Switch Theme:

How do you feel about 7th?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Honestly I don't hate 7th. The biggest reason for it is the codexes that have come out feel more balanced. There are less things that feel like you should never take them while at the same time there are less things that feel like you need to take them or else you'll lose.

Yes, the game has teething problems still, but played with a bunch of friends you're on the same page with it works great. It's not perfect, but it's pretty solid and it feels like a good ruleset that is trying to give players a nice selection of options to play with while actually trying to properly balance the game.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Lictor




I think I can sum up why there is so much disdain with 7th edition.

If I were to lose every single 40k model I had in a fire or theft and I was left with starting from scratch, I wouldn't. I would just move on to other, better games and never look back at the past. The issue is that I HAVE the multiple armies and hours of work that I put into them so I am not likely to just give up on them with all of the money and time that has been put into the game. On the other hand I do not enjoy the game enough anymore due to the direction GW has taken it so I generally have a pretty negative view of 40k and 7th just made everything worse.

I feel like this attitude sums up a lot of peoples feelings towards the game and is why so many people are negative towards it while sticking around. I am extremely anti-7th but I am not willing to write off the thousands of dollars and hours spent building, painting, and planning that I have in this game.

40k keeps rolling because of attrition more than anything else, despite GWs best effort to destroy the community around it.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut




The Netherlands

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I think I can sum up why there is so much disdain with 7th edition.

If I were to lose every single 40k model I had in a fire or theft and I was left with starting from scratch, I wouldn't. I would just move on to other, better games and never look back at the past. The issue is that I HAVE the multiple armies and hours of work that I put into them so I am not likely to just give up on them with all of the money and time that has been put into the game. On the other hand I do not enjoy the game enough anymore due to the direction GW has taken it so I generally have a pretty negative view of 40k and 7th just made everything worse.

I feel like this attitude sums up a lot of peoples feelings towards the game and is why so many people are negative towards it while sticking around. I am extremely anti-7th but I am not willing to write off the thousands of dollars and hours spent building, painting, and planning that I have in this game.

40k keeps rolling because of attrition more than anything else, despite GWs best effort to destroy the community around it.


This!

Plus, for me, the fact that I'm a total fluff bunny and I simply have not found an alternative table top game that's gripped me in the way the 40K universe has.
It's kinda like Star Wars. The original trilogy sucked me, as did the 2nd through 5th editions did of 40K, and despite the utter dissapointment that were the prequels/6th and 7th edition, I cannot help hoping (against better judgement perhaps) that the future still has great in store for my two favorite franchises.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 00:08:50


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Florida

Thanks to this thread, I bought the Path of Eldar omnibus instead of a codex.

\m/ 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka





Ottawa Ontario Canada

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I think I can sum up why there is so much disdain with 7th edition.

If I were to lose every single 40k model I had in a fire or theft and I was left with starting from scratch, I wouldn't. I would just move on to other, better games and never look back at the past. The issue is that I HAVE the multiple armies and hours of work that I put into them so I am not likely to just give up on them with all of the money and time that has been put into the game. On the other hand I do not enjoy the game enough anymore due to the direction GW has taken it so I generally have a pretty negative view of 40k and 7th just made everything worse.

I feel like this attitude sums up a lot of peoples feelings towards the game and is why so many people are negative towards it while sticking around. I am extremely anti-7th but I am not willing to write off the thousands of dollars and hours spent building, painting, and planning that I have in this game.

40k keeps rolling because of attrition more than anything else, despite GWs best effort to destroy the community around it.


Agreed and exalted. Well said good sir.

Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did.  
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight





Raleigh, NC

I think Arbiter's points were all well made.

I hear comments like "7th is good, it just needs some rule tweaking and a good group of friends" and I have to ask myself- why not just play another edition and not have to pay all that money for nothing?
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think it's an unwillingness to adapt. I think people for the most part, just don't like the new rules and don't find them fun.

This.

I don't have a problem with change. Just with the changes that makes the game less fun to play.

Unbound is a fine idea for campaign play, or for specific scenarios. It's a nonsense idea for regular games.

Changes to D weapons aren't likely to concern me until I buy or play against something that has one.



