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.

Everything Scoring, but some things Scoring better is actually another good example of how stupid the 7E rules are. It would have been better to do away with the Scoring concept altogether, rather than to have different flavors of Scoring. Instead, 7E has a rule, that applies to everything, but in slightly different ways. Fail.

It's still way better than 6-th way of dealing with missions and 5-th killpoints. At least imo. Haven't played earlier editions - can't tell what's been there.

5E killpoints were stupid, still are as they still kept them in in at least one 6E and 7E mission. That said, the Maelstrom missions often have the exact same problem, where killing a Land Raider or a Rhino will both get you that objective point.


For me, Maelstrom missions are more about luck of the draw and what unit types both your and your opponent brought. it's possible to be literally unable to complete certain objectives (hard to kill a building or flyer when your opponent has none), while others can be trivial (e.g. cast a psychic power!). Even when they pertain to the actual objectives on the table, I've both won and lost games simply based on luck. Roll both the objectives I'm on twice in a row? Sweet, I'm up 4 points in one round without doing a single thing.

Maelstrom was an interesting idea, but really poorly executed. Like much of what GW does, they're pretty good at coming up with great ideas and going out of their way to implement them in the worst way possible.

 MWHistorian wrote:
[spoiler]
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.

Debate:

OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: I disagree, my meta isn't the same as yours, I've had a different experience.

Being a dick:

OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: This is BULL gak. Have you ever tried X combination? Have you ever tried Y combination? You're not having fun! You're wrong!

I'd suggest that, when faced with a bad matchup, 'caring less' means playing anyway and not getting all angry about a game of toy soldiers. Just play it anyway. It might be fun. I appreciate that there are other games out there that have a better standard of written rules and balance. Great. If 40k doesn't meet your high standard for a children's toy soldier game, go play one that does.

Does any of this mean 40k is objectively a 'good' or 'bad' game? No. There's no such thing. It might have a good/bad/balanced/realistic/unrealistic ruleset, but that's not the same thing. It's a game. So how 'good' it is is determined by how much you enjoy playing it.

The OP on this thread asks how YOU feel about 7th. There are a lot of people on here telling others that how they feel about 7th is wrong, or trying to 'prove' their experience of 7th is the right one. Maybe they should start another thread.


. Bazillions of edits for clarity...

Personally I enjoy 7th edition. Of course, I've only been playing for a few months and I'm lucky enough to have an awesome local community(most local players are very experienced, veterans of several ETCs and are both willing and able to play the new guys with lists that match in power and provide challenging games).

That being said, I don't consider the 7th edotion rules adequate for anything else than games between established groups of friends. You need the group to agree on a rough power level for a given game and you need the experience and models to build an army accordingly.

It's a bad system for fluffy/casual games because power varies wildly. If one guy likes DA on foot and the other Saim-Hann Eldar or Daemons of Tzeentch, the games between their fluffy lists are going to be very one-sided.

It's a bad system for competitive play because it's too random. Top competitive armies often have ways to minimize this randimness (avoiding part of the rules so to say).

 Vaktathi wrote:
5E killpoints were stupid

I disagree. Killpoints is a bad mission if you only play killpoint missions, or arrange in advance to play a killpoint mission and build your list specifically to win it. When you play with a random table of missions the 1/3 (or 1/6 in the broken current edition) chance of playing killpoints provides a necessary balance to the advantages MSU armies have in objective missions. For example, do you take two 5-man squads that can each claim an objective, have to be attacked separately, can split their own fire, etc? Or do you consider that too much of a liability in killpoint missions and take a single 10-man squad instead? Without killpoints you almost always take the two 5-man squads. With killpoints it's a much harder and more interesting decision.

Honestly, the only thing wrong with killpoints in 5th was that this concept wasn't explained in the rules. So when tournament players whined and cried about how their MSU transport spam armies didn't automatically win every mission type people felt sorry for them instead of telling them to STFU and stop mindlessly netlisting an army that doesn't work.

While maelstorm's random, yes, the random factor is somewhat lowered by numbers. There are 66 missions, ~2/3% of them are about board controle. You can't get the same mission again. And you draw lots of them.

Furthermore, as it's random and might require basically anything from basica being there to issuing challenges, killing stuff both at range and in mellee, manifesting psy powers, etc. It enspires list variations. Makes you think, why not bring a single psycher just in case i get this extra vp for basically bringing the unit?
Remember how everyone cried that Flyers and SH are op? Here you go, extra points if you deal with them.

