game survive a battle against say, two firebase support cadres, an imperial knight and another riptide for good measure? That's three Riptides, an Imperial Knight and twelve broadside battlesuits acting unopposed for two full turns. That army would decimate Daemons, and I'm not even kind of getting creative. Add in the possibilities for other formations, lords of war, etc. and you can see that even against the nastiest Daemon list you can wreck shop.
This was just one example. The point is, we are not playing 6th edition any more. 7th edition should not be viewed as an extension of 6th, It is a new game that uses the majority of the mechanics from previous editions of 40,000 to play on the tabletop.
Obviously this presents a number of frustrations, particularly for veteran players. We have been spending years building lists and playing the game with the old force-org considerations in mind. Many of us still balk at the idea of allies for various fluff reasons. This is an expensive game, so often we dislike these changes for monetary reasons. I have felt that pain myself.
However, if we are discussing banning multiple detachments (over two), banning Unbound completely, banning Lords of War, banning Malefic Daemonology, capping psychic levels for armies, etc. then we are not playing 7th edition. The game has changed, but so have the tools. We should at least consider using them.
I agree 100% with this. Bans and limits do nothing to help people. Nothing is broken when everything is available.
There are too many people scared to do things differently who want to cling to what is familiar and this makes them want to turn 7th into a copy of 6th.
From half the posts I've read lately they should just run tournaments using the 6th rules as that's what half the comps end up making it anyway and leave 7th for those who like a challenge.
So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
I don't want to have to run two firebase cadres, a riptide and a knight to beat daemons though.
Some people like the old fashioned idea of say, an Ork army or a Tau army, and don't want to mix and match with allies or unbound or whatever. And some people don't believe that the answer to cheese is more cheese, that instead there should simply be no cheese - because when the cheddar wheel gets rolling, it squashes tactics flat and turns the game into what cheese-combo counters what.
That said, I think people really gotta get over this multiple force org thing. Thats the only way current Orks is gonna handle 7th, and in all likelihood (due to lack of allies, lack of psychic disciplines, and being choppy in dakka/psychic edition) new Orks too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 22:37:27
don't need to worry about the worst changes as our group doesn't mess with that stuff. No fliers, so don't care about nerfs to helldrakes etc. Very limited allies (probably just one detachment of Battle Brothers). Single FOC. We won't be spamming warp charge dice. Overall, should be just fine.
For the OP. You are just not understanding what it is we that are not happy with the game are complaining about. There are two types of gamers that play 40k. Those that enjoy strategy and tactics on the one hand. On the other hand those that like list building and exploring rule exploits. Most people are a combination of the two that play 40k. 7th edition, more so than any other iteration of 40k, removes the strategy and tactical side of the game. The game is now 100% a rules/listbuilding/exploit game. If you enjoy this type of game then 40k is for you. Since 40k has been losing its market share its safe to assume that the gradual shift away from a strategy game isn't the way to go.
Also, fire Jervis Jhonson.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 22:48:29
Murdius Maximus wrote: So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
It's not. It'll just annihilate certain armies. Arguably a better limiter would be against summoned monsters themself be it a limit on how many, scoring, or something else.
I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 22:55:09
Murdius Maximus wrote: So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
It's not. It'll just annihilate certain armies. Arguably a better limiter would be against summoned monsters themself be it a limit on how many, scoring, or something else.
Not a bad idea, like maybe make the summon last until next psychic phase or something, or even once per game and the unit has a one turn shelf life? Or how about, summoned units get no saves/scoring and are -1 to all stats? Deamons could also get -1 warpcharge PER MODEL that was a summoned model, so the more you summon, the less you activate for warp charges? Players would really think about that...maybe. I dunno....
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
here is a menu that has more options:
aids
cancer
broken glass
syphilis
rotten eggs
month old potatoe salad
human flesh
steak and French fries
here is one with fewer
aids
cancer
rotten eggs
steak and French fries
-------------------------------
Did more options help? Why is it I think I am able to predict what most players would like to eat for supper in both instances?
And question for the op: Have you ever played apocalypse? I think you'd love it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/28 23:00:21
Murdius Maximus wrote: So, when they ban cards in MTG are you no longer playing MTG? I really like your post, and I really like a lot of what I have seen that this edition brings, but the Psychic Phase is just too much. You have to fix that or it will warp the game so badly that it will start to turn off the core customer, which IMO is the casual player.
