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 have several older version of WHFB as well as the corresponding army books and i have thought about running a event that uses 6th ed WHFB rules, could be quite fun.

For me it's lack of support and opponents for the older editions.

My brother and I still like to play 2nd Ed, although he has disturbingly expressed an interest in 7th (he didn't play 6th yet to my knowledge so he doesn't know just how bad it is). If you read this bro I re-iterate my somewhat abrasive PM

I am still working on my own update/version of 2nd, chipping away at updating everything. Re-working all the rules, points and characteristics for every army will take sometime but I enjoy it when I do it. I think all of us have a 'perfect' vision of 40k in their minds and for me GW haven't come as close as 2nd Ed, despite its massive flaws. In a way 7th is closer to it than any other previous edition for there were little restrictions in 2nd Ed really and the army lists were designed with a freedom that could be easily exploited by players, just like Unbound lists may offer. My own opinion is that players should be able to use their collection they've paid for in time and money and time again how they wish, so for me I think Unbound lists and Come the Apocalypse armies are a positive thing for gamers to have 'official' access to.

I'm still amazed by how beholden people are to the rules, which in 40k's case the Rule Book should be renamed the Guide Book 40k is a bit of a mess, with so many rules and releases that it's like navigating Tzeentch's maze, which is a shame for I think the recent run of books and supplements shows an appetite and capacity for creativity we haven't seen from GW before.

I think players shouldn't feel intimidated by older editions, they are easy enough to pick up and points etc haven't changed all that much since 3rd, so it's not hard to add new units into older editions. It's just easier to remain current for many people as new players tend to only have knowledge/access to current editions and GW knows this and exploits it. IMHO they could be well served by an archive of old rules and editions on PDF - most of which you can find easy enough anyway. I think a lot of people would pay good money for a limited re-release of the original Rogue Trader or the original Chaos books for example, but GW doesn't seem to care for its history and exalted IP as much as its lawyers seem to

So here's a question: IF an edition could be updated to accomodate all the new units/armies etc that have been released so far and fix some of said editions recognised major problems, which edition would you pick

I have found with many games (including computer games), people like to believe they are playing (or rather practicing)the 'real' game. Because spending ages getting awesome at a game that no one plays anymore feels like a waste of time. If you ever want to play in tournaments or challenge strangers then you'll be playing the new game, so that is the game people want to practice (even if they never usually play tournaments or pick up games).

 warspawned wrote:
My brother and I still like to play 2nd Ed, although he has disturbingly expressed an interest in 7th (he didn't play 6th yet to my knowledge so he doesn't know just how bad it is). If you read this bro I re-iterate my somewhat abrasive PM

In the rare occassions I manage to get a game against my brother, it is 5th. He is too busy to learn 6th, and 5th is ok to play a casual game.

I am still working on my own update/version of 2nd, chipping away at updating everything. Re-working all the rules, points and characteristics for every army will take sometime but I enjoy it when I do it. I think all of us have a 'perfect' vision of 40k in their minds and for me GW haven't come as close as 2nd Ed, despite its massive flaws. In a way 7th is closer to it than any other previous edition for there were little restrictions in 2nd Ed really and the army lists were designed with a freedom that could be easily exploited by players, just like Unbound lists may offer. My own opinion is that players should be able to use their collection they've paid for in time and money and time again how they wish, so for me I think Unbound lists and Come the Apocalypse armies are a positive thing for gamers to have 'official' access to.

I don´t think Unbound is a positive thing. Restrictions are needed to put some depth into the game. It is not only about putting models in the table.

The bolded part I completely agree with. It may be the reason why many veteran players grow disappointed at GW. People want to get something 'better' all the time, and the definition of 'better' varies from person to person.

I'm still amazed by how beholden people are to the rules, which in 40k's case the Rule Book should be renamed the Guide Book 40k is a bit of a mess, with so many rules and releases that it's like navigating Tzeentch's maze, which is a shame for I think the recent run of books and supplements shows an appetite and capacity for creativity we haven't seen from GW before.

Well said. While the way many ideas were implemented was wrong (imo) in 6th and 7th, I welcomed them all, because all this rules are like Lego pieces to me, to create my 'perfect' game. It is an overwhelming display of creativity. (I really dislike the changes they are doing in the fluff though).

I think players shouldn't feel intimidated by older editions, they are easy enough to pick up and points etc haven't changed all that much since 3rd, so it's not hard to add new units into older editions.

