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.
2015/10/21 06:29:42
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
The ITC ruled differently. From their FAQ: A unit only needs to have a single model at least partially within 12” of a Void Shield Generator for the entire unit to benefit from it.
2015/10/21 06:40:41
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
The ITC ruled differently. From their FAQ: A unit only needs to have a single model at least partially within 12” of a Void Shield Generator for the entire unit to benefit from it.
That is a ridiculous ruling as nothing in the VSG rules would imply that that's how the shield works!
7000+ Aliatoc Eldar
3000+ DeamonHunters
2015/10/21 06:40:56
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Oh no, more rules for things that are optional, its almost like GW is trying to give us options other than Bolters and Lascannons!
Not sure what you mean by this.
And am I seriously the only person thet enjoys the heck out of Maelstrom missions
Maybe.
or should we all jsut continue to play boring static games where nothing is worth points until the end of the game?
Well...normally who holds what when the shooting ends is both a practical and realistic time for that.
That said, the concept of asymmetrical objectives has merit. The execution in the case of 7E's Maelstrom missions is abysmal.
Maelstrom missions have a host of problems. First and foremost is the abusrdly random nature often leads to highly imbalanced outcomes. They also quite often run into issues where some armies physically can't achieve certain objectives because either they don't have access to something or an opponent didn't bring something. Meanwhile, other objectives are trivially easy to achieve and have no business being a mission objective "e.g. cast a psychic power in an army with 4 Psykers, though itcan also physically be impossible for many armies like Tau). There's tons of immersion breaking issues with the above problems, in addition to just the ADHD nature of randomly going after vastly different objectives every turn ("is high command on crack? how often are they going to change their minds here?"). Maelstrom missions also tend to disproportionately favor the armies that already on top, those with gobs of mobility and resiliency, Eldar, Necrons, SM's, etc while slower and/or less resilient armies like IG or DE flounder terribly.
Yet the draw back to jinking is that the vehicle must now snapshoot, and yet they still go down quickly in CC
Sure, but that doesn't mean there still isn't a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer gap. Look at tournament results and the only armies you see anywhere near the top place using lots of non-skimmer vehicles are either Gladius forces getting their vehicles for free, or are Knight armies with inherent saves and "we ignore everything" superheavy rules.
The on-demand Jink is huge. Sure it has to snap-fire. But it doesn't effect passengers at all, doesn't effect movement at all, many Jink-capable units have Twin-Linked weapons in the first place, they don't have to do any sort of pre-planning and can declare it as an immediate reaction, and it's a 4+ save.
If you look at Smoke Launchers on the other hand, the situation is much different. They're one-use. They only give a 5+ save. You have to use them pre-emptively (use them too soon and you've wasted them, don't use them soon enough and you're toast, and you can't use them in response to a turn 1 alpha strike), they prevent *all* shooting (not just forcing snap-shots) and the shooting restriction applies to passengers as well, and it prevents the vehicle from moving flat-out.
With the exception of certain armies, very rarely do you find a CC where you have more than 2 initiative steps to worry about.
Sure, but it's still extra steps and movement that add time and complexity.
Challenges are optional
Not if you play Chaos Space Marines, and while they may be "optional" both players get the opportunity to take advantage of that option, so even if you don't want to, your opponent can force it. More to the point, it's rarely used as an actual fluffy "have my cool guy fight your cool guy" mechanic, but as a way to single-out and easily slay the one model that can actually present a threat and do so before it can actually strike back.
,and Look out sir is optional.
And in most cases outright stupid not to take advantage of and often critically important to the builds of many units/armies (e.g. TWC deathstars).
correct, 3rd gave us VDR to build flyers and FW gave us rules for them but they were unusable, and even if you did try to have a dogfight, it was a mess
Given how basically nobody had or tried to use Flyers in these time periods, particularly given how few even had models, it can probably be forgiven.
