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.
2014/06/17 01:51:05
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
2014/06/17 01:53:40
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
@lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all. Like telling a Commissar to engage in hand to hand with a tyranid huge monster.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
Which is right, thats pretty much what I said. Except what if you keep drawing the same card you cant complete. Like shoot an aircraft down. You tell the commander there is no aircraft, so he tells you again to shoot down the aircraft. While yes it can help represent confusion it can also be really stupid. Imagine a psykic farseer or whatever who can see into the future blah b;lah and he keeps telling a force to kill something that isnt there.
I see both sides have a point. I for example wouldnt have an issue with it and quite enjoy the cards so far, but I can also (as someone who prefers historic games where its sometimes an attempt at simulation) see how its really stupid to have also.
Like everything GW does, for everything good they do, it has draw backs. The draw back with this is the narrative has to be stretched depending on the cards you pull. Like orderign a Tau commander to fight hand to hand against a Huge Tyranid monster.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/17 01:57:12
2014/06/17 01:57:34
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
2014/06/17 01:58:50
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
Maybe in friendly games, but in competitive games, Eldar are still top dog.
I do drugs.
Mostly Plastic Crack, but I do dabble in Cardboard Cocaine.
2014/06/17 01:59:47
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
Maybe in friendly games, but in competitive games, Eldar are still top dog.
Not for Maelstrom, not even close. Tau and Eldar have been getting creamed by almost everything out here. Eternal War missions are a different story though.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
2014/06/17 02:03:00
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
Yeah, you just have to work a little harder than in any other mission system I've ever seen to imagine it almost makes sense. Not that bad!
Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
2014/06/17 02:04:03
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
You have 3 objective cards.. 1 kill psyker, 1 hold Objective 2 and one hold objective 1 (for example).
The commander has asked that these objectives are currently priority. The objectives need to be taken and psykers are a huge threat if any are present. The enemy have no psykers, so you confirm there are no psykers and they go ok and give you something else to look out for. Which ends up being another one of the cards. So you have that in mind as you go to claim the objectives.
What if the objectives are places where enemy movement is expected, so every time you get an objective card your commander is asking you to make sure no new enemy movement has been noticed when you check it.
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
I see what you mean, but I thinks it far better than the mysterious objectives we never played. I think it can work, but it can also make no sense at all.
You get 3 cards. One of them is to kill the Psyker. Here is a narrative that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.
"The enemy has a sniper hidden somewhere in the buildings over there, we need you to go find him and take him out."
"Sir, the sniper is already dead."
"In that case we proceed to stage two, we need to push forward into the city and capture the communications relay. It is likely to be heavily fortified by enemy units so expect resistance."
"Yes sir."
"Once you secure the communications relay, we need to cut off the power grid to the city."
You see, with a little effort, you can make a narrative, that literally took 30 seconds to do.
Yeah, you just have to work a little harder than in any other mission system I've ever seen to imagine it almost makes sense. Not that bad!
Dude that was 30 seconds of effort while I was eating a sandwich, typing with one hand. It isn't difficult at all.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
2014/06/17 02:05:16
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Swastakowey wrote: I dont get the examples being used against these cards.
One unit in your army isnt running back and forth, your whole army should be working to maximize the gaining these card benefits. So instead of one unit running back and forth, you will probably have units heading to these objectives anyways with support spread between the advancing parties.
No idiot would send a his whole force at one objective knowing he may need to take the one on the other end of the field next.
Its nothing like headless chickens. If you play it properly and play it to win, you wont have darting armies moving in unison to get one objective at a time.
I think they are ok, just a bit too random maybe but still. Its not like these objectives are being given to just one squad in your force (unless you only have one squad) so your army can work on the premise that one objective can become important. rather than focusing on the objective at hand 100%.
Yeah, you're really missing the point. Yes, you don't literally send your whole army after every objective every turn. And random objectives do tend to break up gunline armies by forcing you to move and cover more options. But if you had to try to imagine your game of 40k as a battle (crazy talk, I know), what would you say is going on? What possible coherent story could you make out of your random smattering of objectives, some of which are plain stupid? Seriously, cast psychic powers, gain points?
Random cards might force you to be quicker and more flexible, but so does a game of whack-a-mole. The mission cards as implemented just make it even less of a wargame and more of a plain old game. One more disconnect from being a wartorn battlefield instead of two people pushing enormously expensive plastic toys around.