Yep, it's not ideal but still a great system. It's much-much butter than last turn flatout on an objective with min squads or static gunlines behind adl and nothing more.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
5E killpoints were stupid

I disagree. Killpoints is a bad mission if you only play killpoint missions, or arrange in advance to play a killpoint mission and build your list specifically to win it. When you play with a random table of missions the 1/3 (or 1/6 in the broken current edition) chance of playing killpoints provides a necessary balance to the advantages MSU armies have in objective missions. For example, do you take two 5-man squads that can each claim an objective, have to be attacked separately, can split their own fire, etc? Or do you consider that too much of a liability in killpoint missions and take a single 10-man squad instead? Without killpoints you almost always take the two 5-man squads. With killpoints it's a much harder and more interesting decision.

Honestly, the only thing wrong with killpoints in 5th was that this concept wasn't explained in the rules. So when tournament players whined and cried about how their MSU transport spam armies didn't automatically win every mission type people felt sorry for them instead of telling them to STFU and stop mindlessly netlisting an army that doesn't work.

Other than speculation on web forums, we've never seen any evidence that their purpose was to counter MSU spam (that's simply been the explanation people rolled with), instead of simply being easier to calclulate than the old Victory Points which were much more accurate reflections of victory but more annoying to calculate.

I think the problems they create is also much larger than any issues with MSU spam, it was entirely possible to have your army broken, to be driven from the field and be completely unable to inflict any further harm on your opponent, and while your opponent lies victorious over the field, with a largely intact army, you win simply because you killed X+1 number of distinct maneuver elements. That's poor design right there, and if your solution to a perceived metagame problem is to construct a victory condition that can result like that, in a battle specifically about destroying your enemy rather than fighting over objectives, something is broken.

 koooaei wrote:
While maelstorm's random, yes, the random factor is somewhat lowered by numbers. There are 66 missions, ~2/3% of them are about board controle. You can't get the same mission again. And you draw lots of them.

You can however get several for the same objective (e.g. 31 and 21 for example).

Furthermore, as it's random and might require basically anything from basica being there to issuing challenges, killing stuff both at range and in mellee, manifesting psy powers, etc. It enspires list variations. Makes you think, why not bring a single psycher just in case i get this extra vp for basically bringing the unit?

An army might not have access to them for example (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Death Korps of Krieg, Dark Eldar, etc), while for others it may not fit the theme (e.g. a Khornate warband).

Remember how everyone cried that Flyers and SH are op? Here you go, extra points if you deal with them.

*If* they're taken and you draw them when you need them.

Yep, it's not ideal but still a great system. It's much-much butter than last turn flatout on an objective with min squads or static gunlines behind adl and nothing more.

Again, I like the idea, but I don't think they're much better than the older mission style, instead of gunlines you emphasize speedy MSU. It's incredibly easy to rack up a largely insurmountable lead very quickly, and often it has nothing to do with the list or skill, but simple draw.

 koooaei wrote:
There are 66 missions, ~2/3% of them are about board controle.

But those board control cards are all completely random. Why are you ordered to claim objective #3? Because that's the one that gives you the best chance of controlling more than your opponent? Because it's the one you've been moving your army into position to claim? No, because that's what the random dice said. And then there's the problem where one player gets easy objectives ("claim the objective in your deployment zone that has half your army sitting on it") and the other player gets the hard ones ("claim that same objective").

Furthermore, as it's random and might require basically anything from basica being there to issuing challenges, killing stuff both at range and in mellee, manifesting psy powers, etc.

Yes, which is why maelstrom missions suck. What you just described isn't a coherent strategy, it's rolling the dice and then doing what the dice tell you to do. Why not save a ton of time and money and just play a game of "who can roll more 6s"?

Makes you think, why not bring a single psycher just in case i get this extra vp for basically bringing the unit?

And this is the problem! You aren't taking a psyker because you think it will contribute something to your army, you're bringing it just in case the random dice roll "+1 VP if your army has a psyker in it".

Remember how everyone cried that Flyers and SH are op? Here you go, extra points if you deal with them.

And if your opponent doesn't bring any flyers you have a wasted objective card, while your opponent is potentially scoring points from their cards.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Debate:

OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: I disagree, my meta isn't the same as yours, I've had a different experience.

Being a dick:

OP: How do YOU feel about 7th?
Me: I feel this way about 7th. It's fun.
Another poster: This is BULL gak. Have you ever tried X combination? Have you ever tried Y combination? You're not having fun! You're wrong!

