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.
As far as i'm concerned real competitive 40k died with 5th edition.
6th edition was a huge step towards making a story and having a laugh,.
7th edition takes it even further. this game is no longer about winning a tournament, it's about making a really cool story and having a really fun, dramatic, narrative filled game.
...and i love it
“If you don't expect gratitude, you'll seldom be disappointed.”
Well, for the last three pages everyone has been focussing on the FoC changes, which are only part of the paradigm shift.
The real change comes with the ways the Maelstrom missions play out. The BattleForge/unbound changes were CLEARLY designed to work with the Maelstrom missions - as people who take unbound armies to a Maelstrom mission are about to find out.
The fundamental difference in 7th edition is the fact that VP are freely available EVERY PLAYER TURN. So, in 7th ed, you aren't playing 5 turns in a game, you are playing 5 games of 1 turn consecutively. And killpoints, well they don't really show up that much at all.
And, that makes a HUGE difference to every game. Because, in 7th, it is no easier to table an army than in 6th, in fact it is harder because of the slight nerf to D weapons.
The person with a battleforged 1500 point army is going to discover it is FAR easier to get victory points than the power gamer who brought 3 models and can't get a VP because 1 space marine ended up within 3".
So, as the battleforged army accumulates victory points, the unbound player rapidly runs out of time to kill all the models.
The power lists of 7th ed will contain highly mobile superscoring units, like bike troops, troops with superscoring drop pods (hello Space Puppies!), deepstriking troops, troops with superscoring transports (Fast BA transport anyone? Particularly a LR?)
Because in a Maelstrom mission - if you don't get to the objective and score EVERY turn, you are losing.
And that is how the game balancing will work. In a Maelstrom mission, unbound lists start at such a huge disadvantage that you'd be silly to bring one.
Detachments mean that means you can still create a silly combo, but when it comes to play, CtA and Desperate allies can literally lose you the game....in a single turn.
Think of it like basket ball....each team is trying to block 1 basket, because a 2pt lead is enough.
It's now the same in Maelstrom. If you don't get at least 1 victory point in your turn...well, you are losing (doubly losing in fact, because you don't get to draw new cards). Having lumbering powerful units that *might* be able to table the other in 6 turns...well, don't bother bringing that.
And given the number of units/ways that invul saves are available....well people relying on D weapons better get some loaded dice, because you'd better roll all 6s.
The sky is not falling - that is just the light of a new dawn.
legolooney wrote: As far as i'm concerned real competitive 40k died with 5th edition.
6th edition was a huge step towards making a story and having a laugh,.
7th edition takes it even further. this game is no longer about winning a tournament, it's about making a really cool story and having a really fun, dramatic, narrative filled game.
...and i love it
Whatever you're smoking, I want some. Really though, you seem like a jovial, light-hearted person. 7th introduces the worst abuses of fluff since 40k started in '87. Grey knights summoning demons, Eldar consorting with Slaanesh. Certainly the game is not about winning a tournament, nor is it about forging a narrative (don't drink the kool-aid). The game is merely a vehicle designed to push product. Never before has the veil been more transparent, the veneer thinner. Notice how as editions get more and more sloppy and open to abuse (or flexible and fun and dramatic), the mantra of forge the narrative is repeated with greater frequency? For you, and people like you, this is Great News; for others, people like me, who want to enjoy a tactical game with foundations based on the application of strategy, "forge the narrative" is a rally cry, dripping with sarcasm.
I've never understood the pew pew crowd, satisfied with putting whatever on the table, walking their forces slowly across the table making sound effects and having a great time. I enjoy myself in spite of GW's best efforts, but that means I have pare away the obvious marketing masquerading as rules.
"drinking liqueur from endangered rain forest flowers cold-distilled over multicolored diamonds while playing croquet on robot elephants using asian swim suit models as living wickets... well, some hobbies are simply more appealing than others." -Sourclams
MarkCron wrote: Well, for the last three pages everyone has been focussing on the FoC changes, which are only part of the paradigm shift.