For the most part, I think I would like 7th edition a lot more if...

- Unbound was scenario-specific

- Warlord traits and Psychic powers were selectable

- Wound allocation was done as per 5th edition, with an addendum to apply wounds to already-wounded models first.

- The psychic phase rules were actually finished, and functional.

- Hull points were balanced out with vehicles given saving throws.


Rolling dataslates back into the codexes where they should have been to begin with wouldn't hurt, either.




 
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control






Some people also miss that the inability to adapt may stem from lack of funds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the player's part I mean.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 02:46:10


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran



South Portsmouth, KY USA

 Accolade wrote:
I think Arbiter's points were all well made.

I hear comments like "7th is good, it just needs some rule tweaking and a good group of friends" and I have to ask myself- why not just play another edition and not have to pay all that money for nothing?




I agree. It is far less costly to play an older edition. I have gotten many old rulebooks and codecii from used bookstores for a considerable discount.

Oddly the print is still on the pages even though they are 'obsolete' editions.


Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.

Check out my friends over at Sea Dog Game Studios, they always have something cooking: http://www.sailpowergame.com. Or if age of sail isn't your thing check out the rapid fire sci-fi action of Techcommander http://www.techcommandergame.com
 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between leaving a comfort zone, and throwing any semblance of structure out the window.


The illusion of structure.

What structure is there if you can have 5 non standard detachments, 3 Allied, 1 Inquisitorial Detachment, 1 Assassin and an IK detachment, plus dataslates and formations.

The game doesn't have any structure anymore, it lost structure when alternate FoCs started, got worse when the Allied shenanigans began and completely disappeared with formations, Imperial Knights and non-FoC units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think it's an unwillingness to adapt. I think people for the most part, just don't like the new rules and don't find them fun.

This.

I don't have a problem with change. Just with the changes that makes the game less fun to play.

Unbound is a fine idea for campaign play, or for specific scenarios. It's a nonsense idea for regular games.

Changes to D weapons aren't likely to concern me until I buy or play against something that has one.




And that's the inability to adapt right there.

Unbound is something you haven't even tried or even considered the ramifications of.

Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/23 11:04:26


 
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







morgoth wrote:
Best edition by far.

Two major changes that vastly improved the game:

1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.

2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.


Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.


So it's the best edition ever because it fixed two problems that had been introduced by 6th edition, only 2 years earlier?

The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 lord_blackfang wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Best edition by far.

Two major changes that vastly improved the game:

1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.

2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.


Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.


So it's the best edition ever because it fixed two problems that had been introduced by 6th edition, only 2 years earlier?


6th did not introduce strength D, 7th finally merges all of the 40K into one 40K, where you can enjoy all of your models all the time, without being an donkey-cave to your opponent because strength D was designed for funPocalypse and not 40K at first.
I did not play 6th but I don't think 6th introduced Strength D.

Clearly 6th did a lot to break the structure in 40K, but it was already started before that. And maybe that structure was a problem to begin with. The FoC never scaled well, never adapted to different armies properly, etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 11:45:14


 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






7-th sux because there's lots of broken stuff.
Previous editions rock cause it's been long ago and i've allready forgotten lots of broken stuff from back than.
Also the game was more exciting cause i was younger and it was new experience.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/23 11:54:45


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

morgoth wrote:
And that's the inability to adapt right there.

No, that's a dislike for a system that throws the FOC out the window in favour of 'just use whatever miniatures you want to plonk on the table', because the different style of the different armies is a very large part of what I enjy about 40K, and turning it into a game between two random collections of miniatures just isn't appealing, right there.


Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, ...

No, I dismiss it as ridiculous because it's ridiculous.


...when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.

Really? Which of the problems that I perceive in the game does Unbound fix?

It arguably 'fixes' balance between codexes, by just letting everyone take the strongest units from whichever codexes they like (which isn't, IMO, a fix. It's breaking the system further instead of repairing it)... but army balance was never a major issue to me in the first place. And I'm at a loss as to how it does anything for any of the other problems that I had with 6th edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 12:02:10


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:
morgoth wrote:
And that's the inability to adapt right there.

