What 7th ed. has done to the game...

[Shaezus]

...is kill it completely. At least at my club it has. Where every week we would have 8-10 tables of 40k, now there is only one or two. Everyone else has taken up bolt action, mainly because it is all about tactics and there are no shenanigans or broken rules or units.

 

So GW's acting CEO resigns with the parting spiel of "It's been a very good year for GW"....which rightly acknowledges (pfffftt) the fact that this year's profits are only 42% of what last year's were. Not to mention encouraging the GW strategy of killing off small stores and making many others one-man shows.

 

So their response was to bring in 7th ed and...er....hang on...

 

All it means for me personally is that it's going to be hard to get practice in and build up to the tourny scene next year. But what does it mean for the game in the long-term? Has anyone else found things have suddenly died away since 7th ed came out?

[JamesI]

I haven't noticed a big change in 7th edition as to the number of players.  Some have quit and moved on, but others have started the game. 

 

The biggest change to me was the 4th to 5th where half the local players disappeared.  Players leaving the game happen every edition change.

[knife&fork]

7th has in our club rekindled the interest in 40k (with the advent of maelstrom missions) . We've also seen more newbies and returning players compared to recent years. Might or might not be related to a new edition though.

 

Something that definitely has changed recently is that the Tyranid, CSM, DA and Eldar players have all but stopped playing regular games. The first three because their books are... not good. Losing almost every game isn't fun for long.

As for the eldar player(s) the problem is the opposite, winning all the time (unless you really go for a wacky list) isn't fun for them and certainly not for the people they face.

 

All of the above have pretty much iced their current armies and projects, some of them instead focus on other armies, others on WM or other skirmish games.

 

 

What your post highlights is something you don't get from looking at pure numbers, the critical mass needed to sustain and drive a local group of gamers. Or how some key individuals can make or break interest in a gaming group.

WH is a physical game after all. Unlike an online PC/console game having loads of players spread out does nothing for the person who wants a PUG or someone to share his hobby with.

[Gaweda]

...is kill it completely. At least at my club it has. Where every week we would have 8-10 tables of 40k, now there is only one or two. Everyone else has taken up bolt action, mainly because it is all about tactics and there are no shenanigans or broken rules or units.

 

So GW's acting CEO resigns with the parting spiel of "It's been a very good year for GW"....which rightly acknowledges (pfffftt) the fact that this year's profits are only 42% of what last year's were. Not to mention encouraging the GW strategy of killing off small stores and making many others one-man shows.

 

So their response was to bring in 7th ed and...er....hang on...

 

All it means for me personally is that it's going to be hard to get practice in and build up to the tourny scene next year. But what does it mean for the game in the long-term? Has anyone else found things have suddenly died away since 7th ed came out?

 

Your post makes me sad, though interestingly 7th ed. has had the opposite effect in my LGS, even without any maelstrom missions being played. I think pretty much anyone involved in 40k disagrees with Games Workshop's business model, and I have no doubt that my local circumstance is more exception than rule. Things must change at the top if there is to be any long term sustainability, although the cynical side of me wonders if they haven't already thrown in the towel due to the rapidly approaching days of 3D printing and are just milking as much as they can from it until the inevitable.

[knife&fork]

 Things must change at the top if there is to be any long term sustainability, although the cynical side of me wonders if they haven't already thrown in the towel due to the rapidly approaching days of 3D printing and are just milking as much as they can from it until the inevitable.

 

 

I highly doubt this. The people in charge are very likely not tech-savvy enough to 'get' 3d printing, or the the widespread consequences it will have as the technology matures and becomes widely available. 

 

Try to talk 3d-printing with people involved in manufacturing or retail and you'll usually get one of the following replies;

 

1. "Hm, that sounds useful for making prototypes and casts."

 

2. "3d printing is useless, the profit margins are nowhere near what we get from our traditional product line"

 

Number 1 is totally valid and many companies already do this.

Number 2 however is where they go wrong, because they forget the consumer perspective. As a consumer I don't really care about the manufacturers/sellers profit margin, the quality and end price matters. While 3d prints can't compete against the kind of profits the producer will get from mass produced plastic injection, if the print on demand product is of the same quality and costs me the same I'll choose the the one that's most convenient for me. 

 

Most big businesses are likely going to ignore 3d printing for quite some time unless increased raw materials and/or transport costs starts to dig in on the margins that a traditional manufacturing line has.

[Gaweda]

If that's true, it makes it even worse. I wouldn't personally print myself illegal copies (in say, 20 - 30 years time when it's normal and affordable for the average joe to have a 3d printer) but I know at least 3 people who I've tried to recruit into playing who are simply waiting for the day when they can. I've seen posts on reddit by people who already are actively printing their own models. If GW don't understand those omens, it blows my mind. Surely someone involved with their manufacturing side has thought about this.

[knife&fork]

If that's true, it makes it even worse. I wouldn't personally print myself illegal copies (in say, 20 - 30 years time when it's normal and affordable for the average joe to have a 3d printer) but I know at least 3 people who I've tried to recruit into playing who are simply waiting for the day when they can. I've seen posts on reddit by people who already are actively printing their own models. If GW don't understand those omens, it blows my mind. Surely someone involved with their manufacturing side has thought about this.

 

While 3-d printing to replace normal production in general is indeed very far off, 3d prints comparable in costs and quality to a GW or FW kit are already here.

You don't need a 3d-printer in every home for it to have an impact.

 

I'm sure that some people at GW have thought about this. If it's someone who's voice will be heard is a different matter. 

[Helias_Tancred]

From my limited experience hearing the complaints of customers and the facts of the business model, it appears Games Workshop suffers from the same fate as many western businesses, a strong focus on short term greed at the expense of long-term gain/health/sustainability.

[Shaezus]

It's long-term greed too -look at the court cases they have been in, how they have walked into the saloon and announced they are the top dog in town, and don't forget it. How they threw everything at Chapter House when they really did not have to.

 

Hey-ho, maybe things will change in our time.

[Dolchiate Remembrancer]

I agree with an earlier poster that the "death" happened from 4th to 5th. However I will say this, everytime my LGS has a sale, there are ten or twenty 40k hobbyists that come out of the wood-work to buy models, they just don't get together at the LGS to play games anymore.

[Red-beard]

In my area, I've noticed no significant change in the player base from 6th to 7th.

Personally, I am really enjoying 7E. I thought I'd hate them, but in fact I am really enjoying the tactical objective cards. I'm also enjoying the new psychic phase and the different detachment options. I also enjoy super-heavies being in the game (not new to 7E, but becoming more prevalent all the time).

I see a lot of 40k negativity in forums and hear it in podcasts, but I just don't feel it myself.

[ElectricPaladin]

There hasn't been a lot of change to the 40k community in my area... but the wargaming community in general has transformed dramatically. 40k used to be the king of the hill. Everyone had a 40k army, and some folks had nothing but 40k armies. These days, Dropzone Commander and Flames of War are growing rapidly - I just got back from a Dropzone Commander narrative campaign day, and almost all of my fellow players are also the folks I see playing 40k. Only a couple of them have actually given up their 40k armies.

 

In my mind, this is basically all to the good. A diverse community is more fun to play in and more likely to survive - as a community - a bad edition of a popular game or the death of an important company. But yeah, it's obvious that GW had a good thing going and threw it away.

 

That said, I don't think it's got to do with 7th Edition's rules set in particular. Nobody talks about the rules as being particularly bad. Most folks who have given up on or drifted partly away from 40k tend to talk about the slow release schedule, the long neglect of armies, and the rising cost. The rules being a bit iffy in places is usually referenced as a secondary reason. In fact, several players have said something along the lines of "if the rules were available for free I wouldn't care that they aren't that great; I resent paying so much for a half-assed game" not "it's so bad it's unplayable why would anyone expect me to use this for fun aaaargh!"

 

I think that the badness of 7th edition is largely overstated. It's a big departure, and that's both good and bad. It's sloppy, but not really any sloppier than 6th or 5th. I think that the processs of people being driven away is a lengthy one.

[SamaNagol]

7th is a much improved rule set. The hobby however is difficult for many to get into these days due to the release schedule going from lethargic to impossible to keep up with. Lack of direction in terms of pick up games or competitive play. Its difficult to turn up at your local and just start playing, The 'social contract' is far more complicated.

[sockwithaticket]

7th cemented a lot of the changes 6th introduced, changes I didn't like and thus killed my desire to get back involved with the playing side of things.

[Morticon]

7th cemented a lot of the changes 6th introduced, changes I didn't like and thus killed my desire to get back involved with the playing side of things.

 

Out of curiosity, which changes were those? 

[sockwithaticket]

Overwatch, random charge length and super heavies/Lords of War in normal games are the big 3 that just make me go ugh and not want to get involved. I was hoping they'd be amended for

FOC shenanigans that I still don't fully understand don't help. Multiple detachments from the same codex still being battle-forged is some way away from the FOC I got to know in 3rd and 4th.

I've not gamed since I took the hobby back up about 3 years ago to be fair and maybe I'm just not well versed enough in the rules mechanics to make an informed decision, I fully accept that, but headline things like the above and what I've read about on  various threads make me feel like I'll be happier keeping my hobby efforts to modelling and painting.

[Shaezus]

It really was more of a 6th ed update and I think that's what put a lot of people off, they'd forked out for new codice, new models and now this, but what were they getting for their money?

 

Some strange changes too, but I've enjoyed the 9 or 10 games of 7th I've played and the maelstrom missions are good. Warlord traits were tweaked so there's more variety for different builds. The psyhic phase is just more time-consuming and for all their efforts to diversify the game, they made some things stupidly overpowered too.

[Gaweda]

It's interesting to me that people look back on 4th fondly. I left the game during 4th when every single game I played The Nightbringer single handedly annihilated my entire army. While things like overwatch has given shooty armies an advantage, I have thoroughly enjoyed tweaking offensive charging armies to make them work.

[SamaNagol]

Overwatch isnt good though lol Apart from if you play 48 Tau Fire Warriors. And they need all the help they can get.

[knife&fork]

It's interesting to me that people look back on 4th fondly.  

 

4th was the worst edition for anyone not good in assault.

[Ushtarador]

Actually, 7th edition is a good chance from 5th and a huge improvement over 6th (well, basically it's what 6th ought to have been).

Our tournaments usually keep a quite conservative AOP - one allied detachement, non-superheavy codex lords of war, maybe the standard three fortifications, and that's about it. i enjoy it very much, and the psychic phase is a big improvement over last edition, it is a lot harder to spam those spells now.

I also like the direction that GW has taken with the new codices, they managed to brake the power spiral in a pretty good way. Also, thanks to allies there are so many interesting strong builds, eldar are by no means unbeatable. And hell, if your eldar players are getting bored they should maybe stop spamming serpents and try some of the other 20 units in the book.

 

tldr this edition is a lot of fun and has been good for tournament play. If you are sensible and ban all the weird attachments/dataslates/formations/superheavies you will see that the game is quite good now.

[Firepower]

 

It's interesting to me that people look back on 4th fondly.  

 

4th was the worst edition for anyone not good in assault.

 

 

It was a great time to be a Templar.  Back then, Righteous Zeal was amazing! :lol:

[ElectricPaladin]

I have to admit that I, too, like 7th more than 6th. There are a couple of silly things that basically everyone ignores - like removing area terrain, but then including it again as GW-kits-only, which is total nonsense - but the ideas are sound. The psychic phase adds a lot more fun to playing with a lot of psykers, super-heavies are pretty fun and seem to be balanced, points-wise. That said, I play 40k as a beer-and-pretzels game and couldn't care less about the lamentations of the tournament players.

 

If anything, I think the real problem is in the codices. 7th Edition is fine - the problem is that my Blood Angels haven't seen a codex update since 5th edition and my Sisters of Battle have a codex and a model line that are, frankly, embarrassing. At the same time you've got super friends and Eldar lists with rerollable 2+ saves and insanely high Strength, low AP guns that ignore cover and have nigh infinite range. The problem isn't in the basic rules, it's in the permutations GW chose to add to the basic rules.

[shandwen]

The ruleset change did catch many people surprised, and any change in rules leave people mad that their old way isnt the new way, but the ruleset is better than it was, and I have not noticed any change in players in my locality, but I have noticed a huge increase in whfb with the whole endtimes (karl franz accendant ftw).

[Morticon]

Overwatch, random charge length and super heavies/Lords of War in normal games are the big 3 that just make me go ugh and not want to get involved. I was hoping they'd be amended for

 

FOC shenanigans that I still don't fully understand don't help. Multiple detachments from the same codex still being battle-forged is some way away from the FOC I got to know in 3rd and 4th.

 

I've not gamed since I took the hobby back up about 3 years ago to be fair and maybe I'm just not well versed enough in the rules mechanics to make an informed decision, I fully accept that, but headline things like the above and what I've read about on  various threads make me feel like I'll be happier keeping my hobby efforts to modelling and painting.

 

Dude....PLEAAAASE try and have a few games of 7th, you may really, really be surprised. 

 

At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to "convert" you, I'd really love to offer some thoughts on the issues you mentioned....

 

Overwatch.

 

Unless you're fighting Tau and they've castled, this isn't really bad at all.  The amount of guys I lose to OW in a game are about the same as the amount I lose to dangerous terrain - maybe 1 - 2 tops.  Unless your enemy is loaded up on flamer weapons, it's not really a thing at all - also, it benefits both sides!

 

Random Charge.

 

I get this to a degree.   A Looooot of people didn't like this.   For me, it was about hedging your bets and playing accordingly.  I found that most people that didn't like the mechanism from the outset were often those that were trying to make 8/9" + charges.  Your average roll is 7".  Which means the old 6" charge has a +- 73% chance of happening. That goes to 84% at 5".  Yes, you will have failed charges at short distances.  Failed 4/5" charges happen - but the frequency with which they happen is really, really low.   Where the benefit is, is when you're making longer charges.  While I wouldn't play that way, the ability to actually engage up to 18" away as a regular trooper changes the game dynamically.  Movement becomes really important, and the static gunline mentality of 6th, that is still supported in 7th is shaken up a little.  In short, if you play it safe, you should be fine.  Additionally, like overwatch, it works two ways- so the enemy has the same drawback.

 

LOW

 

Lords of War and super heavies are great, but only game/tourney winning if they are not factored for.  If you play in an environment where LOW are allowed and you dont theme or mod your army accordingly, then I dont believe thats a problem with the LOW.  What most people either forget, or aren't aware of is that if the enemy plays a LOW then we're allowed certain benefits.  1. We get +1 to steal the initiative. 2. We get to roll on the LOW warlord table (a really good one!). 3. We get +1 VP for every 3HP or 3W we take off.  4.  The high points costs of LOWs mean that they are generally very weak at Maelstrom missions.   5.  Most non-tank LoW can be locked in combat and the threat almost entirely removed as a result.

 

Where I think GW have slipped up is with the Knights which have Super Heavy status, but not LOW status. That I feel is a little beardy.

 

 

FOC

 

The FOC now offers incredible, incredible variety with which to play the game. It takes a little getting used to if you have the old FOC in your head.  And the idea of detachments seems a little foreign.  At the end of the day, there's not a lot of difference beyond the fact you have more versatility to include more groups and units into your army. While it may appear clunky at first, it really isn't bad!

 

 

I do realise a few of these things are very much a matter of the old Latin saying "de gustibus non disputandum est" (matters of taste cannot be argued), but I do urge you to try have a  game or three with some good mates (try play maelstrom missions, too!) and see how you find it.  

 

You really, really may be pleasantly surprised. 

 

I'm having more fun with 40k now than i've ever had in 17 years. 

 

 

 

EDIT:  Well frik me O_o  Looks like the latest FAQ removed all the bonuses we get for playing against LOW.  I have NO idea why they've done that, it was one of the the few balancing factors playing them.  More in your camp regarding that matter than not, now - to be honest!