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.

 Blacksails wrote:
@marmatag, its pretty simple really to figure if there's a player problem or a game problem.

If the problem stems from some sort of mechanical misunderstanding, army disparity, and other balance, in-game issues, its a game problem.

Someone being a rude, obnoxious, donkey-cave with zero social skills is a player problem.

There will be time these things overlap, like some people who don't understand how to play nicely with first time or new players. But generally, issues involving balance and army power level disparities and potential conflicts in game groups/stores because of that, well, that's a game problem at its core. You simply can't force or even expect all players to want the same type of game (the ever classic Fluff At All Costs vs Win At All Costs at the extremes), so a good game creates a framework that most player types will be happy against most player types in a general pick up scenario.

You'll always have donkey-caves, but if 40k was well balanced and well written, the cheesiest of beard armies would still fare reasonably well against some self-acclaimed super fluff army, which would allow both types of players to compete fairly and have fun without needing to point the blame at the other for playing 'incorrectly' as they may see it.

This is a fair statement, too.

Look i'm not arguing 7th edition was balanced well. Just that it was balanced enough to be fun, if you played with the right people, I suppose.

I had someone request an 1850 point ITC game where I didn't use any Triumvirate characters (Celestine is a problem, people don't like Voldus for is S10 I5 AP2 hammer, and Guilliman is generally scary), and I not take any Centurions (relentless 2 wound T5 grav is nasty). We had a really good, competitive game, and both walked away satisfied. It was neat having Kaldor Draigo and a squad of terminators fight Custodes disembarking from a land raider.

Sure. I mean, rolling dice and pushing miniatures around the table with a good opponent would be hard to pass as not enjoyable, even in spite of the mess I found 7th to be. No one is really arguing it was some sort of 'anti-fun', but rather that the enjoyment of the game came in spite of the rules, not because of them. Its an argument based on how much better it could have been.

Your example actually demonstrates this well. The game, overall, would have been better had you been able to take all the units you wanted (and likewise, your opponent) if they were well balanced and fair.

Fundamentally, 7th is still a 40k game, and most people are just happy to hang around with someone else who loves the universe and the models, and seeing some sweet models on a cool board will likely always be a good time, regardless of how gakky 40k may be or will become. Especially with beer.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I absolutely reject that notion based on the premise that I accept that gamers WILL game a system. Authors who rule loose rules are asking for trouble, and gamers will give it to them!

Non-competitive meta to me seems like relatively random lists where no one is trying particularly hard. A game shouldn't fall apart because someone decides to build the best list they can.

Skyhammer is indeed broken, but not as broken as the most abusive options.

I've had competitive games where people requested I not bring certain units.

If you can't have a competitive game without OP content, that says a lot.

Non-competitive was in regards to constructing a fair game. It was the wrong word for me to use.

That's not a competitive game, then. Unless that person was the TO.

Things that annoy me about 7th:
-Assorted rule artifacts from 6th: HP are too low in a manner that mass-glancing is superior to a few solid AT shots. Assorted USRs that remain fairly pointless (Hello Soul Blaze).
-The Psychic system remains "all or nothing" and non-scalable.
-Quite a few questionable Faction additions (Harlequins, Deathwatch, Admech being split up into two books) with functionally incomplete army design. Khorne Daemonkin was a copy-paste job coinciding with WHFB End Times releasing new Bloodthirster minis.
-Some lazy 'new units' because why not be even more nitpicky? What exactly was the point of the Maleceptor again?
-Lazy formations: Either formations that give you units you wanted to take anyway amazing bonuses with no tax (Aspect Host, Riptide Wing), or formations that have you take units you didn't want to take gak bonuses for horrendous tax (hi there Khorne's Bloodstorm).
-Ynnari. What a goofy end times plot, and with shifty rules that required a 2-page FAQ due to bad ruleswriting.
-Any random pregame powergen, holdovers from 6th. Usually I don't bother too much with "what power I get", but at least 7th added rerolls for Warlord Traits. As a Word Bearer player, I have about an 8 in 9 chance of getting a result I like.

Things I liked about 7th:
-Objective Secured. Back in 3rd and 4th, "minimum troop taxes" were very much a thing, while 5th attempted to artificially compensate for the fact many Troops suck by going "only Troops are allowed to score." Obsec was a reasonable compromise as far as I'm concerned. The fact models could score in transports oncemore remains appreciated.
-Moving away from a single FOC: Many armies in 40k couldn't scale due to slot limitations. Allowing multiple CADs/formations enabled Lictorshame, and that was neat.
-GW started moving towards "rule updates" away from a codex system. This is something I'm neutral on (if they're a miniatures company, make the rules free ) but it "did" acknowledge they at least moved back towards a system of patching weird things, or bringing back Pods for Tyranids.
-The Warp Charge system: Honestly, I like this. It may be because I'm used to Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy and the idea of Pushing to get a power off at higher risk of Perils, but I always felt there should be more risk versus reward. Whenever I think about "first places" to tweak 7th, it's "more Warp Charge per Psyker, but Psykers may only use their own Warp Charge".
-7e Challenge Mechanics. One thing I remember from 5th edition was "independent characters count as their own unit in assault." Combined with the rules for multi-assaults and this led to weirdly fiddly cases of "move my unit into assault, but make sure that my IC is behind the mook in front so he can only pile into one enemy model." 6th added challenges, with the side effect that certain power units (ex: Dreadknights) could effectively murder their way through characters in a unit one-by-one while being immune to retaliation. Inversely, a beefed up Khorne Lord of Blind Rage could be stuck slaying solo sergeants each and every turn. 7th was a reasonable compromise as far as I'm concerned, with a "solo" in a challenge no longer immune to being ganged up, or being stuck only killing one model a turn.
-Interesting Formations: Some formations were cool because they promoted alternate playstyles. Ynnead's Net from Fracture of Biel-Tan is a cool one, because although on the surface it looks OP (4 units of different types of Eldar Jetbike), the bonuses and deployment mechanics (a very restrictive outflank) are characterful and interesting. The Helforged Warpack allowed for entertaining army builds, simply due to the ability to turn a Chaos Walker into a character. Combining formations with multi-detachment formations did make for some interesting choices too: Raven Guard and Iron Hands have tricky alternatives to the "Lots of obsec and transports" afforded a Gladius. (Personally though, I feel the Gladius was messy because it didn't have enough opportunity cost versus fielding a CAD).
-The return of Genestealer Cults: If there is an army that shows what 7th ed armybuilding could have been, it's this one. Simply-put, this codex was arguably the most "coherently designed" army that GW has designed in awhile, with almost everything in it having a clear and sensible purpose. There's no mundane trivialities like "what flavor of overcosted Electropriest will fail to make it into melee" but between a flexible multi-formation detachment that actually had some appropriate restrictions (a Genestealer Cult only has one Magus/Patriarch, duh), formations that noticeably changed the roles of the units involved without dramatic buff-stacking, a very focused Ally chart and a Psychic Discipline that emphasized "controlling" the battlefield rather than psychic gunnery, and the design of the army was spot-on afaik. My main quibbles were just that: quibbles. It would be nice if the Primus or Magus could take options besides Relics, and a Neophyte Elite would have been nice but the army felt...right.

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tell me, is this the player's fault, or the game's?

Sure that guy was a jerk, but he also may have been cheating, and you wouldn't have known because it was your first game. It's an outlier. If you had brushed it off and decided to learn the game and get your own army anyway, that guy still might have beat you all the time even with even points values and a strict adherence to the rules. It's the fault of the game's mechanics that that kind of thing is even possible in the first place, so yeah, I still blame the game.

The whole point of having rules is to enforce fair play. If you could rely on people to do that on their own, we wouldn't need rules at all - we'd still be playing army men like kids, except there would be no arguments about whose super magic shield made them invincible against whose death ray machine gun.

"Your super magic shield may make you invincible to my death ray machine gun, but my spiritual rib-cage separator passes right through it."

"Right you are, chappo, it seems you have vanquished me in honorable combat. Good form."

"It was a close one, you almost had me with that planetary dematerializer. It was an honor to fight you, sir! Shall we have mum make us peanut butter and jelly?"

But that is the point. When you're teaching someone, even if you're absolutely correct with the rules, is it really appropriate to curb stomp someone who doesn't even know how to move, or how to shoot, etc? The answer is no, it's not. And from there you can see that there are situations where it's not appropriate to stomp people out just because you can. If you're teaching your son how to play basketball, are you going to swat his every shot? I mean, it's the game!

I'm talking about situations where the codex disparity is directly at fault, not player ignorance. I understand the Eldar perfectly, but this in no way helps me beat them. Once two players have equal rule knowledge, GW allows codex selection to be a massive trump card. That's not the fault of the owner of those models.

The fault lies with the players doing everything they can to be WAAC. It doesn't matter what the rules are or how an event is trying to limit OP lists, because these gamers will seek victory at any cost.

My local store had a tournament last year that clearly labeled CASUAL on the event's page and promotion. It had restrictions on army construction, that anyone could only use the classic Force Organization Chart to make their armies, and the prize support was old out of print models that the host was wanting to get rid of. It was fun in concept, as it gave some of the local players a place to play who were more interested in a relaxing day of Warhammer. And then three or four of the local WAAC guys showed up, dominated everyone with the most broken lists they could muster in order to win (double Riptides and 18x Necron Wraiths in single 1500 point CADs for two of them), and they did just that. They did not realize that the prize wasn't going to be actual store credit, and so gave them back before leaving.

After the end of the last round, but before prizes were handed out, one of the WAAC players came up to me and told me to play my Space Marine army differently, to drop certain units and change my Chapter Tactics. Afterwards, one of the casual players (who was just coming back after last playing in 4th Edition) was on the verge of tears because of one of the WAAC player's combination of OP list and gaming attitude. These same WAAC players are also super critical of your rules interpretations when you try to do things, and are openly resentful anytime you question their rules knowledge.

Now, I know that not every competitive tournament player is like that, but several of them in my area are. The rules are just words, representations and abstractions of real-life and fictional battle concepts used to create a game to be played for fun. Just because a rules set can be broken or twisted is not an excuse to take on this toxic attitude of "gotta win". I am not against tournaments or tournament players in any way, but the attitude that the competitive scene can foster is not a good one to have.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to bring the powerful lists and try to win at the sake of others's enjoyment of the game.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to find loopholes in the rules to create broken combos.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to "chase the meta".

THAT is on the players, not the rules.

If I could have just ONE thing come out of 8th edition 40K, it would be that the WAAC players I mentioned (and others just like them) get driven out of the game or be shown just exactly how they have made the game feel for the rest of us. I know exactly what kind of game I want to play, and so do they, and it's okay to want different types of games. But when an event is hosted for the more relaxed, casual type of wargame experience, that does not make it okay to come in and ruin everyone elses's game (they already have been getting a monthly ultra-competitive tournament for the past three years anyways!). Whether by leveling off the power levels of the units or by making the game harder to break, the best thing to come from the new edition is the possibility of enjoying a pickup game and enjoying a tournament again without having to have a big conversation ahead of time about what kind of game we want to play.

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I absolutely reject that notion based on the premise that I accept that gamers WILL game a system. Authors who rule loose rules are asking for trouble, and gamers will give it to them!

Non-competitive meta to me seems like relatively random lists where no one is trying particularly hard. A game shouldn't fall apart because someone decides to build the best list they can.

Skyhammer is indeed broken, but not as broken as the most abusive options.

I've had competitive games where people requested I not bring certain units.

If you can't have a competitive game without OP content, that says a lot.

Non-competitive was in regards to constructing a fair game. It was the wrong word for me to use.

That's not a competitive game, then. Unless that person was the TO.

Playing someone you didn't know was an absolute dumpster fire unless you had played each other multiple times or unless you both went for top tier competitive cheese. Anything else was terrible. I spent half of 7th feeling bad because I realized turn 2 that I brought a gun to a slapfight and about 30% feeling bad because I brought a knife to a gun fight. Once Magnus came out and Daemons went from the most bullgak army to play against to the ABSOLUTE most bullgak army to play against I just started focusing all my time on Sigmar, because it was MILES ahead of 40k in terms of gameplay and frankly game design.

20% fun games is not an acceptable ratio for entertainment.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tell me, is this the player's fault, or the game's?

Sure that guy was a jerk, but he also may have been cheating, and you wouldn't have known because it was your first game. It's an outlier. If you had brushed it off and decided to learn the game and get your own army anyway, that guy still might have beat you all the time even with even points values and a strict adherence to the rules. It's the fault of the game's mechanics that that kind of thing is even possible in the first place, so yeah, I still blame the game.

The whole point of having rules is to enforce fair play. If you could rely on people to do that on their own, we wouldn't need rules at all - we'd still be playing army men like kids, except there would be no arguments about whose super magic shield made them invincible against whose death ray machine gun.

"Your super magic shield may make you invincible to my death ray machine gun, but my spiritual rib-cage separator passes right through it."

"Right you are, chappo, it seems you have vanquished me in honorable combat. Good form."

"It was a close one, you almost had me with that planetary dematerializer. It was an honor to fight you, sir! Shall we have mum make us peanut butter and jelly?"

But that is the point. When you're teaching someone, even if you're absolutely correct with the rules, is it really appropriate to curb stomp someone who doesn't even know how to move, or how to shoot, etc? The answer is no, it's not. And from there you can see that there are situations where it's not appropriate to stomp people out just because you can. If you're teaching your son how to play basketball, are you going to swat his every shot? I mean, it's the game!

I'm talking about situations where the codex disparity is directly at fault, not player ignorance. I understand the Eldar perfectly, but this in no way helps me beat them. Once two players have equal rule knowledge, GW allows codex selection to be a massive trump card. That's not the fault of the owner of those models.

The fault lies with the players doing everything they can to be WAAC. It doesn't matter what the rules are or how an event is trying to limit OP lists, because these gamers will seek victory at any cost.