No, that's a dislike for a system that throws the FOC out the window in favour of 'just use whatever miniatures you want to plonk on the table', because the different style of the different armies is a very large part of what I enjy about 40K, and turning it into a game between two random collections of miniatures just isn't appealing, right there.


Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, ...

No, I dismiss it as ridiculous because it's ridiculous.


...when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.

Really? Which of the problems that I perceive in the game does Unbound fix?

It arguably 'fixes' balance between codexes, by just letting everyone take the strongest units from whichever codexes they like (which isn't, IMO, a fix. It's breaking the system further instead of repairing it)... but army balance was never a major issue to me in the first place. And I'm at a loss as to how it does anything for any of the other problems that I had with 6th edition.


Unbound doesn't mean you have to take Broadsides with Night Scythes. Besides, that kind of stupid was already possible before, so how is it worse now ?

For the rest, just wait and see, in five years you'll agree with me.
   
Made in gb
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





Colne, England

morgoth wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:
morgoth wrote:
Best edition by far.

Two major changes that vastly improved the game:

1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.

2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.


Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.


So it's the best edition ever because it fixed two problems that had been introduced by 6th edition, only 2 years earlier?


6th did not introduce strength D, 7th finally merges all of the 40K into one 40K, where you can enjoy all of your models all the time, without being an donkey-cave to your opponent because strength D was designed for funPocalypse and not 40K at first.
I did not play 6th but I don't think 6th introduced Strength D.

Clearly 6th did a lot to break the structure in 40K, but it was already started before that. And maybe that structure was a problem to begin with. The FoC never scaled well, never adapted to different armies properly, etc.


I think the problem was the introduction of strength D into regular games that weren't apocalypse without any major changes to the strength D rules. But hey you didn't play 6th so it's not your fault that you missed the escalation supplement or whatever it was that allowed super heavies.

Brb learning to play.

 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight





Raleigh, NC

 koooaei wrote:
7-th sux because there's lots of broken stuff.
Previous editions rock cause it's been long ago and i've allready forgotten lots of broken stuff from back than.
Also the game was more exciting cause i was younger and it was new experience.


Look, I'm not in la-la land either, I KNOW other editions weren't some panacea for 40k, heck that's why people are always so excited for a new edition, they hope to see weird rules (subjectively or objectively) fixed. We're on the same page, although I'd still maybe argue that 5th was more enjoyable.

But it doesn't seem like the newer editions are any better than older ones, they're just different. And maybe that's where we're having this disconnect- I don't want to pay upwards of $135 for new books of rules that aren't any better than the previous ones. And what 7th REALLY has going against is the cost of buying the current rules needed for a decent army, through supplements, etc., just keeps on going up!
   
Made in us
Implacable Black Templar Initiate





The fact of the matter is that you're not going to get an objective answer to that question by posting it on these forums. There are too many people here who are either anti or pro GW beyond the point of objectivity, and they all have axes to grind that are occasionally personal. You can see it by the people who are jumping on here in order to say that they quit the game two editions ago even though the present question is about 7th, which they've never played. There's also some people who are willing to look past small issues or even larger ones because they love the game and want to play no matter how convoluted or bloated the rules are. Either way though, the OP's post was a grenade lobbed into the forums, which is a shame because all the negativity and fighting on display here has pushed him away from playing.

IMO, Anyone who wants to know the state of the game should skim the tactics and YMDA forums. Tactics will give you a broad idea of how the armies play and what sort of strategies fit your play style best while YMDA will give you an idea of where the major rules sticking points are and how frustrating/hopeless the situation is. However, this particular post, or any direct question concerning the state of the game, was doomed to descend into a pissing match the moment the OP clicked submit. The player base online is just too volatile to provide you with objectivity on this.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