That's how some people debate, I don't have problem with it but others might find it a little brash. If you honestly think it's harsh enough to warrant it, report it and move on. There's no point trying to school a forum board to you standard of what's right or wrong.

 ArbitorIan wrote:


The OP on this thread asks how YOU feel about 7th. There are a lot of people on here telling others that how they feel about 7th is wrong, or trying to 'prove' their experience of 7th is the right one. Maybe they should start another thread.

That's how discussions work. What you're suggesting is everyone pop in post there answer and never return...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Other than speculation on web forums, we've never seen any evidence that their purpose was to counter MSU spam (that's simply been the explanation people rolled with), instead of simply being easier to calclulate than the old Victory Points which were much more accurate reflections of victory but more annoying to calculate.

Whether GW intended it to be that way or just got it right by blind luck (a fairly likely explanation, sadly) that's how it worked.

I think the problems they create is also much larger than any issues with MSU spam, it was entirely possible to have your army broken, to be driven from the field and be completely unable to inflict any further harm on your opponent, and while your opponent lies victorious over the field, with a largely intact army, you win simply because you killed X+1 number of distinct maneuver elements. That's poor design right there, and if your solution to a perceived metagame problem is to construct a victory condition that can result like that, in a battle specifically about destroying your enemy rather than fighting over objectives, something is broken.

But how often does that really happen? If your entire army is crippled while your opponent's army is largely intact then you're probably tabled. So this only happens in the rare event where one player brings way more KP in their army than the other, loses a lot of minor units that give up KP but don't represent much real damage, and almost tables their opponent but fails to get the last kill before the game ends. I can see how that would be frustrating, but is this kind of rare problem really worse than having the game default to MSU armies because MSU strategies have no drawbacks?

And yeah, it's an abstraction that doesn't always make sense, but do objectives really make sense either? Why should a single guardsman standing on an objective score it at the end of the game when a 500+ point terminator death star is standing 2" away and about to kill him one second later?

I saw plenty of games like that, particularly with more elite-ish armies. It happened to me (both ways) more than once.

Winning a KP game 11-9 when you're army has a total of 10 KP's and half a tac squad left and your opponent has 18 in their army and three battle tanks a transport and two transports still left, it's difficult to accept that as a real "win". That was not by any means an uncommon occurrence. Still isn't in KP games.

In fact, I just had one one a couple of Saturday's ago, playing Purge the Alien with my DKoK Assault Brigade.

I left my opponent with a Drop Pod, a 1 wound Librarian, and four Tac marines. I still had a unit of Death Riders, two units of Grenadiers mostly intact, and two units of Heavy Mortars untouched. We both got Linebreaker and Slay the Warlord, I got first Blood, but he got 9 KP's from me, I only got 7 from him, resulting in a total of 11 to 10 in his favor.

So despite having 18 infantry, four Death Riders, four Mortars and twelve crewman, five distinct units and ~566pts worth of models left, and my opponent having ~200-250pts of models of 3 distinct units left, composed of five infantry and a drop pod, I lost. Not quite as decisive as my original example, but by any realistic standard of victory, my army was left more functional, more intact, and had inflicted a greater level of damage on my opponent than I had received.

Games like that happen all the time.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Yep, it's not ideal but still a great system. It's much-much butter than last turn flatout on an objective with min squads or static gunlines behind adl and nothing more.

Again, I like the idea, but I don't think they're much better than the older mission style, instead of gunlines you emphasize speedy MSU. It's incredibly easy to rack up a largely insurmountable lead very quickly, and often it has nothing to do with the list or skill, but simple draw.

Yep, your points about not having access to some stuff like psychers is valid and i acknowledge it. And the randomness doesn't always go 'fair'. That's why i've said it's not ideal. But i still like it better than the old systems and i truly enjoy maelstorm. Even when i get an unlucky streak of objective cards. The games in general are more dynamic and tactical and it's important for an overall experience.

There IS a reason to use many units that haven't seen play in a while. Ork Kommandoes or IG Sniper Hobbits for example.

I can get that, but for many that's a frustrating experience. It's certainly more dynamic.

Personally I would have liked a broader range of objectives for the older style missions, and possibly missions where the objective is not the same for both sides (e.g. one side plays what is effectively "Emperor's Will", representing two important battlefield positions, while the other may be playing for "The Relic", hoping to retrieve an important piece of equipment from the field).

 koooaei wrote:
The games in general are more dynamic and tactical and it's important for an overall experience.

