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.

7th went vertical while neutering charges vis random distance and pulling models from the front. Line of sight blocking terrain fixes these issues by screening melee units until they can close the distance. Maelstrom fixes static, dull play by forcing players to plan out how to achieve specific objectives in order to win, which favors mobile units. Combined, proper terrain and Maelstrom style missions force players get into one on one engagements between units rather than half the armies invalidating the other half because you are playing on an open battlefield. Not playing Maelstrom and not using proper terrain leads to pretty much every complaint against 7th.

Yes, GW fubbed it on their poorly pasted terrain rules. That doesn't mean go back to 5th Ed thinking while complaining about all these overpowered formations; it means noting that this edition requires vertical thinking, planning to move, anf hugging cover.

SJ

It's funny that you think the game requires thinking, vertical or otherwise.

Once the lists are written and the models deployed, there's next to no thinking required. Far too many random rolls, far too few options (move or don't. Shoot or assault, maybe) Barring statistical improbabilities, most experienced players could look at two deployed armies and more or less accurately forecast a turn by turn breakdown of what will happen.

GW is afraid of drawbacks and remove player choice in favour of random rolls at any given chance. Outside of list building there's next to no thought needed.

Luthon1234 wrote:
7th is pretty fun if your playing Eldar, space marines, tau, or necrons!

I play Necrons, and no, it isn't.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It's funny that you think the game requires thinking, vertical or otherwise.

Once the lists are written and the models deployed, there's next to no thinking required. Far too many random rolls, far too few options (move or don't. Shoot or assault, maybe) Barring statistical improbabilities, most experienced players could look at two deployed armies and more or less accurately forecast a turn by turn breakdown of what will happen.

GW is afraid of drawbacks and remove player choice in favour of random rolls at any given chance. Outside of list building there's next to no thought needed.

It's pretty much a game of rock,paper,scissors...

Rock Paper Scissors Fire to be precise, I'll let you decide which faction is fire

All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

He might have that? Or it might be due to this not actually being a game but a platform for GW to force the sales of models. Overpowered stuff doesn't necessarily exist solely by accident. Nerf this, buff that, make X amazing, it all drives sales. Balanced games don't move as much product as power creep.

So... how is 7th doing?
A long, slow, circling of the drain.
It is still here, a little chewed but still active.
The other new games are chewing at their market share but increasing model kit selling price has been a stopgap... for now.
Made to order formations are the new method of minting money.

 vipoid wrote:

Luthon1234 wrote:
7th is pretty fun if your playing Eldar, space marines, tau, or necrons!

I play Necrons, and no, it isn't.

Want to compare your not fun to the not fun people like IG or orcs have?

He might have that? Or it might be due to this not actually being a game but a platform for GW to force the sales of models. Overpowered stuff doesn't necessarily exist solely by accident. Nerf this, buff that, make X amazing, it all drives sales. Balanced games don't move as much product as power creep.

Then why don't they make all units at least good? They almost manged it with eldar and am sure their models sell nice. In the case of some armies people are limited to 2-3 types of units. GK for example use terminators, NDKS, draigos who probably everyone proxies with a terminators, libies who are terminators too and that is it. Unless they run ally other units types are not realy worth buying. I am sure it would help GW sells figures a lot, if suddenly dreadnoughts or land raiders were something useful.

Makumba wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Luthon1234 wrote:
7th is pretty fun if your playing Eldar, space marines, tau, or necrons!

I play Necrons, and no, it isn't.

Want to compare your not fun to the not fun people like IG or orcs have?

You're welcome to try, though I feel I should point out that I also play IG. And DE, if it matters.

Realy? necrons get a powerful decurion and more then a few good units, which get even better with the said decurion. And DE get what , spikes on models?

Makumba wrote:
Realy? necrons get a powerful decurion and more then a few good units, which get even better with the said decurion. And DE get what , spikes on models?

Pretty much.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying Necrons aren't powerful, just that they're not fun.

I find their mechanics dull and (ahem) lifeless, with nothing interesting or involving. More importantly though, every time I play them it's cler that my opponents aren't having fun. I know full well that not being able to kill anything makes for a dull game, and that basically sums up the new Necrons.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Nope. Insulting much?