Competitive will essentially become a Deamon stroke-fest and will literally be decided by who has a more prolific Psychic Phase. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Limiting warp dice per turn is the easiest, most effective way to give Deamons the power they have while not letting them completely warp the edition.
It's not. It'll just annihilate certain armies. Arguably a better limiter would be against summoned monsters themself be it a limit on how many, scoring, or something else.
Not a bad idea, like maybe make the summon last until next psychic phase or something, or even once per game and the unit has a one turn shelf life? Or how about, summoned units get no saves/scoring and are -1 to all stats? Deamons could also get -1 warpcharge PER MODEL that was a summoned model, so the more you summon, the less you activate for warp charges? Players would really think about that...maybe. I dunno....
I wouldn't opt for the latter. It'd likely just mean individuals would spam assault units as fodder and quickly let them grind to death to recover spells. Overall a time limit to summons or just a limit to how many would likely be the most optimal really. Sadly the psyker phase is a mess at large so I wish TO's the best of luck fixing it up. As of now though, the biggest worry is maleific and we'll have to see how it is after that is changed.
Those that enjoy strategy and tactics on the one hand. On the other hand those that like list building and exploring rule exploits.
I don't fit into either of those really, although i realize list building (and picking your faction, for that matter) is the most important part of setting yourself up to do well. I would argue that there are players that play for fun and those that play to win. I like winning, but the game is too imbalanced for a win to mean much if you just destroy your opponent with overpowered units.
I play because the models are cool, I like the fluff and the game itself I've found to be really fun, not because it's a top-tier game of tactics and strategic prowess.
Some people like to treat 40k (or want it to be) as a more tactically diverse and competitive game than it is. That's not to say that it's wrong to be competitive when you play, but one must realize that it's an area of the game that is far from perfect.
Nerf dice rolls, because they're too random and not indicative of skill, am I right?
Loopstah wrote: I'd think there would be a lot more "strategy and tactics" available when players have more options not less?
Limiting options and removing parts of the rules just makes it more bland and predictable, and makes everyone run the same lists as they don't have the option to experiment or take certain choices.
People will produce cheese lists whatever the rules but allowing everything gives more ways of beating the cheese.
Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.
Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.
Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.
Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?
Those that enjoy strategy and tactics on the one hand. On the other hand those that like list building and exploring rule exploits.
I don't fit into either of those really, although i realize list building (and picking your faction, for that matter) is the most important part of setting yourself up to do well. I would argue that there are players that play for fun and those that play to win. I like winning, but the game is too imbalanced for a win to mean much if you just destroy your opponent with overpowered units.
I play because the models are cool, I like the fluff and the game itself I've found to be really fun, not because it's a top-tier game of tactics and strategic prowess.
Some people like to treat 40k (or want it to be) as a more tactically diverse and competitive game than it is. That's not to say that it's wrong to be competitive when you play, but one must realize that it's an area of the game that is far from perfect.
Nerf dice rolls, because they're too random and not indicative of skill, am I right?
I wouldn't even say those two because people that play to win are usually playing for their own interpretation of fun and fun players usually like to win as well. I also agree it isn't just building and cheese and strat. I myself opt for fluff I just have a problem with imbalances because it makes my group have to fiddle around to try to balance something so we can play our fluffy armies.
So why would people ever take 80% of the units avaliable if they are subpar compared to these other options you have mentioned?
Why have to invest in 3 riptides, a knight and 12 broadsides?
These are the issues people have. Yes the options are there for people to take optimal lists. But that is still no different. EVERYONE had the option in 6th of taking an O'Vesa star with buff commander in their list. But most people didn't because they wanted to take particular units/armies they liked. Now it will be even harder to prevail with an army you like (im talking composition not dex), and instead will HAVE to take solely from the 20% of units that are not horribly underpowered in a competitive meta (im being generous with 20%), even more so than before. That is if the person plays in a competitive environment of course.
So what do I do with my tac marines I barely used before? They sure won't get a game now if I want to win!
Nope. Let's consider an environment where there are four choices of army.
Army A beats B 50% of the time, C 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army B beats A 50% of the time, C 40% of the time, and D 20% of the time.
Army C beats A 40% of the time, B 60% of the time, and D 10% of the time.
Army D beats A 90% of the time, B 80% of the time, and C 90% of the time.
Which has more viable armies, an environment where all the armies are legal, or an environment where D is banned?