The real change comes with the ways the Maelstrom missions play out. The BattleForge/unbound changes were CLEARLY designed to work with the Maelstrom missions - as people who take unbound armies to a Maelstrom mission are about to find out.
The fundamental difference in 7th edition is the fact that VP are freely available EVERY PLAYER TURN. So, in 7th ed, you aren't playing 5 turns in a game, you are playing 5 games of 1 turn consecutively. And killpoints, well they don't really show up that much at all.
And, that makes a HUGE difference to every game. Because, in 7th, it is no easier to table an army than in 6th, in fact it is harder because of the slight nerf to D weapons.
The person with a battleforged 1500 point army is going to discover it is FAR easier to get victory points than the power gamer who brought 3 models and can't get a VP because 1 space marine ended up within 3".
So, as the battleforged army accumulates victory points, the unbound player rapidly runs out of time to kill all the models.
The power lists of 7th ed will contain highly mobile superscoring units, like bike troops, troops with superscoring drop pods (hello Space Puppies!), deepstriking troops, troops with superscoring transports (Fast BA transport anyone? Particularly a LR?)
Because in a Maelstrom mission - if you don't get to the objective and score EVERY turn, you are losing.
And that is how the game balancing will work. In a Maelstrom mission, unbound lists start at such a huge disadvantage that you'd be silly to bring one.
Detachments mean that means you can still create a silly combo, but when it comes to play, CtA and Desperate allies can literally lose you the game....in a single turn.
Think of it like basket ball....each team is trying to block 1 basket, because a 2pt lead is enough.
It's now the same in Maelstrom. If you don't get at least 1 victory point in your turn...well, you are losing (doubly losing in fact, because you don't get to draw new cards). Having lumbering powerful units that *might* be able to table the other in 6 turns...well, don't bother bringing that.
And given the number of units/ways that invul saves are available....well people relying on D weapons better get some loaded dice, because you'd better roll all 6s.
The sky is not falling - that is just the light of a new dawn.
Very well said and another aspect of the paradigm shift that is of incredible importance.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
When you say " If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn." That is 100% true, but again, not an issue that arose because of 7th. Choosing units at random in a codex will very nearly always result in a bad army due to lack of synergy. This has definitely been the case in every edition of 40K, and is definitely intentional. Strategy for any wargame that allows you to construct an army with differing units begins in the list-building phase.
I get the impression I was able to do that in pre-GK 5th. Get a Codex, pick a theme or a fancy unit, and make an army out of it. Get some random stuff, add a few tweaks and the result, while clearly weaker than an optimized list, more often than not was able to give a hard time to anyone. If I get some random units now and I face, say, a 9 Riptide list, not only I lose: I lose without any form of fight.
Unbalance has been there since forever, but it is the width of the gap what matters. Anyway, in my opinion this started to be an issue in late 5th, which is why this is not a '7th Edition Paradigm Shift'. The Grey Knights Vs Chaos Daemons matches of late 5th were the first time I saw a noob player utterly crushing a veteran player in turn 2 due to the list.
Also, when you discuss your lists that include "Weak Units", that's not really the situation I'm describing. You could always include weaker units in lists, and actually when properly supported weak units can become very good. I was saying that in 7th you could hypothetically create an army made up entirely of weak units, meaning that, yes, the "weak" end of the bell curve is more disparate than ever from the "strong" end.
So you are taking about the possibility of taking a army completely made up of, say, Pyrovores, thus creating an army unfluffy, unfun and uncompetitive?
That´s... true, I guess. But it really doesn´t matter. Even if the number of possible/legal lists is bigger, the number of viable / enjoyable / playable / [put your usable-equivalent word here] is far lower.
And I have to say, even though you may accuse GW of many things, I do believe they still have a goal of making a fun and enjoyable game. Like I said, many of their practices are not wise in my opinion and even occasionally cringe-worthy, but at the end of the day I do think that they expect the players of the game to enjoy themselves.
Believe it or not, I thing that´s the real problem. I am not talking about the developers, but about the person taking the decisions.