It is quite easy and fun to do that. The problem is the amount of material to adapt. I think it is easy to adapt rules for some specific armies / models you expect to find in a game with your friends, and keep adding new units on a regular basis.

It's just easier to remain current for many people as new players tend to only have knowledge/access to current editions and GW knows this and exploits it. IMHO they could be well served by an archive of old rules and editions on PDF - most of which you can find easy enough anyway. I think a lot of people would pay good money for a limited re-release of the original Rogue Trader or the original Chaos books for example, but GW doesn't seem to care for its history and exalted IP as much as its lawyers seem to

I am not sure I would pay for a re-release of, say, Rogue Trader. The... 'feeling' has completely changed.

Collected Visions is one of my all-time favorite books, but I didn´t bought the re-release, that included new art (computer generated drawings of glorified&heroic marines), new background (Perpetuals, senseless and dumb retcons everywhere), and a completely different core (the Emperor is good, marines are noble heroes or evil evil-doers depending on the Legion). Oh and it is 4 times more expensive.

The re-release of a new version of the Index Astartes would right down terrorize me.

So here's a question: IF an edition could be updated to accomodate all the new units/armies etc that have been released so far and fix some of said editions recognised major problems, which edition would you pick

5th.

I really liked it (before Codex: Grey Knights). And 'good concept, poor implementation' is a good description for 6th. So I would adapt 6th and 7th´s ideas to 5th.

1. Codex, you'll never find an edition where everyone was happy with their army's codex.

2. Wargaming nerds can never be satisfied, we've gotten all of the things we asked for, then cried for things to go back to how they were.

3. Which edition? I've played all; I have nostalgic love for the first 3 editions but in reality non were as good as the latest. They were all flawed and imperfect, and all fun regardless.

4. There are so many other great miniature games out now. If the narrative battles that 40K has advertised and delivered for nearly 30 years is not your thing, going back editions won't fix this. Try a different game instead.

I put this link in the specialist games area, but I'll drop it here for those who might like it
http://www.scribd.com/toggleknot
Some of the 2nd ed. stuff I've been working on. Well, that which I'm happy to share anyhow

We are a very competitive club with members taking part in the major tournaments - that always use the current rules. No choice here.

1. Some people take part in tournaments.
2. Some people want to play new units from new Codexes.
3. Some people don't like playing old editions.. because they are old. As simple as that, not everyone finds that idea appealing.
4. Some people actually realise that 7th ed is not that bad rules-wise and it's mostly the Codexes(or rather their writers) that should be blamed for the gouda.

I mean.. point one rule in the 7th ed BRB that is utterly garbage in your opinion. And before you come up with daemonology/invisibility remember that it's not -always- going to tick off and again - there were overpowered psychic powers/spells in every edition.

What hurts players is their Codexes that don't work well with those - otherwise fairly good - rules. All we actually need is properly balanced Codex set designed to work with the rules, not just tries to outcheese every other dex at what it does.

A good example of externally(but unfortunately not quite internally) balanced Codex is the Astra Militarum one. It's good at what it does, it has all the necessary toys, more than one playstyle and a little nice something in every slot while not being extremely cheesy. Of course some options are pretty powerful, but recently I read that 40k got artificially bumped up into bigger scale battles to sell more models while the rules don't scale up that well, making it clumsy.. well, if every army gets better at killing stuff(hence the more powerful units coming out lately), the faster and more fierce every game will be, which kinda fixes the issue with that, doesn't it?

 Klerych wrote:
I mean.. point one rule in the 7th ed BRB that is utterly garbage in your opinion.

1. Pretty much the entirety of the army selection rules
2. Random charge distance
3. Overwatch removes models from the front
4. It is impossible to assault from every form of reserves, but shooting is just fine
5. Changes to the Monstrous Creature rules make them laughably inadequate at damaging vehicles without ridiculous Strength values
6. Tactical Objectives
7. First Blood
8. Seize the Initiative
9. Beasts and other units that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still strike at initiative 1
10. With enough warp charges the chance of denying a power is so high an opponent with only 1 or 2 psykers is only risking Perils by attempting to manifest any powers
11. "If you find a rules interaction that doesn't work just roll a d6 to see what happens, don't expect us to solve it"
12. The huge amount of frustratingly vague and poorly worded rules that spark multi-page threads in YMDC.

