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 never played 6th, but I definitely liked 4th/5th better than 7th.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great improvements in the game. I love Hull Points and only being able to one-shot vehicles with high-AP weapons. There are several thing like this that are vast improvements.

But wound allocation is so backwards that it's actually painful. I loved 3rd/4th edition's wound allocation. Defender picks his dead, majority cover. So fast, so easy. Now wound allocation requires a ridiculous amount of measuring, re-measuring, rolling individual saves, rolling look out-sirs, randomizing. It's a mess.

Fix that, and you have a pretty solid edition though.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I never played 6th, but I definitely liked 4th/5th better than 7th.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great improvements in the game. I love Hull Points and only being able to one-shot vehicles with high-AP weapons. There are several thing like this that are vast improvements.

But wound allocation is so backwards that it's actually painful. I loved 3rd/4th edition's wound allocation. Defender picks his dead, majority cover. So fast, so easy. Now wound allocation requires a ridiculous amount of measuring, re-measuring, rolling individual saves, rolling look out-sirs, randomizing. It's a mess.

Fix that, and you have a pretty solid edition though.

On the other hand there was no pre-measuring in 4th. I'm pretty sure there was no pre-measuring in 5th either.

So a lot of times you'd end up making stupid moves or firing at stuff out of range, and all those target priority tests in 4th edition made life hell. Not to mention unkillable holofield vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My biggest gripe about 7th (beyond them maybe needing a little more time to more tightly tune how things were written) is that I wish it came with a list of changes for what is different from 6th so I'm not hunting for things that were removed completely.

Check out my article in my sig for that list

It wasn't that hard to premeasure range in 5th. You just have to learn how to do it without breaking any rules.

 Sir Arun wrote:


On the other hand there was no pre-measuring in 4th. I'm pretty sure there was no pre-measuring in 5th either.

So a lot of times you'd end up making stupid moves or firing at stuff out of range, and all those target priority tests in 4th edition made life hell. Not to mention unkillable holofield vehicles.

Pre-measuring is one of the things I like. Giving combat weapons a regular stat-line was great. The ONLY thing I have real problem with is wound allocation. It's like it was designed to slow down the game and complicate a simple process for no real advantage.

It won't stop me from playing, but it does strip some enjoyment from the game and I hope they consider moving back to something simpler when 8th rolls around.

 Blacksails wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I guess it's different perspectives but I see Unbound as a great narrative tool, and a great way for new players to get into the game with just the stuff they think is cool. I get that it can be abused, but I haven't seen anyone actually do it.

I don't agree with either of those points any deeper than as bandaids for the current state of the game/GW. Unbound is nice for new players, but the real solution would be to make the game for accessible in terms of prices, starter boxes, and starter rules/scenarios.

As for the narrative aspect, I also don't buy it. The game is naturally narrative, and the FoC is a very logical, narrative-centric way to build an army. The solution to certain builds not being capable in traditional charts was to include more force org swapping/trading or offering different charts altogether. There's not a whole lot Unbound actually does that you couldn't do before it was codified. You always had the option to just play with whatever you want if your opponent was cool with it.

The FOC doesn't let me play an all Assault Marine army unless I'm running BA. And it's not just Marines either, if I want to run an army of Priests, Repentia and Penitent Engines the only way I can play it as an army is Unbound. I'm sure people have plenty of armies they've wanted to do that they couldn't before but can with unbound that don't break the game for an easy win.

And I agree that those things for new players would be better, but they take time and development. In the mean time a bandaid for new players that doesn't require extra money to play (like Kill Team does) is good.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its not so much it being a balance issue as it is a game design issue. It begs the question why you have a chart in the first place if your only constraint is taking more troops and HQ. Any army can benefit given they have strong troops/HQ, which is a number. IG can easily fill their mandatory slots with cheap and effective units and just spam whatever other slot they feel like.

Again, Eldar are the only ones who seem to come out head and shoulders on this. I don't see many other armies that benefit from it that much. Kind of like how I see the unbound Riptide army being the only one that actually benefits from abusing the Unbound system. Sure there are probably others who can try, but they don't come close to the levels that those two armies can abuse those systems right now.

 Blacksails wrote:
It just feels like its killing diversity in being forced to explore a full Codex to bring an army at the 2000pts, where you quickly max out on your slots, forcing you to find solutions elsewhere. Then again, the balance of the game doesn't help in either situation, so its a bit of a moot point until the game balances itself out.

Or it's not forcing players to take units they don't like just to make their army effective. I get what you're saying, but that really is something that should be restricted to competitive play, not all play in general.

 Blacksails wrote:

Actually 30k has a single FOC, but can take Rites of War with specific models that give bonuses for certain things (like Deep Strike on Terminators) but pair it with restrictions.

I thought the new books added different charts entirely, some with multiple LoW, or more fortifications? I could be mistaken, but I swore my HH book 2 has different charts.

Either way, its a great idea and should have been implemented a long time ago.

I haven't seen the new books, so maybe they did, but I do know that every Legion thus far has Legion specific Rites of War.

And I agree, new and optional FOCs are something we needed two editions ago, but I'll take improvements where I can get them.

 Blacksails wrote:

I agree the execution isn't perfect, but I still wouldn't call it an "abortion". It's good, it's just not perfect.

Did I actually say abortion? If I did, that was a little strong, but I'll stick with joke. And I'll add lazy.

You did use it at one point, yes.

 Blacksails wrote:
Again, the new modified charts are cool and a good idea. They'd be awesome if multiple CADs went away, Unbound dissappeared from the annals of history, and allies took a beating from the nerf bat and changed in some significant way.

Then you'd have multiple ways to build an army (picture a core of 'common' charts with minor variations and bonuses and then each codex would have one or two special ones) without breaking anything and giving the player a challenge to make everything work.

I agree with everything but the "challenge" part as I've never seen it really be a challenge to fit things into an army, or fill an army out. And even without the FOC most armies aren't effective just spamming a bunch of the same thing over and over.

 Blacksails wrote:

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

I can't remember such a thing myself. I think it was in 6th that double force org above 2k was introduced. Wasn't a fan, but at least it was restricted both in the number of charts and the points level.

I'll have to take a look at a codex in a few hours when I get home and can look at the FOC stuff again, but I want to say there was a way to take more than one FOC in the rules.

 Blacksails wrote:

I guess I'm just not seeing it as being so dark.

Its just really, super lazy. Poor game design, and feels like they're reaching for something new and exciting to move product when the old system worked perfectly and other areas needed greater attention than the perfectly functional 5th ed FoC.

I don't think it's lazy as much as it feels like development got cut short. Maybe there really is a push to scrub Matt Ward's name off things since he left, or maybe the higher ups got nervous and rushed it out the door. I can't really say, but it doesn't feel lazy, just unfinished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

I can't remember such a thing myself. I think it was in 6th that double force org above 2k was introduced.

Nope. It was in there from 3rd edition (when the FOC was first introduced)

Guess I don't have to look it up. I think it's just one of those rules that people generally ignored or glossed over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:
*snip*

You've done little to prove that Eldar were written for 7th honestly. Really it's more likely that because 7th is so heavily built on 6th that little updating needed to be done, not that a codex that was released over a year before the new edition was had that edition in mind when the edition looks like it hasn't even cooked long enough to stop bleeding.

Don't worry ladies and gents in one more year we will be complaining about 8th edition 40k.

I have a few gripes with 7th, though I'm hard pressed to pin a lot of my complaints on the core rules.

I just think 7th coincides with other trends that bother me a lot more. (Mostly prices, but also a multi-source "gotta catch 'em all" approach to rules, the turn away from hobby center stores, etc.) When I say "I haven't played much since 7th edition," it's more a convenient signifier of time, rather then anything to do with the rules itself.

7th is much more flexible than 6th. But some glaring lack of consistent rules (psychic unit/model, terrain) are still a problem GW seems to not identify.
Overall, I rather the newer edition.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

It only mentions such for games above 2500pts+, far beyond what most people play, and if you're up at that points level, most people just play Apoc. Running multiple FoC's is a very recent thing for 40k.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I never played 6th, but I definitely liked 4th/5th better than 7th.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great improvements in the game. I love Hull Points and only being able to one-shot vehicles with high-AP weapons. There are several thing like this that are vast improvements.

Personally, this is really my least favorite thing. The current setup does make heavy tanks very hard to kill, but if it's not at least frontal AV13, or can't sit in the open with a 3+ jink save, vehicles are simply way too easy to plink to death with multishot heavy anti-infantry weapons, while the *actual* AT guns are less effective than they were before, and are often not significantly better than much lighter weapons relative to their cost (e.g it takes an average of 9 S7 hits to kill an AV12 vehicle, but it takes an average of 6 S10 AP1 hits to explode it or 4.5 to glance it to death, but the S10 AP1 gun is likely far more expensive and limited)

Just got off work and I'm not in the mood to do a line by line, so I'll just sum up my feelings and response to your post, Clockwork.

While Unbound allows for certain, specific and fluffy armies to be played that previously weren't, its otherwise a very poorly written addition to the game. Maybe I'm just picky, but I don't believe in half-assed jobs, and Unbound feels very much like the easiest route in giving players more options. The solution is to create more flexible codices with more troop choices or swapping not tied to special characters, and/or the widespread use of varied FoC.

The issue I have is that GW has had decades to figure out how to make the codex system work and develop constantly better editions. Instead, we get random changes and additions, coupled with codices that change for no rhyme or reason. Much of the problems with the FoC (or lack there of) are exacerbated by poor external codex balance, and to a lesser extent, internal codex balance. Your Eldar example is good for this; Eldar do benefit the most, but they'd benefit the most from just about any change at the moment. With a such a strong basic transport and good troops, coupled with excellent units in various slots means they're very flexible.

On the plus side, we definitely agree on some of the positives, or at least the direction they should be going in (partly, anyways). I'll never slag someone for liking something, but I truly believe Unbound is an awful addition, game design/mechanically speaking. Multiple CADs aren't as bad, but I'd much prefer something like single detachment plus an improved/balanced allies system.

But hey, I'm just the grumpy guy that still dislikes flyers. Oh, and my IG codex removed all the cool arty options. Totally not bitter.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm at least 85% sure you could still take a second FOC in 5th. I'd have to dig out a 5th ed codex to check, but I'm positive there was a bit in there about using more than one FOC.

It only mentions such for games above 2500pts+, far beyond what most people play, and if you're up at that points level, most people just play Apoc. Running multiple FoC's is a very recent thing for 40k.

It's not that it's a more recent thing, but a more common thing since the points restriction is gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Just got off work and I'm not in the mood to do a line by line, so I'll just sum up my feelings and response to your post, Clockwork.

That's fair.

 Blacksails wrote:
While Unbound allows for certain, specific and fluffy armies to be played that previously weren't, its otherwise a very poorly written addition to the game. Maybe I'm just picky, but I don't believe in half-assed jobs, and Unbound feels very much like the easiest route in giving players more options. The solution is to create more flexible codices with more troop choices or swapping not tied to special characters, and/or the widespread use of varied FoC.

With the loss of swapping in codexes we reach a problem in that regard. And it feels like they're trying a lot of different options to try and open the game up for players. Maybe when we have more FOCs to play with Unbound will disappear, but for now I can't fault it for being a short term fix.

 Blacksails wrote:
The issue I have is that GW has had decades to figure out how to make the codex system work and develop constantly better editions. Instead, we get random changes and additions, coupled with codices that change for no rhyme or reason. Much of the problems with the FoC (or lack there of) are exacerbated by poor external codex balance, and to a lesser extent, internal codex balance. Your Eldar example is good for this; Eldar do benefit the most, but they'd benefit the most from just about any change at the moment. With a such a strong basic transport and good troops, coupled with excellent units in various slots means they're very flexible.