morgoth wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
morgoth wrote:
And that's the inability to adapt right there.
No, that's a dislike for a system that throws the FOC out the window in favour of 'just use whatever miniatures you want to plonk on the table', because the different style of the different armies is a very large part of what I enjy about 40K, and turning it into a game between two random collections of miniatures just isn't appealing, right there.
Yet you dismiss it as something ridiculous because it's different from what you know, ...
No, I dismiss it as ridiculous because it's ridiculous.
...when it will clearly fix some of the problems that you perceive in the game.
Really? Which of the problems that I perceive in the game does Unbound fix?
It arguably 'fixes' balance between codexes, by just letting everyone take the strongest units from whichever codexes they like (which isn't, IMO, a fix. It's breaking the system further instead of repairing it)... but army balance was never a major issue to me in the first place. And I'm at a loss as to how it does anything for any of the other problems that I had with 6th edition.
Unbound doesn't mean you have to take Broadsides with Night Scythes. Besides, that kind of stupid was already possible before, so how is it worse now ?
For the rest, just wait and see, in five years you'll agree with me.
"Inability to adapt." is a rather funny statement.
Having played up to 7 editions of the game is a proven ability to adapt and have some perspective.
Unbound has managed to take the inequity of the points system that may have been limited by the army selection to now pretty much cherry-pick what you want.
You do not "have to" take anything that is overpowered but the difference is YOU CAN.

The greatest change other than army selection is that a plain old "choice" is less common without it quickly being followed with a dice roll.
Sometimes it is just nice to choose to do something and do it rather than wait for the dice to decide.
I think just a normal move, deployment and army selection are the few things not determined by a dice roll.

Hindsight, I think 5th edition was more fun, 6th was an interesting change but then showed it needed some "dialing in" and 7th really did not change anything significant in tweaking core game mechanics which was a disappointment.

Many people have too many models invested in 40k to quit and walk away forever, there have been bad editions and good editions, people tend to take a break and play something else until GW chooses to sharpen their pencil and write something a little more interesting.
The less we buy within the "bad edition" the sooner it moves on.
It is playable but seems too much like work for something to be a hobby: I am under no obligation to compensate for GW lazy writing.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 Accolade wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
7-th sux because there's lots of broken stuff.
Previous editions rock cause it's been long ago and i've allready forgotten lots of broken stuff from back than.
Also the game was more exciting cause i was younger and it was new experience.


Look, I'm not in la-la land either, I KNOW other editions weren't some panacea for 40k, heck that's why people are always so excited for a new edition, they hope to see weird rules (subjectively or objectively) fixed. We're on the same page, although I'd still maybe argue that 5th was more enjoyable.

But it doesn't seem like the newer editions are any better than older ones, they're just different. And maybe that's where we're having this disconnect- I don't want to pay upwards of $135 for new books of rules that aren't any better than the previous ones. And what 7th REALLY has going against is the cost of buying the current rules needed for a decent army, through supplements, etc., just keeps on going up!


I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.

I think the Maelstrom of War concept, improved on with Cities of Death, is the best thing to ever happen to 40k.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/23 14:36:28


Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




 Gunzhard wrote:

I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.




Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Have a really efficient way to pack your models back up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 14:58:09


 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

LordBlades wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:

I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.




Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?



Oh you're not wrong but it's certainly not the ListHammer game that 5th was; another 7th ed concept that helps this are the allies and formations. I know some people are highly resistant to move away from the 'one codex versus one codex' brand and I can understand that but it doesn't have to be straight DA versus Eldar spam. And that said, the Eldar codex is imo out of balance with all of the other newer codex which otherwise seem as even as we've ever had.

Further Maelstrom of War missions do make a huge difference as well, when I beat Eldar with SM it's always maelstrom hah.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 16:00:02


Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




 Gunzhard wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:

I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.




Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?



Oh you're not wrong but it's certainly not the ListHammer game that 5th was; another 7th ed concept that helps this are the allies and formations. I know some people are highly resistant to move away from the 'one codex versus one codex' brand and I can understand that but it doesn't have to be straight DA versus Eldar spam. And that said, the Eldar codex is imo out of balance with all of the other newer codex which otherwise seem as even as we've ever had.

Further Maelstrom of War missions do make a huge difference as well, when I beat Eldar with SM it's always maelstrom hah.



Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.


I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in pt
Tea-Kettle of Blood




 Gunzhard wrote:
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.


I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.


Maelstrom of War is a random mechanic within another random mechanic.

You might as well not even play the game and just draw the cards and roll the indicated VPs to see who wins...
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




 Gunzhard wrote:
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.


I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.



What I mean:

Let's assume player A plays better than player Bz


What does adding a random mechanic do

1) In many cases it favors nobody, player A wins on account of being better.
2) In some cases it favors player A, which wins by even a bigger margun
3) In some cases it favors playerB, which wins despite being a worse player.

Case 3 helps player B win more in a random game.

Very simplified: In a 100% skill based game, let's say A wins 60% of the time. Now make the game 50% skill 50% luck. A would only prevail 55% of the time (60% of the 50% skill plus 50% of the 50% luck).

To give you an actual play example: I started my last Maelstrom game from 0-3 just because, as my opponent got Secure Objective fir 2 he was already sitting on and manifest 3 psy powers as GK.
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






 Accolade wrote:


But it doesn't seem like the newer editions are any better than older ones, they're just different.


Bingo!

That's what i'm trying to say. It's a different sort of fun. Some people like it, some don't.

All your points are absolutely valid and understandable. Though, 7-th feels like a better version of 6-th for me. Actually, so much better than i've started to enjoy the game once again. But when you compare 3-5 to 6-7 - it's complerely different type of games with all the same minis. Good or bad.

And about $ cost - it shouldn't be so absurdly high in the first place.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/23 16:58:36


 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

I think the problem was the introduction of strength D into regular games that weren't apocalypse without any major changes to the strength D rules. But hey you didn't play 6th so it's not your fault that you missed the escalation supplement or whatever it was that allowed super heavies.


The problem from the beginning was the huge schism between 40K and Apocalypse / Forge World that to this date prevents many happy FW customers to play their resin blocks on the table, because the majority of players have elected as dogma that you have to ask before bringing anything FW to the table.

During 5th, they started Apocalypse to sell the concept to GW general customers, and with 6th they worked on the transition, 7th is the culmination of that where there is no more barriers between 500 point 40K and 500.000 point 40K, and most Apoc / FW stuff has been adapted to range only from good to terrible.

I like that, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordBlades wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:

I can't fault anyone for having issues with the cost, as it is, ridiculously expensive. But I truly believe 7th is a vast improvement. We got so bored with 5th around here because it was a game you won or lost at the 'list-building' phase. Now to a degree you can take 'anything' and while that seems terrifying, the game itself is better equipped to handle it and you still have to win on the table not at the computer.




Now I don't know hiw bad 5th was in this regard, but in my experience a 7th edition game still bows down to who has the better list. Actually, you might even lose at the cidex selection phase. If you pick something in the lower to average part of the power spectrum, you're going to have a super hard time beating most good lists from the top few codexes. What can a DA player do vs. most Mech Eldar lists for example?



I've yet to read a single top tournament player write those words.

Somehow it's always less skilled players who are under that impression.

There are DA lists that break MechDar. There are no DA lists that are both TAC and break MechDar.

Still, that's only true in the very tiny bubble of 40K w/ CAD+Allied @ 1850 points competitive.

I would be surprised if that has any effect at all on your friendly games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gunzhard wrote:
Maelstrom certainly helps. Introducing yet another purely random element to the game will decrease the impact your list (but sadly also player skill) has on the outcome.


I certainly don't agree with that. Unless you're counting the pre game prep (list-building) as skill? To think and react to changing circumstances imo requires far more skill than rolling dice when every scenario has already been accounted for.


Maelstrom is braindead and doesn't require more skill than the old table quarters mission.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it requires a lot less skill.

After all, as long as your list design is acceptable and you draw the right first cards, it's an automatic win, even if you get totally butchered and have no map control.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/23 17:38:49


 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

Maelstrom is braindead and doesn't require more skill than the old table quarters mission.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it requires a lot less skill.

After all, as long as your list design is acceptable and you draw the right first cards, it's an automatic win, even if you get totally butchered and have no map control.


Wow, "in fact" is that opinion coming from any experience? We've found nothing of the sort playing almost exclusively maelstrom missions.

If you draw 'bad' cards the game doesn't end, and I've found most often that an opponent will leave himself vulnerable when he is trying to achieve a tactical objective, you have to be smarter about your in game choices. If that doesn't appeal to you, ok, but I don't see how you can argue that 'annihilation + final-turn quarter grab' requires more skill.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: