Why I think 7th is the best yet; and what it gives (a positive view of 7th ed 40k) [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

John Bower

12-08-2014, 06:15 PM

I hear a lot of people hating on parts of 7th ed for this reason and that reason; so without further ado, I'd like to say why I think it's a very good improvement over older editions:

1/ open toolbox - take a moment if you will to think about many of the things people crave in the 40k universe - the stories of heroism and the 'ordinary dude' being a hero. We can do this now, people wanted Necromunda back and frankly with the 'you don't have to have points' army lists that is so doable. Sure, like Cities of Death it's lost it's character but we can have it, with a lot less paperwork too.

2/ Psychic phase - this was something I was dubious about, very much so when I heard about it. But once I'd played I realised that actually, having it all done in one place at one time was awesome, it took away a lot of trying to remember when to cast this or that; or arguments by some WAAC players over whether my psyker could even cast a power.

3/ Unbound - a lot of people really hate on this; but nobody that I play with has a problem with me going unbound, they know I'm not a jerk power gamer or WAAC (trust me I can lose with either style of list), it's a tool, you just need to agree (like it says in the Rules) what you can and can't have or do. Unbound is a huge boon for Tyranids in particular (fluff R us) but so many armies benefit from it.

4/ Maelstrom of War missions - We do now have more missions than ever (and it saddens me that people still seem to favour playing the same boring old missions time and again), we have Planetstrike, Cities of Death; an entire book of missions (Altar of War), numerous Apocalypse supplements; we don't need to play the same mission twice in the same year. I count over a hundred missions all told; including the new Cities ones and Apocalypse. Over 100, think on that, how many people even play 100 missions a year?

5/ And last but not least, pretty much all our codexes are coming up to 7th ed standard; the only OP dexes really were written for 6th ed. From what I've seen of things all the latest ones are pretty even in power. they all got nerfs and a couple of units buffed. The Tyranids got a lot of love just lately and as a nid player I am happy for them.

So that's my take, my views on 7th and why I think it's so far the best yet. You may not agree; that's fine, I just wanted to show how it can be; how excited I personally am that I can create the storylines I want to do.

Now we can have gangs of civilians in our armies, yep, dust off those old Necromunda gangs people; they have a new use. Dust off the buildings and ruins too, as CoD is still pretty awesome (I played it the first day I got it with my mate and we had one of our best and most enjoyable games ever (I still lost)). If anyone thinks of anything I haven't, post it; and let's please post the positives here; we always hear the bad bits, let's hear the good stuff from folk that like me have found something in 7th really gets the creative juices flowing.

DarkLink

12-08-2014, 10:08 PM

daboarder

12-08-2014, 10:26 PM

Leadership checks for psychic powers were too reliable, though. Less reliable psychic powers has been a good thing for the game.

Just a shame that GW could only be assed to fix the imperial defences though, Shadow in the Warp became obsolete like 3 weeks after it dropped

drathbun502

12-09-2014, 12:29 AM

I'm with you. As a a player who left the game generally other than family fun after 3rd edition, and started in the RT days of old, this one brought me back in. Trust me, Wave Serpents used to suck even harder. There are always imbalances here and there, but this version to me captures the best of the RT days while still having a remote sense of balance. There never was, and has never been, a perfect balance between armies. The newest version though seems to have the most diversity like it did in the old days. While my Squats are still on the shelf, I'm having FUN rampaging around with Orks again in a way I haven't in a long time. With creativity, unbound leads itself to some fun stuff. My favorite opponent has an unbound IG paratrooper elite and Ogryn force that is a beast. I wouldn't have seen that otherwise. Overall, I see this edition as a huge win. We used to always play huge ridiculous games in the past, and the new rules actually bring those elements into some sense of coherency. I know a lot of people crap on different elements, but it's never been perfect, you do have to not be a douche, but this version of the game for me surprisingly has become the most fun one yet.

SnakeChisler

12-09-2014, 04:30 AM

I think it rejuvenates the game on a number of levels

Allies Matrix in 6th sucked big style - the biggest reason people left competitive gaming in droves

Where not going to get back to the wealth of competitions that used to happen but the sandbox approach has lead to a lot more variety and most shops are running maelstrom tournaments with escalating points. Clearly designed to get purchasing going but everyone who plays these style of games as new players seem to love it.

Missions - the Death star really struggles with progressive objectives

Super heavies - you've a place & org chart to put them in if you want

Everything score but somethings score more than others - wehay some sense in the system at last

Psychic phase - some stuff was just OP and as for shadows of the warp its very very powerful -3 on leadership tests when you know you have to throw a bucket of dice to get stuff off is scary your going to wound yourself more times than not

Unbound - not interested but its there if anyone wants it would I play against it, no on a pickup game, we may organize a campaign style thing where it could come in but we could have done that anyway it just formalizes some parameters.

Downsides
Competitive play is still too OP for your average punter and aside from club comps which run restricted rules set then its going to get even more niche till a format becomes popular.

daboarder

12-09-2014, 04:36 AM

[QUOTE=SnakeChisler;465089]
Psychic phase - some stuff was just OP and as for shadows of the warp its very very powerful -3 on leadership tests when you know you have to throw a bucket of dice to get stuff off is scary your going to wound yourself more times than not/QUOTE]

Statistically in most cases you actually wont, because even when you perils your Ld10 (and most are, dont BS) will still have a better than 50% chance of passing that Ld check to not suffer the perils

Dave Mcturk

12-09-2014, 05:26 AM

Leadership checks for psychic powers were too reliable, though. Less reliable psychic powers has been a good thing for the game.

'fixed' psychic powers would be over-powering in 7th; the randomness between first of all 'getting the right powers' and then actually being able to use them makes running a 'psycher based' army very risky. - the trouble still is if everything falls right they can still be awesome.

the only MAJOR flaw ive found in the whole new system is that harlequins cannot safely get their shadowseer to cast at all !
[NB: harlequins have been 'dropped' from the new DE codex]
i really think quins deserve a sensible FAQ to make them a workable unit :confused:

John Bower

12-09-2014, 06:45 AM

I can't tell you how many times I've seen a player accidentally skip the psychic phase, and there are still plenty of players who will pull the "nope, you've started shooting, no psychic powers for you". I've forgotten far more powers with the new psychic phase than I ever did in previous edition, personally. Really, it just made sense that you cast psychic shooting powers in the shooting phase and assault powers in the assault phase. It makes you think "ok, I'm going to punch someone in the face, I should activate my force weapons". Now, you have to remember to do that completely independent of whether or not you're actually locked in combat.

Leadership checks for psychic powers were too reliable, though. Less reliable psychic powers has been a good thing for the game.

I guess I'm just lucky with my opponents then; we always seem to have a gentleman's agreement to either nudge each other or, should we forget; we can go back as long as it's not silly amounts after. I've forgotten lots in games; nothing to do with how it's laid out but I've forgotten to charge units I meant to charge, give orders I meant to give and so on, heck even forgotten to shoot guns from buildings that are 'auto fire'. So you can't really blame forgetting the psychic powers on the new phase; anymore than I could blame forgetting them on there not being one, it's just something that happens in the heat of battle I guess. And I suppose in truth you could argue that real commanders suffer the same issues so it's again whether you agree that to use a similarity 'if you take your finger off the piece you've moved it' like in chess.

like I say, I really can't understand the hatred towards 'unbound lists'. I've played them, I've played against them, a list isn't OP per se, it's the player that matters; and in that he or she should be letting you see their list before the game; so you can make any reservations clear.

I still have reservations over Lords of War in the game; I do think they are OP quite often; but how can you ban them when some commanders are being shoved into that slot (I'm looking at my poor Orks here and the Pups).

I think that was a dirty move on GW's part to 'force' Super Heavies in against reservations. How can you turn up with Gazghull for example then turn round and say your opponent can't use his Baneblade; yet in power levels there's no remote similarity.

But I digress; those are weak points and we are in this thread trying to see the positives of 7th. And there are a lot.

Caitsidhe

12-09-2014, 07:39 AM

I don't see the problem with Unbound lists either because there is no balance anywhere in the system anyway. The particulars of how standard lists are made in combination with the Formation rules mean there really isn't any downside to not doing Unbound either. You can abuse either to your heart's content. All things being equal, all the competitive types in my area eschew Unbound because they can get just as broken lists without going that route with the benefit of super objective scoring troops. The whole Unbound thing is thus... a paper tiger... BS because the whole Edition is effectively Unbound if you work it right.

I disagree with the OP and don't think this edition is remotely good. I'll leave it at that. I think that Games Workshop has adopted a Wizards of the Coast sales model while keeping Games Workshop prices and sense of "we are a luxury item" mindset. I don't like the MTG approach from a balance standpoint, i.e. you must buy everything current to keep up, nor do I much care for paying for cheap plastic casts as if they were cast in silver. It is a Lose/Lose situation.

40kGamer

12-09-2014, 08:25 AM

I would say 7th is the best thematic edition we've seen in the sense that you can do whatever you want. The downside is that there is zero balance in the entire game.

Marshal_Loss

12-09-2014, 08:35 AM

I don't think you need to put 'a positive view' in the title when you say just before it that you think it is the best yet, lol...

6th was the big step forward and a true innovation of the ruleset, 7th is just 6th with this stupid unbound garbage and some other minor changes. I avoid most Unbound by playing 30k so I enjoy 7th, as I did 6th.

Path Walker

12-09-2014, 08:43 AM

I had a lot of fun with 6th and 7th is even better, i love the return of the psychic phase, its fun and lots of cool things can happen, I love the focus on narrative campaigns and new ways of playing, with fresh missions and play styles all the time, its great.

WeWantTheFunk

12-09-2014, 08:48 AM

I stopped mid-5th because I hated the game as just two guys trading punches. The Maelstrom missions make the game about ongoing achievements. The randomness of objectives and psychic powers levels the playing field.

I'm definitely a convert to 7th. And I play DE and BA, so when I called my buddy from the old days back in October to start playing again, I picked the perfect time to do so :D

Erik Setzer

12-09-2014, 08:56 AM

Um... no.

1. You could already do a lot of that stuff in prior editions. These used to be this thing called "house rules." People even made up rules in their groups, or shared fun ideas on the Internet. Maybe 10-20 years ago gamers were just more creative, but it's embarrassing to say that just because the rulebook is a little more flexible you can suddenly do all these things you couldn't before. The only reason you "couldn't" is because you didn't think to do them. The rulebook also says your opponent has to agree to anything you want to do... which they'd have to with any of those prior house rules and such.

2. The psychic phase just helps tidy up that part of the game... and had to go back five editions to get that back. Yes, that's right, kids: 40K had a psychic phase a long time ago, but that one actually had a better chance for people to shut down powers. Seeing invisible Knights, or vortexes spinning all over, those aren't things that feel awesome to face. Heck, Invisibility on a normal unit can be game-breaking... I ended up with a unit of MegaNobz in combat with a unit of Grey Hunters who had some AP2 weapons, I couldn't hit them, but they did a few wounds, and boom, my expensive unit evaporates. Oh yeah, that's an enjoyable game.

3. You could play without restrictions in the past, if you asked your opponent. Which, you should note, is exactly as it is now: You still have to ask permission. So nothing changed in 7th edition except that they noted an idea in the rulebook. Okay, yeah, I have to admit, the unimaginative gamers of today (you people are making me feel old) need to have it spelled out for them that they can try to play the game in some way other than the most basic. But that doesn't mean the game got better, or even changed.

4. Maelstrom missions, as much as I've enjoyed them at times, need house rules to make them work right. I don't play them any more without some kind of agreed-upon rules for things like how to handle cards that are 100% impossible (i.e. cast a power when you didn't bring a psyker, or destroy a building when the opponent doesn't have one). It also led to one game I'm not keen on, where the only chance for victory due to my opponent getting a lucky draw was for me to table him, which I did, but felt bad about (I don't like wiping a person's army out). You also need to have the cards, or it's going to be rough to keep track of things, and that's not really feasible for every army that's come out after the 7th edition rulebook, as they all have their own modified decks, which are only sold a limited time (because either GW really doesn't care about the customers, or they feel they can't sell that many, which suggest Maelstrom isn't that popular... and, given how rarely I see them played now that the new shine has wore off, I'd believe). As for the number of missions, we had something similar back in 2nd edition, we've had several missions and ways of playing printed over the years, and you're using Altar of War and very specific stuff to get to that over 100 mark (it's important to note AoW applies to specific armies, and sometimes isn't so easy to adapt to a different army). Also, to get that much variety, you're talking main rulebook ($85), two campaign books for Planetstrike ($100), two campaign books for Cities of Death ($100), the Altar of War book ($50), plus whatever dataslates or whatever you want, so yeah, $335 better darn well buy you some variation of missions.

5. You're making this claim based on Orks, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels. While BA were toned down, and GK mainly just had some stuff ripped out of the book, they're still potent armies (heck, there's a kid who barely knows the rules but can win consistently with Grey Knights). DE are about where they were. SW got some nice help, and a TWC deathstar can be obnoxious, as can things like Murderface McMurderpants being a character (meaning he can challenge your squad leader and kill or negate the only model in a unit that can hurt him) or their Dreadnoughts with like 3-4 S10 AP2 attacks with a 3+ inv. save even in close combat (had one of those things take down a Knight that just couldn't get through the shield). Tack on the flyer... yeah, Space Wolves got better, and I've faced enough people who know how to make them a powergaming force that I'm not about to call them balanced (which is a shame as I want to finish modeling my SW force). And Orks... well, Orks are Orks. Tom Kirby hates green people.

I don't hate 7th edition, but I'm not going to claim it's the best yet, especially as I still see horribly unbalanced games and units, and it leads to games where you just know you're wasting 2-3 hours on something that isn't enjoyable because it's not even close. And that's not playing against tournament-level players. The only actual powergamer mentality person I played was where I wanted to test something.

And it's ridiculous to even try to suggest that low-level 40K can replicate Necromunda. It can't. The rules are so streamlined and simplified, even Kill Team doesn't produce the same feel, and low-level 40K is meant to be super-quick, whereas Necromunda was meant to take a bit more time (think the difference in 30 minutes and an hour). When you make such a claim, it suggests that you've never played Necromunda and/or you're really, really pushing it to promote 40K7.

Even with Unbound in the rulebook, it's still hard to get people to accept playing against it, which is going to make my own Unbound force a bit of a hard sell. I plan on utilizing several Imperial army books to make a Rogue Trader force, with a captain requisitioning Space Marines, mercenaries, maybe an assassin or two, and other goodness (mainly as an excuse to go wild on modeling and painting).

I can enjoy 7th edition, but it doesn't feel different from prior editions, other than adding in ever more stuff that adds more confusion and makes the games longer. Though the main problem there is that, with the rush to get 7th edition on store shelves, they didn't really playtest a lot and work to make sure there was clarity to the rules. Heck, in some cases, it's obvious they forgot their own rules, which leads to the necessity to errata things later (i.e. Murderface McMurderpants needed an errata to make Furious Charge useful for him, because originally it didn't work as intended). Or they just leave out something extremely important, like how super-heavy walkers move through terrain (if you've ever played a game with a pair of them in the middle of a ton of trees, you know how key that fix is).

And 7th edition still hasn't fixed assault being a flaming pile of turds unless you bring an uber-unit, which led to my having to build a completely new Ork army. Maybe 8th edition will fix that in 2016 (and then we'll get threads calling it the BEST EVER).

Also, I feel it's necessary to point out Cityfight came out in 3rd or 4th edition, and Planetstrike also had a release around 4th or 5th edition, the new rules being split between two books (because you aren't giving them enough money when it's a single $25-$30 book) is just updating something that existed before. Ditto for Death From the Skies, and Apocalypse (which actually got its second edition in 40K6, not 40K7). So you're basically saying that 40K7 is good because it's doing a lot of things the game used to do in the past (while not doing a lot of other stuff it used to do). Well. Okay, then. I think we can file that further under "Either Completely New Player, Or Just Pushing 40K7 Way Too Hard."

(Admittedly, when someone starts off with such an extreme position as "THE BEST," it annoys me, because at that point you know they're not looking for an objective discussion, especially when they only want the positives mentioned, to try to back their claim.)

Venomlust

12-09-2014, 08:59 AM

Erik Setzer

12-09-2014, 09:11 AM

I'm with you 100%, friend. Thanks for this post.

A lot of older players are unhappy as editions progress, but perhaps that's just the inevitable hate against change that occurs with humans in just about any context.

As you can imagine, I'm a newer player. Just over a year now, and I'm loving 7th as well.

That's not to say there isn't plenty about the game that I don't like or couldn't be improved, but there we have it.

Also, "veteran" players: You're not veterans of a war, here, guys. Please get over yourselves.

I don't mind new editions so much, except when they do things like take the core idea of my army, murder it with extreme prejudice, burn the corpse, and then toss it into a ditch full of horse manure.

You don't understand because you're a new player. You don't have the experiences to draw on. That also means it's impossible for you to declare how good this edition is compared to others.

In 3rd edition, Orks were pretty solid with their ability to assault. It was a notable change from 2nd edition, where Orks had the same statline as WFB Orcs (WS3, BS3, A1) and had access to plenty of shooting and assault. But hey, we Ork players rolled with it. We went along with a completely new line that was so different our old models looked wrong alongside them. We eagerly built new armies full of assault units. In 4th edition, the rules tweaked a bit, but assault was still pretty viable, albeit the Orks lost some anti-armor punch in combat with the loss of the choppa rule and burnas being very limited. Then assault just started going downhill, and now it's at the point where you need a super-unit (or at least Space Marines of some sort) to be viable. Oh, but shooting's a lot more viable. So all those Ork players who built assault armies need to go make shooty armies. Similarly, Tyranid players experienced the same situation. That's a lot of money, a lot of effort, and it's not fun having to completely change how you play without any good reason.

It's also been sad watching the mentality change as new players came in, who no longer were interested in making the game their own and making up stuff for campaigns, missions, new rules for units, etc. (heck, GW even gave us official vehicle creation rules at one point). No, new players think that the only reason you can do any of that is because GW now says you can and prints rules for it (which they then say you have to agree with your opponent to use... so yeah, same situation as before, basically). The game didn't get better in that regard, the community got worse. It got lazy, unimaginative. The top 40K sites in the past used to include new ideas for how to play the game, new rules for people to try, all kinds of fun stuff like that. Now, the top 40K sites talk about news, breathlessly reposting forum posts with rumors of what might be coming in a few days, or how to win games.

Also, try not to be an arrogant snob looking down on veteran gamers. Without them supporting the game and building GW up to be so strong it mistakenly thought it could start abusing customers, you wouldn't have a 7th (or any) edition of 40K.

40kGamer

12-09-2014, 09:21 AM

It's also been sad watching the mentality change as new players came in, who no longer were interested in making the game their own and making up stuff for campaigns, missions, new rules for units, etc. (heck, GW even gave us official vehicle creation rules at one point). No, new players think that the only reason you can do any of that is because GW now says you can and prints rules for it (which they then say you have to agree with your opponent to use... so yeah, same situation as before, basically). The game didn't get better in that regard, the community got worse. It got lazy, unimaginative. The top 40K sites in the past used to include new ideas for how to play the game, new rules for people to try, all kinds of fun stuff like that. Now, the top 40K sites talk about news, breathlessly reposting forum posts with rumors of what might be coming in a few days, or how to win games.

In this way the game is a victim of GW targeting the younger demographic with little thought of the grognards.

Jimmynurgle

12-09-2014, 10:13 AM

Honestly... 7th is one of the worst editions I've seen, and I have been playing since 2nd Ed. It's not the Unbound, it's not the Psychic phase which can be OP (and I'm a Demon player, that's saying something.)... it's the absolute blatant money grab that drives everything regardless of sense. Yes they are a miniature company and they need to sell minis, but that's it- they see themselves as a mini company, NOT a game company. 7th Ed showed up under 2 years AFTER 6th with virtually no warning, that angered a LOT of the vets I play with, me included since our nice new $60+ rulebooks that we barely broke in were useless. Then there is the stupid trend of bigger and bigger kits as a way to make up falling cashflow- box sales are dropping, so we'll just make HUGE models that are the equivalent of 4+ sets price-wise to keep our number steady.

Next? Lets make the Codices bland and weak as possible... and charge MORE for them! Then add in all the GOOD stuff as "dataslates" and charge even MORE for these... this was probably the last straw for a few folks. Most of the group I play with have been dead set against illegal downloads for as long as I've known and played games against them- and all of them now have the attitude of "oh screw this, not getting my wallet raped" and are using those illegal downloads.. why? Because they refuse spend $70-90+ dollars just to get a playable list.. 'Nids being the worst so far... though if the rumors are true... Blood angels might as well be renamed "cash grab whore army"- you cannot tell me that the removal of Assault Marines as troops and the "New" Tac box aren't related- GW knows a ton of BA armies don't even use tacs... and we need to SELL ... so screw the vets, make em buy all new stuff!!

To sum up- 7th is actually really good rules-wise yes, it may be one of the best. BUT... it is the accompanied obvious fleecing of the player that has a lot of people angry at it as they should be. There are lots of games out there that treat their players with a lot more respect and are doing great for it, Privateer, Mantic, Infinity, hell even Spartan games... all of them are able to sell new models in droves and put out rulesd without charging for every letter.

JMichael

12-09-2014, 11:07 AM

I agree and love 7th edition!
We pretty much only play the Maelstrom missions in our group, the kind of randomness of the tactical cards forces us to have more fun and not take any one objective to seriously.
I've been playing since 1989 and 2nd edition was one of my favorites. Waaaaay over the top characters and psykers. I feel that 7th has the things I really liked about 2nd (including the psychic phase) but is far more thought out and cleaner.
I also really like Unbound and Battle-Forged (Please everyone, stop calling it 'Bound'). We don't have any issues with cheesy Unbound lists, it is mostly someone's ally brings a super heavy. Not a big deal.

I do feel the codices are getting a bit bland. They don't have to add more units, just more upgrade/weapon options. Even more Relics and vehicle equipment would be cool.
Some armies have a large number of unique characters to choose from while others get 3ish.

Anyway, I love it and earlier this year was considering selling most of my 40k stuff. 7th got me back into it in a big way!

daboarder

12-09-2014, 06:41 PM

Also, "veteran" players: You're not veterans of a war, here, guys. Please get over yourselves.

Man, the one guy that doesn't get the link between "veterans" of a wargame and actual "veterans" of a war.
Its tongue in cheek reference dude, lighten up

Defenestratus

12-09-2014, 10:02 PM

I don't know if 7th is the best edition or not. I can tell you, my personal motivation to play is at an all time low. I'm more psyched about painting up a single BFG ship and a farseer conversion model for my Rogue Trader RPG session that I'm flying to the east coast to play in than I am to drive down to the local GW for a game of toy soldiers. My friends and I are slowly selling off our apocalypse gear - he just ditched two warhounds and a reaver.. I'm going to probably put a phantom or two on ebay shortly - along with some of my Blood Angels since I can't seem to be able to field the army I want without going Unbound - which takes me to one of my critiques of 7th....

...They basically gave you an out as a player to be dorky cheesemonger with your army list and still be able to play it. I tried playing unbound once - and it was only just to get an extra spirit seer in an Iyanden list but the reaction was one of "Unbound? Oh... you're one of those guys, well let me go change my list a little bit." Yeah, I can run unbound, but no, its not socially accepted.

As an Eldar player, the psychic phase sucks. First, random powers are STILL terrible. You can't reliably get buffs casted and its way too easy to deny a power. last game with my eldar, with 6 warp charges on the table, I successfully cast two powers the whole game against Necrons... NECRONS!!! This isn't an isolated incident. Since I don't spam wave serpents I actually need my psykers to buff my dudes, and it just doesn't happen more often than it does - and it makes me really just want to give up. Its tough to decide whether I hate the psychic phase more, or the maelstrom missions more....

I lost a game simply because my opponent managed to draw 2 "Secure objective 4" cards on the last turn that he happened to have a tomb spider hovering over it. The randomness of the cards leaves no overall strategic goals, its like 40k for ADHD kids and its terrible IMO.

So overall, while there are some mechanics of the game in 7th that are improved over the previous version, I'm still pretty blase about it and I'm jonsin-aching to go roll some D10's in Rogue Trader.

DarkLink

12-09-2014, 10:12 PM

NamelessKilljoy

12-09-2014, 11:16 PM

Andrew Thomas

12-10-2014, 12:37 AM

A significant portion of the game is also extremely clunky. There are so many mechanics that require to roll this and roll that and reference this chart and then roll on this second chart and then roll the random results from that chart then take random numbers of wounds then saves then this then that then morale and after fifteen minutes of dice rolling later, you can finally move on to the second unit that gets to shoot with that same ability and you do it all over again.
You sure you aren't talking about WarmaHordes? I mean, the system maths in most of those charts are pretty intuitive once you've played enough games, and the only chart that really requires referencing is the vehicle damage chart. Most of the other charts in the game generally only come up once per game, if at all.

Also, who is it that is forcing everyone to play multiple thousands of point forces? I mean, I get that collecting is fun, and that it's fun to be able to field all of your models, but sometimes, 60-90 minutes is all people have for a game.

DarkLink

12-10-2014, 01:19 AM

Yes, I'm quite certain, considering I do play Warmahordes (albeit rarely). Warmahoreds isn't a simple game, certainly, but the complexity is all about giving players tactical options. 40k tends to be random for the sake of being random.

Andrew Thomas

12-10-2014, 01:30 AM

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 03:24 AM

daboarder

12-10-2014, 03:50 AM

If you want a fun game to play with a group of friends, 7th edition is the best 40K has been in years.

Thats the game GW are aiming to make and thats the game they've made. If you wanted 40k to be anything else, thats on you.

You heard it here first folks, unequivocal word of god!

to be honest though there is plenty flawed with that statement.

Firstly, the removal of major theme options from lists that has occurred since 7th dropped hurts us fluff players more than it hurts the tournaments, it was vary rare that any of the X,Y,Z becomes troops etc army lists was widely considered competitive top tier so by removing them your only punishing those that run them for fun.

Secondly, a tight and balanced rules set doesn't hurt friendly play, it helps it, because the tighter the rules set the less likely it is that losses occur due to poor list choices on the frinedly -players part.

Thridly, as is so often force fed to people, GW is in the business of selling models, by not putting the appropriate effort into their rules they LOSE all those sales that go to better written games. Meaning that yes, poor rules cost GW money

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 03:58 AM

You heard it here first folks, unequivocal word of god!

to be honest though there is plenty flawed with that statement.

Firstly, the removal of major theme options from lists that has occurred since 7th dropped hurts us fluff players more than it hurts the tournaments, it was vary rare that any of the X,Y,Z becomes troops etc army lists was widely considered competitive top tier so by removing them your only punishing those that run them for fun.

Secondly, a tight and balanced rules set doesn't hurt friendly play, it helps it, because the tighter the rules set the less likely it is that losses occur due to poor list choices on the frinedly -players part.

Thridly, as is so often force fed to people, GW is in the business of selling models, by not putting the appropriate effort into their rules they LOSE all those sales that go to better written games. Meaning that yes, poor rules cost GW money

I am well past caring about anything you manage to mash out on a keyboard with that I presume are your clenched, rage filled fists.

Name ONE "major theme option" that was removed.

And you're not a fluff player, you're a dickhead who moans about percieved power levels of your armies constantly.

Lord Tothe

12-10-2014, 03:59 AM

7th edition is superior to 6th. I'm not convinced that it's superior to 5th, although I do like some of the changes it brought. I haven't played anything before 5th ed.

The new Orks codex has a few good things, but it lost the overall Orkiness of the previous codex, and lost the ways different HQ units could alter army composition for different builds while restricting WAAAGH!!! to Warboss-led armies. Orks went from having a couple admittedly potentially-OP builds to being rather bland.

daboarder

12-10-2014, 04:21 AM

I am well past caring about anything you manage to mash out on a keyboard with that I presume are your clenched, rage filled fists.

Name ONE "major theme option" that was removed.

And you're not a fluff player, you're a dickhead who moans about percieved power levels of your armies constantly.

God you're a funny one aren't you, so much hate for someone you profess not to care about.

As to "fluff options" removed from codexes? I can name heaps so far.

Orks: Nobs as troops or Bikes as troops (oh where art thou Waz)

Grey Knights (pfft why would we ever decide that paladins were the only appropriate response to a daemon incursion, take it away dark link)

EDIT: I forgot about dark eldar, oh you poor besotted Dark Eldar, I'm so sorry Charon, so very sorry (we'll just put the whole book here shall we)

And soon the Blood angels will lose two builds minimum, firstly the jump list is being destroyed after existing for all Blood Angel rules sets bar 1. They are also losing the ability to run an Army of Death, a very old theme way back from the Armageddon campaign.

As to theme lists, well if you did more than just attempt to troll people and Praise the ever loving trash out of GW you'd might be able to notice that any list I post, or give advice on the driving point is usually to take a theme and run with it.

My Own three lists are

Terminator Chaos Space Marines
Flying Circus Blood angels
And then my nid list which not really themed but does lean heavily on a horde of gribblies that gets bigger as the game goes on.

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 04:26 AM

All of those are valid in the rules of the game. There are no restricted fluff options now.

daboarder

12-10-2014, 04:28 AM

All of those are valid in the rules of the game. There are no restricted fluff options now.

As someone who actually RUNS an unbound list, just no dude, no not practical in any but the most rare ciurcumstances and certainly not the kind of thing that works in pick up games let alone tournaments and event days.

So no, none of those are actually available to the vast majority of 40k players in any real sense.

EDIT: And thats not even mentioning the fact that you loose out on the detachment bonus which is fast becoming yet another layer of potential gap between codex power balance.

Lord Tothe

12-10-2014, 04:41 AM

Old Ork codex fluffy armies within a force org chart "battleforged" list

Wazdakka's biker mob of speed freeks. Potentially OP to have 6 biker mobs as troops, but it was cool.

Warboss granting nobz/meganobz as a single troop choice upgrade. Power boost countered by points sink. Now you need him as your commander just to do a propa Orky WAAAGH!!! at all.

Big Mek granting a Deff Dred as a troop choice. 2 Big Meks leading 3 Dreds and 6 Kans as a stompy mechanized cybork death battalion under KFF bubbles and behind grot cannon fodder was fluffy and then some.

But hey! We'll always have GREEN TIDE! And that's all the Orky fluff we're ever supposed to want, right? And now you can do it more than before!

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 04:58 AM

As someone who actually RUNS an unbound list, just no dude, no not practical in any but the most rare ciurcumstances and certainly not the kind of thing that works in pick up games let alone tournaments and event days.

So no, none of those are actually available to the vast majority of 40k players in any real sense.

EDIT: And thats not even mentioning the fact that you loose out on the detachment bonus which is fast becoming yet another layer of potential gap between codex power balance.

Weird that you care about power when, by your own admission, you're a fluff player.

- - - Updated - - -

Old Ork codex fluffy armies within a force org chart "battleforged" list

Wazdakka's biker mob of speed freeks. Potentially OP to have 6 biker mobs as troops, but it was cool.

Warboss granting nobz/meganobz as a single troop choice upgrade. Power boost countered by points sink. Now you need him as your commander just to do a propa Orky WAAAGH!!! at all.

Big Mek granting a Deff Dred as a troop choice. 2 Big Meks leading 3 Dreds and 6 Kans as a stompy mechanized cybork death battalion under KFF bubbles and behind grot cannon fodder was fluffy and then some.

But hey! We'll always have GREEN TIDE! And that's all the Orky fluff we're ever supposed to want, right? And now you can do it more than before!

OK, if you're choosing to ignore Unbound, which is in the rules, then fine, you can claim that lots has been taken away.

Regarding the Dread Mob, You must have missed the Dread Mob formation.

And Warboss calling a Waagh! is the fluffiest rule the Orks have had in ages, you kill the Warboss and the momentum of the Orks go, thats been part of the fluff for ever and is the standard Imperial tactic for dealing with Orks, this rule helps that.

An army of Orks shouldn't be all Nobs, Nobs are the biggests and toughest, you can't be biggest and toughest without other Orks to be bigger and tougher than.

daboarder

12-10-2014, 05:14 AM

Weird that you care about power when, by your own admission, you're a fluff player.

see the previous statement on balance not actually being a bad thing for anyone.

Better balance is a goal that should be lauded, and quite frankly GWs balance is so bad that even friendly games can be drastically skewed by it

edit: to add an example, a freind of mine runs a wind rider host/ Mechanized Eldar army, 6th ed Rolls around and suddenly our group cant scratch his army (list depending, my Nid list certainly couldn't do a thing) due to GWs imbalanced rules. We're not going to tell him he cant use models that he has invested so much time and money in nor are we going to demand that he starts buying new models that are less powerful. Its not his fault Wave serpents and jetbikes became awesome sauce.

OK, if you're choosing to ignore Unbound, which is in the rules,

Unbound requires opponents permission, finding an opponent willing to run against it is highly unlikely

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 05:48 AM

Unbound requires opponents permission, finding an opponent willing to run against it is highly unlikely

Unbound requires as much permission from your opponent as any other part of choosing an army list, you discuss points level, detachments and factions with your opponent. Its not permission, its discussion.

The game expects you to have to social skills of at least a 12 year old , which is obviously the part some people are struggling with.

daboarder

12-10-2014, 05:57 AM

Unbound requires as much permission from your opponent as any other part of choosing an army list, you discuss points level, detachments and factions with your opponent. Its not permission, its discussion.

The game expects you to have to social skills of at least a 12 year old , which is obviously the part some people are struggling with.

sigh, do you play in anything larger than just a few mates? Ever tries going to a tournament an event or just down to a store for a pickup game.

Furthermore Its not OUR job to fix the product

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 06:01 AM

sigh, do you play in anything larger than just a few mates? Ever tries going to a tournament an event or just down to a store for a pickup game.

Furthermore Its not OUR job to fix the product

Nope, I have a large groupd of friends in a city where we arrange our games, come up with a story and play, or play campaigns with set ideas for missions that we work around. We don't play with people that ***** and moan about the hobby and try and ruin the little free time we get to enjoy ourselves.

I think 7th edition is excellent for that.

If you are the one that thinks the product is broken, then, yes, yes it is on you to "fix" it.

Erik Setzer

12-10-2014, 09:07 AM

We pretty much only play the Maelstrom missions in our group, the kind of randomness of the tactical cards forces us to have more fun and not take any one objective to seriously.

If you need the game itself to "force" you to have more fun, that's a problem.

Of course, a game can't actually do that. And if you don't take the objectives seriously, you lose Maelstrom missions where you beat the other army into submission (as happened in a game I played against a guy where the dice were hating me hard, but he didn't think to make a bold move for an objective or two, which meant he lost one of his best chances to win a game, a scenario that wasn't that fun for him, really).

- - - Updated - - -

Also, who is it that is forcing everyone to play multiple thousands of point forces? I mean, I get that collecting is fun, and that it's fun to be able to field all of your models, but sometimes, 60-90 minutes is all people have for a game.

The game is geared toward larger battles (in order to sell more models). So the rules don't really apply well at smaller points. The balance can break down even further, to a point that the game is over ridiculously fast and isn't really fun for either player.

Plus, people have a lot of models, they want to use at least part of them. I know multiple people with over 10,000 points of their favorite army (guilty of that myself), they want to have the option to use at least 10-20% of their force (especially the more expensive stuff).

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 09:09 AM

The game expects you to have to social skills of at least a 12 year old , which is obviously the part some people are struggling with.

As you are with manners and the rules of the Forum? Or has calling someone a vulgarity in a direct attack become the new law of the land? That does seem rather below the social skills of a twelve year old does it not? :D His point stands, the new rules don't benefit "fluff" players at all. I know because I'm not that type of player. 7th Edition was the dawn throw candy to the power gamer because it sells models. I know this because I've watched the fluff players jump games right and left down in the META near myself. Bolt Action has become their go to game. Go figure.

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 09:12 AM

As you are with manners and the rules of the Forum? Or has calling someone a vulgarity in a direct attack become the new law of the land? That does seem rather below the social skills of a twelve year old does it not? :D His point stands, the new rules don't benefit "fluff" players at all. I know because I'm not that type of player. 7th Edition was the dawn throw candy to the power gamer because it sells models. I know this because I've watched the fluff players jump games right and left down in the META near myself. Bolt Action has become their go to game. Go figure.

ancedotal evidence =/= to evidence.

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 09:14 AM

ancedotal evidence =/= to evidence.

There was nothing anecdotal about pointing out your lack of manners was there? You have provided us anecdotal evidence that you have lots of friends. I don't believe that either so I guess we are even. :D

Erik Setzer

12-10-2014, 09:15 AM

If you want a fun game to play with a group of friends, 7th edition is the best 40K has been in years.

Thats the game GW are aiming to make and thats the game they've made. If you wanted 40k to be anything else, thats on you.

Only for unimaginative people. Okay, yes, that seems to be a majority of the people who haven't thrown up their hands and left in disgust.

The game GW is aiming to make is the one that sells the most models. Nothing else. They admit right on the box that the rules only exist to give you something to do with all the models you obviously bought just because they were awesome collector pieces, not because you intended to play a game and bought them to do so.

6th edition was "eh" and it came out two YEARS ago, so sure, I guess your statement is accurate, it's the most fun in "years." Well, for the unimaginative crowd.

As for me, I remember fondly when assault was actually something you could do without needing an uber-unit, and that was FUN. I remember when Chapter Approved brought us a lot of new options, as well as supplemental codices, so I could field basic Orks, Feral Orks, or Kult of Speed, and they were all significantly different. We had rules to allow you to build your own vehicles. There's been rules in the past for making terrain more interesting, crazy stuff with scenarios (so it's not just a variation of where you line up your Citadel(TM) Miniatures). And we, the gamers, felt free to just make up whatever we wanted to in a basic, friendly game, because we were all agreeing to play with these different rules. And hey, what do you know, the 7th edition rulebook says you have to agree with your opponent on how to build a list even (which means I rarely get to use my Stompa or Knight, and I'm going to start shutting down people bringing specific units or models as a result, because screw them using a massive fortification no matter how much they spent on it, if they refuse to let me bring my expensive model I spent weeks assembling and painting). So basically, you STILL have to talk to your opponent about what kind of game you're going to play and all, and we often find ourselves having to come up with house rules on the spot to fix some of the worst parts of the rules and all, or to make a more interesting scenario.

So yeah, it's more fun for people who didn't have the imagination or creativity to make up their own stuff in the past or didn't enjoy assault and only like shooting, or didn't like having a lot more options.

Defenestratus

12-10-2014, 09:17 AM

This sounds like a lot of smoke, but very little fire.

Just how big/spammy is your list if you need to run more than 10 Spirit Seers, anyway? Also, if I may ask, what kind of powers were you using in the match against the necrons, and just how good were their rolls compared to yours? All I get from these anecdotes is that you had a run of bad luck, or that you were overextending with your army.

I had an autarch, farseer (and a warlock for a guardian squad), and wanted to use a spiritseer to babysit some wraithblades with Runes of Battle psychic powers.

I don't use the Iyanden supplement - its too cheesey for me.

Over-extending my army? Ok man.

I've never been more frustrated by a game as I am with the psychic phase. Looking at what my farseers used to be, and the pathetic shells they are now makes me a sad wargamer.

Erik Setzer

12-10-2014, 09:22 AM

I am well past caring about anything you manage to mash out on a keyboard with that I presume are your clenched, rage filled fists.

Name ONE "major theme option" that was removed.

And you're not a fluff player, you're a dickhead who moans about percieved power levels of your armies constantly.

Let's see, for my good old Orks, we've lost:

- Feral Orks
- Kult of Speed
- Warbikes/Nobs/Deff Dreads sliding into Troops (to help make a speed list, a more "elite" list, or a Mek list)

That's saying nothing about the major changes to structure of units and all. We lost invulnerable saves in close combat, we lost power weapons except klaws and specific units that are too expensive to take, we nearly lost looted vehicles (the uproar forced them to rush out rules in WD)... Basically, when I assault something with Orks now, it's actually a better chance of them failing than succeeding, which makes no sense with the fluff.

Oh, and if you want to claim I'm not a fluff kind of guy, then one of many pieces of evidence I can use to support that I am is that I'm working on a Rogue Trader themed army of mercenaries, "loaned" Space Marines, and other stuff that will look cool but not be that potent (i.e. Bullgryn, they were fun to convert, but not super potent).

Arkhan Land

12-10-2014, 09:27 AM

The best thing about 7th edition is... well
I guess...
umm...
new models?

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 09:34 AM

Let's see, for my good old Orks, we've lost:

- Feral Orks
- Kult of Speed
- Warbikes/Nobs/Deff Dreads sliding into Troops (to help make a speed list, a more "elite" list, or a Mek list)

That's saying nothing about the major changes to structure of units and all. We lost invulnerable saves in close combat, we lost power weapons except klaws and specific units that are too expensive to take, we nearly lost looted vehicles (the uproar forced them to rush out rules in WD)... Basically, when I assault something with Orks now, it's actually a better chance of them failing than succeeding, which makes no sense with the fluff.

Oh, and if you want to claim I'm not a fluff kind of guy, then one of many pieces of evidence I can use to support that I am is that I'm working on a Rogue Trader themed army of mercenaries, "loaned" Space Marines, and other stuff that will look cool but not be that potent (i.e. Bullgryn, they were fun to convert, but not super potent).

Those lists haven't been valid since what, 4th edition?
7th, with the rules for making armies as they are now actually makes those builds possible, there is literally nothing stopping you making any army of any theme that you like, more so than ever before.

Except Feral Orks but that was a WD list from 10 years ago that was barely ever used.

Erik Setzer

12-10-2014, 09:37 AM

OK, if you're choosing to ignore Unbound, which is in the rules, then fine, you can claim that lots has been taken away.

You're ignoring something key in the rules: Your opponent must agree to the rules being used to build an army. If he says no to Unbound, you can't use it. And most people are still saying no to Unbound (probably because they know the horrendous armies you can make with Battle-Forged and are terrified of the cheesy lists people will claim are "not power-gaming" in Unbound). It's why I'll have a BF version of my Rogue Trader force designed, so I have a way to play without having to worry about someone shutting down Unbound.

Regarding the Dread Mob, You must have missed the Dread Mob formation.

Actually, you apparently missed it. Go look at it. I can't run it myself because I don't have another Orkanaut and don't want one. It requires a Big Mek, a Painboy (yes, really), 2 Orkanauts, 3 Deff Dreads, and 3 units of Killa Kans (3+ each). There's no flexibility there, that's all you can have, and you must take that specific combination. And yeah, frankly, Orkanauts are not all that great, especially for their points. I use one from time to time because it cost me a lot and took a while to build and paint and I think it looks cool, but it's never performed even close to satisfactory, so taking two of them would just be "meh." Also, expensive. (It's a $110 EACH kit, in case you forgot.)

An army of Orks shouldn't be all Nobs, Nobs are the biggests and toughest, you can't be biggest and toughest without other Orks to be bigger and tougher than.

Oh? So there shouldn't be just all elite Space Marines in any SM army, right? No all-Wolf Guard list or anything like that, because without the basic guys in the chapter, how do you have the elite guys? Oh, you're telling me that's a special group of guys who are operating away from the rest of the chapter for a battle? Well, gosh, that's the exact same freaking reason you could see all Nobs in an army! Fun fact: Stormclaw had Grukk with just his Nobz, no Boyz around. So you want to go tell GW that they screwed up their story and wrote something impossible? Or just admit that your reasoning here is flawed?

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 09:39 AM

Those lists haven't been valid since what, 4th edition?

What difference would that make to a real Fluff player? The edition of the rules is beside the point when you are trying to create a story and support the setting and theme in the books. I would think someone like you would know that already. Your concern for the validity in the rules undermines your street credibility in saying you are all about telling the story and so on. :D

Except Feral Orks but that was a WD list from 10 years ago that was barely ever used.

There are a lot more EXCEPTS that your are intentionally leaving out, but we will ignore that for the moment. What difference does it make that Feral Orks are from ten years ago and not many people used them? They exist in the setting and fluff and someone wants to play them. You seem to contradict yourself an awful lot.

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 09:48 AM

You're ignoring something key in the rules: Your opponent must agree to the rules being used to build an army. If he says no to Unbound, you can't use it. And most people are still saying no to Unbound (probably because they know the horrendous armies you can make with Battle-Forged and are terrified of the cheesy lists people will claim are "not power-gaming" in Unbound). It's why I'll have a BF version of my Rogue Trader force designed, so I have a way to play without having to worry about someone shutting down Unbound.

Actually, you apparently missed it. Go look at it. I can't run it myself because I don't have another Orkanaut and don't want one. It requires a Big Mek, a Painboy (yes, really), 2 Orkanauts, 3 Deff Dreads, and 3 units of Killa Kans (3+ each). There's no flexibility there, that's all you can have, and you must take that specific combination. And yeah, frankly, Orkanauts are not all that great, especially for their points. I use one from time to time because it cost me a lot and took a while to build and paint and I think it looks cool, but it's never performed even close to satisfactory, so taking two of them would just be "meh." Also, expensive. (It's a $110 EACH kit, in case you forgot.)

Oh? So there shouldn't be just all elite Space Marines in any SM army, right? No all-Wolf Guard list or anything like that, because without the basic guys in the chapter, how do you have the elite guys? Oh, you're telling me that's a special group of guys who are operating away from the rest of the chapter for a battle? Well, gosh, that's the exact same freaking reason you could see all Nobs in an army! Fun fact: Stormclaw had Grukk with just his Nobz, no Boyz around. So you want to go tell GW that they screwed up their story and wrote something impossible? Or just admit that your reasoning here is flawed?

Can you even remove your fedora at this point or has it become one with your very being?

The rules say you talk about your army, that includes Unbound, saying people won't let you use unbound is like saying people won't let you use Combined Arms, if you describe what you want to take and why, why would they have a problem with it? Learn to speak to people like a normal human being and you'll find your problems won't be as insurmountable as you're imagining.

I didn't say an all Nobz army wasn't possible (Stormclaw also had a ton of grots and killa kans, so not an all Nob army by any means)

And I have all the orks I need (included a Gorka and Morkanaught), so I can run pretty much anything and I have a group that appreciates that I am not going to write a "WAAC" list, as I know they won't, so Unbound isn't an issue .

- - - Updated - - -

What difference would that make to a real Fluff player? The edition of the rules is beside the point when you are trying to create a story and support the setting and theme in the books. I would think someone like you would know that already. Your concern for the validity in the rules undermines your street credibility in saying you are all about telling the story and so on. :D.

The point is, moaning about an edition ruining those builds, when those builds hadn't been valid in the 2 previous editions is ridiculous. This is a discussion about editions of the game remember.

There are a lot more EXCEPTS that your are intentionally leaving out, but we will ignore that for the moment. What difference does it make that Feral Orks are from ten years ago and not many people used them? They exist in the setting and fluff and someone wants to play them. You seem to contradict yourself an awful lot.

Again, the reasoning here is that 7th edition is bad because it removed the fluff options, when, as I've shown, it free'd you up more than ever.

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 09:50 AM

And I have all the orks I need (included a Gorka and Morkanaught), so I can run pretty much anything and I have a group that appreciates that I am not going to write a "WAAC" list, as I know they won't, so Unbound isn't an issue .

Is this group like the girlfriend an old friend of mine had in Canada? :D We heard about her all the time but never met her. Or is this group more like Clive Frog and the other stuffed animals Cartman has tea with in his backyard? Remember that anecdotal experience doesn't equate to evidence. You reminded us of that. Tell us more of this fluffy, imaginary world where you have a group and friends. It intrigues me. All humor aside, you continue to try to dance, spin and avoid the solid points other people are making. The current rules exist to invalidate lists (making it harder for people to play certain things if not impossible). It is designed to encourage people to buy more and NEWER models. It isn't fluffy. Unbound isn't fluffy either. It rewards power gamers and people with deep pockets.

Erik Setzer

12-10-2014, 09:50 AM

Those lists haven't been valid since what, 4th edition?
7th, with the rules for making armies as they are now actually makes those builds possible, there is literally nothing stopping you making any army of any theme that you like, more so than ever before.

Except Feral Orks but that was a WD list from 10 years ago that was barely ever used.

I don't have Guntrukks any more. And you're still leaning on "You can play Unbound, that allows ANYTHING!"

Well, see, this is where I laugh at the idea that you've played the game a while, or have mates that you discuss stuff with. Because "Unbound" has existed since Rogue Trader. "Unbound" existed in 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition, and 6th edition as well.

What is "Unbound?" It is, in a nutshell: "If your opponent agrees to let you do so, you can choose any combination of units and characters up to the agreed points limit."

People could always agree to do that. And you did have people doing that, for fun. Sure, they put it in the rulebook, so the unimaginative people like you who never considered that would realize it's an option (along with millions of other things not printed in the rulebook and just as feasible as Unbound). But that doesn't make it new. Nor does it make it an option that works in pick-up games.

I could show up to a game in the past with any of the above mentioned stuff, and have no concerns. Didn't have to agree with my opponent to let me use it. Now, I have to do that. If I'm doing that anyway, why not just ask them to let me use the old supplement lists, which fit in just fine with the new book (granted, some options are more expensive)? I could even tweak the rules to the latest edition, and review them with my opponent before the game, to make sure he's okay with it. And guess what? It'd be just the same as what Unbound is! I don't need a bloody rule in the rulebook to do that stuff, I've been doing it for over 20 years. Hence, 7th edition didn't magically make it happen, nor has it made it more viable in pickup games. If anything, the addition of Unbound and using it as an excuse to remove viable options has made the game more strict for people.

Oh, and chum, I *do* discuss the games before I play. It's why I don't pull out certain models, because I know that my opponent won't want to face them. It's how I know what kind of game we're going to play - mission type, any restrictions, whether it's going to be "friendly fun" or "friendly try to wreck you." So maybe go get some social skills of your own and stop making assumptions about people just because they don't agree with your hilariously flawed arguments.

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 09:54 AM

Is this group like the girlfriend an old friend of mine had in Canada? :D We heard about her all the time but never met her. Or is this group more like Clive Frog and the other stuffed animals Cartman has tea with in his backyard? Remember that anecdotal experience doesn't equate to evidence. You reminded us of that. Tell us more of this fluffy, imaginary world where you have a group and friends. It intrigues me. All humor aside, you continue to try to dance, spin and avoid the solid points other people are making. The current rules exist to invalidate lists (making it harder for people to play certain things if not impossible). It is designed to encourage people to buy more and NEWER models. It isn't fluffy. Unbound isn't fluffy either. It rewards power gamers and people with deep pockets.

Unbound is as fluffy as the people using it. Thats why the rules say you should discuss things with your opponents before you write your army list.

I'm sorry that you both seem to have communication issues when it comes to talking to people and so think this part of the game is an insurmountable obstcle.

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 09:54 AM

The point is, moaning about an edition ruining those builds, when those builds hadn't been valid in the 2 previous editions is ridiculous. This is a discussion about editions of the game remember.

No, the point is you don't understand discourse or how to debate. You introduced certain arguments and ideas. You asserted your own credentials. One of the things you put forward is that this new version allows us to play anything we want. You didn't prove it. You offered no evidence of it whatsoever. Several people demonstrated clearly the opposite was true by listing off but a TINY sample of things invalid and now impossible. Instead of acknowledging that they have just proven you wrong or asserting evidence to the contrary, you blew it off by saying that stuff doesn't matter because it is older Edition stuff. Are you entirely INCAPABLE of seeing the contradiction in your own arguments? You can't see how arguing 7th Edition is good because it lets us do what we want, while blowing off the examples of it not letting us do what we want by saying that stuff is old? :D

Again, the reasoning here is that 7th edition is bad because it removed the fluff options, when, as I've shown, it free'd you up more than ever.

Repeating yourself that it has freed us up without showing evidence of it is what we call a circular argument. You haven't shown us anything yet except bad manners, personal attacks, and a total lack of comprehension and continuity of your OWN arguments.

Erik Setzer

12-10-2014, 09:54 AM

Can you even remove your fedora at this point or has it become one with your very being?
...
Learn to speak to people like a normal human being and you'll find your problems won't be as insurmountable as you're imagining.

Look at those two lines beside each other.

You immediately lead off with an insult, and then follow it up with further insults, based on your own VERY wrong assumptions about other people, and then claim other people need to learn how to talk "like a normal human being."

Maybe take your own advice and learn that yourself.

You should stop right now. You're failing in your argument, you know you're wrong, and you're reduced to just repeatedly insulting everyone who dares to disagree with you. If you had the social skills you claim everyone else needs, you'd recognize those as signs that you've lost an argument.

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 09:58 AM

Look at those two lines beside each other.

You immediately lead off with an insult, and then follow it up with further insults, based on your own VERY wrong assumptions about other people, and then claim other people need to learn how to talk "like a normal human being."

Maybe take your own advice and learn that yourself.

You should stop right now. You're failing in your argument, you know you're wrong, and you're reduced to just repeatedly insulting everyone who dares to disagree with you. If you had the social skills you claim everyone else needs, you'd recognize those as signs that you've lost an argument.

Its not even an argument, you're so developmentally stunted that you can't understand how the rules work because its part of a social contract that is alien to you.

There is nothing wrong with insulting you for wearing a fedora when you do in fact wear a fedora .

- - - Updated - - -

No, the point is you don't understand discourse or how to debate. You introduced certain arguments and ideas. You asserted your own credentials. One of the things you put forward is that this new version allows us to play anything we want. You didn't prove it. You offered no evidence of it whatsoever. Several people demonstrated clearly the opposite was true by listing off but a TINY sample of things invalid and now impossible. Instead of acknowledging that they have just proven you wrong or asserting evidence to the contrary, you blew it off by saying that stuff doesn't matter because it is older Edition stuff. Are you entirely INCAPABLE of seeing the contradiction in your own arguments? You can't see how arguing 7th Edition is good because it lets us do what we want, while blowing off the examples of it not letting us do what we want by saying that stuff is old? :D

Repeating yourself that it has freed us up without showing evidence of it is what we call a circular argument. You haven't shown us anything yet except bad manners, personal attacks, and a total lack of comprehension and continuity of your OWN arguments.

Except none of the things they pointed out were invalidated by the rules, meaning they we're spurious arguments.

It lets you do what ever you want, and includes a balancing mechanic in the bonuses for Formations and Detachments, that you're too inept or can't get past the social element inherrent in that, isn't for me to waste my time with.

If you want a build not allowed in the Detachments or Formations or Supplements ,then you can use Unbound to represent any force you desire. Its really that simple.

Eldar_Atog

12-10-2014, 10:02 AM

My army is riding higher than anytime outside 2nd edition.. and I still say that 7th has ruined the game in my area. During 6th, we had a glut of players (30-40) with a huge variety of armies floating around. Now, it's been reduced to just a few die hard competitive players that seem to just focus on the newest powerlist. Last weekend, there was about 20 of us at the shop and only 2 players were doing 40K. The rest of us were doing X-wing, Warmahordes, Mercs, Song of blades and heroes.

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 10:06 AM

Except none of the things they pointed out were invalidated by the rules, meaning they we're spurious arguments.

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it true. Show don't tell. If you are going to make these claims you need to prove it, support it with quotes and facts. Simply saying they are wrong isn't convincing us of anything, particularly when most of us know the rules quote and verse. We know what we can do and what we can't do. Your "talking point" appears to be that Unbound solves everything. It doesn't. Even Unbound has rules and limitations. It isn't truly Unbound now is it? :D If you get certain things with Battle Forged that you cannot get with Unbound, then right then and there a HUGE group of fluffy lists are out the window.

It lets you do what ever you want, and includes a balancing mechanic in the bonuses for Formations and Detachments, that you're too inept or can't get past the social element inherrent in that, isn't for me to waste my time with. If you want a build not allowed in the Detachments or Formations or Supplements ,then you can use Unbound to represent any force you desire. Its really that simple.

Actually, it doesn't. However, let's play Devil's Advocate here. We could ALWAYS do anything we want. Any players have always been able to change whatever they desire. That has nothing to do with 7th Edition. That is called House Rules. What do we need 7th Edition for if that is all Unbound is... at least according to you? :D

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 10:08 AM

Saying this over and over again doesn't make it true. Show don't tell. If you are going to make these claims you need to prove it, support it with quotes and facts. Simply saying they are wrong isn't convincing us of anything, particularly when most of us know the rules quote and verse. We know what we can do and what we can't do. Your "talking point" appears to be that Unbound solves everything. It doesn't. Even Unbound has rules and limitations. It isn't truly Unbound now is it? :D If you get certain things with Battle Forged that you cannot get with Unbound, then right then and there a HUGE group of fluffy lists are out the window.

Actually, it doesn't. However, let's play Devil's Advocate here. We could ALWAYS do anything we want. Any players have always been able to change whatever they desire. That has nothing to do with 7th Edition. That is called House Rules. What do we need 7th Edition for if that is all Unbound is... at least according to you? :D

You're not making any sense now, your desire to berate Games Workshop because of your own insecurities has apparently gotten the better of you.

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 10:11 AM

You're not making any sense now, your desire to berate Games Workshop because of your own insecurities has apparently gotten the better of you.

Actually, I'm berating you. Games Workshop has nothing to do with any of this unless you are somehow affiliated with them. I'm pointing out the contradictions in your own arguments. Dazzle us. Show us some evidence, support your arguments with facts rather than just saying the same thing over and over again, punctuated with some personal attacks. We are all ears (or eyes as the internet version would have to be).

Eldar_Atog

12-10-2014, 10:17 AM

You're not making any sense now, your desire to berate Games Workshop because of your own insecurities has apparently gotten the better of you.

I would suggest that it is you that isn't talking any sense. Your overwhelming need to defend GW against all attack has gotten the better of you. Why do you need to defend a corporation so desperately? A corporation that seems hell bent on killing all goodwill that it has built amoung the war gamer community.

Path Walker

12-10-2014, 10:34 AM

I would suggest that it is you that isn't talking any sense. Your overwhelming need to defend GW against all attack has gotten the better of you. Why do you need to defend a corporation so desperately? A corporation that seems hell bent on killing all goodwill that it has built amoung the war gamer community.

I'm not defending a corporation, I'm defending an attitude of playing wargames for the sake of playing wargames.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I'm berating you. Games Workshop has nothing to do with any of this unless you are somehow affiliated with them. I'm pointing out the contradictions in your own arguments. Dazzle us. Show us some evidence, support your arguments with facts rather than just saying the same thing over and over again, punctuated with some personal attacks. We are all ears (or eyes as the internet version would have to be).

Again, Unbound, can represent any fluff list you care to name, the reason this is being repeated is because its true despite how much you clearly don't want it to be, facts aren't important to you because you can't let GW have done anything right, as per.

Caitsidhe

12-10-2014, 10:47 AM

Again, Unbound, can represent any fluff list you care to name, the reason this is being repeated is because its true despite how much you clearly don't want it to be, facts aren't important to you because you can't let GW have done anything right, as per.

Unbound cannot represent any Fluff you want because Unbound lists do not get the same perks as Battle Forged. That is the price they pay. Those perks set Battle Forged apart and create powerful scoring units, an edge in getting Warlord Traits, and so on. The only way to get those perks in an Unbound list would be to TOSS OUT THE RULES for Unbound. This is a fact. The rules prevent you from creating certain fluffy lists. More to the point, Unbound is an option, which others have pointed out to you before, that must be agreed upon by all parties. Since that is not guaranteed, it means that by default you will not get to play whatever you want at all times because the rules specifically give other people the power to decline it. This is also a fact.

For the second time, I am not discussing Games Workshop's oddities right now. I'm talking about your own ineptness and inability to engage in discourse or debate. Unless you are somehow affiliated or representing Games Workshop here (which your odd habit of trying to defend them at every turn and attack anyone who doesn't give them a glowing report would almost seem to support) then GW has nothing to do with what I'm talking about beyond being the examples of your poorly constructed statements and arguments (or lack thereof). The only issue is whether the rules let you do anything you want. Many people have already proven you are wrong. Rules exist precisely so you can't do anything you want, and Unbound is no different.

Gleipnir

12-10-2014, 03:19 PM

While I can somewhat agree with some of what you are saying about Unbound being codified(along with its associated penalties) in the rules frees the game up for any sort of fluff related army(which I appreciate), and while I am not in love with everything 7th edition has done with the rules since at times GW seems to break rules they previously FAQ'd with each new release.

I do have to say I condemn the aggressive and often outright belligerent manner in which you attack any dissenting opinion, better to simply agree to disagree and present what you like about something while saying you disagree with someone else's representation of things.

daboarder

12-10-2014, 03:22 PM

This thread made my morning :D

Gleipnir

12-10-2014, 03:33 PM

This thread made my morning :D

Good that you haven't allowed any sort of rage fueled by cranium abnormalities to distort your ability to enjoy things

daboarder

12-10-2014, 03:39 PM

Good that you haven't allowed any sort of rage fueled by cranium abnormalities to distort your ability to enjoy things

Maybe its more than just the social skills of a 12 year old I have to worry about ;)

Gleipnir

12-10-2014, 03:43 PM

I know I channel my inner 12 year old at least 3 times daily

daboarder

12-10-2014, 03:48 PM

I wish we had a like function

Erik Setzer

12-11-2014, 11:02 AM

Its not even an argument, you're so developmentally stunted that you can't understand how the rules work because its part of a social contract that is alien to you.

There is nothing wrong with insulting you for wearing a fedora when you do in fact wear a fedora

Well, aside from fashion choice being a rather silly thing to mock (especially as the hat that I have pictures of was something of an "in-joke" with a group of people, and led to some really fun stories that I don't regret for an instant... you know, the type of stories those of us who have friends get to have), it's just showing how petty you're getting, and how you know your argument doesn't hold weight, so you're just resorting to repeated arguments.

Again, you start with an insult, claiming I'm "developmentally stunted." Well, since you tried to defend making an insult regarding a fedora by saying that I have in the past worn a fedora, let me take apart this comment. I was put in a "gifted" program early, I ended up in a magnet school for bright students and then went to high school at Stanton College Prep, which at the time was ranked the number 1 high school in the entire nation (it's still top 5, only a couple of tiny very specific schools top it in the rankings). I self-taught myself everything I need to know for my career, and when I come across something I don't know, I figure it out quickly. I have several friends from various parts of my life, including gaming, school, work, and even the time I was involved in politics. A lot of people still wish I was into politics and a part of their party as they saw my ability to take bits of information from various sources and string together "the big picture," often figuring out things that people would prefer weren't figured out. I won't help them any more, though, as my personal sense of honor and decency keep me from ever getting back into that field.

I know more about social contracts than you ever will, as your inability to even discern how to act in a social setting shows clearly. Your attempts to lecture me are laughable.

You should stop now, before you embarrass yourself further. But if you choose to continue showing everyone that you are blithering idiot who refuses to admit when he's wrong and seeks only to insult as many people as possible like a whiny child, don't be surprised when you're called out on it.

It would be a lot more interesting to have a serious discussion with thought-out points and counter-points, rather than someone acting immature and slinging insults while claiming he's the only one who can be right, but I do from time to time enjoy putting children in their place, so at least you'll provide me with some entertainment that way, assuming you don't suddenly realize what a social contract is, or develop the reading comprehension necessary to keep up with the points being made against you (I won't hold my breath waiting for either).

Path Walker

12-11-2014, 11:08 AM

Well, aside from fashion choice being a rather silly thing to mock (especially as the hat that I have pictures of was something of an "in-joke" with a group of people, and led to some really fun stories that I don't regret for an instant... you know, the type of stories those of us who have friends get to have), it's just showing how petty you're getting, and how you know your argument doesn't hold weight, so you're just resorting to repeated arguments.

Again, you start with an insult, claiming I'm "developmentally stunted." Well, since you tried to defend making an insult regarding a fedora by saying that I have in the past worn a fedora, let me take apart this comment. I was put in a "gifted" program early, I ended up in a magnet school for bright students and then went to high school at Stanton College Prep, which at the time was ranked the number 1 high school in the entire nation (it's still top 5, only a couple of tiny very specific schools top it in the rankings). I self-taught myself everything I need to know for my career, and when I come across something I don't know, I figure it out quickly. I have several friends from various parts of my life, including gaming, school, work, and even the time I was involved in politics. A lot of people still wish I was into politics and a part of their party as they saw my ability to take bits of information from various sources and string together "the big picture," often figuring out things that people would prefer weren't figured out. I won't help them any more, though, as my personal sense of honor and decency keep me from ever getting back into that field.

I know more about social contracts than you ever will, as your inability to even discern how to act in a social setting shows clearly. Your attempts to lecture me are laughable.

You should stop now, before you embarrass yourself further. But if you choose to continue showing everyone that you are blithering idiot who refuses to admit when he's wrong and seeks only to insult as many people as possible like a whiny child, don't be surprised when you're called out on it.

It would be a lot more interesting to have a serious discussion with thought-out points and counter-points, rather than someone acting immature and slinging insults while claiming he's the only one who can be right, but I do from time to time enjoy putting children in their place, so at least you'll provide me with some entertainment that way, assuming you don't suddenly realize what a social contract is, or develop the reading comprehension necessary to keep up with the points being made against you (I won't hold my breath waiting for either).

This wall of text is pretty much exactly the reason you get mocked.

daboarder

12-11-2014, 01:12 PM

This wall of text is pretty much exactly the reason you get mocked.

really? I thought it was just because you're an arsehole

Caitsidhe

12-11-2014, 01:47 PM

This wall of text is pretty much exactly the reason you get mocked.

I don't know if you have noticed, but you are the only one chattering and gibbering. The rest of us, and we by no accounts all agree with each other or even like each other, are unified in mocking you. :D Right now your posts are kind of a running joke. I encourage you to keep going. Each installment is a gem, not unlike press conferences from Perry down my way. We never know what he will say next either.

Eldar_Atog

12-11-2014, 02:05 PM

I don't know if you have noticed, but you are the only one chattering and gibbering. The rest of us, and we by no accounts all agree with each other or even like each other, are unified in mocking you. :D Right now your posts are kind of a running joke. I encourage you to keep going. Each installment is a gem, not unlike press conferences from Perry down my way. We never know what he will say next either.

Perhaps we should just ignore him...

In an attempt to pull this back from the brink, what is everyone's opinion about the need to prove that the newest edition is always the best edition? Is it just that newer players always prefer the next big thing vs us older players that are nostalgic for the past?

Caitsidhe

12-11-2014, 02:10 PM

Perhaps we should just ignore him...

In an attempt to pull this back from the brink, what is everyone's opinion about the need to prove that the newest edition is always the best edition? Is it just that newer players always prefer the next big thing vs us older players that are nostalgic for the past?

Well yes... there you go being reasonable. We should ignore him. I'll hold my tongue. There isn't really anything I can say that makes him look any worse than he does himself. :D In regards to the strange need some have to staunchly defend the most current edition, I tend to see that more in shills than actual people. Most people can admit when something is bad and talk about what parts are good. I'm neither a partisan for what is new nor that nostalgic for the past. My own opinion is that a new edition should be an actual improvement, i.e. it should keep the things that work and fix the things that didn't. It should be an evolution, not a reinvention. Sadly Games Workshop doesn't do that. They "fix" things nobody had a problem with (or actually liked) and ignore requests for addressing problems even when near the entire gaming population agrees on the issue. Feh.

My opinion is more pragmatic. If I can fix a game that someone else screws up and still have fun playing it, I will. If I can't, or don't... I write it off.. as I have Games Workshop.

40kGamer

12-11-2014, 02:10 PM

In an attempt to pull this back from the brink, what is everyone's opinion about the need to prove that the newest edition is always the best edition? Is it just that newer players always prefer the next big thing vs us older players that are nostalgic for the past?

Maybe we just like to think that they are at least attempting to change things for the better, even when some of these changes fall flat.

40kGamer

12-11-2014, 02:22 PM

In regards to the strange need some have to staunchly defend the most current edition, I tend to see that more in shills than actual people. Most people can admit when something is bad and talk about what parts are good. I'm neither a partisan for what is new nor that nostalgic for the past. My own opinion is that a new edition should be an actual improvement, i.e. it should keep the things that work and fix the things that didn't. It should be an evolution, not a reinvention. Sadly Games Workshop doesn't do that. They "fix" things nobody had a problem with (or actually liked) and ignore requests for addressing problems even when near the entire gaming population agrees on the issue. Feh.

My opinion is more pragmatic. If I can fix a game that someone else screws up and still have fun playing it, I will. If I can't, or don't... I write it off.. as I have Games Workshop.

I've come to view Games Workshop's rules like this...

https://i.imgflip.com/c4y7b.jpg

Caitsidhe

12-11-2014, 02:55 PM

I've come to view Games Workshop's rules like this...

https://i.imgflip.com/c4y7b.jpg

<laughs> Excellent and hilarious. I agree. There is no spoon so I went and bought a spork.

John Bower

12-11-2014, 03:58 PM

<laughs> Excellent and hilarious. I agree. There is no spoon so I went and bought a spork.

I don't even know why you're posting; since by your words you dislike GW so much anyway why are you even reading 40k forums? You also accuse anyone that likes it of effectively working for them... Which I can assure you I certainly don't (I actually work for a supermarket).

I've been playing since 5th and to be totally honest by the end of 5th I was getting a bit jaded with it. Couldn't be bothered setting it up to play and would rather flick the switch on my PC and play Dawn of War. then 6th ed dropped and I read through it and found that I liked it a lot more. Now 7th dropped; and it is better than 6th sorry whether you like it or not. Show me any other game that can cope (even poorly) with the scope that 40k can. I can play a small civilian band of resistance fighters right up to large scale wars the like of which are rarely even seen at 10mm scale.

You accused me in private of being from 'across the pond'. I say accused because the way you said it made it sound pretty insulting, and being a 'shill'. Yes I'm from Britain, so what? Would it make any difference if I was from Mars? And if you look at my profile you will see who I actually do work for. I didn't ever say there weren't faults in 40k, all I asked in this thread was people to post their good experiences; nothing wrong with that. Yet still thanks to you and people like you the thread degenerated to name calling and insults against both GW and anyone who defended them. And to be honest; you are one of the worst offenders for throwing insults around. If you don't like GW that's fine; if you don't like their games; that's fine too. Don't throw mud just because it pleases you to do so; better to just piss off and let people have their discussions. go play Warmahordes if that's your thing ( I didn't like that but you don't hear me slagging it down all the time) and leave those of us who do like 40k to play it. I know plenty of people that have been playing a lot longer than I have that like 7th ed. Some have been playing as far back as 2nd. I have played an earlier edition back in the early 90's (not sure whether it was 2nd or 3rd) and even then didn't have as much fun as I had losing to my mate's Eldar a week 2 Sundays ago. Yes, I lost; yes we had a lot of fun.. shock, horror to think that someone could have fun losing. I thought playing games was about fun.

spaceman91

12-11-2014, 05:44 PM

I'm gunna throw my 2 pence in, I have played since 4th and can hand on heart say that 7th(6.5) has been the most fun of all.

There are some things I don't like about it but that hasn't diminished my enjoyment enough to put me off.

Reading through some of this thread I get them impression that some people can't hold 2 opposing views in their head and this has lead to some unpleasantness.

I don't like GW as a company BUT I enjoy 40k and fantasy so I put up with them.

Anyway I hope that made sense, I'm off to lurck again.

Gleipnir

12-11-2014, 06:43 PM

Reason I enjoy 7th Edition;

All the variety and options made available and the ever expanding dataslates, rules, formations, and supplements

Reason I dislike 7th Edition;

The same because all those things make the game play slower, cost more money to purchase, and create ever expanding rules issues.

On the whole though I am not afraid to house rule what I think needs it, and try and limit as much that as random about the game as possible with predetermined campaigns or play among friends to speed things up, but a cleaner rule set and releases that didn't make me feel like I am being nickel and dimed for content would go a long way to my state of happiness with this edition. White Dwarf's team should start collecting FAQs and answering them in the weekly magazine if only to better engage the community more.

40kGamer

12-12-2014, 09:00 AM

I don't like GW as a company BUT I enjoy 40k and fantasy so I put up with them.

A person after my own heart! I suspect a lot of us live in this limbo land! :p

I like 7th because the rules are open to the point that it really feels like there are no rules. You can be as big an *** as you want, or if you want to have a good time, you can set down with your opponent and discuss the theme & things you are both planning to pop on the table so you can adjust your lists to compensate.

7th sucks for pick up games. With the amount of crap that has been shoehorned into the rules at this point, if you don't discuss what kind of game you are going to play, there is a very real possibility that one of you will bring a knife to a gunfight... which is just a waste of everyone's time.

Eldar_Atog

12-12-2014, 09:37 AM

7th sucks for pick up games. With the amount of crap that has been shoehorned into the rules at this point, if you don't discuss what kind of game you are going to play, there is a very real possibility that one of you will bring a knife to a gunfight... which is just a waste of everyone's time.

That's my issue with 7th also. With the swirl of dataslates, multiple allies, multiple supplements floating around, it's easy to feel like your opponent might be cheating you. I try to go on the assumption that my opponent is not a cheater but there have been several games where I felt that they "fudged" the rules into their favor. 6th allowed a little of this but 7th just seems over the top. I don't enjoy the feeling that I have to doublecheck my opponent's books just to get a fair game.

40kGamer

12-12-2014, 10:07 AM

That's my issue with 7th also. With the swirl of dataslates, multiple allies, multiple supplements floating around, it's easy to feel like your opponent might be cheating you. I try to go on the assumption that my opponent is not a cheater but there have been several games where I felt that they "fudged" the rules into their favor. 6th allowed a little of this but 7th just seems over the top. I don't enjoy the feeling that I have to doublecheck my opponent's books just to get a fair game.

I can't tell you how many times I've been mid-game and received an unpleasant surprise from one of my opponents formation rules. It is impossible to keep up with all the things floating around in the rules and it really makes the games better if you set down in advance for 10-15 minutes and go through what's going to be on the table. I've found that a little planning stage makes the game a lot of fun and keeps both sides from feeling cheated when one of you unleashes an obscure formation/detachment rule of doom on your opponent! The days of knowing all the rules for all the armies are long past. :(

Path Walker

12-12-2014, 10:21 AM

I can't tell you how many times I've been mid-game and received an unpleasant surprise from one of my opponents formation rules. It is impossible to keep up with all the things floating around in the rules and it really makes the games better if you set down in advance for 10-15 minutes and go through what's going to be on the table. I've found that a little planning stage makes the game a lot of fun and keeps both sides from feeling cheated when one of you unleashes an obscure formation/detachment rule of doom on your opponent! The days of knowing all the rules for all the armies are long past. :(

Thats why the rules say you should do that!

40kGamer

12-12-2014, 10:35 AM

Thats why the rules say you should do that!

It's a huge change to the way games have been played in my various circles. Regardless of the venue, noone ever discussed anything beyond the agreed upon points value. That simply does not work anymore.

Path Walker

12-12-2014, 10:55 AM

It's a huge change to the way games have been played in my various circles. Regardless of the venue, noone ever discussed anything beyond the agreed upon points value. That simply does not work anymore.

Its odd because, obviously Warhammer/40K have their basis in the Historical Wargames, where such coversations are the norm, with modern telecommunications, conversations like that aren't exactly difficult to have, ok it stops people from rocking up to a place with their army and having a game straight away, but i don't think thats the way most people play.

Caitsidhe

12-12-2014, 07:40 PM

Its odd because, obviously Warhammer/40K have their basis in the Historical Wargames, where such coversations are the norm, with modern telecommunications, conversations like that aren't exactly difficult to have, ok it stops people from rocking up to a place with their army and having a game straight away, but i don't think thats the way most people play.

That's the way most people in the United States play. We clearly don't have the same kinds of clubs as they do in Britain. The majority of our games, outside our immediate circle of friends, is pick up games at a LGS or at Tournaments. More often than not, over the last ten years, you could get more reliable games with strangers and casual acquaintences easier than you could your own circle. Logistics would just mess up the ability for people to schedule. Thus, the American gamer community thrived on being able to just meet up with someone and play. And for the most part, most of the discussion was just how many points because the rules (particularly in 5th) were pretty straightforward and easily known by all parties. *I'm not saying 5th was perfect, I'm just saying that there was never a problem in so far as anyone not knowing how everything worked.

I'm willing to give Games Workshop the benefit of the doubt that they are blinded by cultural bias, i.e. they see how it is played locally and assume it works the same over here. That doesn't indicate they are fools, only poorly informed and/or researched. The issue, at least for American players, is the current rules set, combined with the endless Dataslates, additional books, and so on make it impossible for anyone besides the most dedicated to know all the rules or be up to date. The effect on pick up games (and to some degree tournaments) couldn't have been more detrimental than walking up and shooting someone in the back of the head. There was a dramatic drop in pick up games (and tournament attendence) with the advent of 6th Edition, but that was nothing compared to the decline since 7th. It has simply become too much hassle, too frustrating, and demands a degree of intimacy with people who aren't really close friends than many of us are willing to engage in over the odd game. In other words, we just want to play, not have to spend an hour plus just working out if we CAN play. :D

I'm glad that the conversation has gone back to brass tacks. Let's try to keep it on topic and away from unproductive squabbles. The American wargamer and the British one are profoundly different because the culture in which they interact is different. That means, unfortunately, that if Games Workshop wants the American market, they will have to approach things different over here. Either that or they will have to produce a rules set which works in both cultural environments. It goes without saying that if Games Workshop doesn't care about drops in the American market, then there is little anyone can say that will convince them otherwise. I find that unlikely, or at least unlikely from the point of view of the investors in the company. They ultimately just want growing sales. A game only sells if there is a healthy community to support it. Right now the community over here is rapidly changing and that isn't good for GW. The more people decide to try other games, either out of long term or temporary frustration, the more sales are lost and the greater the chance that the migration will increase. Games and the people that play them are fad chasers and they often go into postive and negative feedback loops. The few people there are to play with the fewer new people will join in. You get the idea.

John Bower

12-13-2014, 05:13 PM

It should only take a few minutes to agree on what is allowed. if it's taking an hour or more that's because you're both too stubborn to give and take a little. :)

Caitsidhe

12-13-2014, 06:47 PM

It should only take a few minutes to agree on what is allowed. if it's taking an hour or more that's because you're both too stubborn to give and take a little. :)

You say that but that simply isn't the case. Consider the following:

1. Both parties must agree upon points, and if either player (or both) doesn't have a list already at that level it must be created on the fly.
2. Both parties must agree to allow or not allow Unbound.
3. Then they have to discuss their armies, i.e. tell each other about their respective forces so one side or the other can say whether they think it is hinky.
4. If one side or the other (or both) have Dataslates, Formations, or Books the other doesn't, it often necessitates explaining the special rules.
5. If either side is fielding a Lord of War (or anything huge) you have to see if either side thinks they can handle it.
6. Then there is the chance one side or the other wants you to cut something or says politely they prefer not to play against Knights or something like that.
7. The game might fall apart on ANY of the things above, or you go into negotiation.
8. If both parties are easy going, they might start changing their lists as a result of requests and that takes TIME.
9. Once all parties are content with the opposing lists you still have to generate all the random, variable stuff.
10. And don't forget there is still deployment and terrain setup.

The problem with your "give and take a little" notion is that it assumes that everyone has the ability to quickly alter their lists and just add something. Remember that games played as "pick up game" at an LGS aren't generally arranged in advance. I agree, it should only take a few minutes if either these two things happen:

1. I don't want to play against that.
2. Sure, I'll play against whatever.

*Unfortunately, #1 means no game.. and #2 is becoming rarer and rarer as the balance fades out existence entirely. I miss the days when I could walk into the LGS and say who wants to play 2500 (or whatever level) and in short order someone would be setting up across from me. That was it.

Power Klawz

12-15-2014, 11:25 AM

Words

Play smaller games then if you're having such an issue, or set it up before hand. Otherwise just play by the rules and take on all comers. I don't see the issue here. If you're so worried about losing that's probably your central issue. Be upfront about your lists and if you or your opponent is bringing something scary then countermeasures should be allotted. Can't take down superheavies without stacking a bit of anti-armour, can't take on flying circus without a bit more anti-air than usual. If you're just playing pick up games then tailoring your list to take on an unbalanced opponent is perfectly reasonable.

The point is that by eliminating options that exist within the context of the written rules you're focusing more on win/loss than having any fun. If you care more about which army of plastic soldiers wins the day than having fun with a fellow human being then you're doing it wrong.

Andrew Thomas

12-15-2014, 11:44 AM

I had an autarch, farseer (and a warlock for a guardian squad), and wanted to use a spiritseer to babysit some wraithblades with Runes of Battle psychic powers.
I can see the argument, and don't disagree.

I don't use the Iyanden supplement - its too cheesey for me.
Your choice.

Over-extending my army? Ok man.
I meant nothing by that, I was just trying to figure out how your psychic phase tanked so bad.

I've never been more frustrated by a game as I am with the psychic phase. Looking at what my farseers used to be, and the pathetic shells they are now makes me a sad wargamer.
Definitely sounds like a run of bad luck, considering how good Eldar's Psychic phase is supposed to be, not to invalidate your frustration. And as the most random part of a randomness-averse edition, it stands to reason that it will be a very short-lived game change.

40kGamer

12-15-2014, 11:47 AM

Play smaller games then if you're having such an issue, or set it up before hand. Otherwise just play by the rules and take on all comers. I don't see the issue here. If you're so worried about losing that's probably your central issue. Be upfront about your lists and if you or your opponent is bringing something scary then countermeasures should be allotted. Can't take down superheavies without stacking a bit of anti-armour, can't take on flying circus without a bit more anti-air than usual. If you're just playing pick up games then tailoring your list to take on an unbalanced opponent is perfectly reasonable.

The point is that by eliminating options that exist within the context of the written rules you're focusing more on win/loss than having any fun. If you care more about which army of plastic soldiers wins the day than having fun with a fellow human being then you're doing it wrong.

I don't know if its cultural, regional or something more but the transition to 6th-7th has depleted the player base for 40k in my area. Local events went from almost full to under 50% capacity and pick up games have became difficult to find.

People in my area are just having a hard time fitting the new 40k game format into the lifestyle here. So the new direction they have taken with the rules has proven to be an obstacle to casual play. Less casual play = less interest and this is leading to people branching out. Even I've moved into other games and I've always been a serious GW fanboy.

Gleipnir

12-15-2014, 12:12 PM

Everything I am seeing here about complaints boils down to people complaining about having to play against "that guy" or who want to be "that guy" themselves and don't appreciate an option they had previously being taken away in the newest edition. Simplest solution to this is not GW doing something about it, its the players themselves, start forming game communities and stop relying on pick-up games against "that guy" or where you are "that guy". Bring a 3rd player, take turns playing where the 3rd player can referee the match, mange random tables, setup terrain, objectives etc.. to speed up play.

Yes the rules could be tighter and better written, yes most of them can be house-ruled for an improvement with very little fuss approached from the standpoint "less is more" in terms of making said changes, ultimately the flexibility is about allowing the hobbyist to use all his toys and the narrative player to form any list he wants to fit said narrative and yes sell more models for GW.

Charon

12-15-2014, 04:33 PM

Yes the rules could be tighter and better written, yes most of them can be house-ruled for an improvement with very little fuss approached from the standpoint "less is more" in terms of making said changes, ultimately the flexibility is about allowing the hobbyist to use all his toys and the narrative player to form any list he wants to fit said narrative and yes sell more models for GW.

You should not HAVE to house rule them to make them WORK.
Its one thing to do thematic, flavorful or personal house rules to change sections your group doesnt like. Its a completely different animal to housrule basic rules because they dont work "as written".
Add in the problems you face when people from different gaming groups meet and play in a bigger club/event.
With DE i can see around 20 issues I have to discuss BEFORE the game because if they happen WHILE playing and we did not discuss it one of us will have to revert whole turns or have a big disadvantage because his ouse rules work different to mine.

Eldar_Atog

12-15-2014, 04:50 PM

I don't know if its cultural, regional or something more but the transition to 6th-7th has depleted the player base for 40k in my area. Local events went from almost full to under 50% capacity and pick up games have became difficult to find.

People in my area are just having a hard time fitting the new 40k game format into the lifestyle here. So the new direction they have taken with the rules has proven to be an obstacle to casual play. Less casual play = less interest and this is leading to people branching out. Even I've moved into other games and I've always been a serious GW fanboy.

That is my experience. A few months before 7th came out, we had a very healthy gaming group. There were issues.. but on the whole, you could always find a game. Now, just a year later, most people don't even bother to bring 40k to the shop. They'll have board games or warmahordes/x wing.

What I wonder about is how much of this was caused by GW's almost complete withdrawl from the community and how much was caused by the free form rules. People need structure and there is almost no structure to 7th. Think about Magic the Gathering for a sec. It is a very structured game. Sure.. it has Type 1(been awhile since I played) but the most popular variants are the restricted variants. I would suggest that the only reason Magic is still popular was the push for Type 2 and the other restricted card bases. Type 1 is a toxic environment for a new player... or someone with limited funds.

I've seen mention on here about just avoiding pickup games and pushing house rules. That is not a solution either. Gaming groups grow from pickup games. It's how you keep your community from stagnating. A group that walls itself off like this will eventually die. Think of it kind of like genetic diversity in nature. Gaming communities need fresh blood or they will die.

Power Klawz

12-15-2014, 06:07 PM

I am also at a loss as to where all these playability issues arise from. The game is mechanically functional, "sound" might be taking things too far however. Balanced is right out the window, of course.

But the game is playable, even the silliest and ostensibly most confusing of rules are simple to figure out when viewed with an eye towards the obvious intent. Yes, certain exotic rule interactions can get hairy but the ol' d6 off can be employed to speed things along. The mechanics, while by no stretch of the imagination being "good" are also not inherently broken, what is broken is the player base's interpretations of them. Never has GW ever had complex, litigious errata and never shall it. As someone who played a fair amount of MtG back in the day (and occassionally still dabbles) the distinction between a complex, mechanically absolute system like Magic and an open ended, subjective game like the various Warhammers is obvious. There is no absolute resolution system, no action stack with particular resolution paths and mechanisms, no real categorization of actions beyond the most basic. Armies run at each other, things blow up and sometimes people get stabbed.

The flaw, then, if one claims unplayability is not with the system but with the inappropriate burdens placed upon it by misdirected players. The game at its heart is rolling a bunch of six-sided dice and consulting tables. It does venture into slightly more complicated territory from time to time but nothing so complicated that it would promulgate a system crashing bug, unless the players want it to.

A prime example: in the current Ork codex deff are able to take a bomb type weapon, however bomb weapons are specifically described in the main rulebook as being employable only by flyers, so what to do?

If this were an absolute system then the very existence of the option would be nonsensical. It is cearly stated that bombs are used by flyers and deff koptas are not flyers, therefore they cannot use them despite being able to purchase them. However, given the absurdity of that outcome we can easily come to a basic conclusion on how they are to be employed. (namely, in an identical fashion to the way flyers would employ them, with the only difference being the reduced movement range of the kopta.) To argue against this point is to fly in the face of both common reason and sportsmanship, despite being logically consistent with the rules as written. And therein lies the crux of the issue, not that the system is broken on its face, but that it is easily broken by those with an agenda to do so.