Just to play devil's advocate, the only developer who has been there long enough to really fit the criteria of what you've said is Jervis Johnson. And he's not exactly a great rules writer on his own. If it was the same team this entire time I'd agree, but it's not. And it isn't helped that they seem to be reluctant to chuck the system out and redo it post 3rd. I feel a lot of the problems we have are because they're so unwilling to just get rid of it and build a better system from scratch.

 Blacksails wrote:
On the plus side, we definitely agree on some of the positives, or at least the direction they should be going in (partly, anyways). I'll never slag someone for liking something, but I truly believe Unbound is an awful addition, game design/mechanically speaking. Multiple CADs aren't as bad, but I'd much prefer something like single detachment plus an improved/balanced allies system.

I think it's a fine addition, and the problem is more in the codexes than the concept. Especially since FOCs get bonuses that Unbound doesn't. On a side note, I actually wouldn't be surprised if after every army has a FOC if Battle Forged and Unbound were scrapped from the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
But hey, I'm just the grumpy guy that still dislikes flyers. Oh, and my IG codex removed all the cool arty options. Totally not bitter.

I have 2.5k of Sisters sitting on a shelf right now because in my local meta they are so far down tier wise that they've fallen off the ladder. Something should be said for my move to Tyranids being an improvement. So I feel you on the "totally not bitter" thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's not that it's a more recent thing, but a more common thing since the points restriction is gone.

I would say, for any practical purposes, it's a recent thing. I don't know of anybody that played a multi-FoC game prior to the last couple years. If they played a big point game, they just played Apoc, if they didn't, they stuck to one FoC. The only exception I recall was during 4th edition when we tried playing a Baneblade with the original FW rules before Apocalypse came out (SH's needed their own 2nd FoC so your opponent got to use one too), and that felt very awkward at the time.

 Blacksails wrote:

But hey, I'm just the grumpy guy that still dislikes flyers. Oh, and my IG codex removed all the cool arty options. Totally not bitter.

Not gonna lie, between the dropping of several arty tanks (meaning I can only use them if people don't throw a shitstorm over FW), the nerfing of the Chimera and Hydra, and otherwise copy-paste nature of the 6E IG codex, it pretty much killed my enthusiasm for playing Codex IG armies and I've been sticking with FW lists and people who are OK with them almost exclusively.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I would say, for any practical purposes, it's a recent thing. I don't know of anybody that played a multi-FoC game prior to the last couple years. If they played a big point game, they just played Apoc, if they didn't, they stuck to one FoC.

There were plenty of people playing big games before Apocalypse was released.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I would say, for any practical purposes, it's a recent thing. I don't know of anybody that played a multi-FoC game prior to the last couple years. If they played a big point game, they just played Apoc, if they didn't, they stuck to one FoC.

There were plenty of people playing big games before Apocalypse was released.

I didn't say they weren't, bit if we're talking 5E then Apoc had already been out for a while, having been released in 4th edition. Prior to 2006/7, I simply never participated in game big enough to warrant multiple FoC's or Apocalypse rules so can't say what other people may have used.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, this is really my least favorite thing. The current setup does make heavy tanks very hard to kill, but if it's not at least frontal AV13, or can't sit in the open with a 3+ jink save, vehicles are simply way too easy to plink to death with multishot heavy anti-infantry weapons, while the *actual* AT guns are less effective than they were before, and are often not significantly better than much lighter weapons relative to their cost (e.g it takes an average of 9 S7 hits to kill an AV12 vehicle, but it takes an average of 6 S10 AP1 hits to explode it or 4.5 to glance it to death, but the S10 AP1 gun is likely far more expensive and limited)

I can see that, but for me, I like the more predictable nature of vehicle death in this addition. Without Hull Points, vehicles could blow up on the first shot or last through a dozen penetrating hits. With hull points, you don't have to rely on the damage chart for a kill. I like that. It's definitely a matter of taste though.

I dislike both editions.

6th brought far too much stuff that I despise:
- Fliers
- Allies
- Terrible wound-allocation system (whoot, I didn't think my games were lasting long enough - now I have all the joy of micromanaging the exact position of every single model in a unit. Also, why can a single character absorb every wound from a flamer or blast?)
- Overwatch
- Snapshots
- Melee weapons, already overpriced in 5th, now made even worse with AP3.
- Challenge mechanic added, because they couldn't let it just ruin just one game system.
- Random Psychic Powers
- Random Charge Distance
- Random, Random RANDOM!!!

I'm sure I can think of think of some more, but those will do for now.

Thing is, 7th did nothing to address... well any of my problems with 6th. And, charging full price for what amounted to a glorified errata, certainly didn't help matters.

In terms of my problems with 7th:
- Psychic powers still random, and many are even more ludicrous.
- Entire psychic phase, but without any attempt to balance the rest of the game around it.
- Everyone scores! Because, 5th actually provided a reason for people to take more than minimum troops... so let's scrap that.
- Unbound. Sod off and die.
- Maelstrom is an interesting concept, but horribly executed to the point where starting cards can easily determine the outcome of a match. Also, more random, because there wasn't quite enough in the game already.
- Random wound allocation when a vehicle explodes. Ok, whichever idiot wrote this deserves to have his head slammed in a car door.
- So many pointless special rules. Why does Fear still exist? And, who decided it would be a good idea to have a special rule that does literally nothing except provide 2 other special rules?
- The only positive I can think of are that charging through cover is now (slightly) less random, and Move Through Cover actually works properly.

I think it's fair to say I wasn't enamoured with 6th. And, as far as I'm concerned, 7th was 3 steps forward then one step off a cliff.

Kangodo wrote:
I really enjoy 7th edition.
It took the stuff from 6th that worked and made some fixes to improve the game.
Not everything is fixed, but hey, that would be expecting too much.

I'm loving it.

I prefer the new psychic power mechanic instead of leadership checks.
I don't miss area terrain.
Vehicles are more durable.
I enjoy the unified rules for pyschic powers, instead of every army having a different set of powers to draw from.
I enjoy the new missions, including Maelstrom.
Winning the average game can be more about objectives than killing everything.
The BRB isn't nearly as heavy, and I don't have to flip through tons of fluff to find rules.
The MiniBRB is an exact copy of the BRB so finding stuff is easier if you move between the two.

 adamsouza wrote:

The MiniBRB is an exact copy of the BRB so finding stuff is easier if you move between the two.

That's been the case since they started doing the mini rulebooks back in 4th edition.

Well, to me, 7th tries to go back to heart of the game as it was made at the very beginning; allow the players to play what they want and have fun together.

Rules were never important for GW game designers. In 7th, they made quite a clear answer; just talk with your "opponent" so that you make a game suitable to both. Tourneys aren't dead, but now organizers must make things crystal clear for their players.

Yes, Maelstrom of War is quite random. That's because randomness is an important part for GW game designers. After all, rolling plenty of die is fun, that's what they say. They also wrote a lot about the importance of the D6 in their games, and I think it's why they kept it all the way. Besides, not knowing what you will have as your primary objectives forces you to play differently - untill now when I play that kind of game, I find I'm acting very differently from another when objectives are all determined since the very beginning and not drawed "blind" from the deck of cards.

So no, to me, 7th is not "bs". In fact, a lot of things make some sense when I think about it. I believe there is something "written" between the lines, something not intended by Kirby. That's the feeling of Apocalypse games; players who know that kind of games very well understand exactly what is the true purpose behind Unbound games. They know that true freedom can come only whe you take care not trampling on the other's.

That's what it truly means to play together.

Sure, it sucks for the competition. But then...was it truly meant for this in any way? Take a look at Warmachine/Horde. The way Privateer Press handle this is very different...because it was meant that way from the very beginning.

Better to accept what 40k is (and, to me, always was) and roll with it...or without it, once and for all.

That Games Workshop might have intended or consciously wanted 40K to be broken and terribly written doesn't mean that the game isn't.

I honestly think "broken" is an overstatement when at worst it's about the same quality as before or better. As for "terribly written" that is subjective as all get out.

It's about the same as 6th, which was in turn garbage compared to 5th. Everything is subjective, yes. Doesn't mean every argument is logically consistent though.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Everything is subjective.

I wouldn't say "everything", but almost everything is, yes. As such I find many present their subjective opinions as objective facts.

Randomness and 'forging the narrative' might be the 'heart' of GW game philosophy, in fact I'm sure it is, but the majority of gamers seem to not be looking for that in a game and GW need to realize that.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's about the same as 6th, which was in turn garbage compared to 5th. Everything is subjective, yes. Doesn't mean every argument is logically consistent though.

Personally I felt that 5th was a bland uninspired mess that promoted boring, static play styles. I feel 6th helped shift us away from that a fair bit, and 7th fixed where 6th went too far with the vehicle nerf.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Personally I felt that 5th was a bland uninspired mess that promoted boring, static play styles.

Indeed, because 6th edition certainly did not promote boring, static play styles like entire armies completely ignoring the movement phase or flyer spam, and it certainly did not invalidate massive swaths of the game's playstyle (assault) in favor of one particular playstyle (shooting) or make death-stars even more prominent than they were in 5th by throwing 2++'s around like candy via allies shenanigans.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Everything is subjective.

I wouldn't say "everything", but almost everything is, yes. As such I find many present their subjective opinions as objective facts.

So basically you're just playing semantics?

Not really. I just don't like it when people post things as if they are facts and not opinions.

So essentially, if it werent for the near unkillable skimmers, 4th edition was the BASED 40k edition. EVER.

 Sarouan wrote:
Well, to me, 7th tries to go back to heart of the game as it was made at the very beginning; allow the players to play what they want and have fun together.

Rules were never important for GW game designers. In 7th, they made quite a clear answer; just talk with your "opponent" so that you make a game suitable to both. Tourneys aren't dead, but now organizers must make things crystal clear for their players.

So, why bother with rules at all?

If your "rules" are going to be badly-written, convoluted drivel filled with pointless randomness, atrocious balance and basically amount to 'do what you like', then what's the point?

They might as well just give you the models and let you forge the narrative by moving them around a table making 'pew pew' noises.

 Sarouan wrote:

Yes, Maelstrom of War is quite random. That's because randomness is an important part for GW game designers.

I agree - it saves them the bother of actually balancing anything.

 Sarouan wrote:
After all, rolling plenty of die is fun, that's what they say.

They also say 'forge the narrative' a lot.

Here's the thing - rolling dice can be fun when it makes players more involved in the game. Hence why rolling to hit and to wound is a good idea. However, rolling dice can also take players out of the game and, God forbid, make it harder for them to 'forge the narrative'. This happens when dice are used to determine things that have no business being random, or end up just punishing them. e.g. Random Warlord Traits make little sense - especially if a player is trying to use the same character over multiple games. Similarly, random charge distance just punishes players for rolling badly. And, random victory points in a maelstrom missions is just a horrible idea - since it means players frequently receive unequal rewards for completing the same mission objectives. This is just bad game design. It doesn't make players feel more involved, it makes them feel cheated.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Everything is subjective.

I wouldn't say "everything", but almost everything is, yes. As such I find many present their subjective opinions as objective facts.

So basically you're just playing semantics?

Not really. I just don't like it when people post things as if they are facts and not opinions.

It might as well be a fact until someone challenges it with a decent counter-argument. Neither I nor anyone else is obligated to add "imo" to the end of every post they make. It should be an obvious given that ultimately these are all opinions and observations.