 Klerych wrote:
0I mean.. point one rule in the 7th ed BRB that is utterly garbage in your opinion. And before you come up with daemonology/invisibility remember that it's not -always- going to tick off and again - there were overpowered psychic powers/spells in every edition.

What hurts players is their Codexes that don't work well with those - otherwise fairly good - rules. All we actually need is properly balanced Codex set designed to work with the rules, not just tries to outcheese every other dex at what it does.

A good example of externally(but unfortunately not quite internally) balanced Codex is the Astra Militarum one. It's good at what it does, it has all the necessary toys, more than one playstyle and a little nice something in every slot while not being extremely cheesy. Of course some options are pretty powerful, but recently I read that 40k got artificially bumped up into bigger scale battles to sell more models while the rules don't scale up that well, making it clumsy.. well, if every army gets better at killing stuff(hence the more powerful units coming out lately), the faster and more fierce every game will be, which kinda fixes the issue with that, doesn't it?

As per your claim of faster killy is better. Not quite, it arguably only helps shooting more. Anyways, time for a response to your question! Much of this is the same as PrinceRaven.

1. Army Selection rules. All of it. I think that fluffwise the allies chart has improved but it also kicked a lot of things. Chaos Guard? Gone for good. Really, the only people that can now BB it up are largely just Imperial forces which some are even teetering on the odd changes and doesn't help this could easily lead to cheesy combos. All of the army building rules. All of them from Come the Apoc to Unleashed pick whatever you want to the standard force org that you can constantly increase your forces by just getting 2 troops and 1 hq.

2. Random Charge Distance. Some randomness is fine but when it is 2d6 for something you need it is absolutely infuriating

3. Removing models from the front. Don't get me wrong, the shenanigans of multi-wound characters was ridiculous but removing it makes no real sense. Everything is removed from the front. Shooting, assaulty, overwatch. It hurts assault armies in particular.

4. Changes to the Monsterous Creatures. Now, I like what they tried to do. Getting dropped from the sky from Markerlights was infuriating and MC were far too good at just smashing foes into smitherines. That said, now there's a drastic nerf to assault MC and no real drawback to flying MC which are shockingly a big focus of their damage. A FMC shooter now will rarely fall but an assaulty one is smashed into the ground and dragged along. The smash is almost entirely useless and managed to make Hive Tyrants that aren't dakka flyrants, Khornate Princes, and Bloodthirsters actually worse. It's slowed down one of the few good assault choices making it even more appealing to just go shooty and somehow crashing from the sky makes it easier to assault which really is huh.

5. Tactical Objectives. I love the concept, it's cool. Try and make it so players don't just cap objectives last turn and make some dynamics. But just as warlord traits, it comes out flawed. Random victory points, arbitrary objectives... it doesn't even make sense from a forge the narrative point of view.

6. First Blood still STILL exists

7. Seize the Initiative. Now then, getting first turn is almost always more advantageous so coodos for trying to stop always having an edge but seizing is ridiculous. If you do, it basically makes the enemy freak out because they positioned their models aggressively and then suffer due to one random lucky roll.

8. Beasts and other units can somehow charge as usual but still strike at Initative 1? Huh? These are assault units so why not? If they can bound over cover with no care why can't they just hit as usual?

9. The Psyker phase. Yes, all of it. Every last bit of it. It's still random rolls to get your spells, it still has entire tables (examples being Pyromancy and Tzeentch CSM dominion) that are simply not worth the effort. It's an utter mess. It made perils more likely, the drawbacks of failing more costly, and it nerfed Pink Horrors from their previous job whilst the intention for a herald to lead them and shoot as well has also been lost. The denial from a strong psyker army can crush an army of 1-2 psykers which is mostly what armies will field if any at all.

10. They still have vague wording and the whole d6 we won't fix it so do it yourself.

11. Randomness for the sake of randomness. Good god is it ridiculous to play this game nowadays. Now then, I play CSM, IG, Orks, Chaos Daemons, and SM. I'll be focusing on Chaos Daemons as they prove my point the most. First, we reveal our army. Then, we roll for the initiative. Then we both roll our warlord trait. Then we both roll our spells. Well I'm a Tzeentch player so I end up rolling for Pink Horrors, Heralds, DPs, and Lords of Change. Now then, I catalogue all their random spells in case I forget. Then, I roll for my equipment on my units not sure if I'll get something godly or bad. Then we roll seize the iniative. Then the game finally begins. Then I roll on the warpstorm. Then, usually, my enemy has to roll a d6 for every unit to see the damage. Within the game, I then roll leadership to fire my shooting (Flickering Fire mainly from Pink Horrors). I then roll how many shots they get. Then the enemy tries to deny them. Then, if I succeed, I roll to hit, then to wound. Then saves are rolled. Then the unit takes a T test to see if they will get extra wounds or if they will get FNP.