Ugh, I'd have thought adding him to my ignore list would be enough, but I just can't escape him.

Martel732 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Nope. Insulting much?

Nope. Responding to the suggestion that the game involves little thought. People stating that the game is both unbalance and not mentally challanging seem to be missing to parts that balance the game by making you think.

SJ

 vipoid wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Realy? necrons get a powerful decurion and more then a few good units, which get even better with the said decurion. And DE get what , spikes on models?

Pretty much.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying Necrons aren't powerful, just that they're not fun.

I find their mechanics dull and (ahem) lifeless, with nothing interesting or involving. More importantly though, every time I play them it's cler that my opponents aren't having fun. I know full well that not being able to kill anything makes for a dull game, and that basically sums up the new Necrons.

I have no idea what ones own fun has to do with others having fun, but powerful and unfun seems like a paradox, something like unhappy rich people.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It's funny that you think the game requires thinking, vertical or otherwise.

Once the lists are written and the models deployed, there's next to no thinking required. Far too many random rolls, far too few options (move or don't. Shoot or assault, maybe) Barring statistical improbabilities, most experienced players could look at two deployed armies and more or less accurately forecast a turn by turn breakdown of what will happen.

GW is afraid of drawbacks and remove player choice in favour of random rolls at any given chance. Outside of list building there's next to no thought needed.

Judging by most of the questions asked in the Tactics and army list forums, I'm convinced most of the posters on Dakka (and on other forums) still play eternal war missions. Their lists will either stay in their deployment zone and pew-pew, or just run at their opponent in an attempt to punch them. No great thought given to the missions until turn 4/5.

Maelstrom (despite it's many faults) make's the game a lot more interesting and requires the player to think from turn 1.

 vipoid wrote:

Makumba wrote:

I have no idea what ones own fun has to do with others having fun, but powerful and unfun seems like a paradox, something like unhappy rich people.

Maybe it's because I play with friends? And it's not fun making them miserable.

But I play with friends too and with family. I have yet to see any person give up their own fun for someone else to have it for free, and there is no return mechanic in w40k, as the next time you play you and your opponent have exactly the same models.

Maelstrom (despite it's many faults) make's the game a lot more interesting and requires the player to think from turn 1.

But it is only true for some armies. If my opponent is not another IG list and does 3 missions turn 1, and I do 1 or non, then the game is more or less over, sometimes it is ever when we roll missions and even that we have house ruled to be more user friendly.

Bartali wrote:

Maelstrom (despite it's many faults) make's the game a lot more interesting and requires the player to think from turn 1.

Except that it doesn't. It requires far less thought than EW, because there's no need whatsoever to plan ahead. You don't need to think about reaching objectives on the other side of the board by the end of the game. You don't need to think about which objectives to abandon (temporarily or otherwise), and which to protect. You don't need to think about whether it's worth trying to claim an opponent's objective, or whether to just try and shoot him off it.

Instead, your decisions are practically made for you. Moreover, there's no requirement for long-term commitment. If you're asked to hold an objective, then you only need to hold it that turn and can hop right off it next turn with no penalty.

Furthermore, points are frequently awarded for no thought whatsoever. A GK player is asked to cast a psychic power. Wow. I bet he really had to think hard about that one. Where would we b without Maelstrom to provide is with these deep, tactical decisions?

And then you have missions that you can't possibly complete, because you're asked to kill something the enemy doesn't have. Can you kill a flyer the enemy doesn't have? Amazing. Maelstrom has brought us beyond mere tactics and into deep philosophical questions.

Maelstrom is the game that plays you!

Martel732 wrote:
Maelstrom is the game that plays you!

Indeed, maelstrom games are tactically rather limited.
Atm, we prefer the missions from the HH book one or three in our 30k games. More flexible and eternal war alike.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Nope. Insulting much?

Nope. Responding to the suggestion that the game involves little thought. People stating that the game is both unbalance and not mentally challanging seem to be missing to parts that balance the game by making you think.

SJ

40k. Balanced.

Good Sir, do you perchance play Eldar?

text removed.

Reds8n

Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game. 40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game. It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen. From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game. It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done. Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous. If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game. 40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game. It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen. From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game. It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done. Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous. If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

Have an exalt sir.

 Selym wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Nope. Insulting much?

Nope. Responding to the suggestion that the game involves little thought. People stating that the game is both unbalance and not mentally challanging seem to be missing to parts that balance the game by making you think.

SJ

40k. Balanced.

Good Sir, do you perchance play Eldar?

I play a pure Grey Knights list setup to beat Maelstrom rather than my opponent via Jump, Shunt, Gate, and Deep Strike. More thought goes into winning each turn than goes into sitting back for three turns before worrying about turns 4, 5, and 6. If I can beat you by turn 3 by being better at achieving random objectives throughout the game than you are, regardless of which random cards I might draw, its because I planned for it and stayed strategically minded during the game. Figuring out how to take an object on the other side of the table now involves more thought than trying for the same objective 4 turns from now.

I'll admit, against an opponent that tends to not move, its pretty easy to win when I'm not only willing to move but planning to. And its possible to win without killing a single unit, or losing a single unit, which takes pressure off having to table to win. Versus an opponent to goes for the kill, it easy to kite them through favorable terrain into a position were I have the advantage. If I need to table my opponent to win, I'm prepared to dismantle their army over the course of the game if necessy.

Which one of us is thinking, and which one of us is just rolling dice?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I can say is that most likely your problems with the game are due to your lack of thought in playing it.

SJ

Nope. Insulting much?

Nope. Responding to the suggestion that the game involves little thought. People stating that the game is both unbalance and not mentally challanging seem to be missing to parts that balance the game by making you think.

SJ

40k. Balanced.

Good Sir, do you perchance play Eldar?

I play a pure Grey Knights list setup to beat Maelstrom rather than my opponent via Jump, Shunt, Gate, and Deep Strike. More thought goes into winning each turn than goes into sitting back for three turns before worrying about turns 4, 5, and 6. If I can beat you by turn 3 by being better at achieving random objectives throughout the game than you are, regardless of which random cards I might draw, its because I planned for it and stayed strategically minded during the game. Figuring out how to take an object on the other side of the table now involves more thought than trying for the same objective 4 turns from now.

I'll admit, against an opponent that tends to not move, its pretty easy to win when I'm not only willing to move but planning to. And its possible to win without killing a single unit, or losing a single unit, which takes pressure off having to table to win. Versus an opponent to goes for the kill, it easy to kite them through favorable terrain into a position were I have the advantage. If I need to table my opponent to win, I'm prepared to dismantle their army over the course of the game if necessy.

Which one of us is thinking, and which one of us is just rolling dice?

SJ

And of course, codex power levels have absolutely no effect on a player's ability to win.

Of course not, what a preposterous idea!

I am sure a CSM/BA player has just the same winning chances as a Eldar spamming WK and scatterbikes...

Exactly! I felt no difference whatsoever between playing CSM or IG and my new SM army

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh man, all this GW hate is getting so old. We get it - you think the game sucks, so move along people. Don't try to ruin it for other people who enjoy the game. 40k is what it has always been - an amazingly rich, interesting fluff combined with cool models. If you are having a problem with balance, it is because of your gaming community, not the game. It was never meant to be competitive, so if people are trying to max/min units, trying to break the game at every turn, then that is what is going to happen. From the very beginning, GW was interested in making cool models and writing fluff, not produce a tournament game. It is what has always happened with that type of player. It really isn't complex. Just agree what type of game you want to have, then play it. Don't like playing against Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures - cool, just speak up. Someone shows up with all Imperial Knights and you have a Nid swarm list? Then don't play against the person. Done. Blaming GW for the choices made by players is just ludicrous. If you are looking for an internally balanced tournament game, then, seriously, you need to go elsewhere. 40k has never been that way. The core rule book has always favored one style of play over another, which has always either boosted or hurt more specialized armies.

If you are looking to have fun with some friends, then the game has never been better. It has far more options, models, combinations than ever. 7th is my favorite edition since I started playing 20 years ago.

Here Here!! Exalted for truth!

I never really understood why so many GW hater linger and troll the boards just hating all over the game. If you don't like it, don't play it... and let the rest of us enjoy it!

7th is my favorite edition since 2nd... and my gaming community is loving it, too!