The Codex GK is a good example, in my opinion: it was a completely broken thing that enraged many customers and caused the lost of many, many players. But the sales were excellent: many tournaments had 50-60% of the players playing GK and many players bought an army, because it allowed them to win more games. Did it benefit the company in the long-term? Did the momentary boost in sales compensate losing so many long-time players?
In the long term, probably the answer is no. But in the short term, yeah sure. And that´s what matter for many companies: you create benefits now, the higher the better. You take the money, and then try to get more benefits, no matter how.
Another option would be to aim for the long term: you create a quality product and have your customers happy. Many companies nowadays implement some form of CRM, Customer Relationship Management, which is a new name for something older than history: treat your customers as if they were valuable to you. You enforce a quality standard in your products. Eventually, your company will become healthier.
Looking at GW´s decisions since late 5th, I think they are moving to a short-term policy. Fast releases of very low quality, many times not even proofread, expecting the players to keep paying abussive prices thanks to winning-greed and nostalgia. Creating an artificial boost in sales, then another, then another one.
So I don´t thing 7th is aimed at 'fun' and it is broken because of incompetence. I think it is broken on purpose, and aimed at getting money. The sales of Daemons are soaring. Competitive players are switching (again) to the new black. The cycle continues. It is the so-called 'perfect (for the company) unbalance' you can also see in videogames.
Will it work? Only time will tell. I think they fear the coming of 3D printers, so they are trying to harvest the fruits of the original members of the Studio (who are no longer there to protect their creation) before the storm comes.
I also do think the word "paradigm" definitely applies to 7th, even if you view it as an extension of sixth. It is an expanded paradigm, to be sure, but at this point saying that you will limit yourself to one detachment or faction just because its the way things used to be done is the same as saying that you aren't going to play with special characters (or will require opponents permission) because that's the way things used to be done. It's a self-imposed limitation that's great if it works for you but doesn't reflect the new tools of 7th.
I don´t think so. The paradigm shifted in 2011.
It was in late 5th. When moving from Daemonhunters to GK, they took out some very specific rules and concepts, and added new ones. It was a 180º turn. After the massive success (in spite of the harsh critics), they applied the new concepts to all their products, first slowly and then at full speed. 7th is a progression of 6th: Formations, Dataslates, double FOCs, allies... unbound is only the next logical step in the path they have chosen.
‘Your warriors will stand down and withdraw, Curze. That is an order, not a request. (…) When this campaign is won, you and I will have words’
Rogal Dorn, just before taking the beating of his life.
from The Dark King, by Graham McNeill.
Makumba wrote: Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
Quite simply yes.
People who buy 1 army at 1500pts (or any points for that matter) and then don't buy anything else are the people GW hate. You make them no money, so now they either want to force you to buy more stuff (expand your army or start a new one) or they want you to quit. If you buy more stuff then they win. If you quit then it doesn't matter because you weren't buying stuff anyway.
GW want money, you either follow their plan and give them some, or walk away. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
This is also why veterans get a hard deal. GW don't want people with massive collections of models in a cupboard that allow them to play with whatever they have, they want them to buy new stuff because their old stuff is no longer good enough. The whole idea behind 7th is to shake up the game and make people buy more models.
How is buying an army not giving them money . I have not heard about a GW program to give every new player a free 1500pts army, if there is I would like to collect my free one.
Also, AM may not have been released after the release of the 7th edition rules, but they were the last codex to be released prior, which means they are most likely made with 7th in mind as 7th was either done and waiting for a good market release cycle, or being completed around the same time the AM was being done.
Then tell me how does an AM army deal with a demon summoning list or eldar in 7th ed? Because both armies out melee and out shot me. I can't use half the mission cards , because I don't have enough psykers to cast 3 powers per turn , win even one melee or have more fast moving troops droped on objectives turn 1-2 then any of those lists , or SM or nids.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/31 09:56:38
As people have pointed out, what is the point of having factions if you can take any unit you want?
What was the point of GW spending thousands of man hours creating a rich background if Eldar can ally with Slaanesh?
