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 personally think it's worse. There is an entirely new phase that allows for some armies to abuse. GK and Deamons can easily be added in to armies just to generate extra warp dice. It makes most people I talk to feel like they have to bring as many as they can or none at all. I used to bring a spirit seer ally in, but now he's worthless since most of the time my opponent will get 6 dice for every 1 I have.

The absolute worst thing I hate about the game is the random missions. It completely destroys any narrative approach since two armies show up to the battle field and don't know why till after they get ready to fight. The other part is it removes strategy from the game. I've played several games where my opponent or I have removed all cards in our hand in one turn, either claiming or via a discard. There is no planning for the next turn. I have no idea what will go on.

Maelstrom missions should have been given the same treatment as unbound as far as I'm concerned. Yes, it's nice to have a dynamic game. The problem is you're sacrificing all attempts to have strategy in play. And no, you can't just say "Be mobile and flexible" because that's the answer in list building before the game starts. Having units deployed and not knowing where they will be from one turn to the next, or if they have to issue a challenge, or cast a psyker spell, or whatever else should not be a turn by turn basis.

I love it I love unbound I was finally able to run my wish lists. Farsight riptide mass stealth lol

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think the best way to decide if the changes are good or bad is by simply by asking did you think 6th was an improvment on 5th?

If yes then 7th takes it even further in that direction, you should enjoy it.

If no, they simply expanded on the 'narrative' mindset of 6th, look unto mantics Warpath or Deadzone instead, they are more streamlined and better for competitive play.

I definitely like 6th better than 5th so perhaps I will like it. However I don't like the idea of this unbound thing I've heard of. I like one FOC vs. one FOC.

About the same. Literally. Our meta has not bothered with abandoning 6th edition for even more random tables and clutter.

Maelstrom missions make this the best edition that has ever been.

I feel like in 7th GW did a lot of 'good' changes in the little things- vehicle damage table, jinx, FMC nerfs, OS, etc', but fethed up horribly with the big changes- limitless FOCs, unbound, summoning, easily exploitable new psyker rules, Maelstrom, etc...

Using houseruling to take the good and leave out or limit the bad would massively improve the game and make 7th a definite improvement over 6th, but I wouldn't really consider this a point in 7th's favor seeing as how a) that's not always an option and b) that's not really 7th.

Well according to the poll half of folks actually think it's better. Guess I'll pick it up after all.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Well according to the poll half of folks actually think it's better. Guess I'll pick it up after all.

Half the people left.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Well according to the poll half of folks actually think it's better. Guess I'll pick it up after all.

Half the people left.

Yeah, it's hard to collect votes from people who no longer frequent the forum because they gave up on the game

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Well according to the poll half of folks actually think it's better. Guess I'll pick it up after all.

Half the people left.

Yeah, it's hard to collect votes from people who no longer frequent the forum because they gave up on the game

Did that actually happen? Is there proof? Like, are sales down or something?

I know there are unhappy people but I have yet to see anyone in my gaming community leave over 7th edition being the way it is.

Sales tanked bigtime in the half yearly report, prompting a knee jerk reaction with the release of 7th ed 2 years early to prop up sales just in time for the end of year report so yeah, that's pretty damning evidence. People that were already really irritated with GWs direction saw the blatant cash grab of 7th and said feth it, enough is enough. Hence all the rabble rousing in 40k general lately.

 Yonan wrote:
Sales tanked bigtime in the half yearly report, prompting a knee jerk reaction with the release of 7th ed 2 years early to prop up sales just in time for the end of year report so yeah, that's pretty damning evidence.

Isn't that more of a reaction to 6th then?

The 6 month report tanking is a reaction to the shenanigans during 6th, yes. The rabble rousing in 40k general now is due to 7th (the proverbial straw) which is a continuation of what started during 6th with the pay more for less business model. Having only been here since the tail of 5th it may have been worse before that (I've been told not however) but I've never seen such backlash at GW as we have now. So many "I'm done" posts, so many "are you serious GW?" posts. That's the 7th ed backlash.

Oh, rage over prices is, like the prices, at an all time high. I understand that. I would think falling sales has more to do with that than the rules. Maybe because I did like 6th better than 5th, though I understand the Allies system makes the game kind of broken competition wise.

Many people have many different issues. Some mainly take issue with price and lower value things like halving the DAs per box at the same price, others with rules and balance, others with the ethics of GWs policies such as suing chapterhouse and day one DLC. What's sad is that there are so many bad things GW has done to choose from.

On the price front though, I have to say that while yes, in general they're fething ridiculous - especially for you as a Canadian, and me as an Aussie, but the new bundles when bought from a US discounter are actually pretty damn good value. I actually rewarded GW with a fair bit of money due to that this year by buying 3x SM Strike Forces and, arriving today, 3 SM Strike Force Ultras. $50 for a land raider or storm raven that retails for $110 here - that I find acceptable.

The other prices, the day one dlcs, the minimal content in the dataslates, the purposely cutting content from codices to upsell on supplements and the poor rule writing is why I'm not buying any GW books and pretty much done buying models unless they're priced recently as above.

Don't discount the impact of the rules on sales though. People are sick of there being no improvement - and in many ways, worsening of the rules for many people. Unbound and daemonology gaks on the fluff and gameplay alike. Some small fixes that could easily have been faq'd didn't justify a new edition, codices remaining with poor internal balance and so on. If you read the threads, the poor rules are the given reason for many people to say enough is enough. I started in the tail of 5th, so I've seen the release of 6th and 7th and it's enough for me to say "nope, GW has no intention of making the rules better for me".

I think the rules coming out so quickly looks really bad and does seem like a money grab. Also the more lackluster codexes and multiple supplements to said books also angers a lot of people as well.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I would think falling sales has more to do with that than the rules.

There's not a single factor for their decline, but instead a multitude. The prices coupled with the lack of quality rules is shedding some of the player base.

The next financial report will be interesting. If everything remains flat despite the sales of 7th propping it up, it'll be pretty telling where GW is going. If they post a loss, it'll be bad news for them, though even if they post any growth, it'll be hard to determine how much of that is boosted by the last minute release of 7th.

But that's a discussion for the future. I'm not happy with the changes, but I didn't like 6th either. Like most things GW does, they have solid ideas marred by poor execution. The new mission type is a good example of this; asymmetric mission goals are an awesome idea, but random cards to determine them and having vastly varying degrees of difficult to achieve them is a no go for me.

If I have one major gripe though, its the continued FoC shenanigans started in 6th. The total lack of structure in both Unbound and Battleforged is a huge sticking point to get me excited about the game.

I mostly like it though I'm finding that the psychic phase has neutered my GKs, unfairly so I think. Used to casting 8+ a turn, now I'm lucky if I get 2 off. Massive nerf that wasn't needed.

Played a game today, where in the 6 turns with initially 13+d6 dice, I failed to cast hammerhand the entire game (8 attempts,) and only managed to cast cast one power... vortex.

 Blacksails wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I would think falling sales has more to do with that than the rules.

There's not a single factor for their decline, but instead a multitude. The prices coupled with the lack of quality rules is shedding some of the player base.

This. The main reason I walked away from 40k was related to price in that it caused me to give my purchases more scrutiny. I realized that if I was going to make a workable Khorne-themed CSM army, I would basically have to start it from the ground up and buy practically a whole new uber-expensive army, and the kicker was I didn't even really expect it to be that good. After a decent amount of introspection and some research, I decided I would spend a fraction of that money trying out a different gaming system instead, and I haven't looked back since.

I like it so far, though i have yet to play unbound and i imagine there are some truly sadistic possibilities there

Overall, I really like 7th ed. I especially like Maelstroms of War, and I think the new psychic phase is a good streamlining effort, if slightly over-emphasized (and I run a range of armies from zero-psychic armies to Tzeentch scariness).

The thing I find weird is no pinning from barrage and snipers. The Unbound and LoW debate is really very subjective. Depending on the player and community and how you treat it, it can either be an amazing or a depressing thing. And I won't get into that debate.

Funny thing about 7th is that a lot of the negative and doom and gloom things being said about it really reminds me of when 3rd ed came out. I remember whole mobs of people refusing to give up their 2nd ed. O well ...

Worse overall
Pro?
the entirety of psychics was improved from a game/mechanics perspective: The seperate phase clears up and solidifies a LOT of the ambiguity that plagued it in 6th ed. (also - Face it - the 6th ed Psyker bazaar was out of hand with the unstoppable blessing-stack-o-rama)

Push:
Allies were Tweaked, yes but not enough to stop the shenanigans we were already seeing...so call it a push

Con?
Challenges are no longer...um..Challenges....What's the point if they're just part of the CC lineup with the rest of the scrubs?

Unbound/Anything Goes is just...not worth commenting on beyond this.
This one is enough to punt this "7th ed" Firmly into the negative with no reprieve in sight.

These are the highlights as I see em thus far...
Otherwise it' seems pretty much like a 6th ed re-print