IMO the game is actually less tactical, because all of your tactical decisions are made by rolling the dice instead of choosing from multiple possible combinations of objective claiming/contesting/killing that could win the game. In a conventional game you decide to claim objective #2 and contest #3 because your bluff to take #1 left #2 exposed and #3 is too strongly held to take it but within range of one of your fast attack units. In a maelstrom game you take objective #2 because you rolled "capture objective #2" on the random table. See the problem?

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.

I seem to have misunderstood the statement made by JohnHwangDD though, so to just to make sure I understand what you mean, do you mean that games between these armies tend to be dominated by individual very powerful models (that's actually how I interpreted the original statement). If not that, why are these match-ups particularly troublesome when it comes to wound allocation and units/models?

But fair enough, I haven't played any of the combinations you list above. More in general I think I haven't had that experience because the casual group I play with tends to try and make games be fun for both parts. I can see the potential problems with playing in pick-up games though, it's just that I would never even consider doing that with a game as complicated as 40k.

Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.

Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.

If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.

As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.

Ok I see, I didn't quite get that was what you meant by individual models being important. I can certainly see that free wound allocation would speed things up, but I do like the tactical element of making sure that your important models (special weapons and sergeants) are protected.

I'm not sure I see the problem with Guard. You mean that it's annoying to not be able to allocate wounds to non-special models first? Well, I must say that I find it a bit weird that the guys in the front packing special weapons have some kind of magical shield that allows them to avoid getting hurt. Or is it just that it takes a lot longer time to sort things out in 6th/7th? I can't argue with that really.

 Vaktathi wrote:
5E killpoints were stupid, still are as they still kept them in in at least one 6E and 7E mission. That said, the Maelstrom missions often have the exact same problem, where killing a Land Raider or a Rhino will both get you that objective point.


For me, Maelstrom missions are more about luck of the draw and what unit types both your and your opponent brought. it's possible to be literally unable to complete certain objectives (hard to kill a building or flyer when your opponent has none), while others can be trivial (e.g. cast a psychic power!). Even when they pertain to the actual objectives on the table, I've both won and lost games simply based on luck. Roll both the objectives I'm on twice in a row? Sweet, I'm up 4 points in one round without doing a single thing.

Maelstrom was an interesting idea, but really poorly executed. Like much of what GW does, they're pretty good at coming up with great ideas and going out of their way to implement them in the worst way possible.

Agree with this 100%. This is typically why I build lists to table and incapacitate my foe. I don't like relying on luck to win any more than I have too (dice rolls.)

Okay, so I'm hearing mixed reviews, so my own experience will probably be the best thing to go with. Really, the main things holding me back:

- I am not a fan of vehicles/tanks/flyers/titans at this scale. I like painting infantry, but I get bored with looking at tanks on my shelves.
- The random tables for Warlord Traits and Powers kill a lot of the narrative aspect for me.
- My group is long-time players, but attendance is definitely going down without a "shiny, new" game to replace 40k.
-

Some things I love:

- I finally understand how to build a DE force (I like the new codex).
- Psychic Phase means I don't forget to use powers (But f'real Demon-summoning?)
- My group plays everything from Kill Team to Apocalypse sized games (I like the "Team-pocalypse: Everyone Bring 2k pts" idea)
- Beer, but not pretzels.

I think I'm gonna go hang out some more and gauge the local crowd's feeling. My elves look TOTALLY EVIL but system/setting ambiguous, so I can sit on the sidelines with my pom-poms if it's not for me. THANKS GANG!

gruntl wrote:

Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.

Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.

If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.

As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.

Ok I see, I didn't quite get that was what you meant by individual models being important. I can certainly see that free wound allocation would speed things up, but I do like the tactical element of making sure that your important models (special weapons and sergeants) are protected.

I'm not sure I see the problem with Guard. You mean that it's annoying to not be able to allocate wounds to non-special models first? Well, I must say that I find it a bit weird that the guys in the front packing special weapons have some kind of magical shield that allows them to avoid getting hurt. Or is it just that it takes a lot longer time to sort things out in 6th/7th? I can't argue with that really.

7E wound allocation is high effort, because it affects every single model every time you move (or remove) a model, for basically zero gain. It's stupid.

In the real world, for every military, every trooper is trained to use all of the equipment in the unit, so someone will pick up the special equipment. There is always a SiC or CoC, and someone will take command of the unit. That is how military units work. They don't completely fall apart because one man died. They keep going in the face of losses.

At-will wound allocation models that pretty well. Whomever died, died, and someone else picked up the weapon.

Also, in the real world, there is no magical force directing firepower to whomever happens to be on point. In a firefight, anybody can be wounded, including troops in the rear of a formation. There is no magical barrier stopping bullets at some arbitrary range. People have been killed far beyond nominal "effective ranges".

Again, 7E wound allocation is stupid and I refuse to abide by it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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.

LOL, Someone in another post called those of us who prefer to play at home or non-tourney scene players "basement dwellers". I take it s a compliment that we would need to be insulted in such a way so use the term as a compliment even though I dont have a basement either.
I dont drink and those of my private group dont drink a lot while we play if they do at all during those times. There are some times they do, but those are with different games such as D&D or whatnot.

When I moved from in-store "dry" gaming to at-home "wet" gaming, GW games got a *LOT* better. Orks and Orcs fit a lot better in the game universe. I am convinced that 3E-5E was designed to be played with a beer in hand and snacks at the ready.

Then GW decided toy soldiers were "serious business", and sucked the fun out in 6E, doubling down in 7E.

7th edition has rejuvenated my gaming group. It's the best edition of 40k yet. The key is finding a group that wants to play the same style 40k as you, but that has always been true.

The ETC missions seem to be the best mission pack so far, in my opinion.

 Gangrel767 wrote:
7th edition has rejuvenated my gaming group. It's the best edition of 40k yet. The key is finding a group that wants to play the same style 40k as you, but that has always been true.
The ETC missions seem to be the best mission pack so far, in my opinion.

For an established group it works well: There are few limitations of playing whatever you happen to own.
Due to other games we play, we all tend to a mixed warfare approach since spam tends to be a bit of a yawn.

The most valid complaint I can think of is that the power levels of what can be fielded is so vast it does not allow for reasonably matched pick-up games within a given points value.

I do roll my eyes a bit at the "my group is perfect and there are never any disputes and the open to interpretation and do whatever you want nature of 7th totally never ends up causing dispute due to our ability to use the word fun as often as possible." I have fun when I play with my friends too, I also don't have fun when we try and bring new blood into the group and their lists consists of 5 unpainted large models and they think every terrain piece should be a bubble of cover and all model placement is somehow an abstraction, and wobbly model syndrome lets you do, well, whatever you want.


It's valid to say you're having fun, but fun is subjective. I guarantee you, take 5 people from one of these utopia's of fun we're hearing about, divide them up and ask their opinion on different books and units and you will have a range of opinion, you know, away from the hive mind an all. I don't think it'd be any different with my group of regulars.

I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.





As always, 7th edition is like trying to order a pizza, from a menu that simply lists "pizza" as every topping. One group swears by peperoni, the other wants 10 toppings, neither is able to commincate what toppings they want really, the problem as always is the pizza shop has gone out of its way to make communication amongst customers as difficult as possible. I mean it's all pizza after all right, it's a shared experience, not a meal....

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

gruntl wrote:

Based on actually playing the game from 2E through 7E. Up through 5E, there is none of this per-model positioning. You take wounds as you like within the unit. It doesn't matter if the Sergeant is the closest to the enemy, heroically leading the charge - you just pull whichever model you like within the unit. Toughness and cover are based on the unit.

Getting back to that example, if you want the Sergeant at the fore, he's the first to die, so that would make a big difference.

If you had played earlier editions, you'd probably understand what I was talking about.

As a Guard player, 6E and 7E are not well-suited to the massed infantry with special weapons/equipment typical of Guard forces.

Ok I see, I didn't quite get that was what you meant by individual models being important. I can certainly see that free wound allocation would speed things up, but I do like the tactical element of making sure that your important models (special weapons and sergeants) are protected.

I'm not sure I see the problem with Guard. You mean that it's annoying to not be able to allocate wounds to non-special models first? Well, I must say that I find it a bit weird that the guys in the front packing special weapons have some kind of magical shield that allows them to avoid getting hurt. Or is it just that it takes a lot longer time to sort things out in 6th/7th? I can't argue with that really.

7E wound allocation is high effort, because it affects every single model every time you move (or remove) a model, for basically zero gain. It's stupid.

In the real world, for every military, every trooper is trained to use all of the equipment in the unit, so someone will pick up the special equipment. There is always a SiC or CoC, and someone will take command of the unit. That is how military units work. They don't completely fall apart because one man died. They keep going in the face of losses.

At-will wound allocation models that pretty well. Whomever died, died, and someone else picked up the weapon.

Also, in the real world, there is no magical force directing firepower to whomever happens to be on point. In a firefight, anybody can be wounded, including troops in the rear of a formation. There is no magical barrier stopping bullets at some arbitrary range. People have been killed far beyond nominal "effective ranges".

Again, 7E wound allocation is stupid and I refuse to abide by it.

Using real world military training and tactics examples isn't a very good idea. I can only speak on the US Army's way of doing things today, but I'd be careful about the things you specifically mention about picking up weapons, assuming command of units, and such. There's way too much to it and way too many variables to try and cite real world examples. I could go into detail about the *actual* processes of doing the things you mentioned but it won't help the discussion and it would look like I'm attacking you. I'll just leave it at: be careful using references like this.

Back on topic: I like 7th would allocation and I don't like it. I like the idea of: the guys in the front are the first to go, as it adds a layer of tactics to the game (however you can debate whether it's a good place to add a layer). But I don't like it because it means my Aspiring Champion Berzerkers can't be the one to lead his gladiator group into close combat. And that makes me sad.

The wounding thing is a mixed bag. The issue I take is more "why are we going into such detail here?" but nowhere else. We're not able to blow limbs of mc's when we cause wounds ala weapon destroyed and immobilized results, but we can pick off specific models from units. I think I'm ok with more detail if it's going to be applied across unit types. I actually really like how specific fire arcs and armour facings work for vehicles, but where the line is drawn between vehicle and mc is hazy as all hell.

I'm torn because I'm the guy that loves real los and obscurement based cover, I don't really like the new move towards everything being area terrain. It's no faster when it comes to the shooting phase because you still need to make sure each one of your models can see at least one model in the enemy unit and assess if there's any hard caps on how many models can die (ie the res of the squad is out of los to the firing unit). The only place lazy terrain rules save time is in the movement phase because you don't really have to care too much where your dude is positioned so long as he's in the magical bubble of cover.

Once everyone learned to just put he important models at the back, moving and flanking to try and proritize killing models with special or heavy weapons or a unit leader became pretty pointless. Even more so with the pin point insanity of barrage.

The game doesn't know if it wants to be a tactical skirmish game or gi joe.

If the micro management of individual models to ensure an incredibly basic amount of protection for a few special models (basically just ensuring your special models aren't in the front row or on the sides) counts as tactics, I think that says a lot for the tactical depth 40k offers.

 Blacksails wrote:
If the micro management of individual models to ensure an incredibly basic amount of protection for a few special models (basically just ensuring your special models aren't in the front row or on the sides) counts as tactics, I think that says a lot for the tactical depth 40k offers.

I guess what I'm saying is, I could live with it if it jived better with other aspects of the game IE more realistic terrain rules akin to turn based video games but it does seem like a pointless step in conjunction with abstract terrain rules. Believe me, I'm not going as far as randomziing when a vehicle blows up, we just go with the 5th mentality, obviously I'm pulling lasguns or bolter marines before the good stuff.

what i like about 7th is that it fixed the wording on some special rules which made RAW abusers scream with joy abusing said rules
Perhaps, 8th should introduce the following system: ''IISRIPF, AKA If it seems slowed its probably forbbiden.''
Also, i really like the fact that they are toning the power creep in the 7th ed codices...
TL;DR Far from perfect, but 40k is going in a good way

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
If the micro management of individual models to ensure an incredibly basic amount of protection for a few special models (basically just ensuring your special models aren't in the front row or on the sides) counts as tactics, I think that says a lot for the tactical depth 40k offers.

I guess what I'm saying is, I could live with it if it jived better with other aspects of the game IE more realistic terrain rules akin to turn based video games but it does seem like a pointless step in conjunction with abstract terrain rules. Believe me, I'm not going as far as randomziing when a vehicle blows up, we just go with the 5th mentality, obviously I'm pulling lasguns or bolter marines before the good stuff.

My comment was in reply to Ignatius, but you ninja'd in before me!

But yes, you make a good point. If 40k were more like Kill Team in model count, rules about facings, direction of fire, and directional cover could be used to good effect.

However, if 40k still intends on being a company level games with several tanks and upwards of a 100 infantry per side, then reasonable abstraction should be the name of the game. Area terrain by majority, wounds removed by owning player from wherever, basically like a fixed up 5th edition without some of the wound shenanigans on multi wound models.