It used to be you chose an army for the tactical options and built your list around their strengths and weaknesses. For example, Imperial Guard gave you great armour but mediocre infantry, and you adjusted your tactics accordingly. Now, you can pick whatever you want to compensate for having that mediocre infantry.
If GW were honest and said models first, rules secondary, I would respect that, but what we have is a horrible mish-mash of a game. Is it epic in 28mm or is it small scale RPG?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Makumba wrote: Super and what are people that have 1500 points suppose to do now. Buy another army , because their old can't deal with the new , which are also old, top tier armies . Or maybe start to like losing or something.
Quite simply yes.
People who buy 1 army at 1500pts (or any points for that matter) and then don't buy anything else are the people GW hate. You make them no money, so now they either want to force you to buy more stuff (expand your army or start a new one) or they want you to quit. If you buy more stuff then they win. If you quit then it doesn't matter because you weren't buying stuff anyway.
GW want money, you either follow their plan and give them some, or walk away. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
This is also why veterans get a hard deal. GW don't want people with massive collections of models in a cupboard that allow them to play with whatever they have, they want them to buy new stuff because their old stuff is no longer good enough. The whole idea behind 7th is to shake up the game and make people buy more models.
How is buying an army not giving them money . I have not heard about a GW program to give every new player a free 1500pts army, if there is I would like to collect my free one.
I'm going to have to disagree with a couple of statements here. Firstly, if GW's aim was to force people with collections to buy more models, then they have failed dismally. They should not have put the Maelstrom missions into the book if they wanted to do that. As I said earlier, highly mobile, superscoring units are the new black when it comes to Maelstrom missions. So those drop pods (in fact the entire Space Wolves collection) - now gold. BA fast transports. Gold. Ravenwing/Deathwing? Gold. Any scoring biker/jet bike units? Gold.
Certainly, 7th ed is going to be tough on so called lesser armies playing eternal war missions. It is there, where you have to last for 5 turns (min) that power discrepancies show up the most.
So, a person with a TAC 1500 pt list - probably not going to do too badly in a Maelstrom mission. It is certainly not a given that they will get smashed. And BA/DA/SW - well, they should be happy, because their speed over the ground is now worth paying for.
Also, AM may not have been released after the release of the 7th edition rules, but they were the last codex to be released prior, which means they are most likely made with 7th in mind as 7th was either done and waiting for a good market release cycle, or being completed around the same time the AM was being done.
Then tell me how does an AM army deal with a demon summoning list or eldar in 7th ed? Because both armies out melee and out shot me. I can't use half the mission cards , because I don't have enough psykers to cast 3 powers per turn , win even one melee or have more fast moving troops droped on objectives turn 1-2 then any of those lists , or SM or nids.
This, I'm finding difficult to understand. In an edition where superscoring troops and their dedicated transports are THE advantage to have, where more troops is definitely better, vehicles are harder to kill and you can bring multiple detachments so you effectively don't have any slot limitations.....AM are one of the last armies I'd expect to have a problem. However, I don't have the codex and know squat about their units, so you may be right. It's just surprising that THE mechanised blob army is having problems.
themadlbb wrote: (...)
When you say " If you get a Codex and pick some random units you will most probably end in a list not able to make it to the fourth turn." That is 100% true, but again, not an issue that arose because of 7th. Choosing units at random in a codex will very nearly always result in a bad army due to lack of synergy. This has definitely been the case in every edition of 40K, and is definitely intentional. Strategy for any wargame that allows you to construct an army with differing units begins in the list-building phase.
I get the impression I was able to do that in pre-GK 5th. Get a Codex, pick a theme or a fancy unit, and make an army out of it. Get some random stuff, add a few tweaks and the result, while clearly weaker than an optimized list, more often than not was able to give a hard time to anyone. If I get some random units now and I face, say, a 9 Riptide list, not only I lose: I lose without any form of fight.
