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've been playing 40k for almost 15 years and have got to the point where I own multiple armies and have basically bought everything I'll ever need/want for each of them. I game at home with a small group of friends, all of which are in a similar situation to me. To give you an idea of out group; we're competitive, but don't spam stuff. I've never played a game with more than 1 flyer on each team. If the RaW seem stupid we'll chat and figure out a way to keep everyone happy.

With the release of Dark Eldar's new book, all of our codices have been updated since 6th dropped, but we haven't moved on to the 7th edition rules yet. Our consensus is that we are perfectly happy to keep on playing, but we're done with shelling out money on a game we only really play once a month (if that).

My question is, If we're sticking with the current codices forever, do you think we'd be better off playing 6th or 7th? Which is most fun? Which has least problems?

I would recommend at least trying out 7th. And since you're playing in a relatively self-contained environment, there's no reason you couldn't just revert back to 6th edition if you ended up not liking it.

7th is really 6.5. It cleaned up some bad wording from 6th, made some tweaks to rules that IMO are improvements, and added a Psychic phase which IMO is a bit worse than the old rules, with a strange sub-game that doesn't seem to fit replacing the 6+ deny the witch.

I'd say if money is no issue, I'd give it a try. But it's basically the same as 6th , so you've not been missing much.

For me, 7-th is a straight up improvement. I've noticed that i field lots of things, that'd be a complete waste in 6-th, with decent results. Tactical objectives alone are a great addition to gameplay.

No more focused fire exploitable nonscence. A better challenge system. No more 3+ cover troops in woods - you now actually see meq on board doing something significant. More durable vehicles. A much needed nerf to FMC and smash rule. And lots of stuff like that.

New psychic phase is a mixed bag. On one hand, you can actually deny the opponent's blessings and overall there are less psy powers being cast and increased chances of perils the more warpcharges you invest which lowers the spammability and reliability of it. On the other hand, psy-heavy armies completely block this 1-2 psychers a regular opponent might bring. But overall, i see it as being better for gameplay than in 6 with it's unstoppable buffmachine psy-phase.

The great thing is that most likely you won't have to change your army cause the changes are not as drastical as 5-6. But you can actually field more models unthinkable of being used before.

Okay, so is the psychic phase the only major change?

I have to admit, the variety in the new missions was the main thing that was drawing me to 7th.

One of the things that has really kept me from jumping into 7th (and it was beginning to become a problem in 6th) is the proliferation of multiple rule sources for an army.

I finally bought the new Dark Eldar book to check it out and see if I would enjoy 7th, but it seems like in order to build an effective army, I would *also* need to buy either (a) the Eldar codex for some WWP shenanigans (and to get an Archon-on-a-bike-stand-in), or (b) the coven supplement to make some of the units already in the core army codex more effective. $50 for one army book is already absurdly expensive, but $100 is absolutely unacceptable.

It's just been frustrating. While 7th seems a bit cleaner than the mess 6th was, the proliferation of books for one army is a major negative about this edition.

check out my article summarizing 7th ed changes from 6th in my sig and then decide

If it's missions you want then pick up the Altar of War compendium. I've played a few dozen missions for 7th but the Altar of War is prolly the most fun I've had in 40k. But I still say it's worth playing 7th. There's only a handful of power play problems in 7th, the psyker spam mentioned above being one of them, allied drop pods carrying anything and everything is another. But overall the game itself is very streamlined, and where it's not it easily can be made to be in friendly games.

 koooaei wrote:
For me, 7-th is a straight up improvement. I've noticed that i field lots of things, that'd be a complete waste in 6-th, with decent results. Tactical objectives alone are a great addition to gameplay.

No more focused fire exploitable nonscence. A better challenge system. No more 3+ cover troops in woods - you now actually see meq on board doing something significant. More durable vehicles. A much needed nerf to FMC and smash rule. And lots of stuff like that.

New psychic phase is a mixed bag. On one hand, you can actually deny the opponent's blessings and overall there are less psy powers being cast and increased chances of perils the more warpcharges you invest which lowers the spammability and reliability of it. On the other hand, psy-heavy armies completely block this 1-2 psychers a regular opponent might bring. But overall, i see it as being better for gameplay than in 6 with it's unstoppable buffmachine psy-phase.

The great thing is that most likely you won't have to change your army cause the changes are not as drastical as 5-6. But you can actually field more models unthinkable of being used before.

This. I much prefer 7th as it fixes a bunch of 6th's little problems and is just funner overall imho. My main concerns are with the stripped down terrain rules (just use the 6th ed ones) and the crappy psychic phase, but other than that I'd agree that it's an improvement.

 Gorechild wrote:
Okay, so is the psychic phase the only major change?

I have to admit, the variety in the new missions was the main thing that was drawing me to 7th.

Just so you know, they sell card decks for those new missions. I think that they'd be easily adaptable to 6th, so you could consider picking those up if that's the main thing attracting you to 7th.

As for your first question, I'd say pretty much yes. There are a couple rule tweaks that do have a fairly decent impact on the game..IME needing 1 higher to explode a vehicle was one of those changes, and I think it was an improvement.

But really, since you have a tight knit group, you should be able to house rule anything you might not like about 6th.

My 2 cents anyway.

Man this is as if the poll where 7th got less votes as liked edition then 5th and 6th didn't happen.

7th ed requires ton of house ruling to be fun. Objective based game is a nice idea, but I haven't seen a single game where people didn't house rule discarding the cards, gaining VP in one way or another.

The gap between good armies and everything else is huge. Playing pure armies was most of the time a handicap in 6th, now it just makes no sense as some armies just don't have options required to play the game.

It is a good time for imperials with their milion and one battlebrother ally, less so for other factions.

CAD, unbound, escalation, stronghold assault have are differently accepted in various game groups. They are also very unequal.

As you can plainly see, Makumba is not happy with 7th edition

Best edition so far.

Maelstrom missions are the best mission type ever created. Nothing is even close to them in providing a varied game experience and forcing people to not play boring, parking lot, gunlines.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Best edition so far.

Maelstrom missions are the best mission type ever created. Nothing is even close to them in providing a varied game experience and forcing people to not play boring, parking lot, gunlines.

So its essentially the preferred game type for Eldar, the already top tier army in the meta.

See, this is a perfect example of why it's impossible to make everyone happy

In a small number of posts, the range is from "5th was better" to "best edition ever!"

I'm quite sure somewhere in the rulebook near the beginning it says in a big box that the rules are just a framework for a game, and that everyone should make it their own. If something, whether it's a rule or a unit, is unbalancing for your group, why not just change it?

Also, if you're perfectly happy with 6th, and only play once a month, my suggestion is to wait until someone gets a free 7th rulebook from a box set. They have come with 2 box sets so far (DV and Stormclaw), and I'm pretty sure there will be other sets where that happens.

I think that Stormclaw is the best value box 2-army box set of any game, from any company, by the way. It might not look like it at a glance, but once you pop the box and look inside at the sprues, it's like, holy crap! Not only do you get good dollar/value point-wise, but they're fully customizable MPP with all the weapon options (unlike DV, where you're stuck with squad options that are unlikely to be what you want). And, the models are all pretty much useful.

If something, whether it's a rule or a unit, is unbalancing for your group, why not just change it?

Because if you did you would either have to be the store or club owner and have the social backing to force others to play the game you want.
How am I suppose to make someone not play WS or NDKS against my IG, when If they droped those their armies are around 900-1200pts.


What I mentioned was not the case of liking or disliking 7th. The missions idea is a nice one, what the rules actualy does is not good. Your not going to tell me that making fast moving Msu armies superior to all other armies is a good thing. Or that discarding one card out of 3 you draw is a good idea. Or the random number VP gained for doing objectives is a good idea etc.

 Gorechild wrote:
I've been playing 40k for almost 15 years and have got to the point where I own multiple armies and have basically bought everything I'll ever need/want for each of them. I game at home with a small group of friends, all of which are in a similar situation to me. To give you an idea of out group; we're competitive, but don't spam stuff. I've never played a game with more than 1 flyer on each team. If the RaW seem stupid we'll chat and figure out a way to keep everyone happy.

With the release of Dark Eldar's new book, all of our codices have been updated since 6th dropped, but we haven't moved on to the 7th edition rules yet. Our consensus is that we are perfectly happy to keep on playing, but we're done with shelling out money on a game we only really play once a month (if that).

My question is, If we're sticking with the current codices forever, do you think we'd be better off playing 6th or 7th? Which is most fun? Which has least problems?

My friends and I are in the same situation as your group, Gorechild. Our decision was to stick with 6th and our older codices. I game about once a month with the same 3 guys, and it's simply not worth the time, effort, and money. We all have more than enough things to paint, and if we really want to add a new shiny like a Gorkanaught or Voidraven Bomber, the rules are now either included with the kits or in a WD. Since 6th is relatively close to 7th in rules, most new models don't even need house rules or fixing.

Of course, you should move to the 7th edition.
It's the most complete edition so far.
In our group we really enjoy playing it.

I like seventh, and would recommend upgrading. Some stuff, like assaulting through cover, has been modified to better favour the assaulters, bringing back some of the balance shift that the 6e transport/overwatch rules slammed.

You should always buy a new edition. Unless you wanted to play outdated game systems.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
You should always buy a new edition. Unless you wanted to play outdated game systems.

No way...strongly disagree. What is D&D like on 8th edition now? No one I know plays anything but 2nd. New doesn't always wmean better.

I really like 7th edition myself. There are a lot of minor rules changes that can take some time to get used to, but overall rules are clearer and better.

I also love the many options you get for allies. Lately I've been running an army consisting of Inquisition, Space Marines, Astra Militarum, Imperial Knights and a Fortification - that's a total of 5 books! To me that makes my army unique, and I love the flexibility.
And before any comments are made about GW's greed, I only own one of these books, the rest I've borrowed from people in my gaming group to note down the rules I need.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
You should always buy a new edition. Unless you wanted to play outdated game systems.

No way...strongly disagree. What is D&D like on 8th edition now? No one I know plays anything but 2nd. New doesn't always wmean better.

The differences eternal war gaming and role playing are astronomical.

The new codices are made for the current editions. Therefore in 40k you should absolutely grab the latest edition.

I don't like 7th but I also don't like 6th, so to me it's like picking between 2 piles of poo and trying to decide based on which one smells the least.

That said, it's mostly the core rules I don't like. I do prefer the most recent codices.

Talys wrote:
See, this is a perfect example of why it's impossible to make everyone happy

The problem is GW don't actually improve their game, they just expand it and shuffle it and have been doing that since 3rd edition (which was the last time the game shrunk because 2nd edition was too bloated). Because of that you just end up with each edition being flawed in one way or another, so it's hard to say anything objective about the quality because they all were pretty low quality.

I'm not saying you'd get a time when everyone is happy, but if GW actually worked on improving their game instead of each edition just being a sidestep, I'm 90% sure that there would be a much greater consensus on which edition is the best.

The poll we had a while back where people were asked what was their favourite edition was an insightful poll. Most people liked 5th the most, 4th edition came 2nd, I THINK 7th edition was 3rd and 6th barely even registered.

Makumba wrote:

If something, whether it's a rule or a unit, is unbalancing for your group, why not just change it?

Because if you did you would either have to be the store or club owner and have the social backing to force others to play the game you want.
How am I suppose to make someone not play WS or NDKS against my IG, when If they droped those their armies are around 900-1200pts.


What I mentioned was not the case of liking or disliking 7th. The missions idea is a nice one, what the rules actualy does is not good. Your not going to tell me that making fast moving Msu armies superior to all other armies is a good thing. Or that discarding one card out of 3 you draw is a good idea. Or the random number VP gained for doing objectives is a good idea etc.

Serious question. Why do you even play 40k at all?

@OP 7e is cool. Streamlined rules and the psychic phase is actually a good change. No more Ld10 psyker auto-passing 3 blessings every turn, and no more awkward witchfires taking up your shooting phase.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:The problem is GW don't actually improve their game, they just expand it and shuffle it and have been doing that since 3rd edition (which was the last time the game shrunk because 2nd edition was too bloated). Because of that you just end up with each edition being flawed in one way or another, so it's hard to say anything objective about the quality because they all were pretty low quality.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one I think that 7th edition is actually pretty good. Perfect, no, but I don't think I know a lot of people that play 40k that would prefer to actually play with 3rd/4th rules, even though they may be nostalgic for that period. I really do miss prices from the days of 3rd/4th though

Makumba wrote:

If something, whether it's a rule or a unit, is unbalancing for your group, why not just change it?

Because if you did you would either have to be the store or club owner and have the social backing to force others to play the game you want.
How am I suppose to make someone not play WS or NDKS against my IG, when If they droped those their armies are around 900-1200pts.

Most gaming groups have house rules. If you don't have something already in writing, suggest that it be typed up and distributed; as the group becomes more organized, suggest that they accept submissions for game-balancing adjustments. In my experience, most groups are pretty receptive to this type of thing.

Most gaming groups have house rules. If you don't have something already in writing, suggest that it be typed up and distributed; as the group becomes more organized, suggest that they accept submissions for game-balancing adjustments. In my experience, most groups are pretty receptive to this type of thing.

Ok how is this different from what I said? Tournament orgs and shop owners didn't want FW, because it was too much work for them to check or they werent making money out of it. So they being the "rulers" of two places where you can play , made it that FW is not accepted. They have the so called power, so they can make changes. I or anyone else who isn't won't be able to make anyone do anything and even if I somehow did, we suddenly face the problem of people owning less then 1500pts of legal armies. That is the problem and not if the rules are printed or not.

Serious question. Why do you even play 40k at all?

I bought my army in 5th ed, I liked the game a lot back then. I liked to play in 6th too. But you are right that am rather limited in where I can play now with most shops closing in my area.

Makumba wrote:

Most gaming groups have house rules. If you don't have something already in writing, suggest that it be typed up and distributed; as the group becomes more organized, suggest that they accept submissions for game-balancing adjustments. In my experience, most groups are pretty receptive to this type of thing.

Ok how is this different from what I said? Tournament orgs and shop owners didn't want FW, because it was too much work for them to check or they werent making money out of it. So they being the "rulers" of two places where you can play , made it that FW is not accepted. They have the so called power, so they can make changes. I or anyone else who isn't won't be able to make anyone do anything and even if I somehow did, we suddenly face the problem of people owning less then 1500pts of legal armies. That is the problem and not if the rules are printed or not.

Serious question. Why do you even play 40k at all?

I bought my army in 5th ed, I liked the game a lot back then. I liked to play in 6th too. But you are right that am rather limited in where I can play now with most shops closing in my area.

I guess I have been lucky and the groups that I played in have been less dictatorial and more receptive to reasonable suggestions. FW models is more a personal thing -- some people don't like playing against certain FW models because they feel that they're overly powerful, but mostly it's just they perceive that they don't have a reasonable solution to deal with it.

There's almost always a table with someone who is eager to play with an exotic model though.

I hear your pain about stores closing. It is so in my area too.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
You should always buy a new edition. Unless you wanted to play outdated game systems.

This is sort of the reason I made the thread :p my group wants to stick with one system, we're done throwing money at a game that we don't play frequently enough to justify spending hundreds of pounds on. We'll either stick with 6th (as we have done up until now) or spend the £35 on the 7th rule book and then stop buying. No more rules, no more books, no more models, just happily gaming at home with friends.

Thanks for all the advice everyone

 Gorechild wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
You should always buy a new edition. Unless you wanted to play outdated game systems.

This is sort of the reason I made the thread :p

Yeah, don't listen to this guy. There seems to be this weird attitude these days that previous version of games become "outdated", and an anathema to play. Newer is not always better, and there's something to be said for not switching systems constantly and sticking with what you know (I know at least one group of D&D players who never left 3.5).