Now then, I admit, Tzeentch Daemons are somewhat of an exception much as a Tzeentch CSM force would be or GK and maybe Inquisition would be. That said, it's an excessive amount of rolls. And that was 6th edition. This edition just made it even more complicated.

Going onto an analysis. Why are warlord traits random? Why are spells random? How does this help me "Forge the Narrative?" Why is it I have to roll for this and that and book keep like mad? How can I roll on a DP CSM the trait fear which he already has? It's idiotic to no end. Charge distances? Random and so much more.

I'll admit that all editions are flawed but this edition was the one that pushed my buttons combined with several other idiotic decisions by GW recently. As per myself, well, I'm going to mess up by my friends and I are going to bash together rules to try and fix the game for us. This has drawbacks. Making it hard to get new players and stuck in our limited group but at this point we are just too frustrated to play without doings this.

I play mostly tournaments and the occasional pickup game which makes the older editions a no go.

I started playing in 4th, man did it have its problems. Drove me away from the hobby combined with College.
I played and got competitive in 5th, was an improvement from 4th and brought be back to the hobby. I randomly stopped into a game store and watched a 5th ed game, got back in with a vengeance. Eventually got burned out towards the end of 5th by the time Necron came out. Missed the end of 5th.
I played a lot of tournaments in 6th, got back in because I saw I could field a Wraith Army and loved the look of Wraithknights. Didn't play my eldar too much as my allied Farsight Enclave(always wanted a Battlesuit and drone army) quickly became my main army and I played a lot. Got burned out with Deathstar 40k,Taudar, Nightscythes, and rerollable 2++ but still was playing.
I am playing 7th because I feel its an improvement to 6th, so long as players or tournaments keep Unbound, LOW, and the FOC in check. I think this will be the best edition yet and I've played the majority of them.

From a realistic standpoint, If I don't play the most current edition I wouldn't be playing any 40k at all. I've stepped away from the hobby a few times in the past due to the ruleset or army imbalances, but I"ve always checked out the new edition and so far I've seen an improvement each time and its brought me back. Now, If I had stopped getting rid of a chuck of my stuff each time that happened I'd have much more 40k stuff, lol.

Actually last Wed I stopped by a local shop and got in a pick up game, he asked me if I wanted to play 6th as he hadn't gotten a game of 7th in yet, I said "Hell no, we've got a 7th rulebook right here."

I played with friends they want to use 7th I really don't as I didn't enjoy 6th and the new edition adds crap I really am opposed to so I have no choice.

Gw gets no more of my cash I'm getting into x-wing instead cheaper and much better rules.

I want to get back to playing games of 2nd edition, even if armies like the Tau and Grey Knights (as an army, anyway) are not applicable. It's the edition that got me into 40K and wargaming in general, and I was 12 years old. If the person I was back then saw the 40K of today, I would never pick it up.

And the argument that going back in editions gets you "worse" rules is bullgak. Sure, they might not have been as comprehensive, but if you played a game of 2nd edition tomorrow with the same "feeling" as back then, you would not need rules for every minutia. Regardless of what people with isolated experiences will claim, the atmosphere in general of the game back then was not nearly as cuthroat and nit-picky as with the community today.

Of course, people are going to immediately claim I am seeing everything with rose-colored glasses.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I want to get back to playing games of 2nd edition, even if armies like the Tau and Grey Knights (as an army, anyway) are not applicable. It's the edition that got me into 40K and wargaming in general, and I was 12 years old. If the person I was back then saw the 40K of today, I would never pick it up.

And the argument that going back in editions gets you "worse" rules is bullgak. Sure, they might not have been as comprehensive, but if you played a game of 2nd edition tomorrow with the same "feeling" as back then, you would not need rules for every minutia. Regardless of what people with isolated experiences will claim, the atmosphere in general of the game back then was not nearly as cuthroat and nit-picky as with the community today.

Of course, people are going to immediately claim I am seeing everything with rose-colored glasses.