Unbalance has been there since forever, but it is the width of the gap what matters. Anyway, in my opinion this started to be an issue in late 5th, which is why this is not a '7th Edition Paradigm Shift'. The Grey Knights Vs Chaos Daemons matches of late 5th were the first time I saw a noob player utterly crushing a veteran player in turn 2 due to the list.
It looks like we have a different definition of random here. When you say "random" you mean "based around a variety of themes or units derived from a codex that may or may not be commonly thought of as competitive or fluffy". I thought you meant meant random, as in, "I am going to pick units completely at random from my codex to play with".
Spoiler:
Also, when you discuss your lists that include "Weak Units", that's not really the situation I'm describing. You could always include weaker units in lists, and actually when properly supported weak units can become very good. I was saying that in 7th you could hypothetically create an army made up entirely of weak units, meaning that, yes, the "weak" end of the bell curve is more disparate than ever from the "strong" end.
So you are taking about the possibility of taking a army completely made up of, say, Pyrovores, thus creating an army unfluffy, unfun and uncompetitive?
That´s... true, I guess. But it really doesn´t matter. Even if the number of possible/legal lists is bigger, the number of viable / enjoyable / playable / [put your usable-equivalent word here] is far lower.
I guess this is the part I'm taking issue with. When you say, "Even if the number of possible/legal lists is bigger, the number of viable / enjoyable / playable / [put your usable-equivalent word here] is far lower.", what are you basing that on? What are the top super-lists that work to the exclusion of all others? If you are just talking about spamming power units, keep in mind in 6th it was possible to field up to five Riptides, five wraithkights, nine wave serpents and so on. As has been pointed out by others, there is a point of diminishing returns.
Spoiler:
And I have to say, even though you may accuse GW of many things, I do believe they still have a goal of making a fun and enjoyable game. Like I said, many of their practices are not wise in my opinion and even occasionally cringe-worthy, but at the end of the day I do think that they expect the players of the game to enjoy themselves.
Believe it or not, I thing that´s the real problem. I am not talking about the developers, but about the person taking the decisions.
The Codex GK is a good example, in my opinion: it was a completely broken thing that enraged many customers and caused the lost of many, many players. But the sales were excellent: many tournaments had 50-60% of the players playing GK and many players bought an army, because it allowed them to win more games. Did it benefit the company in the long-term? Did the momentary boost in sales compensate losing so many long-time players?
In the long term, probably the answer is no. But in the short term, yeah sure. And that´s what matter for many companies: you create benefits now, the higher the better. You take the money, and then try to get more benefits, no matter how.
Another option would be to aim for the long term: you create a quality product and have your customers happy. Many companies nowadays implement some form of CRM, Customer Relationship Management, which is a new name for something older than history: treat your customers as if they were valuable to you. You enforce a quality standard in your products. Eventually, your company will become healthier.
Looking at GW´s decisions since late 5th, I think they are moving to a short-term policy. Fast releases of very low quality, many times not even proofread, expecting the players to keep paying abussive prices thanks to winning-greed and nostalgia. Creating an artificial boost in sales, then another, then another one.
So I don´t thing 7th is aimed at 'fun' and it is broken because of incompetence. I think it is broken on purpose, and aimed at getting money. The sales of Daemons are soaring. Competitive players are switching (again) to the new black. The cycle continues. It is the so-called 'perfect (for the company) unbalance' you can also see in videogames.
Will it work? Only time will tell. I think they fear the coming of 3D printers, so they are trying to harvest the fruits of the original members of the Studio (who are no longer there to protect their creation) before the storm comes.
This is a very interesting topic, though it is also highly speculative. You'll get no argument from me that GW makes a number of the decisions they do in order to make more money. However, they are also a very uniquely positioned business, because they are required to play both the long game and the short game with their customer base, and depend on both new blood and recurring revenue from veteran players.
I don't want to get into this too much, because like I said it is highly speculative. All I can definitively say is that I have fun playing 40K, and will continue to have fun playing 40K, and I don't think that my having fun is a mere byproduct of the slothful machinations of an evil company.