My local store had a tournament last year that clearly labeled CASUAL on the event's page and promotion. It had restrictions on army construction, that anyone could only use the classic Force Organization Chart to make their armies, and the prize support was old out of print models that the host was wanting to get rid of. It was fun in concept, as it gave some of the local players a place to play who were more interested in a relaxing day of Warhammer. And then three or four of the local WAAC guys showed up, dominated everyone with the most broken lists they could muster in order to win (double Riptides and 18x Necron Wraiths in single 1500 point CADs for two of them), and they did just that. They did not realize that the prize wasn't going to be actual store credit, and so gave them back before leaving.

After the end of the last round, but before prizes were handed out, one of the WAAC players came up to me and told me to play my Space Marine army differently, to drop certain units and change my Chapter Tactics. Afterwards, one of the casual players (who was just coming back after last playing in 4th Edition) was on the verge of tears because of one of the WAAC player's combination of OP list and gaming attitude. These same WAAC players are also super critical of your rules interpretations when you try to do things, and are openly resentful anytime you question their rules knowledge.

Now, I know that not every competitive tournament player is like that, but several of them in my area are. The rules are just words, representations and abstractions of real-life and fictional battle concepts used to create a game to be played for fun. Just because a rules set can be broken or twisted is not an excuse to take on this toxic attitude of "gotta win". I am not against tournaments or tournament players in any way, but the attitude that the competitive scene can foster is not a good one to have.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to bring the powerful lists and try to win at the sake of others's enjoyment of the game.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to find loopholes in the rules to create broken combos.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to "chase the meta".

THAT is on the players, not the rules.

If I could have just ONE thing come out of 8th edition 40K, it would be that the WAAC players I mentioned (and others just like them) get driven out of the game or be shown just exactly how they have made the game feel for the rest of us. I know exactly what kind of game I want to play, and so do they, and it's okay to want different types of games. But when an event is hosted for the more relaxed, casual type of wargame experience, that does not make it okay to come in and ruin everyone elses's game (they already have been getting a monthly ultra-competitive tournament for the past three years anyways!). Whether by leveling off the power levels of the units or by making the game harder to break, the best thing to come from the new edition is the possibility of enjoying a pickup game and enjoying a tournament again without having to have a big conversation ahead of time about what kind of game we want to play.

For the record, I've never had any trouble with WAAC players. You have to watch them a bit but ultimately it's fine.

FAAC or CAAC players are straight cancer. 'Oh you brought stuff that's good in the game when I wanted to play my footslog lightningclaw terminators list?!? HOW DARE YOU MAKE AN ARMY THAT WORKS!?!?!?!?

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Tell me, is this the player's fault, or the game's?

Sure that guy was a jerk, but he also may have been cheating, and you wouldn't have known because it was your first game. It's an outlier. If you had brushed it off and decided to learn the game and get your own army anyway, that guy still might have beat you all the time even with even points values and a strict adherence to the rules. It's the fault of the game's mechanics that that kind of thing is even possible in the first place, so yeah, I still blame the game.

The whole point of having rules is to enforce fair play. If you could rely on people to do that on their own, we wouldn't need rules at all - we'd still be playing army men like kids, except there would be no arguments about whose super magic shield made them invincible against whose death ray machine gun.

"Your super magic shield may make you invincible to my death ray machine gun, but my spiritual rib-cage separator passes right through it."

"Right you are, chappo, it seems you have vanquished me in honorable combat. Good form."

"It was a close one, you almost had me with that planetary dematerializer. It was an honor to fight you, sir! Shall we have mum make us peanut butter and jelly?"

But that is the point. When you're teaching someone, even if you're absolutely correct with the rules, is it really appropriate to curb stomp someone who doesn't even know how to move, or how to shoot, etc? The answer is no, it's not. And from there you can see that there are situations where it's not appropriate to stomp people out just because you can. If you're teaching your son how to play basketball, are you going to swat his every shot? I mean, it's the game!

I'm talking about situations where the codex disparity is directly at fault, not player ignorance. I understand the Eldar perfectly, but this in no way helps me beat them. Once two players have equal rule knowledge, GW allows codex selection to be a massive trump card. That's not the fault of the owner of those models.

The fault lies with the players doing everything they can to be WAAC. It doesn't matter what the rules are or how an event is trying to limit OP lists, because these gamers will seek victory at any cost.

My local store had a tournament last year that clearly labeled CASUAL on the event's page and promotion. It had restrictions on army construction, that anyone could only use the classic Force Organization Chart to make their armies, and the prize support was old out of print models that the host was wanting to get rid of. It was fun in concept, as it gave some of the local players a place to play who were more interested in a relaxing day of Warhammer. And then three or four of the local WAAC guys showed up, dominated everyone with the most broken lists they could muster in order to win (double Riptides and 18x Necron Wraiths in single 1500 point CADs for two of them), and they did just that. They did not realize that the prize wasn't going to be actual store credit, and so gave them back before leaving.

After the end of the last round, but before prizes were handed out, one of the WAAC players came up to me and told me to play my Space Marine army differently, to drop certain units and change my Chapter Tactics. Afterwards, one of the casual players (who was just coming back after last playing in 4th Edition) was on the verge of tears because of one of the WAAC player's combination of OP list and gaming attitude. These same WAAC players are also super critical of your rules interpretations when you try to do things, and are openly resentful anytime you question their rules knowledge.

Now, I know that not every competitive tournament player is like that, but several of them in my area are. The rules are just words, representations and abstractions of real-life and fictional battle concepts used to create a game to be played for fun. Just because a rules set can be broken or twisted is not an excuse to take on this toxic attitude of "gotta win". I am not against tournaments or tournament players in any way, but the attitude that the competitive scene can foster is not a good one to have.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to bring the powerful lists and try to win at the sake of others's enjoyment of the game.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to find loopholes in the rules to create broken combos.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to "chase the meta".

THAT is on the players, not the rules.

If I could have just ONE thing come out of 8th edition 40K, it would be that the WAAC players I mentioned (and others just like them) get driven out of the game or be shown just exactly how they have made the game feel for the rest of us. I know exactly what kind of game I want to play, and so do they, and it's okay to want different types of games. But when an event is hosted for the more relaxed, casual type of wargame experience, that does not make it okay to come in and ruin everyone elses's game (they already have been getting a monthly ultra-competitive tournament for the past three years anyways!). Whether by leveling off the power levels of the units or by making the game harder to break, the best thing to come from the new edition is the possibility of enjoying a pickup game and enjoying a tournament again without having to have a big conversation ahead of time about what kind of game we want to play.

It doesn't say it in the rules, but 40K is notoriously vulnerable to power gaming. And they ignored this problem for 20 years. That IS on GW, 100%. Truly competitive people will welcome a more level playing field, because wins will require more skill. You won't be able to half your wins by bringing Eldar.

These reactions are pretty surprising to me. I've called Eldar players cowards before, but never let them rattle me or upset me to that degree. Because *I* know where their win was coming from. The codex. Not their skill.

Again, it's absurd to blame players for wanting to win. You can blame them for being jerks, but if they are abusing legal builds, whose fault is it that those builds are legal to being with? Starcraft II almost launched with roaches having two armor. But Blizzard caught the abuses in beta and changed it for the release. GW can't be bothered with this kind of testing, so it's on their head. Would you blame players for building roaches if they had released with two armor?

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

THAT is on the players, not the rules.

As I explained, there's a difference between the issues created by the players being donkey-caves (he'd have to be a pretty serious douchebag to make someone almost cry over a fething game), and the problems with the rules. Put it this way, if the game were better written/better balanced, all you'd have is some players acting like dicks, but playing otherwise reasonable armies.

Simple stuff really.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Whether by leveling off the power levels of the units or by making the game harder to break, the best thing to come from the new edition is the possibility of enjoying a pickup game and enjoying a tournament again without having to have a big conversation ahead of time about what kind of game we want to play.

This right here is where you show that you realize the value of game mechanics and balance in ensuring fun and enjoyable play, though. Like I said earlier, that's the whole purpose behind having rules in the first place. Some WAAC types are definitely "that guy", but some of them also just don't realize that not everyone places the value of winning at the same level they do. They think that's simply how you play a game - to win. A good rule system will allow for both types of players and will reign in on the exploitative nonsense that breaks the game. There will always be WAAC type players, and there will always be players who think they have to put the most effort they can into building a competitive list and strategy, and may be completely taken by surprise when you don't do the same. There isn't a game on Earth where those types of players don't make up a significant portion of the community. The onus is then on the game designers to do their best to ensure that there are as few loopholes and exploits as possible for those people to take advantage of, otherwise they've designed their game poorly.

ERJAK wrote:
For the record, I've never had any trouble with WAAC players. You have to watch them a bit but ultimately it's fine.

FAAC or CAAC players are straight cancer. 'Oh you brought stuff that's good in the game when I wanted to play my footslog lightningclaw terminators list?!? HOW DARE YOU MAKE AN ARMY THAT WORKS!?!?!?!?

And I watch them from a distance now

I've never read the terms "FAAC" and "CAAC" before. What do those mean?

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't say it in the rules, but 40K is notoriously vulnerable to power gaming. And they ignored this problem for 20 years. That IS on GW, 100%. Truly competitive people will welcome a more level playing field, because wins will require more skill. You won't be able to half your wins by bringing Eldar.

These reactions are pretty surprising to me. I've called Eldar players cowards before, but never let them rattle me or upset me to that degree. Because *I* know where their win was coming from. The codex. Not their skill.

Again, it's absurd to blame players for wanting to win. You can blame them for being jerks, but if they are abusing legal builds, whose fault is it that those builds are legal to being with? Starcraft II almost launched with roaches having two armor. But Blizzard caught the abuses in beta and changed it for the release. GW can't be bothered with this kind of testing, so it's on their head. Would you blame players for building roaches if they had released with two armor?

Yes, GW should have been writing better rules for years now, and 8th Edition has a chance of being level as of release what with the bottom-up re-write. GW could have prevented all this with better rules, but the players are the ones that bring those lists.

In a competitive scene, no, I would not criticize the players for bringing roaches. But if someone is playing a casual game with their friends and they agreed on a limit to roaches when some guy comes in with dozens of them, then I would have a problem with the other players for not considering how their actions would affect the experiences of other players. That was my point when mentioning the casual tournament - they disregarded what everyone else wanted.

 Blacksails wrote:
As I explained, there's a difference between the issues created by the players being donkey-caves (he'd have to be a pretty serious douchebag to make someone almost cry over a game), and the problems with the rules. Put it this way, if the game were better written/better balanced, all you'd have is some players acting like dicks, but playing otherwise reasonable armies.

Simple stuff really.

Yes, it is simple. GW can fix it, and I hope they do! But the WAAC players are responsible for the lists they bring, not GW. In my case of the casual tournament, they were still using it as practice for ITC and the other big tournaments without consideration of the others present.

 Luciferian wrote:
This right here is where you show that you realize the value of game mechanics and balance in ensuring fun and enjoyable play, though. Like I said earlier, that's the whole purpose behind having rules in the first place. Some WAAC types are definitely "that guy", but some of them also just don't realize that not everyone places the value of winning at the same level they do. They think that's simply how you play a game - to win. A good rule system will allow for both types of players and will reign in on the exploitative nonsense that breaks the game. There will always be WAAC type players, and there will always be players who think they have to put the most effort they can into building a competitive list and strategy, and may be completely taken by surprise when you don't do the same. There isn't a game on Earth where those types of players don't make up a significant portion of the community. The onus is then on the game designers to do their best to ensure that there are as few loopholes and exploits as possible for those people to take advantage of, otherwise they've designed their game poorly.

I guess I'm just too into personal accountability to put all the blame on GW. Yes, GW released the rules, and seemingly without much thought given to the competitive scene in many cases. But did GW intend for a percentage of the player base to turn out this way? And shouldn't all players consider their opponent's experience when prepping for a game or event?

I get what everyone is saying, and there is merit in GW being the root cause of the WAAC problems prominent in 40K. It's like blaming a parent for something that their kid did. Sure, they raised them and helped them to turn out the way they did, but does that mean they are the cause of what happened? Did they MAKE the child do that? I guess we can agree that GW is responsible for the abuse being possible in the rules, but the WAAC players are the ones guilty of making the game not fun for other players by exploiting the abusable rules.

With any luck, we won't have any conversations about this topic in the future. Or at the very least, GW will be involved in the conversation.

"they disregarded what everyone else wanted."

I don't care what my opponent wants. Just as he doesn't care what I want. All I want is a fair contest. Which GW has never provided.

I guess I'm just jaded with players that I just expect rules exploitation. The only solution is to eliminate the exploits. Gamers gonna game.

"I guess I'm just too into personal accountability"

How is someone accountable for trying to win in a legal manner? The stuff ruining the game should be illegal.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Yes, it is simple. GW can fix it, and I hope they do! But the WAAC players are responsible for the lists they bring, not GW. In my case of the casual tournament, they were still using it as practice for ITC and the other big tournaments without consideration of the others present.

You're not giving enough consideration to the source of the problem, and are focusing a little too much on the symptom. The symptom is gakky players bringing powerful lists to a nebulously labelled 'casual' tournament, where they followed all the rules. The problem is that lists are so fundamentally broken that you can have these kinds of match ups.

Yes, they're gakky people, but again, if the rules were good, they'd only be gakky people with acceptable lists, rather than gakky people with broken lists.

And that's without opening up the can of worms that is defining 'casual'.

Ultimately, if its the responsibility of all to negotiate and work through the difference in perceived ideal gaming, 7th forces people like you to either suck it up with gakky players like that, or make it abundantly clear that they're either not welcome or need to dramatically shift their game style if they wish to game with your group.

Hopefully 8th is a little better.

The good part about 7th ed BA is that I can go balls to the wall cheese and no one can tell.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I guess I'm just too into personal accountability to put all the blame on GW. Yes, GW released the rules, and seemingly without much thought given to the competitive scene in many cases. But did GW intend for a percentage of the player base to turn out this way? And shouldn't all players consider their opponent's experience when prepping for a game or event?