We played 2nd after giving up 3rd. We played it until 6th came out. Even making tiny changes to it made a huge difference. We never took Wargear cards. You could make your characters nice and powerful without them and that cut out all the Herohammer elements and nonsense like the Vortex Grenade etc.

Most of this thread has devovled into personal rants about what people don't like about 7th ....

Why don't people just play older editions?

Why don't you play old video games over and over ?

Why does D&D need any edition beyond 1st ?

Why don't people play with the original MTG cards ?

Because new is interesting.

New troops, new choices, new strategies, opens new possibilities.

Rebooting the game puts people closer to a level playing field, and encourages new players to join.

------------

As for the rules themselves, people like to complain about tweaks they don't like, usually because they hurt they're prefered strategy.

I'm guilty of it. I refused to play Orks from 3rd all the way to the release of 6th edition because of the changes they made to Orks from 2nd to 3rd. (BS2, wonky weapons, wierdboyz).

 adamsouza wrote:
Most of this thread has devovled into personal rants about what people don't like about 7th ....

Why don't people just play older editions?

Why don't you play old video games over and over ?

Why does D&D need any edition beyond 1st ?

Why don't people play with the original MTG cards ?

Because new is interesting.

New troops, new choices, new strategies, opens new possibilities.

Rebooting the game puts people closer to a level playing field, and encourages new players to join.

------------

As for the rules themselves, people like to complain about tweaks they don't like, usually because they hurt they're prefered strategy.

I'm guilty of it. I refused to play Orks from 3rd all the way to the release of 6th edition because of the changes they made to Orks from 2nd to 3rd. (BS2, wonky weapons, wierdboyz).

Actually, my army is doing quite well with strategy. SOB have some of the best anti-tank peeps around and my excorcists are even harder to kill.
That's now why I don't like 7th.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Actually, my army is doing quite well with strategy. SOB have some of the best anti-tank peeps around and my excorcists are even harder to kill.
That's now why I don't like 7th.

You don't like 7th Edition because your army works better in 7th Edition

 adamsouza wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Actually, my army is doing quite well with strategy. SOB have some of the best anti-tank peeps around and my excorcists are even harder to kill.
That's not why I don't like 7th.

You don't like 7th Edition because your army works better in 7th Edition

No, I said my army doing alright ISN'T the reason I don't like 7th. I dislike 7th for several other reasons, just not that one.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

1. Pretty much the entirety of the army selection rules

Please, elaborate.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
2. Random charge distance

Questionable, yes. Utter garbage? Don't think so. Random charge distances are there to not make assaulting units a point 'n' click.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
3. Overwatch removes models from the front

What the hell is wrong with that one? Is it not painfully obvious that you'll be shooting the closest charging guys to not let them reach you?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
4. It is impossible to assault from every form of reserves, but shooting is just fine

It's faster to pull up a gun and squeeze the trigger than to start running and wind up a swing/slash. Kinda painfully obvious. You're starting to lose me.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
5. Changes to the Monstrous Creature rules make them laughably inadequate at damaging vehicles without ridiculous Strength values

Because some weak-ish monster should be able to smash a vehicle in a few punches, right?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
6. Tactical Objectives

Not garbage. Different. Please, don't confuse those two - some people dig it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
7. First Blood

I don't know a single person that actually minds it. Usually it encourages cautious deployment but I guess it can be deemed obsolete by some.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
8. Seize the Initiative

On a 6. Slim chance. I'm okay with that.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
9. Beasts and other units that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still strike at initiative 1

Now this is closer to garbage. At least one thing I can agree with you on.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
10. With enough warp charges the chance of denying a power is so high an opponent with only 1 or 2 psykers is only risking Perils by attempting to manifest any powers

It still needs sixes, right? Still don't get why didn't they go for the WFB magic phase in 100%. But then dispelling would be even easier.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
11. "If you find a rules interaction that doesn't work just roll a d6 to see what happens, don't expect us to solve it"

I don't really feel like addressing this one without making an ad hominem argument.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
12. The huge amount of frustratingly vague and poorly worded rules that spark multi-page threads in YMDC.

That might be true, but no previous edition was -ever- closer to being clear(aside maybe from RT, but I don't recall it that well). Also remember that lots of YMDC threads are there because of nitpicking rules lawyers that only try to prove their exploit attempts. In a sensible, reasonable community that wouldn't be happening.

I'm sorry if I sound like I am trying to defend GW or anything, but I really, really disagree with you as some of your points sound fairly biased.