Do you not remember being able to shoot through 12 inches of forest and losing line of sight to anything more than 6" into terrain, or any of the other arbitrary rules of what cover was (back when everything was a 4+ cover)
Oh I do, and I'm not saying everything in every older edition was better in every respect. We haven't had a perfect edition yet in my opinion.
Also we didnt have many multiwound models back then.
There weren't as many, but they were there. Thousand Sons, Obliterators, Nobz, Tyranid Warriors, etc.
I personally like the new wounding system as it rewards people for thinking tactically rather than seeing a conga-line of 20 ork boys get a cover save because the 10 in the back are in cover.
The problem is that kind of tactical granularity is somewhat, well, absurd at the scale we're playing at. Worrying about where the individual flamer guy in a unit is when you're playing a battle that's got 100+ or 200+ models on the board, with aircraft and superheavy tanks and godzilla like creatures present, is simply forcing in detail where it's neither appropriate nor value adding, particularly when in many cases it disproportionaly hurts multi-role units for no good balance reason.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Yes, please lets return to the days of Eldar Falcons being near indestructable, Landraider spam lists, and Drop pod dreadnaughts flooding the table. I remember 5th being nothing but gunline armies with Vehicle spam winning almost every game.
The problem wasn't "vehicles" as a whole, it was transports not caring about most of the results, gun-tanks were very easy to negate. Falcons were not unkillable in 5th (that was 4th), particularly with the CC changes. Land Raider spam worked...until someone brought meltaguns (it was never a popular build for a reason). Dreadnoughts were biggest as back-table auto-cannon platforms than anything else, not as drop-podded assault units.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
There's a good number of them. Humongous numbers of unnecessary charts. Underwhelming rules for terrain that isn't GW produced plastic kits. A complete loss of sense of scale as ever bigger units are hamfisted into the game. Formations that give incredibly powerful abilities (and often entire units) and wargear for free and that synergize with other formations. All sorts of abuse of the allies mechanic to take advantage of abilities and synergies that otherwise weren't intended. The ability to take detachments in such a way as to make unit limitations often pointless. Rules sources so varied, widespread, poorly updated and incoherently tracked that almost nobody can keep track of them all, much less afford to actually own them.
Other issues are present as well. We have missions copy-pasted from 6E without proper adaptation such as Big Guns Never Tire or The Scouring, when these missions were created in 6E, Heavy Support & Fast Attack units got bonus scoring abilities and were worth more to kill as a result, but when ported into 7E they did nothing to account for the fact that they made everything scoring but otherwise kept the greater kill value and as a result turned them into a liability for no good reason and contrary to the mission descriptions.
Ultimately the biggest problem is that the game has lots its sense of scale and abstracts in the wrong direction. We have ever more granular mechanics for tiny things that should be irrelevent (what type of blade a particular powerweapon has actually matters now, challenge mechanics, the physical position of each model mattering for wound allocation) while more and more army mechanics get introduced and army sizes increase and bigger and bigger units (which ignore more and more rules) get added.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/10/21 07:55:54
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Indeed. It's almost as if I mentioned it as something that specifically needed to be fixed.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
But it's ok for you to write off 5th edition solely on the vehicle rules?
7th edition has random everything, has more charts than you can point an accountant at, had army building rules that have generated almost as much confusion in the community as the 4th edition LOS rules, has psychic rules that break the moment your psyker joins a unit, and overall wants to be a mass battle game with skirmish game rules.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
All of which also applies to monstrous creatures. Who wind up being more survivable at an equivalent points cost.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on.
Which doesn't change the fact that a dedicated assault unit potentially getting a 2" charge is absurd.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years,
That doesn't make it a good idea, just something that some people have asked for.
Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire
No it doesn't. It makes you bury your special guys in the middle of the unit, and take plasma guns instead of flamers. That's as strategic as it gets.
And it's unnecessary. Micromanagement of individual model placement within the unit is fine in a small skirmish game, but it has no place in a game that can routinely have 100 or more models on each side.
2015/10/21 09:41:01
Subject: Re:anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Salous wrote: I play multiple games a week and have a blast. People keep complaining about the rules, but I can find VERY few that I actually have a problem with. Reading all the comments about wound allocation just makes me laugh. Some people are mad that they can't cheese the wounds anymore by killing off any model they want. I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Not so enjoyable when you have a horde army that can't even get to the centre of ther board cause it removes more rows of models than it moves forward.
2015/10/21 09:57:00
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Oh no, more rules for things that are optional, its almost like GW is trying to give us options other than Bolters and Lascannons!
Not sure what you mean by this.
And am I seriously the only person thet enjoys the heck out of Maelstrom missions
Maybe.
or should we all jsut continue to play boring static games where nothing is worth points until the end of the game?
Well...normally who holds what when the shooting ends is both a practical and realistic time for that.
That said, the concept of asymmetrical objectives has merit. The execution in the case of 7E's Maelstrom missions is abysmal.
Maelstrom missions have a host of problems. First and foremost is the abusrdly random nature often leads to highly imbalanced outcomes. They also quite often run into issues where some armies physically can't achieve certain objectives because either they don't have access to something or an opponent didn't bring something. Meanwhile, other objectives are trivially easy to achieve and have no business being a mission objective "e.g. cast a psychic power in an army with 4 Psykers, though itcan also physically be impossible for many armies like Tau). There's tons of immersion breaking issues with the above problems, in addition to just the ADHD nature of randomly going after vastly different objectives every turn ("is high command on crack? how often are they going to change their minds here?"). Maelstrom missions also tend to disproportionately favor the armies that already on top, those with gobs of mobility and resiliency, Eldar, Necrons, SM's, etc while slower and/or less resilient armies like IG or DE flounder terribly.
Yet the draw back to jinking is that the vehicle must now snapshoot, and yet they still go down quickly in CC
Sure, but that doesn't mean there still isn't a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer gap. Look at tournament results and the only armies you see anywhere near the top place using lots of non-skimmer vehicles are either Gladius forces getting their vehicles for free, or are Knight armies with inherent saves and "we ignore everything" superheavy rules.
The on-demand Jink is huge. Sure it has to snap-fire. But it doesn't effect passengers at all, doesn't effect movement at all, many Jink-capable units have Twin-Linked weapons in the first place, they don't have to do any sort of pre-planning and can declare it as an immediate reaction, and it's a 4+ save.
If you look at Smoke Launchers on the other hand, the situation is much different. They're one-use. They only give a 5+ save. You have to use them pre-emptively (use them too soon and you've wasted them, don't use them soon enough and you're toast, and you can't use them in response to a turn 1 alpha strike), they prevent *all* shooting (not just forcing snap-shots) and the shooting restriction applies to passengers as well, and it prevents the vehicle from moving flat-out.
With the exception of certain armies, very rarely do you find a CC where you have more than 2 initiative steps to worry about.
Sure, but it's still extra steps and movement that add time and complexity.
Challenges are optional
Not if you play Chaos Space Marines, and while they may be "optional" both players get the opportunity to take advantage of that option, so even if you don't want to, your opponent can force it. More to the point, it's rarely used as an actual fluffy "have my cool guy fight your cool guy" mechanic, but as a way to single-out and easily slay the one model that can actually present a threat and do so before it can actually strike back.
,and Look out sir is optional.
And in most cases outright stupid not to take advantage of and often critically important to the builds of many units/armies (e.g. TWC deathstars).
correct, 3rd gave us VDR to build flyers and FW gave us rules for them but they were unusable, and even if you did try to have a dogfight, it was a mess
Given how basically nobody had or tried to use Flyers in these time periods, particularly given how few even had models, it can probably be forgiven.
Do you not remember being able to shoot through 12 inches of forest and losing line of sight to anything more than 6" into terrain, or any of the other arbitrary rules of what cover was (back when everything was a 4+ cover)
Oh I do, and I'm not saying everything in every older edition was better in every respect. We haven't had a perfect edition yet in my opinion.
Also we didnt have many multiwound models back then.
There weren't as many, but they were there. Thousand Sons, Obliterators, Nobz, Tyranid Warriors, etc.
I personally like the new wounding system as it rewards people for thinking tactically rather than seeing a conga-line of 20 ork boys get a cover save because the 10 in the back are in cover.
The problem is that kind of tactical granularity is somewhat, well, absurd at the scale we're playing at. Worrying about where the individual flamer guy in a unit is when you're playing a battle that's got 100+ or 200+ models on the board, with aircraft and superheavy tanks and godzilla like creatures present, is simply forcing in detail where it's neither appropriate nor value adding, particularly when in many cases it disproportionaly hurts multi-role units for no good balance reason.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Yes, please lets return to the days of Eldar Falcons being near indestructable, Landraider spam lists, and Drop pod dreadnaughts flooding the table. I remember 5th being nothing but gunline armies with Vehicle spam winning almost every game.
The problem wasn't "vehicles" as a whole, it was transports not caring about most of the results, gun-tanks were very easy to negate. Falcons were not unkillable in 5th (that was 4th), particularly with the CC changes. Land Raider spam worked...until someone brought meltaguns (it was never a popular build for a reason). Dreadnoughts were biggest as back-table auto-cannon platforms than anything else, not as drop-podded assault units.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
There's a good number of them. Humongous numbers of unnecessary charts. Underwhelming rules for terrain that isn't GW produced plastic kits. A complete loss of sense of scale as ever bigger units are hamfisted into the game. Formations that give incredibly powerful abilities (and often entire units) and wargear for free and that synergize with other formations. All sorts of abuse of the allies mechanic to take advantage of abilities and synergies that otherwise weren't intended. The ability to take detachments in such a way as to make unit limitations often pointless. Rules sources so varied, widespread, poorly updated and incoherently tracked that almost nobody can keep track of them all, much less afford to actually own them.
Other issues are present as well. We have missions copy-pasted from 6E without proper adaptation such as Big Guns Never Tire or The Scouring, when these missions were created in 6E, Heavy Support & Fast Attack units got bonus scoring abilities and were worth more to kill as a result, but when ported into 7E they did nothing to account for the fact that they made everything scoring but otherwise kept the greater kill value and as a result turned them into a liability for no good reason and contrary to the mission descriptions.
Ultimately the biggest problem is that the game has lots its sense of scale and abstracts in the wrong direction. We have ever more granular mechanics for tiny things that should be irrelevent (what type of blade a particular powerweapon has actually matters now, challenge mechanics, the physical position of each model mattering for wound allocation) while more and more army mechanics get introduced and army sizes increase and bigger and bigger units (which ignore more and more rules) get added.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Indeed. It's almost as if I mentioned it as something that specifically needed to be fixed.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
But it's ok for you to write off 5th edition solely on the vehicle rules?
7th edition has random everything, has more charts than you can point an accountant at, had army building rules that have generated almost as much confusion in the community as the 4th edition LOS rules, has psychic rules that break the moment your psyker joins a unit, and overall wants to be a mass battle game with skirmish game rules.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
All of which also applies to monstrous creatures. Who wind up being more survivable at an equivalent points cost.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on.
Which doesn't change the fact that a dedicated assault unit potentially getting a 2" charge is absurd.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years,
That doesn't make it a good idea, just something that some people have asked for.
Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire
No it doesn't. It makes you bury your special guys in the middle of the unit, and take plasma guns instead of flamers. That's as strategic as it gets.
And it's unnecessary. Micromanagement of individual model placement within the unit is fine in a small skirmish game, but it has no place in a game that can routinely have 100 or more models on each side.
Well, these sum up my views nicely. Have an exalt each.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2015/10/21 10:14:16
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
How big are the battles you play? 1850 takes around 4 hours for me (with 100+ minis), and it's moving the Cultists that takes time. Scale it down a notch if the time is an issue
But how are you getting tabled with AM and how long have you played for? Granted, they're not top tier, but IG aren't bad, and they are the only ones that consistently table my CSMs! Leman Russ battle tanks (S8 AP3 large blast), Wyverns (makes infantry go poof!), Pask, etc. While none of this is uber awesome, these units are damn solid. I would ask experienced IG players at your local club and on the net for advice, maybe even look up D4Chan's guide. But if you're relatively new (less than 20-30 games), you will be getting pummeled. If you were a beginner, I just posted a wee article on ways of improving your learning curve and experience
2015/10/21 10:49:00
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
How big are the battles you play? 1850 takes around 4 hours for me (with 100+ minis), and it's moving the Cultists that takes time. Scale it down a notch if the time is an issue
But how are you getting tabled with AM and how long have you played for? Granted, they're not top tier, but IG aren't bad, and they are the only ones that consistently table my CSMs! Leman Russ battle tanks (S8 AP3 large blast), Wyverns (makes infantry go poof!), Pask, etc. While none of this is uber awesome, these units are damn solid. I would ask experienced IG players at your local club and on the net for advice, maybe even look up D4Chan's guide. But if you're relatively new (less than 20-30 games), you will be getting pummeled. If you were a beginner, I just posted a wee article on ways of improving your learning curve and experience
Started 40k in 2007, and joined the IG in 2012.
My my Battlecannins almost never do anything, I rarely am able to kill vehicles, and my games range from 500 points to 1750 with minimal difference in timescale.
Its getting rather annoying.
2015/10/21 10:51:25
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
ChazSexington wrote: Leman Russ battle tanks (S8 AP3 large blast), Wyverns (makes infantry go poof!), Pask, etc. While none of this is uber awesome, these units are damn solid.
Sorry, but the LRBT has been terrible since 6th. S8 AP3 isn't remotely as useful as people seem to think, and even less so when it forces all your other weapons to snap-fire.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2015/10/21 10:52:35
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
I took a break from 40K last Fall and began playing again this past September (about a one year break). By the end of 6th edition, I was becoming very frustrated with the direction of the game and 7th didn't seem to improve much in my opinion, so I walked away for awhile.
Fast forward a year later and I've played several games and an 18 person tourney and enjoyed each and every game. I looked at my army and what was available and opted to play my style of game and learn to tune out a lot of the negativity permeating around the internet. So far, I've had no real issues and am back at painting minis again as well.
Are there rules issues? Absolutely. Just like in RT, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th edition. I personally do not like the wound allocation rules combined with LoS and the lack of concise terrain rules. However, there have been several clubs/organizations who have released their FAQs, army list construction, etc... in which to utilize within one's own gaming group that keeps issues down to a minimum. With all that in mind, I was able to play three very fun and challenging tourney games with zero rules issue debates.
Since I've come back to the game, I've found most of the negativity regarding the game on the internet and substantially less negativity on the tabletop.
No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby.
2015/10/21 12:23:04
Subject: Re:anyone else having a really good time playing right now
I just want to point out that vehicles CAN be damaged by small arms fire. Anyone whom has ever had a squad of Marines of other S4 (or in the Tau's case S5) armed unit get on the flank of a chimera (or chimera chassis based tank) or the rear of a Leman Russ/other heavy tank will know the agonising pain and fury you feel as a hail of what should be ineffectual small arms fire sandblasts you tank to oblivion.
Apart from that I find that 7th, especially maelstrom (that certain opponents of mine like to play because they just know how static my army is), to be an unwieldy and overbloated rules that make no sense at all in most cases and add nothing to the game.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2015/10/21 13:50:32
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Tbh I enjoy 7th, but not really because of the rules.
The cover rules are horrific imo when compared to 3rd or 5th, the from front model removal is either broken or highly abused and the unbalances are really obvious.
However back in the day I was part of a gaming group that liked to be competitive, army lists changed every month or so and everyone poured money into the game. We enjoyed it because we felt back in 5th most armies would have a chance. If I still played with them it would be a massive issue.
Now I play with a group of 5 guys and also a club that plays for enjoyment of the game and narrative.
"Ohhh my LRBT just scattered it's shot through three buildings, hit 4 guys and did sweet FA, imagine that scene in a film and how much those firewarriors much of shat themselves"
And we have a hell of a time, we even take the piss out of the game system a bit during the games. Bar the ork player who likes to be a rule lawyer despite not knowing most the rules and shouts unfair play everytime his opponent doing well.
2000
1500
Astral Miliwhat? You're in the Guard son!
2015/10/21 14:28:34
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Indeed. It's almost as if I mentioned it as something that specifically needed to be fixed.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
But it's ok for you to write off 5th edition solely on the vehicle rules?
7th edition has random everything, has more charts than you can point an accountant at, had army building rules that have generated almost as much confusion in the community as the 4th edition LOS rules, has psychic rules that break the moment your psyker joins a unit, and overall wants to be a mass battle game with skirmish game rules.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
All of which also applies to monstrous creatures. Who wind up being more survivable at an equivalent points cost.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on.
Which doesn't change the fact that a dedicated assault unit potentially getting a 2" charge is absurd.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years,
That doesn't make it a good idea, just something that some people have asked for.
Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire
No it doesn't. It makes you bury your special guys in the middle of the unit, and take plasma guns instead of flamers. That's as strategic as it gets.
And it's unnecessary. Micromanagement of individual model placement within the unit is fine in a small skirmish game, but it has no place in a game that can routinely have 100 or more models on each side.
It is funny how viewpoints can make each of these views seem wrong to the other.
I think a more competitive player focus makes most rules "good" to a degree: that player will "adapt" they so proudly like to claim as long as the rules are clear.
It just needs to be remembered that not all of us are willing to adapt to rules we do not agree with rather than an "inability".
It appears the 6th-7th edition rules can appeal more to those who enjoy gambling a bit more.
Plus, we cannot forget those that enjoy the "fluff" more than an actual game, so being allowed to do whatever you want is key to them.
I like my tabletop games to be the nearest thing to a "simulator" of those books / movies we are inspired by. I am unsure that is what insaniak likes but what he has pointed out I agree with.
If the character leads dramatically from the front and the flamer guy roasts guys as he is running forward in a book I want to see that.
If the rules do not allow that "simulation" to happen, I think of them as garbage.
The pulling models from the back is not necessary, you can say you only have to pull from within weapons range but it adds chunkiness again to the game.
The unit is to be considered a dynamic entity, if every single model and it's exact position is critical rather than the squad, we are playing a skirmish game.
Go dust off Necromunda or some Kill-team <500 pt odd game.
I play slow enough, I really am not into 40k gaming to micromanage: I want to be a general not a sergeant.
Epic is not a supported game.
If we want those big games, with big armies and big stomping creatures / titans / vehicles the focus on squad tactics makes more sense than individual models.
I want my rules clean, that is why I am looking at Mantic's Maelstrom rules... GW should look into it.
I want Kharn in the front where he belongs, cutting down those silly enough who get in front of him, THOSE are the epic moments.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/21 14:30:21
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2015/10/21 15:05:19
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
The ITC ruled differently. From their FAQ: A unit only needs to have a single model at least partially within 12” of a Void Shield Generator for the entire unit to benefit from it.
That is a ridiculous ruling as nothing in the VSG rules would imply that that's how the shield works!
That's exactly how the VSG works RAW. The attack came from outside 12" of the VSG, shooting at an unit that is within 12" of a VSG. There is nothing along the lines of 'a unit can only benefit from a void shield if its closest model to the attacking unit is within 12" of the projected void shield."
FAQ for Jink is another example. It's implied that Skimmers that are Immobilised (ie unable to move) can't Jink but it was worded so poorly that they can still Jink.
Back on topic, no, not as much as I would like. I play armies that are deemed weaker in comparison to others (Orks, BA, DE and 3> Flyrant Nids) so against the powerhouse armies, I'm fighting an uphill battle, combined with the amount of rules that favour some armies over others (such as MC getting cover from having toes in terrain, such as a Wraithknight whereas as Land Raider has to be 25%) covered. That's just one example of imbalance. Others include random charge length, overwatch, flyers and FMC's deployment, psychic phase, etc, etc. It's a complicated ruleset, but unlike Infinity (which I'm getting into), the rules for 40k are inconsistent at best.
I dunno, maybe it's just the armies I play. Maybe it's Maybelline.
YMDC = nightmare
2015/10/21 17:22:45
Subject: Re:anyone else having a really good time playing right now
Salous wrote: I play multiple games a week and have a blast. People keep complaining about the rules, but I can find VERY few that I actually have a problem with. Reading all the comments about wound allocation just makes me laugh. Some people are mad that they can't cheese the wounds anymore by killing off any model they want. I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Not so enjoyable when you have a horde army that can't even get to the centre of ther board cause it removes more rows of models than it moves forward.
Build better army lists and im sure you will do just fine. Nothing wrong with horde lists. Also, using terrain helps alot.
2015/10/21 19:07:27
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
40k is alive and well here in Western Massachusetts. Just had a big gaming day this past Saturday with 10 of my closest 40k buddies.
7th is the best rule set yet IMHO. I do agree that codex creep has caused the pregame conversation to become mandatory, but in our group of friends it's super easy to either use, or not use some of the more powerful combos.... or units.
It's all about the Gentlemen's agreement.
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity" - Maximus Meridius
Check out Veterans of the Long War Podcast -
https://www.facebook.com/VeteransOfTheLongWar
2015/10/21 19:25:17
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
kronk wrote: I've met some fun new players recently and am enjoying the game.
New players?
No sign of new players here.
No sign of players here.
No joke. I used to have 6 friends who played 40k. Now I have two. One is at University, the other moved to another country (from England to Wales / still counts). Aside from that, there is one wargaming group in the area, none of them will touch 40k with a 900-foot pole, and then I have a GW in the next town over, who regularly disallows actual games, in favour of setting up a diorama for the fething non-existent newcomers.
2015/10/21 19:37:00
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
kronk wrote: I've met some fun new players recently and am enjoying the game.
New players?
No sign of new players here.
No sign of players here.
No joke. I used to have 6 friends who played 40k. Now I have two. One is at University, the other moved to another country (from England to Wales / still counts). Aside from that, there is one wargaming group in the area, none of them will touch 40k with a 900-foot pole, and then I have a GW in the next town over, who regularly disallows actual games, in favour of setting up a diorama for the fething non-existent newcomers.
I dont blame them, hell the only thing that keeps me playing 40K is that it is almost impossible to get a game of anything else within the local area.
If you live near Preston then look up Red Steel Gaming, we have a hell of a lot of 40K players (read: all of us)
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2015/10/21 20:18:22
Subject: anyone else having a really good time playing right now
kronk wrote: I've met some fun new players recently and am enjoying the game.
New players?
No sign of new players here.
No sign of players here.
No joke. I used to have 6 friends who played 40k. Now I have two. One is at University, the other moved to another country (from England to Wales / still counts). Aside from that, there is one wargaming group in the area, none of them will touch 40k with a 900-foot pole, and then I have a GW in the next town over, who regularly disallows actual games, in favour of setting up a diorama for the fething non-existent newcomers.
I dont blame them, hell the only thing that keeps me playing 40K is that it is almost impossible to get a game of anything else within the local area.
If you live near Preston then look up Red Steel Gaming, we have a hell of a lot of 40K players (read: all of us)
7000+ Aliatoc Eldar
3000+ DeamonHunters
2000
1500
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