Spoiler:
I also do think the word "paradigm" definitely applies to 7th, even if you view it as an extension of sixth. It is an expanded paradigm, to be sure, but at this point saying that you will limit yourself to one detachment or faction just because its the way things used to be done is the same as saying that you aren't going to play with special characters (or will require opponents permission) because that's the way things used to be done. It's a self-imposed limitation that's great if it works for you but doesn't reflect the new tools of 7th.
I don´t think so. The paradigm shifted in 2011.
It was in late 5th. When moving from Daemonhunters to GK, they took out some very specific rules and concepts, and added new ones. It was a 180º turn. After the massive success (in spite of the harsh critics), they applied the new concepts to all their products, first slowly and then at full speed. 7th is a progression of 6th: Formations, Dataslates, double FOCs, allies... unbound is only the next logical step in the path they have chosen.
I agree with you to a large extent. This is a paradigm shift that has expanded upon the groundwork laid in 6th edition. The unique aspect of this shift compared to that is probably best summed up as this: 6th massively increased your options under the old force-org chart, whilst 7th has made the force-org chart completely optional. This distinction will force players to completely rethink their notions of list design and even internal and external codex balance, which is why I believe it is worthy of being deemed a unique paradigm shift.
Lots of stuff and I think we have moved to a common ground.
I think the reference to GW being 'evil' deserves some attention. While sometimes it is hard for me to refrain using this word, I don´t think the company is 'evil' for thinking in the short-term. It is just the way many companies work. Given that they have moved slowly for many years and the sudden change we have seen in the last two years, I think there is something in the environment (thus my reference to 3D printers) that they think it is forcing them to change. With the 2011 GK Codex proving that a change in the objectives was economically possible, they... created a new paradigm.
The lists you mentioned (five Riptides, five wraithkights, nine wave serpents) are all part of the new paradigm. The worst list in pre-GK 5th (9 Vendettas) was something of an ancestor. It was not near the same level of unbalance, but it is still a good example of game-breaking rule/unit before the change. But it wasn´t a real problem. Not until 6th and the change on Flyers, a single rule that, in my opinion on purpose, broke the game to create an increase of sales of Flyers and Fortifications in the short-term, at the cost of a drop in quality.
So yes, there has been a paradigm shift. I think it was in 2011 but the game is now changed.
But, it is for the good?
This is a matter of opinion but in my opinion the answer is 'no'. I play mostly for the background, and I want to be able to bring that background to live. And the new paradigm attacks the background in two fronts:
- First, by changing the background itself. The changes in the background section in the Rulebook (and in every Codex) move the setting to a brighter place, with the Imperium and the Emperor being 'good guys', the marines being 'noble and heroic' and the background entries simplified into a single script: force x comes, marines goes to protect humanity, force x defeated. Over and over. I like the background because it is dark and complex, I don´t like a story so simple that it can be described in twelve words: 'bad guys attack people, good guys protect them, good guys always win'. I am not able to bring the background to live if the background changes into something I just want to kill with fire.
- Second, by giving the tools to new players to hurt the background. There was a time when I was always recruiting. Whenever I tried to get new people in the hobby, someone eventually pointed out that it is aimed to 12 year old boys without lacking proper education. I could easily flood these people with classical and cultural references before, and eventually get some people into the complexity of the setting. You are not pushing around some plastic toys, you are recreating some epic stories that stirs your very soul. But then you get some rules that completely break the rules of this very setting in the name of 'everything is allowed', creating players who completely ignore the setting and see this game as some form of competition... as if winning or losing with some plastic models was a matter of importance. I am not able to bring the background to live if the player in front of me fields Farseers invoking daemons, and openly mock the background as something senseless, childish and dumb, and point at the Codex: Grey Knights or similar to prove his point beyond any doubt.
May I ask you... why do you play this game?
‘Your warriors will stand down and withdraw, Curze. That is an order, not a request. (…) When this campaign is won, you and I will have words’
Rogal Dorn, just before taking the beating of his life.
from The Dark King, by Graham McNeill.
“If you don't expect gratitude, you'll seldom be disappointed.” 
: 3000pts.
: 2000pts
5000 