Sorry, you've served and you are whining about the randomness of objectives? Where and when may I ask have you served? Outside of WW2 every conflict the US has been in has been a series of random objectives that the soldiers don't really know much about as they shouldn't have been there in the first place, hence why we lost Vietnam, Korea was a standstill, Iraq 1/2 were failures. Had objectives been clearly defined and thought out, the results of these would be different. Those are wars, not battles. Big difference. And that's not why we lost.
I understand that you do not like the cards and you think there is no narrative in the game and that is fine, you have a right to your opinion. Except it is based on zero logic and more emotion than anything else. Except real world experience? You sound more like an angry vet ranting about how normal people will never understand what you went through blah, blah blah. It isn't helpful to the discussion and is flat out offensive to a degree. I find your willful ignorance offensive. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying, don't say the random cards are like war, because they're not. You may find them fun, that's fine, but realistic and narrative they are not.
You don't like something, that's okay. State your opinion and move along, no reason to sit there and belittle others simply because they can find something of value from this and you cannot. Like telling me that I'm just an angry vet and then trying to argue about real battle with me?
And as for strategy, not to be a douche or anything, but since when does a grunt have an impact on the strategy of a battleground? In small battles, all the time. You are given orders from someone on high who, more often than not isn't even on the ground with you, these orders are relayed down the pipeline until it gets to your squad captain, which is who you hear the orders from. You know this from personal experience? Because that's not how it was when I was in Iraq.
Back to the thread. This thread is about how and why people love 7th. If you feel otherwise, why not create a thread talking about why you hate 7th and leave those who like it be?
I assume you were talking to me?
Sorry, you're completely wrong. Stop trying to tell me what combat is like. I've seen combat and it isn't random objectives we don't know about. I don't even know where you're getting this from. These random carts take away game strategy and make it a new strategy each turn. I get that you like it, that's fine. I'm not belittling anyone, but you know nothing about real war. Is this game real war? No. I don't expect it to be. But I do expect it to make sense. There's a suspension of disbelief and this breaks it.
And I'm a published historian that studies warfare. Your historical examples are highly inaccurate. Go get educated.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2014/06/17 02:14:10
Subject: Re:Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Lobomalo wrote: Edited. Debating the merits of war is not a part of these forums and is not constructive at all.
Word of advice. If you are looking for realism in a game, you need to relax and maybe take a step or two back.
No,that's not what's happening.
Real world parallels were attempted to be drawn with 40K, someone with real world experience explained that it isn't the case. Someone, apparently without real world experience, disputed that.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Let me know when we get chainswords, huge dudes in power armor dropping from orbit to engage in close combat with their chainsaw swords and axes. while daemons manifest themselves onto the table.
It is a fantasy game, that really holds no parallels to anything realistic. Any attempt to do so seems like an exercise in futility.
If you dont like the maelstrom missions then alter them or dont use them. It seems like enough people enjoy them that it was a good idea to include them in the rule book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/17 03:20:13
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
Lobomalo wrote: Edited. Debating the merits of war is not a part of these forums and is not constructive at all.
Word of advice. If you are looking for realism in a game, you need to relax and maybe take a step or two back.
No,that's not what's happening.
Real world parallels were attempted to be drawn with 40K, someone with real world experience explained that it isn't the case. Someone, apparently without real world experience, disputed that.
Exactly.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2014/06/17 04:13:21
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
azreal13 wrote: @lobmalo
I think you may have quoted the wrong user. Regardless, the user you quoted is a UK flag, so if I've missed something and he has served, then, historically, our track record is very different to the US.
With regard to topic, I think Maelstrom is almost there, both as a concept and as a means of disrupting some of the less fun armies to play against.
I favour variety in my lists, I seldom spam, in fact I rarely take more than two of any unit, and I find with the spread of speed, offence and defence I tend to have available with those lists, MOW missions suit me well (I'm 3:0 in 7th so far, and, with no false modesty, not really had a close game yet)
But, if they break your suspension of disbelief, for whatever reason, then that's a bad thing, all I can suggest to those who do is, if you're lucky enough to have regular opponents, try a few small mods to try and fix that. (The best I've heard is one set of cards as "bonus points" to last the whole game, rather then be redrawn turn to turn as they're completed and free discards of useless objectives)
I may have misquoted someone but the rest of my comment stands, got really niffed with some of the outright hostile comments in this discussion.
So far though, I haven't seen any Eldar even win a MoW to be honest, especially when they are playing against any Space Marine chapter as the simply bunker up in buildings nearby to the bulk of the objectives and slaughter anything that moves. Horde armies are better suited than speed based armies from what I have seen so far.