Tactical Objectives are a good concept but terrible execution so they are pretty bad.

Also as per your shooting versus assault jazz, this is a fantasy world of super fast magical daemon biomorph terminators of doom

Weakish? Please tell the Hive Tyrant, Blood Thirster, and Daemon Prince that they are "weakish". The only real weakish ones are those such as the riptide. Even the LoC is mighty claimed to be deceptively weak looking.

Point and click? Random charges is just utter nonsense and what makes that different from point and click shooting?

And overwatch removing from the front is ludicrous. People never always shoot the closest guy. It's far more irratic.

 Klerych wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

1. Pretty much the entirety of the army selection rules

Please, elaborate. The lack of restrictions to the number of detachments you have and the ability for everyone to ally with everyone means the various armies need to be incredibly tightly balanced to avoid abuse of the system.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
2. Random charge distance

Questionable, yes. Utter garbage? Don't think so. Random charge distances are there to not make assaulting units a point 'n' click. Assault already has the disadvantages of much shorter range and allowing your opponent to fight back compared to shooting (which is point n' click). A single roll determining if your entire unit gets to do damage this turn is very unfair when shooting armies always know whether they're in range, add to that the risks you take getting out into the open and into Rapid Fire range in order to assault and I just cannot see the justification for random charges.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
3. Overwatch removes models from the front

What the hell is wrong with that one? Is it not painfully obvious that you'll be shooting the closest charging guys to not let them reach you? Because it accentuates the issues with random charges and makes fragile assault units even worse than they already are.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
4. It is impossible to assault from every form of reserves, but shooting is just fine

It's faster to pull up a gun and squeeze the trigger than to start running and wind up a swing/slash. Kinda painfully obvious. You're starting to lose me. Ambush units are unable to actually ambush unless they're shooty, blatantly favours shooting over assault, noticing a trend?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
5. Changes to the Monstrous Creature rules make them laughably inadequate at damaging vehicles without ridiculous Strength values

Because some weak-ish monster should be able to smash a vehicle in a few punches, right? No, but the pretty strong ones (Strength 6-7) with lots of attacks should have a better chance than the weak ones with a small number of attacks (Strength 5), yet they have the exact same chances.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
6. Tactical Objectives

Not garbage. Different. Please, don't confuse those two - some people dig it. Good idea, but very poorly implemented and can easily remove the factors of skill and tactics when it comes to deciding the victor. Though removing all the cards except the score X objective ones is a simple fix that makes it a much better system.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
7. First Blood

I don't know a single person that actually minds it. Usually it encourages cautious deployment but I guess it can be deemed obsolete by some. Blatantly favours long ranged armies.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
8. Seize the Initiative

On a 6. Slim chance. I'm okay with that. 1/6 games someone has both the advantages of counter-deploying and first turn, I'm not ok with that.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
9. Beasts and other units that aren't slowed by difficult terrain still strike at initiative 1

Now this is closer to garbage. At least one thing I can agree with you on.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
10. With enough warp charges the chance of denying a power is so high an opponent with only 1 or 2 psykers is only risking Perils by attempting to manifest any powers

It still needs sixes, right? Still don't get why didn't they go for the WFB magic phase in 100%. But then dispelling would be even easier. It still needs 6s but when you compare someone with 9 Warp Charges against someone with 40 Warp Charges it gets silly.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
11. "If you find a rules interaction that doesn't work just roll a d6 to see what happens, don't expect us to solve it"

I don't really feel like addressing this one without making an ad hominem argument.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
12. The huge amount of frustratingly vague and poorly worded rules that spark multi-page threads in YMDC.

That might be true, but no previous edition was -ever- closer to being clear(aside maybe from RT, but I don't recall it that well). Also remember that lots of YMDC threads are there because of nitpicking rules lawyers that only try to prove their exploit attempts. In a sensible, reasonable community that wouldn't be happening.Yes, this has been a constant problem with 40k. Other game systems I'm familiar with have nowhere near as many issues as 40k due solely to poorly written rules.

I'm sorry if I sound like I am trying to defend GW or anything, but I really, really disagree with you as some of your points sound fairly biased.

It's cool, everyone has their opinions. I recognise that the rules I listed show my bias as a Tyranid player, those are simply the ones that came to mind due to the lens through which I view 40k.