Thank you for making my point for me. Your situation is what the game is like after all the bans and restrictions, without them your example would have 400 potential armies, not 4 and no one army would be "the obvious choice".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 23:09:16
Poly Ranger wrote: So why would people ever take 80% of the units avaliable if they are subpar compared to these other options you have mentioned?
Why have to invest in 3 riptides, a knight and 12 broadsides?
These are the issues people have. Yes the options are there for people to take optimal lists. But that is still no different. EVERYONE had the option in 6th of taking an O'Vesa star with buff commander in their list. But most people didn't because they wanted to take particular units/armies they liked. Now it will be even harder to prevail with an army you like (im talking composition not dex), and instead will HAVE to take solely from the 20% of units that are not horribly underpowered in a competitive meta (im being generous with 20%), even more so than before. That is if the person plays in a competitive environment of course.
So what do I do with my tac marines I barely used before? They sure won't get a game now if I want to win!
Poly Ranger wrote: So why would people ever take 80% of the units avaliable if they are subpar compared to these other options you have mentioned?
Why have to invest in 3 riptides, a knight and 12 broadsides?
These are the issues people have. Yes the options are there for people to take optimal lists. But that is still no different. EVERYONE had the option in 6th of taking an O'Vesa star with buff commander in their list. But most people didn't because they wanted to take particular units/armies they liked. Now it will be even harder to prevail with an army you like (im talking composition not dex), and instead will HAVE to take solely from the 20% of units that are not horribly underpowered in a competitive meta (im being generous with 20%), even more so than before. That is if the person plays in a competitive environment of course.
So what do I do with my tac marines I barely used before? They sure won't get a game now if I want to win!
This is called a race to the bottom. [/quote
Exactly!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't know what happened with that quote :-s...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/28 23:12:10
This thread, and really, most threads pertaining to the perception of 7th edition, should really be preserved and used as a teaching aid when trying to explain the concept of an echo chamber.
Simple fix for the summoning stuff that everyone is bitching about....ready for it?
DON'T LET PEOPLE PROXY DEMONS!!!!!
If they have all the demons they are summoning built and painted...then they deserve to abuse it as they have obviously been long suffering gits stuck with a previously lame army (that first stand alone book...poor SOB'S) If you want to tell me "well I can't afford all those demons so I have to proxy" then cry me a god damn river I don't care your just playing the army to abuse a rule and I really have no time for you. If you pull a bunch of non demons models out, or even demons that aren't the one's you summoned out to count as your units then I'm pointing at the rules of the power and telling you to shove those models back in the case because you just failed to summon.
*Cool conversions obviously don't apply to this way of thinking...I love cool conversions*
Loopstah wrote: If I can ally syphilis with month old potato salad to cure cancer then yes more options do help.
Ask a stupid question...
It's not a stupid question.
More options are only good if all of those options are worth taking, or in another word, balanced. Games Workshop has shown itself time after time as not being able to balance their game very well.
While more options, on the surface, looks like it will open up more tactics, what it will in reality do it simply open new dominating tactics. It won't be more, because people will abandon the old tactics and strategies as the new hot gak is found. There's a reason most codices fall back to so few builds you can count them on one mangled hand. The same will happen with more options - they will just be different builds.
This also highlights another problem with 40k - too much importance on list building. Strategy and tactics for 40k are just ways to describe the arms race of list building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/29 02:44:15
Really? I would have thought the more appropriate setup is black has normal setup and white has 3 queens.....you know...since it can't take as many queens as you have pieces on the board and then you manuver to trap and kill said queens.
Here's what I heard " OMG I BROUGHT A STANDARD MARINE ARMY AND THEY BROUGHT 4X AS MANY POINTS IN DEFILERS!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/29 02:49:05
I wanted to write this post in response to the large number of threads proposing modifications to 7th edition for both casual and tournament play.
Most of the threads written thus far take issue with the following changes to army list composition and the Psychic Phase:
- Malefic Daemonology (Specifically the Primaris power)
- No caps on the number of warp charge dice an army can provide
- Unbound army construction
- Multiple detachments in Battle Forged armies
- "Come The Apocalypse" allies
All of these new additions to the rules shakes up the paradigm considerably, to the point that there are now numerous ways to destroy a list constructed with the 6th edition force-org chart in mind, even in its most expanded form.