Maybe in friendly games, but in competitive games, Eldar are still top dog.
Not for Maelstrom, not even close. Tau and Eldar have been getting creamed by almost everything out here. Eternal War missions are a different story though.
Um no. Not at all. In fact in Mealstrom I do betetr than EW missions. Wave serpents+jet bikes= insta whatever objective I pull is mine.
Creamed by everything out there? Are you listening to your self?
Go play any good eldar player, and come back.
I do drugs.
Mostly Plastic Crack, but I do dabble in Cardboard Cocaine.
2014/06/17 04:47:49
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
You can only draw or roll up a card/objective once. You will never have to kill 2 psykers or blow up two planes in any mission. Each player has to have their own deck / roll their own objectives re-rolling if you get a double. Forge away.
40k is as exciting as riding a pony, which doesn't sound very exciting.......
But the pony is 300 feet tall and covered in CHAINSAWS!
2014/06/17 04:53:59
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Maelstrom Missions are very cool. I enjoy the game and the Maelstrom Missions seem to take away the feeling of beating each other up and more a feeling of desperately trying to follow orders from high command, taking hit 422 and so on while under fire. I just love the idea of being a small part of a much larger battle, just trying to secure the sector and apprehend important targets.
Fun. And winning and losing doesn't feel as adversarial. I dunno. i love that part of it.
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Who knows. The unfortunate issue is the fact its dependent on the cards drawn. I couldn't forge a narrative
if I got 2 kill psykers in a row in a game without psykers.
You can only draw or roll up a card/objective once. You will never have to kill 2 psykers or blow up two planes in any mission. Each player has to have their own deck / roll their own objectives re-rolling if you get a double. Forge away.
Well that changes heaps. Well I look even more forward to using them. I dont see a problem then.
2014/06/17 05:44:25
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
I'm pretty sure nobody was "mocking vets" here, though perhaps mocking the ridiculous anger poured at folks daring to enjoy the game.
Most of us, at least in the US, are very proud of our vets; but being a vet makes you an authority on futuristic fictional warfare narratives, as much as being bondage sex deviant makes you an authority on Slaanesh Daemon behavior.
Further you can't tell someone the games they play are not "narrative" games just because your games are not. So many folks, perhaps in the pursuit of "competitive", water down 40k so much into a game where everything is perfectly accounted for, no dataslate, no fw, strict 1850 points, nothing random, no mystery objectives, basically nothing they cannot plan for at list building. In this case I totally understand why they feel a detachment from any narrative.
But for you vets pining the realism chant - please tell me the last time you saw a war/battle/skirmish where the terrain was perfectly equal, the objectives where perfectly equal matched, the two armies where perfectly balanced to one another, and all variables where perfectly accounted for (nothing random or unexpected happened).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/17 05:48:25
Gunzhard wrote: I'm pretty sure nobody was "mocking vets" here, though perhaps mocking the ridiculous anger poured at folks daring to enjoy the game.
Most of us, at least in the US, are very proud of our vets; but being a vet makes you an authority on futuristic fictional warfare narratives, as much as being bondage sex deviant makes you an authority on Slaanesh Daemon behavior.
Further you can't tell someone the games they play are not "narrative" games just because your games are not. So many folks, perhaps in the pursuit of "competitive", water down 40k so much into a game where everything is perfectly accounted for, no dataslate, no fw, strict 1850 points, nothing random, no mystery objectives, basically nothing they cannot plan for at list building. In this case I totally understand why they feel a detachment from any narrative.
But for you vets pining the realism chant - please tell me the last time you a war/battle/skirmish where the terrain was perfectly equal, the objective where perfectly equal matched, the two armies where perfectly balanced to one another, and all variables where perfectly accounted for (nothing random or unexpected happened).
No mocking was intended, mocking ridiculousness though, definitely
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
2014/06/17 05:47:09
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
MWHistorian illustrates exactly my problem with the random battle cards. I said earlier objectives change outside battles and so are good for a campaign, but the change inside an actual battle is little or nonexistent. So not only are they unrealistic, but they don't encourage a narrative as random != story.
If people enjoy them, great. That enjoyment likely comes from the change in gameplay required, ie. a more active approach. You can get more active gameplay by other means - holding objectives should definitely award points each turn, that will make people play much more actively. But changing those objectives randomly is *not* conducive to realistic, or (imo) even fun gameplay. The only randomness in objectives should be decided before the game, that way you can keep your opponent guessing what your goals are, while you're guessing what theirs are based on what they're doing.
Gunzhard wrote: though perhaps mocking the ridiculous anger poured at folks daring to enjoy the game.
Source? Seriously, please quote some of this anger, I haven't seen it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/17 05:48:31
2014/06/17 05:49:57
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Except random is sort of the point. In battle only a few set objectives are set in stone, others become available randomly throughout combat, this is incredibly dynamic as you never know what objectives you need to work towards next
"Random" is certainly "dynamic" but the point was it has nothing to do with a narrative battle. Generally in a real-life skirmish you have a clearly defined long-term goal (don't die, kill the other guy, get from Point A to Point B, hold point C) and your actions, your enemy's actions, and the terrain you're fighting over naturally create short-term objectives along the way (we can flank their position if we take this hill, etc).
The Maelstrom cards are like an almost-but-not-quite attempt at artificially injecting those secondary objectives into the game (since 6th edition showed that in 40k, without artificial means, deathstars and gunlines make every battle look the same regardless of objectives). I am ok with this in theory. In practice, GW just needed to playtest their stupid cards more than once or twice. It's nice that the cards exist, because it means players with even an ounce of creativity can put together better house rules for them than GW bothered to write.
It also amazes me that GW's marketing has completely twisted the concept of a narrative game in some players' minds. In a narrative game, you come up with a backstory, set up a scenario that may or may not be balanced, and play it out to see how the story unfolds using a flexible but ultimately fair ruleset. The important thing is that your decisions really make sense within the game, and you help create a story through your actions. In GW bizarro land, your narrative game starts off with your army's leader gaining random abilities, then the battle takes inexplicable turns at the whim of D66 charts and cards, and all the while players have to go through mental gymnastics to explain what the heck is happening.
Wow, I don't get the whole forging the narrative thing either but you said it perfectly. Gorka morka or Necromunda have forging the narrative elements. I cannot see it in 40k
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2014/06/17 05:52:09
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Go back and read Calgarspimphand's high blood pressure rant on the previous page.
I did. His opinion has no real merit to this thread. We are talking about why we like 7th, not pointing out the unrealistic features in a futuristic miniature game of plastic figures.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
2014/06/17 06:00:23
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
Go back and read Calgarspimphand's high blood pressure rant on the previous page.
I did. His opinion has no real merit to this thread. We are talking about why we like 7th, not pointing out the unrealistic features in a futuristic miniature game of plastic figures.
Yeah sorry, that was directed at Yonan who sought an example of this anger hah.
So far the new tactical objectives seem to make each game more interesting and even doing the same mission on the same table feels different as sometimes I pull a bunch of objectives that make me play more defense than offense by grabbing what I can and denying my opponent or playing more aggressively and rushing to score as many points as I can as fast as possible.
I do understand why some people don't like them though, so it's nice that the old missions are still in place and untouched so groups who don't want to play the new type of mission are not required to play them, while those of us that like them can play either.
my only complaint is that I wish they would get more of those cards soon, they produced far to few of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/17 06:07:49
Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!
2014/06/17 06:23:05
Subject: Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
As someone who has been in combat I find the maelstrom randomness fun and fresh.
Lobomalo, asking about the time someone spent at war is akin to asking about political preference or how much money they make and should be avoided, specially in open forums such as this. Also saying the time we spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc to a soldier as essentially a waste of time is a great way to generate hate. It may have been a waste, it may have been a failure. It may have saved the world from nuclear war, doesn't matter this isn't a thread about real wars.
Yonan, I believe this is what he was referring to. He said nothing about you except that you should look at Calgarspimphand's post on the previous page.
Gunzhard wrote: Wait, are you telling us that Orks are not real? C'mon dude seriously?
It's a futuristic miniatures wargame designed to carry out narrative battles, no actual combat experience is required to play; but some imagination is.
Yeah it's a game, but it's supposed to be a war game. When even your mission objectives give up all pretense of making sense you get even further from that idea. That's OK though, 40k has never been very good for simulating combat. Every step away from that and towards making pew pew noises with dinobot models makes that clear, and makes the game more honest with itself in a way.
Also there's a difference between suspending disbelief over green skinned aliens (the game setting) and suspending disbelief over why your army is being made to run around in a schizophrenic fervor during a 10 minute long battle (the game itself). Bad mechanics are bad whether you buy into the back story or not.