So the question, then, becomes a philosophical one. Does the system need to be robust enough to not only provide an entertaining experience for those who would employ it responsibly, but also to provide the resilience necessary to resist the efforts of those who actively seek to undermine it?

spaceman91

12-15-2014, 07:12 PM

Charistoph

12-15-2014, 10:34 PM

People keep talking about problems with the rules, can I get a quick ( read as light reading ) summary of what people consider the main problems?

I won't get in to codex issues like the Deffkopta bomb, partly because codex beats rulebook, but more due to this being about the Edition of the rules, not necessarily about the armies.

Example 1:
Shooting at multiple targets
Choose a Target: "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at."

Super-Heavy Vehicles > Shooting: "When a Super-heavy vehicle makes a shooting attack, it is always treated as if it had remained stationary in the Movement phase (even if it actually moved), and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired." (no process mentioned to determine timing of targets)

Special Rules > Power of the Machine Spirit: "In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for shooting.[/i]" (no process mentioned to determine timing of targets)

So two rules that allow units to shoot at more than one target, but no process on how this is to be done. Why is this important? Two reasons: 1) It opens the door to shooting a unit that was Embarked when the unit's shooting phase began; or 2) One can possibly shoot a unit that was hidden by another target when the shooting began. This assumes that the targets can be chosen one at a time instead of declared all at once.

DarkLink

12-15-2014, 11:13 PM

People keep talking about problems with the rules, can I get a quick ( read as light reading ) summary of what people consider the main problems?

I only have one real compliant and thats maelstrom. The cards hate me, no matter where I am on the board or where Im heading the cards will always come up "wrong". I hate it and it drives me nuts!

If you play by RAW, a Seer Council with attached Farseers is a single ML3 psyker that generates a total of 3 warp charges and knows ~16 psychic powers. Each member can cast all 16 powers, any Perils may be allocated to any member of the unit and not necessarily the one casting the power, and if an IC joins the unit it learns every single psychic power the entire unit knows and arguably keeps it for the rest of the game.

Now, that's the rules-lawyer-y interpretation of the rules, but they're also the most literal reading of the psyker rules. Common sense means everyone plays them in a much more reasonable manner, but by pure unadulterated RAW the psychic phase is a complete mess.

Charistoph

12-16-2014, 09:37 AM

Another interesting twist is that Infiltrators cannot be deployed until everyone NOT an Infiltrator is deployed. Units in Reserve are not deployed, so Infiltrators technically have to wait until every Reserve unit arrives before they can be put on the board.

Why is this? Because they took out a couple key parts of the whole book, like the pre-game set up order.

Path Walker

12-16-2014, 10:07 AM

If you play by RAW, a Seer Council with attached Farseers is a single ML3 psyker that generates a total of 3 warp charges and knows ~16 psychic powers. Each member can cast all 16 powers, any Perils may be allocated to any member of the unit and not necessarily the one casting the power, and if an IC joins the unit it learns every single psychic power the entire unit knows and arguably keeps it for the rest of the game.

Now, that's the rules-lawyer-y interpretation of the rules, but they're also the most literal reading of the psyker rules. Common sense means everyone plays them in a much more reasonable manner, but by pure unadulterated RAW the psychic phase is a complete mess.

Good job pure unadulterated RAW is never used by any but the most spergy of sperg lords.

Patrick Boyle

12-16-2014, 12:08 PM

5/ And last but not least, pretty much all our codexes are coming up to 7th ed standard; the only OP dexes really were written for 6th ed. From what I've seen of things all the latest ones are pretty even in power. they all got nerfs and a couple of units buffed. The Tyranids got a lot of love just lately and as a nid player I am happy for them.

Be careful you don't speak too soon. People were saying the exact same things about 6th edition after Chaos and Dark Angels, until Tau and Eldaar dropped.

Eldar_Atog

12-16-2014, 12:38 PM

Good job pure unadulterated RAW is never used by any but the most spergy of sperg lords.

And it only takes one such encounter to drive away a new player. One of these type players can destroy a gaming community in a matter of months.

And before you start talking about banning them.. It's been my experience that these such players usually buy a lot of merchandise at gaming stores. A store owner ends up having to choose between a toxic player that is a big spender or keeping the store environment healthy. I've seen several owners make the wrong choice and then find in a few months time that most of their loyal customers are gone and they are sitting on a mountain of product that they can't sell.

DarkLink

12-16-2014, 02:46 PM

Good job pure unadulterated RAW is never used by any but the most spergy of sperg lords.

Do you ever bother to read the context of people's comments?

John Bower

12-16-2014, 03:07 PM

Be careful you don't speak too soon. People were saying the exact same things about 6th edition after Chaos and Dark Angels, until Tau and Eldaar dropped.

Eldar would've been fine but for Wave Serpents really. When their new dex finally drops probably some time next year (I hope anyway) they should get a few nerfs to bring them into line. With a bit of luck so will the Space Marines and Tau as well as the Necrons (who really need Mindshackle Scarabs nerfing).

daboarder

12-16-2014, 03:27 PM

Good job pure unadulterated RAW is never used by any but the most spergy of sperg lords.

keep smoking buddy

Mr Mystery

12-16-2014, 03:33 PM

Rules Lawyers will always find a way. Always.

Sure as poop smells of poop.

If they can't find a loophole, they'll find something else.

Charon

12-16-2014, 03:44 PM

Rules Lawyers will always find a way. Always.

Sure as poop smells of poop.

If they can't find a loophole, they'll find something else.

This is not about loopholes that require some rule bending. Thats about holes in the basic rules so big that a Craftworld could fit through.
Nearly the entire cover and terrain section was a copy&paste job from 6th while they changed how terrain works in general in 7th.

Ruins are a good example of this.

daboarder

12-16-2014, 03:45 PM

Be careful you don't speak too soon. People were saying the exact same things about 6th edition after Chaos and Dark Angels, until Tau and Eldaar dropped.

people never remember this man, they NEVER acknowledge that they've used that rhetoric before and been wrong

Eldar_Atog

12-16-2014, 06:41 PM

Rules Lawyers will always find a way. Always.

Sure as poop smells of poop.

If they can't find a loophole, they'll find something else.

True. Dealing with rules lawyering is just part of the game. Much like going to the zoo and having the chimps throw poop at you. It's just going to happen.

With that said... GW is not helping the situation with the anything goes approach to rules. I would compare that to collecting your poop all week, giving it to the chimps, and letting them throw all the poop at you. Giving rules lawyers more poop to work with is just silly.

John Bower

12-17-2014, 06:53 AM

This is not about loopholes that require some rule bending. Thats about holes in the basic rules so big that a Craftworld could fit through.
Nearly the entire cover and terrain section was a copy&paste job from 6th while they changed how terrain works in general in 7th.

Ruins are a good example of this.

I actually think that if you hit ruins with a blast weapon or flamethrower it makes more sense to have anyone under the template hit. Just now you get a straight 4+ cover for anyone hit. Ofc flamers ignore that but hey, that is what they were designed for no? Think on it this way, I can spray a flamer across floors, making sure I hit the whole building (ruin) and a blast will send shards flying at phenominal (read fatally wounding) speeds between the floors.

As to most other cover; well that's sort of covered in the various dataslates for different buildings/woods/craters etc. I think they just expect you to know (read discuss) what is the nearest to the cover when it isn't explained.

What I think they tried to do was make it a little more streamlined than 6th. But what they did instead was leave rather large gaps that require a lot of dare I say 'common sense' to overcome. I don't mean that in an insulting way; we all get it wrong after all from time to time, but you do have to 'think outside the box' a bit.

I'll be honest there's very few rules I've got any real issues with; buildings should only be damaged with pens not glances is one, and challenges in a war with artillery and huge weapons whose very speed of travel can knock a flying machine down is just plain daft. I know it's narrative; but at the total expense of what would really happen. I mean would you (assuming you were a sergeant) accept a challenge from some guy knowing he's going to kill you before you even get a chance to hit him? And really are your mates going to say 'You rotten coward!' for not doing so? I think not. I think they would rather their sarge sneaks in unobserved (like a certain hobbit with a certain ring) and sticks the knife between his shoulder blades from behind.

And if you think about it; how much close combat goes on in a modern war? I can see it from a boarding perspective, but even then look to the original Star Wars opening scenes to see that even there no close combat occurred, it was running gun battles in the corridors. I do think there's still a little too much of Warhammer in 40k; Close combat is for trenches at best; and we don't really see much of those except in Apocalypse or narrative planetstrike scenarios.

Charistoph

12-17-2014, 10:31 AM

And if you think about it; how much close combat goes on in a modern war? I can see it from a boarding perspective, but even then look to the original Star Wars opening scenes to see that even there no close combat occurred, it was running gun battles in the corridors. I do think there's still a little too much of Warhammer in 40k; Close combat is for trenches at best; and we don't really see much of those except in Apocalypse or narrative planetstrike scenarios.

You probably feel that way about the Dune series, too. Keep in mind that available weapons and defenses determine what makes an effective combat style.

If everyone carries AP: 2 guns, then close combat would be a joke. But if the average gun can be blocked by your armor, and you can do more damage up close, they by golly, you run up and punch the other guy.

Close Combat was actually far more useful when all Power Weapons ignored armor, and pistols gave extra attacks to even Power Fists, and let's not forget being able to Consolidate in to Combat, and Shooting Weapons weren't as effective.

But now, it's all about that Cover, because Shooting has caught up to where our "Modern" standards lie. Rapid Fire has no faults (aside from no Charge). Salvo Weapons have been introduced making some older Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons even nastier. Availability of good AP guns (or have a shot at it) have become more prevalent.

World Of Pain

12-17-2014, 11:49 AM

I actually think that if you hit ruins with a blast weapon or flamethrower it makes more sense to have anyone under the template hit. Just now you get a straight 4+ cover for anyone hit. Ofc flamers ignore that but hey, that is what they were designed for no? Think on it this way, I can spray a flamer across floors, making sure I hit the whole building (ruin) and a blast will send shards flying at phenominal (read fatally wounding) speeds between the floors.

Hi John! Im just interested that how do you measure who is under the template? Do you still keep the small end of the template in contact with the fireing model (RAW) or do you have a house rule to lift it up on top of it? Do you still require LOS with that template to cause wounds? In most of the ruined buildings its really dificult to use flamers against models on the higher floors if you require LOS.

If you dont force players to keep that short end in contact with the user model do you allow jump units and/or skimmers/flyers to fire any floor or can everyone do it? So can regular Space Marine with a flamer fire models on the 5th or 6th floor of the ruins or do you have limitations to this?

Just really interested how you have overcome these problems caused By GW´s awfull rule writing.

John Bower

12-17-2014, 04:12 PM

Hi John! Im just interested that how do you measure who is under the template? Do you still keep the small end of the template in contact with the fireing model (RAW) or do you have a house rule to lift it up on top of it? Do you still require LOS with that template to cause wounds? In most of the ruined buildings its really dificult to use flamers against models on the higher floors if you require LOS.

If you dont force players to keep that short end in contact with the user model do you allow jump units and/or skimmers/flyers to fire any floor or can everyone do it? So can regular Space Marine with a flamer fire models on the 5th or 6th floor of the ruins or do you have limitations to this?

Just really interested how you have overcome these problems caused By GW´s awfull rule writing.

Never had a problem with 5th or 6th floor; nowhere I play goes up that high anyway. And as to it 'touching' the base that's just a pov thing surely. looking from above it has to be 'touching' as it close enough to be touching the base, after that it's any models in the ruins under the template. I tell you what, you stand on the 6th floor of a block of half demolished flats and I'll see if I can burn you to death with a flamethrower... I'd bet I can whether I can see you or not. But in game as long as I can see a model from your squad I can flame them. RAW.

Charon

12-18-2014, 08:31 AM

Thats not even my issue with ruins but another point for the garbage can.

If I stand in the 6th floor of a building and you try to fry me from ground level you will most probably die a very painful death at the hand of your own weapon.
Not to speak of the frag grenade lobbed into the 11th floor killing people in the basement.

People IN ruins receive a 4+ cover save.
There is no more area terrain. So you get a 4+ if you are standing on top of the building unconcealed.
You get a 4+ for standing at the ground level in the open door of the ruined building.
You get a 5+ for standing 2" behind the ruin when your model is concealed by 25% or more.

Makes sense.

Charistoph

12-18-2014, 09:31 AM

Except that whole, "Ignores Cover" thing that Templates get...

Mr Mystery

12-18-2014, 10:17 AM

Can someone give me a page ref?

I want to have a read of it, see if people are claiming the rule is badly written, or just don't like how it is written.

John Bower

12-18-2014, 03:48 PM

Gleipnir

12-18-2014, 05:47 PM

Can someone give me a page ref?

I want to have a read of it, see if people are claiming the rule is badly written, or just don't like how it is written.

pg 37-38 and 108-109

Honestly I don't find the cover rules as written all that big a deal particularly since true line of sight is still a factor, complaining that a unit in the open behind the hard cover of ruins but not actually within the ruins themselves gets one less on their cover save for lack of something else to hide behind seems silly, I personally find the 6+(4+ if you go to ground) cover save of craters to be more objectionable when most other forms of cover gives at least a 5+ including intervening models

Maybe its just me but I find it hard to stomach Gretchin giving you better cover than earth and rock.

Charon

12-19-2014, 01:12 AM

Except then you are 'behind' a wall so get a 4+ as normal. unless there's no wall between you in which case the 5+ is fine.

Nope.
You get the 5+ for being partial obscured.

complaining that a unit in the open behind the hard cover of ruins but not actually within the ruins themselves gets one less on their cover save for lack of something else to hide behind seems silly

As you have not to be obscured in a ruin that point is moot as you can stand completely in the open and still receive the 4+ as long as you are in the ruins (happens for example when the ruin is a building front that is completely open at the back and you outmaneuver the models inside attacking from behind. They still get 4+ for being IN ruins despite being 100% visible and not obsured at all.)

I personally find the 6+(4+ if you go to ground) cover save of craters to be more objectionable when most other forms of cover gives at least a 5+ including intervening models

Even better example of how bad these rules are. You get a 6+ for standing IN the crater but a 5+ for standing behind that terrain as the standard GW crater obscures 50% of most models.

John Bower

12-21-2014, 04:10 PM

Nope.
You get the 5+ for being partial obscured.

I'd suggest you check page 37; diagram on that page shows models 'behind' a ruin (not in it) and getting a 4+ cover save.

Charon

12-22-2014, 03:42 AM

E-book.

I guess you are refering to the diagram with the orks?
If you look closely at the bases you see that the orks who receive a 4+ cover stand indeed on the base of the wall terrain and thus qualify as IN the terrain. If you shove them back 1" or 2" they would only get a 5+ for beeing partial obscured.

John Bower

12-24-2014, 04:55 PM

Charon

12-24-2014, 05:06 PM

John Bower

12-25-2014, 02:32 AM

Whatever? The clearly stand IN the terrain. They would still receive a 4+ cover if the marines would stand on the other side as they are IN the terrain.
No, not all of them are IN it. They do not need to be. Just the closest are enough to give a 4+ on the first few models.
It does not matter how you twist and turn it, Terrain/cover rules are an extremely lazy copy&paste job refering to rules that do no longer exist or have changed significantly.

Everything is 5+... if you are standing IN a crater you are at 6+. If you are 2" behind that crater you get 5+. Well done design team.

No you're the one twisting it; if the first model was the only one 'in' the terrain then by your reckoning he would have to take saves till he died. The rest would only get a 5+. By the Gods man you're not reading the rules are you? I didn't say they aren't broken but find a game that isn't in some way broken.

Popsical

12-26-2014, 03:52 AM

I detested 6th edition for a great many reasons, they didnt seem to bother rectifying any of them in 7th so i wont be playing it .
40k has become a re-active game rather than a pro-active game.
It punishes failure rather than rewards success.
Everything now results in some form of save throw which must be passed by the defending player to survive.
In the past player A would position his tank to gain cover or pop smoke etc, then player B would shoot and roll dice to see what damage he could inflicton it. Thus the shooting players dice rolls pro-actively decided what occurred.
In 6th ed player A then gets a choice of various saves to keep his tank alive, if he fails then it is destroyed or damaged, thus the re-active player decides the result.
Almost everything now hinges on the re-active players rolls, which means its more about player A LOSING the game by FAILING rolls than it is player B winning by succeeding. Yes you can say player B is winning by forcing player A to make more saves, but it still is decided by the re-action not the action.
I prefer my games to be decided by the actions and rolls of the winner not the loser.

Charon

12-26-2014, 04:07 AM

No you're the one twisting it; if the first model was the only one 'in' the terrain then by your reckoning he would have to take saves till he died. The rest would only get a 5+. By the Gods man you're not reading the rules are you? I didn't say they aren't broken but find a game that isn't in some way broken.

Who is twisting the ruoles here? I go for RAW. The Diagram even supports this as the orks bases are clearly IN the ruins terrain base, thus receiving a 4+
ALL THREE red orks are IN the ruins (supported by diagram and text). Dont know what you are trying to twist here?

I mock the fact that if your model is standing ON the wall (without any intervening cover) would still get a 4+ as it is IN the traain while a model behind the wall and 25% obsured but not on the terrain base will only get a 5+

The same is for craters where you can stand in the crater and be 25% obscured and still only get a 6+ while standing way behind the crater (with the crater as intervening terrain obscuring 25%) gets a 5+

Belive me im not the one not reading rules here...

The diagram is actually a perfect example for a disastrous copy and paste job refering to rules that do not exist anymore.

3 Orks (circled in red) have a 4+ cover save as at least one firing model has his line of sight partially obscured by the ruin.

Ruins:

Ruins are difficult terrain. Models in ruins receive a 4+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured.

The diagram refers to 6th edition rules which no longer exist in 7th.

John Bower

12-26-2014, 07:35 AM

Who is twisting the ruoles here? I go for RAW. The Diagram even supports this as the orks bases are clearly IN the ruins terrain base, thus receiving a 4+
ALL THREE red orks are IN the ruins (supported by diagram and text). Dont know what you are trying to twist here?

I mock the fact that if your model is standing ON the wall (without any intervening cover) would still get a 4+ as it is IN the traain while a model behind the wall and 25% obsured but not on the terrain base will only get a 5+

The same is for craters where you can stand in the crater and be 25% obscured and still only get a 6+ while standing way behind the crater (with the crater as intervening terrain obscuring 25%) gets a 5+

Belive me im not the one not reading rules here...

The diagram is actually a perfect example for a disastrous copy and paste job refering to rules that do not exist anymore.

Ruins:

The diagram refers to 6th edition rules which no longer exist in 7th.

You are also not reading all the terrain rules; first off the 5+ rule applies only to 'difficult' terrain; okay that is clearly stated what that is; it also clearly on that same page that tells you about difficult terrain says 'unless otherwise noted'; otherwise noted would include this example as line of sight is blocked by a wall (ruins in this case) which grants 4+. A crater (which has its own dataslate) does not grant you 'any' cover save if you're behind it; it's not 'difficult' terrain; it does give you a 6+ for being 'in' it, and a 4+ if you go to ground, which makes sense; you're lying down; it would have to be a bloody deep crater to hide you otherwise. Why does nobody seem to sit down and read the rules thoroughly before criticizing them? If they wrote a 40k page rule book that covered every single nuance of possibility people like you still wouldn't be happy and we'd still have these arguments because you wouldn't have read the rules properly; word for word. I give up, it's like trying teach a baby not to cry. This conversation is over. Go back and READ the Rules; and while there do it again a couple more times.

Charon

12-26-2014, 08:47 AM

Becaue you try to just make things up.
You do not quote a single relevant rule.

first off the 5+ rule applies only to 'difficult' terrain

WRONG.

If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (models not from the firer’s unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain.

Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover.

If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model’s body (see General Principles) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save. Unless specifically stated otherwise, all cover provides a 5+ save. Some types of terrain provide better or worse cover saves; when this is the case the cover save provided will be stated in the rules for the terrain.

So... where do you read the "difficult" in here?

'unless otherwise noted'

Correct. But Ruins do not "note otherwise". A Aegis is an example for Terrain noting otherwise:

A model in cover behind a defence line has a 4+ cover save.

otherwise noted would include this example as line of sight is blocked by a wall (ruins in this case) which grants 4+.
As I pointed out: Not supported by actual 7th edition rules. This would have been correct in 6th but terrain and cover rules have changed in 7th.

A crater (which has its own dataslate) does not grant you 'any' cover save if you're behind it

Wrong. See cover rules above. The standard GW crater terrain obsures 40% - 50% of an Dark Eldar Wych if it is standing BEHIND the crater terrain, therefore receiving a 5+ save according to cover rules.
The same wych however would only ever receive a 6+ cover save if it stands IN the very same crater no matter if it is obscured or not.

it's not 'difficult' terrain

Not relevant as I pointed out with actual rule quotations above.

Why does nobody seem to sit down and read the rules thoroughly before criticizing them?

Oh, I did and I have quotations to back it up.
So why dont you just stop making things up?

Maybe stick to your own advise and:

Go back and READ the Rules; and while there do it again a couple more times.

I guess the reason why some people have no rule issues is just because they do not read them and just make things up.

daboarder

12-26-2014, 03:22 PM

Actually, I'm berating you. Games Workshop has nothing to do with any of this unless you are somehow affiliated with them. I'm pointing out the contradictions in your own arguments. Dazzle us. Show us some evidence, support your arguments with facts rather than just saying the same thing over and over again, punctuated with some personal attacks. We are all ears (or eyes as the internet version would have to be).

You are also not reading all the terrain rules; first off the 5+ rule applies only to 'difficult' terrain; okay that is clearly stated what that is; it also clearly on that same page that tells you about difficult terrain says 'unless otherwise noted'; otherwise noted would include this example as line of sight is blocked by a wall (ruins in this case) which grants 4+. A crater (which has its own dataslate) does not grant you 'any' cover save if you're behind it; it's not 'difficult' terrain; it does give you a 6+ for being 'in' it, and a 4+ if you go to ground, which makes sense; you're lying down; it would have to be a bloody deep crater to hide you otherwise. Why does nobody seem to sit down and read the rules thoroughly before criticizing them? If they wrote a 40k page rule book that covered every single nuance of possibility people like you still wouldn't be happy and we'd still have these arguments because you wouldn't have read the rules properly; word for word. I give up, it's like trying teach a baby not to cry. This conversation is over. Go back and READ the Rules; and while there do it again a couple more times.
If you're going to try insult someone you probably want to make sure you've actually read the material your talking about. Stop being a ****

Leviticus Stroud

12-27-2014, 08:47 AM

I hear a lot of people hating on parts of 7th ed for this reason and that reason; so without further ado, I'd like to say why I think it's a very good improvement over older editions:

I disagree, I think 7th was rush job attempt to fix an appalling 6th edition (which even the CEO disliked) that may have succeeded in a few areas but has made things worse in others.

1/ open toolbox - take a moment if you will to think about many of the things people crave in the 40k universe - the stories of heroism and the 'ordinary dude' being a hero.

Actually we can do this less.
Things like the Challenge system have made it far less likely that during a game a marine sergeant can get in a 'lucky blow' and knock out that chaos lord. As the only person in a tactical squad standing a chance against most tough characters, the instant response of any player is to challenge. In the case of Chaos, they have to! So now, unless there is an IC attached to save him, the character with the one weapon in the squad capable of hurting the Lord is the first to go.
This means less 'ordinary guy' heroism, not more.
At least in 6th, from that perspective, the character who sacrificed himself in a challenge kept the dangerous character at bay for a turn! Taking into account that the 7th Ed challenge system is better than the 6th one, this really does speak volumes about how poor it is overall.

Sure, like Cities of Death it's lost it's character but we can have it, with a lot less paperwork too.

Well I can't disagree on the game losing character.
Not sure on the less paperwork though. The sheer sprawl of data-slates, formations and the like has led to more paperwork in the majority of games I've played and observed. The 'paperwork' might be on iPad now, but it's still paperwork.

2/ Psychic phase - this was something I was dubious about, very much so when I heard about it. But once I'd played I realised that actually, having it all done in one place at one time was awesome, it took away a lot of trying to remember when to cast this or that; or arguments by some WAAC players over whether my psyker could even cast a power.

The phase as such, not too bad. The way it runs is terrible though.
The whole manner of a Perils test that can result in a psyker getting more powerful, whilst simultaneously 3 cheap level 1 psykers give the same advantage in power pool as a level 3 is just silly. What's more is that in terms of the numbers, a handful of disposable cheap psykers will outdo Eldrad 9 times out of 10. This is just silly as it isn't balance in terms of points, nor does it fit background.

3/ Unbound - a lot of people really hate on this; but nobody that I play with has a problem with me going unbound, they know I'm not a jerk power gamer or WAAC (trust me I can lose with either style of list), it's a tool, you just need to agree (like it says in the Rules) what you can and can't have or do. Unbound is a huge boon for Tyranids in particular (fluff R us) but so many armies benefit from it.

Unbound only ever works cos people agree to curb the rule themselves. This, in and of itself, is why it should not be a 'rule'!
We could always do the equivalent of unbound before 7th by simply making an agreement that this was what was going to be done for a game. I know I did, and had even done events that were done in a similar manner (and with more aplomb than 7th's Unbound).
In other words, the agreement between players is now based on the default of "the rules are broken and heavily abusable, but we'll fix it with an agreement to get them to do what we want" rather than "the rules don't allow for this scenario, but we'll agree to do this anyway". This is the wrong way round.

Tyranids only get such great use out of Unbound because GW have yet to put things like the Genestealer Cults back into the game so have no allies (another area of the game that 6th made errors with and 7th made worse).

Unbound should quite simply have been:
"Alternatively, instead of using detachments and formations you can simply use any available units from the same codex to create your army- however you will not get any of the special abilities of the detachments/formations as a result ."

4/ Maelstrom of War missions - We do now have more missions than ever (and it saddens me that people still seem to favour playing the same boring old missions time and again), we have Planetstrike, Cities of Death; an entire book of missions (Altar of War), numerous Apocalypse supplements; we don't need to play the same mission twice in the same year. I count over a hundred missions all told; including the new Cities ones and Apocalypse. Over 100, think on that, how many people even play 100 missions a year?

We had Planetstrike and Cities in 5th, so they can't really be considered an argument for 7th being better than previous editions.
Altar of War is just a collection of missions from the various other books already printed- again many pre-dating 7th. Some of these missions are not based on having a sensible game either, they are based on demonstrating how one particular army's style of fighting would work in background in a manner of annihilating a foe with them having minimal chance- pretty much the same as Battle Missions did. Quite a few are effectively just the same missions updated to take account of things like new USRs and Warlords.
I've played some of these, they can be fun if playing a friend with the understanding that the game is going to be biased. Events organisers tend to steer clear of them for a reason though- they are not much fun when playing someone you have only just met!

As for Maelstrom, this has also been implemented poorly.
The general idea of having an additional set of objectives is fine, but the manner in which they are generated has soooooo many problems...

Best off simply choosing a 'deck' with no two players allowed to have the same deck, unless it is the codex specific one and they are both the same codex. Roll off before deployment for 1st choice if required.
Those 6 cards are then simply played as and when the player wishes. All the rest of the Maelstrom rules are best simply being dumped, they aren't balanced enough as they were not properly play tested.

5/ And last but not least, pretty much all our codexes are coming up to 7th ed standard; the only OP dexes really were written for 6th ed. From what I've seen of things all the latest ones are pretty even in power. they all got nerfs and a couple of units buffed. The Tyranids got a lot of love just lately and as a nid player I am happy for them.

The Nids got 'a lot of love' after the dex was printed, despite the fact that the amount of time it takes to produce the kits that followed means they must have been ready/ close to ready waaaay before the printers started rolling. They would have been in the codex if GW weren't in such a headlong rush to get things out to a particular schedule rather than when things are actually ready- which is pretty much the reason for the problems with both 6th and 7th overall.

The 'OP' dexes were written for 5th, even though they were been released after 6th dropped.
Take a look a Eldar for instance, and think about how well pretty much everything in it would have worked under 5th edition, but how clunky (or even unusable) so many units are under 6th. You should be able to see pretty quickly that this was written at least a year before it was published, with just some alterations to try and make it fit clearly being written in as an after thought.

The majority of the 6/7 codexes are bland exercises in homogeneity which seem to have had as much flavour and theme deliberately expunged from the lists in a failed attempt to 'balance' them.
Dark Angels are a perfect example here. They have the rule Bane of Traitors on loads of weapons, yet not on things like Traitor's Bane! Meanwhile the Sword of Silence gets a lovely description of what it is like in battle, then rules that in no way shape or form match up to it. Meanwhile game balance has been attempted by giving them some interesting units that will almost never be worth taking cos they are too weak/ too costly/ both- such as the bigger badder Land Speeders which still only have 2 hull points and AV10, but cost up to 3 times as much as a normal LS.

The one 'inspired' codex was Marines. Imagine what the other dexes would have been like if done the same way?
Nids with army wide bonuses based on which Hive Fleet. Dark Eldar based on which Cabal, Guard based on regiment, Orks based on Clan etc etc
But no, let's not have something cool that fits background and encourages people to take up a new army if instead we can spend less effort on the same old tat being cut and pasted into a more expensive book that we can sell supplements for to the ever reducing number of customers we are retaining...