However, this is the issue that I have seen with every thread and complaint to date. They are still operating under the 6th edition paradigm and do not take into consideration the fact that we are now in a new phase of the game, with entirely new methods of constructing play. I will offer a brief analogy first, and then dive into what I feel we as players need to consider and embrace if we are to continue enjoying Warhammer 40,000 for the rest of this edition and beyond.
For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
In most ways, Warhammer 40,000 plays very similarly on the tabletop to how it has been played since 3rd edition. The Psychic Phase is the only major shake-up in this regard, with most other rules changes being refinements more than anything. If you had a solid handle on the mechanics of the game in 6th edition, you still have a solid grasp on them in 7th. However, there are new threats to face and new tools to face them.
Let's just take a look at Malefic Daemonology and Summoning as an example, with the most "broken" of said summoning lists, Tzeentch Daemons. From the perspective of a 6th edition army constrained by one force-org chart (now called "combined arms"), this is indeed a very difficult army to face. However, limiting yourself to army construction in that way is not what 7th edition is about. Unlike 6th, where massively bolstering the force-org chart in various ways was considered cheesy because it fundamentally altered the one laid out in the main rulebook, the rulebook now explicitly offers the option to heavily modify or even completely throw out the old army compsotion rules.
Think about this from the perspective of someone just picking up the game. A twelve year old kid walks into a game store and buys 7th and looks at the way armies are constructed. Why would he look at the Combined Arms Detachment and Allies Detachments and think "Hmm, guess I'll just use those two and ignore everything else available to me?" Why would he completely disregard Unbound armies? He wouldn't. I wouldn't if I were just getting into the game. I'd look at those options and wonder why everyone who limited themselves to just those options were nerfing themselves so hard.
Summoning hundreds of extra points of daemons seems scary, but the only army that can easily do that also relies on Psychic Powers for offensive output. By summoning those extra points of daemons, they also neuter themselves in the early game. Do you think an 1850 point army that effectively doesn't shoot or assault for the first two turns of the game survive a battle against say, two firebase support cadres, an imperial knight and another riptide for good measure? That's three Riptides, an Imperial Knight and twelve broadside battlesuits acting unopposed for two full turns. That army would decimate Daemons, and I'm not even kind of getting creative. Add in the possibilities for other formations, lords of war, etc. and you can see that even against the nastiest Daemon list you can wreck shop.
This was just one example. The point is, we are not playing 6th edition any more. 7th edition should not be viewed as an extension of 6th, It is a new game that uses the majority of the mechanics from previous editions of 40,000 to play on the tabletop.
Obviously this presents a number of frustrations, particularly for veteran players. We have been spending years building lists and playing the game with the old force-org considerations in mind. Many of us still balk at the idea of allies for various fluff reasons. This is an expensive game, so often we dislike these changes for monetary reasons. I have felt that pain myself.
However, if we are discussing banning multiple detachments (over two), banning Unbound completely, banning Lords of War, banning Malefic Daemonology, capping psychic levels for armies, etc. then we are not playing 7th edition. The game has changed, but so have the tools. We should at least consider using them.
No, I get it, I really do. The game is now different. But it happens to be a game I no longer want to play and I don't think the makers of the game want me to play it.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
I wanted to write this post in response to the large number of threads proposing modifications to 7th edition for both casual and tournament play.
Most of the threads written thus far take issue with the following changes to army list composition and the Psychic Phase:
- Malefic Daemonology (Specifically the Primaris power)
- No caps on the number of warp charge dice an army can provide
- Unbound army construction
- Multiple detachments in Battle Forged armies
- "Come The Apocalypse" allies
All of these new additions to the rules shakes up the paradigm considerably, to the point that there are now numerous ways to destroy a list constructed with the 6th edition force-org chart in mind, even in its most expanded form.
However, this is the issue that I have seen with every thread and complaint to date. They are still operating under the 6th edition paradigm and do not take into consideration the fact that we are now in a new phase of the game, with entirely new methods of constructing play. I will offer a brief analogy first, and then dive into what I feel we as players need to consider and embrace if we are to continue enjoying Warhammer 40,000 for the rest of this edition and beyond.
For the analogy (particularly pertinent for you FPS players out there): Imagine a shooting game with relatively tight mechanics. There are different guns with different shooting capabilities, and they have skills and weaknesses in different areas. The first edition of the game begins to reward certain guns more than others.
When the sequel comes out, players are given the option to dual-wield weapons. Now, weapons that had never before been used together are possible, offering new combinations and possibilities. The core mechanics of the game are still there. You are rewarded for speed, accuracy and strategy, but you now have new tools in your arsenal. Some combinations are terrible, some are amazing. If you as a player choose to use a single weapon like in the last edition of the game, you will face significant struggles against those who attempt to dual-wield. The core mechanics are the same, but you are now playing a different game that requires an additional layer of strategy.
In most ways, Warhammer 40,000 plays very similarly on the tabletop to how it has been played since 3rd edition. The Psychic Phase is the only major shake-up in this regard, with most other rules changes being refinements more than anything. If you had a solid handle on the mechanics of the game in 6th edition, you still have a solid grasp on them in 7th. However, there are new threats to face and new tools to face them.
Let's just take a look at Malefic Daemonology and Summoning as an example, with the most "broken" of said summoning lists, Tzeentch Daemons. From the perspective of a 6th edition army constrained by one force-org chart (now called "combined arms"), this is indeed a very difficult army to face. However, limiting yourself to army construction in that way is not what 7th edition is about. Unlike 6th, where massively bolstering the force-org chart in various ways was considered cheesy because it fundamentally altered the one laid out in the main rulebook, the rulebook now explicitly offers the option to heavily modify or even completely throw out the old army compsotion rules.
Think about this from the perspective of someone just picking up the game. A twelve year old kid walks into a game store and buys 7th and looks at the way armies are constructed. Why would he look at the Combined Arms Detachment and Allies Detachments and think "Hmm, guess I'll just use those two and ignore everything else available to me?" Why would he completely disregard Unbound armies? He wouldn't. I wouldn't if I were just getting into the game. I'd look at those options and wonder why everyone who limited themselves to just those options were nerfing themselves so hard.
Summoning hundreds of extra points of daemons seems scary, but the only army that can easily do that also relies on Psychic Powers for offensive output. By summoning those extra points of daemons, they also neuter themselves in the early game. Do you think an 1850 point army that effectively doesn't shoot or assault for the first two turns of the game survive a battle against say, two firebase support cadres, an imperial knight and another riptide for good measure? That's three Riptides, an Imperial Knight and twelve broadside battlesuits acting unopposed for two full turns. That army would decimate Daemons, and I'm not even kind of getting creative. Add in the possibilities for other formations, lords of war, etc. and you can see that even against the nastiest Daemon list you can wreck shop.
This was just one example. The point is, we are not playing 6th edition any more. 7th edition should not be viewed as an extension of 6th, It is a new game that uses the majority of the mechanics from previous editions of 40,000 to play on the tabletop.
Obviously this presents a number of frustrations, particularly for veteran players. We have been spending years building lists and playing the game with the old force-org considerations in mind. Many of us still balk at the idea of allies for various fluff reasons. This is an expensive game, so often we dislike these changes for monetary reasons. I have felt that pain myself.
However, if we are discussing banning multiple detachments (over two), banning Unbound completely, banning Lords of War, banning Malefic Daemonology, capping psychic levels for armies, etc. then we are not playing 7th edition. The game has changed, but so have the tools. We should at least consider using them.
No, I get it, I really do. The game is now different. But it happens to be a game I no longer want to play and I don't think the makers of the game want me to play it.
That is a totally fair assessment and position. Like I said, this is a different game. People certainly don't have to continue playing anything they don't like. I would probably stop short of saying the makers of the game don't want you to play it. I'd say they would prefer for people to adapt to some of the new standards of 40K and use or modify the new rules as they see fit.
I am really, really curious to see some batreps with unbound. Honestly, of all the changes in 7th the only 2 I have major problems with from the get-go are unlimited FOC (battle-forged and unbound are equally guilty IMO) and not enough restrictions on ICs joining/buffing units. I'm a little over the IC thing, but still not sold on unbound/multiple force orgs; that's going to take some time.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Orktavius wrote: Simple fix for the summoning stuff that everyone is bitching about....ready for it?
DON'T LET PEOPLE PROXY DEMONS!!!!!
Thus making the intent behind the change - GW selling more daemons - work perfectly, and ensuring the practice of butchering the rules to sell models continues.
2375
/ 
1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
Sekhmet - Dynasty 4000pts 
Greenwing - 2000pts 
Deathguard - 1500pts 
Daemons of Nurgle - 1000pts 
~320pts 