Some very good points have been made and most are right, I just feel that new isn't always better, just because it's new. If GW liked they could release new units without having to release a new Codex or Edition. I think the constant changing of editions is more damaging in the long term - I'd rather have a solid game and build add-ons for it (therefore keeping it fresh), like Mods in a computer game, than release a slightly "improved" version every 2 years, re-hashing a lot of the same material, which seems likely now. I think the new edition mind set is why a lot of players have left to play games that have more solid mechanics and forces in place.

I still play old games (I resurrected my megadrive when my Xbox died a second death) and there's a definite market for all things retro - like video games, RPG's, classic cars etc and many classic minis sell for a pretty penny on ebay still. Old games are fun - Doom's still great (Brutal Doom is probably better mind) and we all know Diablo II (with mod's especially) is better than Diablo III, but I guess we live in times where everything has to be new, even if it's old

I agree that a lack of updates for older editions and a lack of acknowledgement of their existence from GW is the main reason people don't play, but to me that's just short-sighted business and a lack of respect for their own IP. I would always encourage player's to try other editions - even if it's just 500pts, the rules are easy enough to get. All games of 40k I've played have been fun, no matter the Edition, and converting new units and ideas across to older editions is a hobby in and of itself

From my perspective I just can't afford to play 7th, even if I had the wish to. I had a fair few games in 6th and it was fun for the most part, but the game just seemed silly to me (even compared to 2nd Edition) in so many ways and at least in 2nd Ed the points costs are higher (by about 40% on average), so I can build and play multiple armies quite happily within it at a reduced cost.

C'mon guys, 7 editions in almost 30 years is hardly 'constant change'. I totally get the objections to price and overall cost of the game, but to criticize a game (7th ed) when you've already decided you won't try/play it is the definition of ignorance and really just daft.

To give up on the game because a bunch of whiners are freaking out on the Internet about hypothetical situations, is just nonsense.

Like every edition of 40K (and I've played all of them), 7th edition is not perfect, but it's actually really good.

How about criticising and giving up on the game based on very real first- and second-hand experience? Is that nonsense too?

One thing I like with the newer editions over the older editions:

Special Rules.

It is like in programming, make a module and call it up where needed.

By making a useful set of special rules and controlling them with the primary rule book it lends a method of standardization. All those special case rules only to be found in various codex's was irritating.

They still have to make special rules in Codex's (like Commisar's executing a squad member to pass a leadership test) but the majority of interest are in the BRB.

It will make rulebook changes more modular as well, look at the change in decisions in the "Jink" rule from 6th to 7th.

I find it much easier to piece together a 7th edition codex for "Squats" for my friend, literally you look for something similar in a codex, copy, paste and rename. You do not go too far off base doing that now as long as you bear in mind the entire army's rules.

Pick-up games will still be hard, but with "reasonable" friends it all has been quite good.

 Jidmah wrote:
A couple of reasons:
1) The older versions aren't necessarily better. The older the edition is, the more ambiguous the rules are, the more effort you have to put into getting a consent on certain things.

This is the main reason for me. IMO, there has never been a version of 40k that wasn't broken in a significant way (I didn't play 4th edition, but I have no reason to suspect that it's magically better than the others).

The more your base rule set deviates from the current model, the harder it is to find new players. You can play the game any way you want with friends, but how often does that old guy sitting in the corner of your FLGS find someone who will play type 1 magic the gathering with him? You are asking people to play a competitive game in which you will clearly know the rules better than them, and that is almost solely because you insist on using an obscure rule set. That just isn't fun for most people.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How about criticising and giving up on the game based on very real first- and second-hand experience? Is that nonsense too?

If you played it for a few months and just decided you couldn't enjoy it, I'd understand. But for one thing, a lot of the negative comments are coming from people who admit to having no interest in even trying.

That Saturday morning the rules were released we played them the entire day and have continued to play them since; I've yet to see the 'sky is falling' doomsday scenarios the internet is hypothetically afraid of. Certainly nothing worse than what we've already seen in previous editions. That said, like every other edition, it's not perfect.

Despite the rosy colored nostalgia, none of the previous editions were actually better.

7th isn't different enough from 6th that you need months of playing to decide if you like it.
I didn't even really need the couple of games I've played to know I wouln't like it, nearly all of the issues I had with 6th are still present in 7th, some of which have been exacerbated, and they've created even more issues. To be honest, the only reasons I've kept playing after the 6th edition Tyranid Codex came out was in the hope 7th edition would be a radical shift in the game for the better.