Edit: Just have to add this, because I'm so tired of seeing it said: there is nothing narrative about 40k. NOTHING. There are ZERO narrative elements to 40k. There's no campaign system, your units don't gain experience or skills, nothing about the mechanics of the game really encourages roleplaying - everything is clunky mechanisms for moving units and dealing damage to the enemy while trying to carry out objectives that are essentially symmetrical. You have to use your imagination to add narrative to a 40k game, but you can do that with ANY wargame. I cannot repeat this enough, nothing about 40k is inherently narrative driven. Any good wargame can be used to construct and play out a narrative, and some are specifically designed to do it. 40k is not one of them.
Furthermore, there are plenty of elements of 40k that can actually IMPEDE any narrative you're trying to create. Things like random warlord traits and psychic powers, where the leaders of your army, the characters you probably most identify with and whose exploits you build a story around, learn potentially useless skills picked out of a hat just before battle begins. Or the Maelstrom cards, where any possible story behind the battle is immediately destroyed by the ever-changing crap you're tasked with doing each turn. Games Workshop actually go out of their way to make it HARDER to construct a narrative during a game of 40k these days.
The heaviest burden on your imagination isn't suspending disbelief at the existence of orks, it's coming up with reasons why your warlord has had a personality change since your last battle, and why you can't tell whether the random terrain you're walking into is about to eat you until you're literally inside it, and why the heck your army doesn't have an actual objective in this skirmish, it's just running around jumping on hot spots and shooting down planes to score imaginary points every 30 game-seconds. Those are the things that require true suspension of disbelief, and mental gymnastics to form any kind of narrative around.
Seriously, don't use the word "narrative" again until you've thought about what it actually means.
Objectives scoring every round I don't think it would work well for 40k. Say we roll 5 objectives, one player places 3 in his deployment and gunlines scoring every turn winning while you have to charge across the board getting shot and does nothing to stop him gaining points. Say you get the 3 objectives, even if you are a close combat army wouldn't you rather have them in your deployment so you can score on them winning? Say you get 4 objectives, well then you each sit on two hoping for First blood, Line Breaker and Warlord.
Anyway I agree with the OP. I've had fun and no boring gunlines yet. Lets me bring in my themed not so competitive lists and stand a chance if I play the mission.
40k is as exciting as riding a pony, which doesn't sound very exciting.......
But the pony is 300 feet tall and covered in CHAINSAWS!
2014/06/17 07:50:25
Subject: Re:Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
the firts time i played 7th ed was like a month ago, it was the mission 6 of the maelstorm if i am not wrong, i was playing my hairy space truck drivers (space wolves ) vs tyranids, i totally lose, and the thing is... i loved it ; because i builded a list ready to kill things in an alpha strike, but on mid game i totally understod i was going to lose for come to play with a single minded list, after that game begin to make new list having on account mobility, speed and endurance, new variables to consider beyond just throwing dices to kill things, this concept gives a new perspective to the game and reinforces the role of each unit: elites again are for cleaning the new objetives, troops consolidate the posibles futures objetives and fast attack have a role of counter reacthing the movement of the enemy, and besides give more importance to dedicated transports, becuase you gonna need that flexibility and movement to control the objetives you consider are more valuable.
A fresh and new experience i could said, and if you find impossibles cards, just house rule the discard then draw a new one, easy
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/17 07:53:48
2014/06/17 08:09:06
Subject: Re:Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
portugus wrote: Yonan, I believe this is what he was referring to. He said nothing about you except that you should look at Calgarspimphand's post on the previous page.
I read the post, but I can't see what part of it is the "ridiculous anger poured at people enjoying the game" so I was seeking clarity on exactly what part of it made him think that. All I can see is dislike of the mechanics.
2014/06/17 10:55:33
Subject: Re:Just had my first game of 7th and absolutely loved it
portugus wrote: Yonan, I believe this is what he was referring to. He said nothing about you except that you should look at Calgarspimphand's post on the previous page.
I read the post, but I can't see what part of it is the "ridiculous anger poured at people enjoying the game" so I was seeking clarity on exactly what part of it made him think that. All I can see is dislike of the mechanics.
It like, no longer matters man, lets get back to talking about the edition instead of the people playing the edition.
I got 4 tournaments on 4 back to back weekends coming up and I am pumped up. First one is using the maelstrom cards as primary(local friendly event), second one is using the Alternate missions, third is using eternal war with maelstrom secondary, and the fourth is using the nova style missions.
Gonna see if my army can do well across all the different formats.
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer