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.

Kangodo wrote:
Really love it, it feels much better than 6th edition.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Objectively bad.

And I stopped reading right there.

That so?

What makes 7th feel so much better than 6th? All they added was psychic phase, removed the ability to flank and deny cover saves, changed jinks slightly, made challenges basically irrelevant but still kept the mechanic because reasons and nerfed smash. The codexes have cut all the flavour and options in favour of monobuilds and DLC, and the underlying game hasn't really improved mechanically.

Oh man what they did to Jink has mucked it quite a bit too. Too many units simply don't care about the consequences, they can jink when walking/immobilized, have no effect on passengers, and many have abilities that turn it into a 3+ or 2+ even in the open.

Jink is amongst the most borked mechanics in the game currently.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Quote some of these "open attacks".

OKAY

Makumba wrote:

Based on what? I haven't played a single game of 40k where the outcome has been decided by an individual model.

how offten do you play against eldar with non eldar armies? Or with IG vs GKs. Or IG vs blight nids. Or DAs vs tau.

. It seems the meta that has developed naturally went 'don't bring LoW / tons of flyers / gargantuans / unbound without checking with your opponent first'.

you mean where you play.

Maelstrom missions look terrible at first but actually turn out to be quite a fun change from normal missions.

Ever played them against a normal msu or eldar army with IG? It doesn't only look terrible for the IG player, it feels terrible when played too. It is "fun" for armies that can either spam resilient msu units or those with units that go further then 18" per turn.

Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.

that is so bull gak. If anything 7th is good only for tournaments, because you either build an army for scenarios out of multiple books or pick an eldar army, failing that an ok army that is anti eldar. In casual games, half the codex are skewed against each other. How does a "casual" IG player win against a GK one ? how does a casual nid player, play at all, considering he either has the option to go skyblight or have a bad army. Or an eldar player, how does he make his army casual, by taking an unbound army of footslogging melee units ?

Oh noes! You have enlightened me! It turns out I was was wrong all along - I wasn't having fun at all! Thanks. Next time I think I'm having fun, I'll make sure to log on here and check with you.

Um.

Yeah.

My meta and the metas of a few other posters here seem to be fine. I'm having lots of fun with 7th, playing fun, casual games in my fun, casual meta. I'm sorry that your meta seems to be gak. I haven't played with your army. I haven't played against MSU eldar Death Spam, because if anyone brought that in my meta it would be frowned upon. It's probably gakky for some armies. I've sometimes been at a disadvantage in a game, but hey, that's fine too. Whatever.

If you want to have more fun with 7th I'd suggest

- Different models
- Different friends
- Caring less

Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.

I would imagine that this is probably the case if you're playing with an established group. It's a different story for pick-up games, though.

The fact that the rules are such a mess, and that even basic things like how to construct an army list are so poorly understood by so many players, makes playing a game against a new opponent something of a minefield.



I don't see the 'narrative' really being a thing that is adequately represented in the rules, though. For starters, a system that sees your psyker completely forget which powers he knows from one battle to the next, or that has your Warlord randomly determining just what sort of leader he is each game, is more or less the complete opposite of encouraging narrative play.

 insaniak wrote:

Basically, if you want to play fun, narrative casual games, then 7th is great.

I would imagine that this is probably the case if you're playing with an established group. It's a different story for pick-up games, though.

The fact that the rules are such a mess, and that even basic things like how to construct an army list are so poorly understood by so many players, makes playing a game against a new opponent something of a minefield.



I don't see the 'narrative' really being a thing that is adequately represented in the rules, though. For starters, a system that sees your psyker completely forget which powers he knows from one battle to the next, or that has your Warlord randomly determining just what sort of leader he is each game, is more or less the complete opposite of encouraging narrative play.

If you want to play fun, narrative casual games 40k is great. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games on the market.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If you want to play fun, narrative casual games 40k is great. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games on the market.

What about 40k makes it a narrative casual game, more so than other games suited for pick up games that are better balanced?

There's far too much randomness and absurdity in the rules for it to work well as a narrative for me anymore. Things like watching a skimmer "jink" while immobilized, having to roll randomly for warlord traits and psychic powers as previously noted, the fact that heavy AT guns are often the least effective anti-tank weapons, invisible units being unable to be targeted by blast and template weapons (exactly what any real life force would bring to bear against such a unit), etc.

There's too much that breaks the suspension of disbelief, too much randomness, and too much nonsensical functionality for it to really be a good narrative game anymore either.

I don't see 7E really doing anything well, it's trying to just make it possible for anyone to use anything GW makes in any game they may want to play, and that's about it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you want to play fun, narrative casual games virtually any ruleset will do. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games than 40k on the market.

Fixed there for you.

By the way, "Forging a narrative" has to be one of the most stupid excuses I've ever seen for incompetent rules design.

Almost as lame as "well 40k was not designed for competitive play so the rules are actually ok".

It's a game, ffs. Every single game ever designed by mankind needs to have a competitive goal. Of course you can play in a more relaxed, casual way, but ultimately to play a game means trying to win. If a certain game is poorly balanced and its rules poorly written (after more than 25 years, no less) then you have to concede it's a mediocre game at best.

You can still have fun playing a mediocre game because there are other factors involved. You may like its fluff and background, its characters, and the opportunity it gives you to socialize, but it's still a mediocre game. There's nothing wrong with playing a mediocre ruleset if you consider it's worth the time and effort, and I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble admitting the current shape of the rules is poor, to say the least.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If you want to play fun, narrative casual games 40k is great. If you want to play pick-up games, well-balanced games, or tournament games there are better games on the market.

What about 40k makes it a narrative casual game, more so than other games suited for pick up games that are better balanced?

Ass rules editing, inconsistency, and the rolling update schedule. If I'm confused about a rule in Warmahordes I can get the precise answer by reading the rulebook, I don't have to have a long argument and then call GW afterwards because they wrote down something that conflicts with something else. The rolling update schedule means power creep, regular rules revisions to keep the power creep under control, requiring players to buy new models regularly to keep up with the competitive scene, and bad balance because "Oh, we'll fix it in the next patch".

40k has beautiful miniatures, I love the lore, and I doubt I will ever drop it entirely, but it's a lot of work for not a lot of interesting gameplay by comparison to WMH.

Which is all to say that 40k is not a good fun, narrative casual game.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, but that was a list of nothing but negatives (of which I largely agree) that all combine to make a combine not really well suited for just about anything.

 Blacksails wrote:
Which is all to say that 40k is not a good fun, narrative casual game.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, but that was a list of nothing but negatives (of which I largely agree) that all combine to make a combine not really well suited for just about anything.

If I had to point to one specific point in 40k's favour that make it a great narrative casual game I'd have to say the customizability. WMH is a great game, but the models are very fixed and you need a lot of named characters to play; it's impossible to make your army your own to the same degree as it is in 40k.

40k is great if you've got a consistent play group with a more static meta that members of the group understand and play to and consistent in-house answers to bizarre rules contradictions, but it's a nightmarishly hard game to maintain a tournament army for or to play with strangers.

Its customization is certainly a selling point.

I'm still confused a little by your original assertion that 40k makes for a great casual, narrative game, when everything you've said following that has completely contradicted that.

I agree with you on its flaws, just not that it makes for a great casual and/or narrative game.

At best, I'll say its workable with a close knit group of friends, but I should add that any game works well with a close knit group of friends, and I'd argue other games work even better than 40k in just about any scenario.

Korinov wrote:
You can still have fun playing a mediocre game because there are other factors involved. You may like its fluff and background, its characters, and the opportunity it gives you to socialize, but it's still a mediocre game. There's nothing wrong with playing a mediocre ruleset if you consider it's worth the time and effort, and I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble admitting the current shape of the rules is poor, to say the least.

I think that's a fantastic point, you can lament the state of the game while still getting a lot of out the hobby, be that social or artistic.



I've had fun playing games of 7th, but that's in ideal situations, long time opponents and plenty of limitations and work-arounds. I've also had a lot of stress because just getting on the same page is incredibly challenging when everything is optional. They've added all the work and pre-planning of an apoc game to normal 40k.

People can enjoy the 40k universe, enjoy painting and/or converting, have some friends left who still play, and still lament the state of the game. That's me in a nutshell. I don't have the heart or political will to try and play strangers and if all my regular opponents leave the game, well, maybe I'll quit too or slit my wrists and buy 2 wraithknights, a riptide, several transcendent c'tans, a knight and couple skyshields and tell everyone I'm a casual gamer. Because gamer apparently needs an adjective in front of it.

Well said.

I have sunk so much time, effort and money into 40k, I'll just mothball it if I stop playing. I did the same with Magic, ready to go at any time.

I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking. If you can't handle people with different opinions then perhaps an internet forum isn't for you?
Also one of your solutions is "caring less." That means "drop your standards." That would be easier if GW didn't charge so much for sub standards rules.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking.

Indeed. There is a difference between "You're wrong" (I disagree) and "You suck!" (I attack!).

 crazyK wrote:
How to enjoy 7th edition.

Get some friends, get some beer, get some pretzels, play 40k.

Sounds fine to me!

The biggest thing that I've noticed is that 7E has more "houserules' than any other edition. I cannot think of a single event or playgroup that does not impose restrictions, self or otherwise, on the game and what players can bring. I've certainly not seen events have to get as into the nitty gritty of saying exactly how players can construct their armies since 4E.

The level of "fixing" even the most playgroups have to do is rather indicative of something wrong with the rules.

I have only just got the 7th ed. Rulebook set. Since getting over my frustration at GW, for releasing an edition less than 2 years from the previous edition. I will state it is a better edition than 6th ed. The rules are better defined. I like the addition of a separate psychic phase. Of which, I think Psykers do not get a free pass on generating their psychic powers by simply rolling vs. their Leadership stat.

Vehicles are now evenly balanced. Not overly powerful, like 5th edition. But not completely one shot themself like in 6th either. Remember, a wrecked vehicle is not necessarily a destroyed vehicle. It means it's broke down wreck, that could be fixed back up after repairs are made back at the motor pool. That is my take of 7th ed.

SYKOJAK wrote:
Of which, I think Psykers do not get a free pass on generating their psychic powers by simply rolling vs. their Leadership stat.

As opposed to every other ability in the game that is rolled against a model's stats?

Vehicles are now evenly balanced. Not overly powerful, like 5th edition. But not completely one shot themself like in 6th either. .

Tanks are better balanced than in 5th.

Dreadnoughts got hosed.

Vehicles have major issues, they're hardly evenly balanced.

Effectively they've been turned into T/W based units with HP's, except they lack armor saves and still have a secondary kill mechanism in the damage table, but one that's been massively mucked with.

This results in mid strength weaponry with high rates of fire being the dominant tank killers, while actual, dedicated AT guns are relatively ineffective at actually killing tanks.

CC is even worse, where vehicles are universally hit on 3's and hit on rear armor (almost universally 10), and you get a result where a basic 10man tac squad will have an easier time killing a moving Leman Russ or screaming jet powered Falcon on a charge than killing 2 other basic marines on a charge. Effectively, if you make base contact with a tank, its dead, without really much effort on the part of the attacker.

Vehicles, lacking saves, are very easy to kill;.

Here we run into another issue, that of Skimmers vs Non-skimmers. Largely, the only vehicle heavy armies you see coming in anything near top place at most events are Skimmer armies (aside from Superheavy Knights)

Skimmers have a gigantic number of advantages over non-skimmers, through the Jink mechanic. The Jink mechanic gives them an on-demand save of 4+, often able to be increased to 3+ or even 2+ through commonly available wargear and other abilities. Gaining this save does affect their shooting int he next turn, but has imposes zero penalty on any passengers. Many such skimmers also have multiple high RoF weapons systems and/or systems that rely on 6's in the first place for their effectiveness (and often are TL'd either way), making the Snapshot restrictions much less harmful than for single-weapon system vehicles like many Tracked tanks. Knights have a similar bonus in that they get an Invul save over one arc every turn of the game.

Meanwhile for Walkers and Tracked Tanks, Smoke Launchers only give a 5+, prevent both shooting and moving flat out, as well as preventing passengers from shooting, are one use only, and many tanks either don't have access to them or have to buy them. The tracked tanks and walkers meanwhile often retain a similar cost and armor with many of their vastly superior Skimmer counterparts filling similar or identical roles.

The primary positive change to vehicle utility is that they're scoring and sometimes superscoring, which gives them more "meta" utility, but not really in their intended roles.

I think 7th is pretty decent

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I"m thinking that you don't quite know how a debate works. Disagreeing isn't attacking.

Indeed. There is a difference between "You're wrong" (I disagree) and "You suck!" (I attack!).

I totally agree. The problem is that here, when someone disagrees with someone, it usually ends up as attacks complete with the name calling spamming insulting pictures and so forth. The usual culprits have been fairly well behaved in this particular thread however so I give them props on that.

The simple fact is that you going to find different opinions and views on this. We have had these sorts of debates since 2nd edition where players preferred rogue trader or 2nd and argued about which was better, which was better balanced, which had better or worse rules or balance or whatever. The arguments are irrelevent as what one player sees as balanced another will see as unbalanced because they think it isnt or because of what "should be", or because they think that some imbalance should be built in or whatever reason we all have. The key is understanding that different people like different rules better and their right to their belief should be respected. If players "Bob" replies to an OP with their opinion on something and player "Danny" disagrees, player "Danny should just stick to the OP and not goi into a 12 page arguement with player "Bob" telling they are wrong with quotes and back and forth because no one is going to change anyone elses mind and it only leads to the aforementioned attacks when they realize that they are not going to change "Bob's' mind.

Many players use gaming as a way to escape reality. A way to have fun with buddies and others use gaming as a way to compete and enjoy winning and many variations and themes. In almost all of them, they take their gaming seriously and it is near and dear to their hearts. To where they feel strongly about it. These strong feelings cause us to take it personally and this in turns clouds how we "take" and "react" to things. A sure fire mixture to heated arguments. We have all seen this I am sure.

For the OP, I would say, give it a shot. Borrow an army and play a few games. If you are into the fluff and the "40k world", and you think you might like to play (under the current rules or possible future ones), and you can afford it, I'd say pick a faction and start some basic collecting of units that you will definately need in a future army (sometimes some of the units get nerfed or ubered but you can always trust that some obvious ones will be staples in any edition and stick with them. This will give you time to convert and paint to a higher degree than you would in a rush by starting in a hurry later and save you $ later by not having to buy those units at a later date.


I'm sure that someone is liable to post after this with select quotes telling me part of this current post is off topic, however, they will be wrong (and derailing the thread themselves) as I am answering a question someone else has bought up in this thread. You will also note, that I addressed the original post and the original poster with an honest answer to their question along with a few tips that may or not be helpful but either way, were given in the interest of staying on topic and being helpful.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I totally agree. The problem is that here, when someone disagrees with someone, it usually ends up as attacks complete with the name calling spamming insulting pictures and so forth.

At which point you report the offending posts so that we can deal with it, and move on.

What you don't do is try to de-rail threads by claiming that people are being attacked when they're not. Less critique on other posters' behaviour in completely unrelated threads and more sticking to the actual topic would be appreciated.

The simple fact is that you going to find different opinions and views on this.

Yes, you are. That's the whole point of this thread.

You don't need to point out, in every single thread asking for peoples' opinions, that different people have different opinions. That becomes self-evident when people post their opinions.

Please just stick to the topic.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I totally agree. The problem is that here, when someone disagrees with someone, it usually ends up as attacks complete with the name calling spamming insulting pictures and so forth. The usual culprits have been fairly well behaved in this particular thread however so I give them props on that.

"Open attacks" are fairly rare on Dakka. What isn't rare are people who take personal offence at their opinion not being agreed with. Some of this stems from language barriers and some of it stems from people who just aren't very good at accepting that people have a different view than they do. These usually end it incredibly long quoting wars with mild snarky remarks and repeating the same things over and over. If they do resort to blatant insults I don't think I've ever seen one last more than 10 minutes before it's deleted and a warning issued.

I definitely disagree with Loborocket and his train of thought that the moderating on this site is poor. I think it's great that we're all allowed to express our opinions whether they be negative or positive. I actually find Dakka to be one of the better forums for 40k if not the best as far as mods go.

 insaniak wrote:

Dreadnoughts got hosed.

I'd almost consider "hosed" to be an understatement for the condition of Dreadnoughts at the moment.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The biggest thing that I've noticed is that 7E has more "houserules' than any other edition.

More than 2E? I'm a bit skeptical...


BTW, you are completely on point with respect to Skimmers / Tanks / Dread Vehicles being completely non-sensical in HtH, but a lot of that ties to 7E having poor CC mechanics in general. Really, 7E has the worst CC rules of any "modern" edition that I've played (3E or later).

And Skimmer armies? How about them Necrons? Skimmers which are uniformly tougher than than any other Skimmer in the game, further benefitting from the 7E rules. Yeah, great stuff.

Zande4, Your right. I've seen both andthis is why I avoid doing either.

I agree most definately on dreads getting hosed this edition. I think they have been bad enough for a while but I think the "first blood" put even bigger targets on them than before and overall, I havnt been impressed with them for a good while even before that.

i would lean towards 7th edition being better for the "basement players" than the tournament players.
This because when you only play 3-5 other people in the privacy of your home, its easier to house rule and keep track of thing with less pressure to win. Your more likely, I think to come up with gentlemans agreements such as no super heavies in games under 2000 points or whatnot. Not that this cant all be done in a shop, but in a shop, your looking at greater numbers of players and different combinations and not always knowing who your gonna be playing ect and so forth which makes it harder to keep track of andwith total strangers....
I think the current edition is.... different. Better in some ways, worse than others from all of the previous editions. Unfortunately, the ways it is "worse" (in my opinion) causes me to be less inclined to play at shops or tournaments and my "baseent group" s to play so rarely games are virtually nonexistant.

Fortunately for me, All of my current armies are "up to date" enough to satisfy me. I have plenty of painting projects to keep me busy in that regard and my buddies and I are exploring Dust Tacticsand with the recent FF super sale, I also have plenty of painting, modeling and such for that game to keep me busy a while as well.
Hopefully, next edition will cause me to play more often.
My earlier suggestion to the OP still stands. Try a few games and even if the rules dont currently appeal to you, if you like the fluff, background and models and are able to, find a faction and get started on some basics for a future edition where you might be more interested so you'll have a head start in your modeling/painting and in terms of money in building an army when that time comes.
Either way, good luck.

 EVIL INC wrote:
i would lean towards 7th edition being better for the "basement players" than the tournament players.

I see the opposite. As a "garage gamer" (there are basically no basements in SoCal), the increased fiddliness of 7E works against the entire drinking aspect of the game. When you're trying to enjoy your beer, you really don't need to be micro-positioning toy soldiers, or doing multiple layers of rules reference lookups. Heck, just setting up a game of 7E feels like it takes forever. And the rules bloat in the rulebook and Codices gets in the way of casual gaming, where you don't have the time and repetition to memorize every rule in every Codex.

To be fair, powergaming has always been an issue - no matter which edition. Actually, i find it less of an issue now thanks to maelstorm and everything scoring.