I get what everyone is saying, and there is merit in GW being the root cause of the WAAC problems prominent in 40K. It's like blaming a parent for something that their kid did. Sure, they raised them and helped them to turn out the way they did, but does that mean they are the cause of what happened? Did they MAKE the child do that? I guess we can agree that GW is responsible for the abuse being possible in the rules, but the WAAC players are the ones guilty of making the game not fun for other players by exploiting the abusable rules.

With any luck, we won't have any conversations about this topic in the future. Or at the very least, GW will be involved in the conversation.

I also understand your frustration with thoughtless players. And yes, it is about personal responsibility - which is why GW is responsible for the only thing they can control about what players do with their game; the rules. Of course, it would be nice if everyone could agree not to be jerks as well, but on the other hand taking personal responsibility for someone else's game experience is difficult to do. Like I said, some people who create ultra competitive lists probably never even thought that someone else might enjoy the game in a different way, and might be trying to help other players enjoy the game in the same way they do.

Again, this is the ONLY community that is judgmental towards people fielding LEGAL lists. That's how insane GW has been.

I'll miss formations. Fielding possesed where my enemy goes 'really?!' and stomping them because of Favoured Of Chaos.
Fleet and 3" extra charge for MOG.
But overall I'm happy

I can't speak for anyone else but the main reason I skipped and won't miss 7th is that the rules cost over $1200 and that is probably being conservative. Love that they finally fleshed out all the factions but $30-$55 a pop for the books is insane. I wasn't willing to spend that much on rule books that would be obsolete soon enough. We spent the last 4 years playing a modified 5th and now look.......the rule books are obsolete and I still have my $1200. Can't wait for 8th, it sounds promising.

 rhinosaur wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else but the main reason I skipped and won't miss 7th is that the rules cost over $1200 and that is probably being conservative. Love that they finally fleshed out all the factions but $30-$55 a pop for the books is insane. I wasn't willing to spend that much on rule books that would be obsolete soon enough. We spent the last 4 years playing a modified 5th and now look.......the rule books are obsolete and I still have my $1200. Can't wait for 8th, it sounds promising.

Ha! I never bought the 7E rulebook, because I refused to pay real money for gak rules when I only play 2 (3?) times a year. Boycotted not-IG, to. I did buy the Eldar Codex for the D weapons.

OTOH, if 8E is going to be $25 or whatever for a GHB? OK, they'll get my money.

Having come back to 40K at the tail end of 5th (Yay Newcrons!), I can say there is nothing about 7th I will miss.

Well, maybe Maelstrom missions, but they had issues the way they were implemented.

I am relatively new to the game (started playing in Jan), so I don't think I can say all that much in terms of what I liked or didn't like, but I'll give a shot at a few things. For additional context I play Orks.

Dislikes

-I really don't like how a single penetrating hit from something like an ap2 or 1 weapon can outright destroy a vehicle, for any weapon really when it comes to my trukks. My poor deff dread kept being knocked out before it could do anything; in all the games I fielded it it's never attacked anything except for a scenario where out of my own inexperience I had it charge a maulerfiend and proceed to get deleted..

-There was too much difference between the haves and the havenots in the powers structure. I would get absolutely creamed if I went up against more ranged focused armies with my Orks.

-They might keep them for 8e, but as an Ork player, assault moves ruined my day a LOT. Not a good feeling to make my job of shuffling my guys up the board while my opponent can just shuffle his stuff out of my reach constantly. This might be my own inexperience though.

-Initiative screwing me over in combat, but I guess this is more of an Ork specific thing. It just sucks to weather my opponent's ranged stuff and finally get to pull the choppas out and get stuck in but I still take more casualties because of Orks low initiative.

-In a similar vein, I always get sad when something instant deaths my 2- wound nobz, especially when I have a Painboy in their squad, even more especially when they're meganobz.

Liked

.....Honestly I don't think I can pin down things I liked to specific game mechanics. I guess it's fun to throw down 80+ dice if a lot of boyz make it in for their attacks, but most of the things I liked are from the experiences of playing; things like getting a 12 inch charge when you need exactly 12 inches. I guess the game itself is what I like. Wouldn't be playing it otherwise huh?
I've had tons of fun even if my boyz are hard pressed for a victory at the moment and am excited for what 8e has in store!

I'll miss the formations that enabled first turn charges - bye bye deathpack and murderpack.
Honestly though, if the restrictions on charging that made melee vs shooting absolutely lopsided disappear I won't care too much.

I'll miss the Ironwolves - free vehicle upgrades were nice but it was a trap, taking Rhinos and using tank shock as a serious tactic is what I'll miss most.

I'll miss Sven Bloodhowl. How dare GW introduce the coolest Jarl only to have him die in a suicide mission a month later.

7-th cons:
- Games took too long. Lots of random, true los, cover system and blasts meant that positioning is very important. If i'm playing orks vs ig with a wivern, i'd better be sure that everything is within no closer than 1.99999999999999' from each other.
- Power level disparity. It's discouraged me from a lot of 'free' games without pre-made and pre-checked lists. And this pre-game negotiation also adds to how long the game takes.
- Unbalanced magic powers and unkillable hyper-mobile deathstars.
- Rock-paper-scissor balance without much chances of creating a tac list without it relying on broken op stuff
- Large portions of the book not mattering in 99% of the games. Morale? Nah, everyghing's fearless, forget about it. Ramming vehicles? They never leave to ram somehting and all those robots are in fact not vehicles anywayz! What do you mean, walkers? No, Monstrous Creatures. Yeah, they're metal but it's got rules for flesh and bone constructs! And that's why it's strong instead of being crappy!

7-th Pros:
- You can create whatever crazy list you want. 500 fearless grots and a stompa? Sure, here you go. 8 megabosses in trukks. No prob.
- Maelstorm of war. It's by no means ideal but it's a huge improvement over classic "We got a killpoint game, you've brought msu, i win, wana play next one?.. We got scouring, i've brought lots of bike squads, you win, wana play next one?..".
- They finally started paying attention to csm by the end of 7-th. I mean i got a functional footslogging termie list that won games!
- You can have enjoyable games if you go through all the pre-game negotiations or heavilly restrict whatever you and your opponent can bring to the table.

At the beginning of 7th I was hopeful the unbalanced Flyers and Superheavies from the tail end of 6th would be reigned in a bit and things made generally more balanced. The fact things got worse kind of set the tone for the edition.

What I like:

1. Maelstrom missions. I like the fact you can play the objective and win without having to just remove your opponent's models from the board. I never had a problem with the randomness of the objectives.
2. Formations. In principle I like the idea of formations. Unfortunately GW messed up with the balance as usual
3. Uh...that's it.

What I don't like:

1. Lack of balance. Formations are the perfect example here. Some are fine, some are completely useless (hello the BA formations that require over 1000 points of mediocre units to use) and some are so broken I wonder how they even got past the ideas stage of game design. A comment from a year ago on Dakka sums up the problem for me. At the start of 7th people were worried about Unbound armies of nothing but Wraithlords (back then they were considered scary) but some Formations acted like Unbound armies by completely bypassing the army selection rules and gave you huge bonuses on top of that.
2. Psychic phase. Just an abomination all round. They took a system that didn't work too well in 6th and 7th ed Fantasy and broke it even more. Denying was a joke and the balance between powers was ridiculous.
3. Vehicles. The change to Toughness and saves for vehicles can't come soon enough.
4. Rules bloat. How many books, downloads and supplements does one army really need?

There's more but I think everyone gets the idea. The biggest problem for me is that I simply can't play 40k against a random opponent without negotiating terms beforehand. In my regular group it's fine but pick-up games too often lead to wildly unblanaced games that are just a waste of 2-3 hours.

As an ork player I wasn't too thrilled about 7th. 6th saw a new codex and a couple of new units. In 7th we got the embarrassment that was the Waaagh! Ghazghkull supplement. The codex worked well against itself, as we had some events with orks only, and these were great fun.

The game tried a few things, like correcting D-weapons and making challenges work well. I liked that a bunch.

Martel732 wrote:
Again, this is the ONLY community that is judgmental towards people fielding LEGAL lists. That's how insane GW has been.

This is something i feel as well, I got flat out told i must be a waac player since i play elder.
All 3 of my fav Eldar army got buffed and i get told, ohh you can self nerf and not think about what would work together and be an effective list.

The hobby is to small in a lot of places to waste time with games that take more effort for less fun.
This is why i think the only thing that is worth taking from 7th is how bad a game can get when you have no one at the top with any clue what is going on.

7th is the perfect manifestation of Kirby's cancerous management a complete lack of feths given about what customers want it was just pushing out more and more op units at extortionate prices.

Super heavies and D weapons should never have been in regular 40k.

In all honesty, Lazcannons and meltas are d-weapons now. It's just vehicles that became MC all around. And no "i roll a 6 => i win". Well, as far as we can tell yet.

As I understood it instant death is going to be rare you'll be chipping down things like land raiders instead of one shoting with a melts.

 koooaei wrote:
In all honesty, Lazcannons and meltas are d-weapons now. It's just vehicles that became MC all around. And no "i roll a 6 => i win". Well, as far as we can tell yet.

Hopefully it will be work out , super heavy and D weapons are not bad concepts. Its just poor design that failed it. Flyers are similar, there are ways to do it in a game of similar design, but the devs do not seem to be looking at other games doing it better.