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

[Remtek]

7th has generally been posetive for our group. We generally don't play Maelstorm though. Been testing the BAO mission packet recently, and really enjoy the modified Maelstorm. 

Example of a mission:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByVzaY23LOX-aGVDYmszR2E2MU0/edit

[Jolemai]

 

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.

 

 

 

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! 

 

 

Which FAQ are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, those bonuses only applied if you were playing a mission from the Escalation book. Regular 40k/Apocalypse never had them.

[Jolemai]

...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?

Let me tell you a story...

I got into 40k during the second edition with all my school friends. Then, after maybe two years or so the third edition came out and they all dropped it due to a) some ridiculous stigma about playing GW at that age and b) the change in the rules. Despite it eventually proving to be for the better, it became bland with overpowering combos vanishing and FoCs restricting a lot of other nastiness.

For example, a Warlock was restricted to a unit and not some STR 8 beatstick that charged off on his own and ate Tactical Squads. Characters were now WS 5 rather than 8, toughness 4, etc. Terminator Armour went from 3+ on 2D6 to 2+, hardly any psychic powers, Assassins were WS 5, BS 5, Vindicare had no special ammo (but was 50 points!), a Callidus had a Power Sword, and so on.

However, there's always someone that still plays it and the group will just get bigger and bigger from there. It's the same in MMORPGs too. A new expansion or even a large patch and people rage quit over character streamlining, etc, or the "I spend a whole expansion getting all this gear and now it's useless and I've got to do it all again", etc. The point is, just keep at it where you are or even look elsewhere for your 40k fix. Personally, I wouldn't be too worried about it but then I may be bias as I'm not in your situation.

If you want practice, there's also vassal ;)

(Could have sworn I had something else to add but it's slipped my mind )

[knife&fork]

 

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.  

 

But they didn't do anything to fix what broke the game in the first place. If they had wanted to do that then a new Eldar codex (or at least an errata to nerf the worst offenders) should have been top priority. You know like Forge World do on a frequent basis. 

 

That you balance every other army against each other doesn't make it any more fun to play against things like current Eldar or Chaos Daemons in 7th ed WHFB. 

[Morticon]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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! 

 

 

Which FAQ are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, those bonuses only applied if you were playing a mission from the Escalation book. Regular 40k/Apocalypse never had them.

 

 

The most recent update - 22 Oct.

 

This was from Escalation book: 

 

"If one or more players choose to include a Lords of War unit in their army, the additional mission special rule and secondary objective described below automatically apply in any mission that you play."

 

and

 

"Furthermore, if your opponent has a Lords of War unit as part of their army, your Warlord can choose to roll on the Escalation Warlord Traits table shown below instead of one of the Warlord Traits tables normally available to your Warlord."

 

All of those rules have now been removed and replaced with the wording that states you can only use these bonuses in Escalation games :/  

[Jolemai]

I suppose it was open to interpretation but seeing how they didn't carry over into the 7th edition rules I'm not surprised.

[Morticon]

Not so sure how it was open :P  But, all moot now! 

 

I'll defs still be using it for the tournies I run.  I think they were very smart, very sound balancers for super heavy LoW. 

[Firepower]

One thing I feel 7th has done to the game is make it harder to approach.  I used to have a pretty solid understanding of what I needed, and even when Flyers came on to the scene, it was a fairly easy thing to adapt to.  Now, there are super heavies, unbound armies, allies, Lords of War, formations...I really have no idea what is going on.  I just paint, but the only reason I don't see the tabletop much is because I don't like to play with unpainted models, and I paint slow enough that I generally can't keep up with rule changes.  Still, I choose my models based on an ultimate goal of a specific army list, but now (as a gaming novice) I don't have the foggiest idea how to build one that can tackle all of these new shenanigans, which used to be supplementary as opposed to core rules.  

 

It may not be so disorienting for some folks, but for me, it's a confusing mess.

[Morticon]

Firepower- i think its gotten to the stage where you simply CANNOT factor in for everything- especially at 1500 level.  It really becomes about a game of how youd like to play in terms of pick-ups, and in terms of tournies a completely different story.  Anything can  go any which way!

[Firepower]

Firepower- i think its gotten to the stage where you simply CANNOT factor in for everything- especially at 1500 level. It really becomes about a game of how youd like to play in terms of pick-ups, and in terms of tournies a completely different story. Anything can go any which way!

True enough, I think. I'd just hate to finish my army, go to a pug, and find out all of my foot slogging Templars are going to be impotently biting at the ankles of a bunch of Imperial Knights. Likewise, I'd hate to have to sacrifice that sort of identity to my army just to add models that can compete with these things, which of course would eventually be replaced by some new, even more ridiculous models and rules.

[Gaweda]

My imperial knight which I've only played in one game so far went down in flames beginning of the second turn. They aren't that bad it seems like. This was a 1500 point game against necron.

[Ushtarador]

 

 

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.  

 

But they didn't do anything to fix what broke the game in the first place. If they had wanted to do that then a new Eldar codex (or at least an errata to nerf the worst offenders) should have been top priority. You know like Forge World do on a frequent basis. 

 

That you balance every other army against each other doesn't make it any more fun to play against things like current Eldar or Chaos Daemons in 7th ed WHFB. 

 

 

 

There are only few things that make the Eldar codex overpowered. Actually, it's probably only the Serpent.. but we all know that GW will not change a codex in such a fundamental way, and they will certainly not release a new one so shortly after. Anyway, while they are annoying, I have developed some grey knights plus marines lists that have a very good chance of standing up versus Eldar, and actually an advantage over daemons. Also, not everybody plays Eldar and Daemons, at least in my meta most people don't jump armies just because they got a good codex.

Let me emphasize though that all my points become invalid if you do not allow allies. If you stay in this 5th edition mindset, eldar and daemons will win every game for sure.

[knife&fork]

 

There are only few things that make the Eldar codex overpowered. Actually, it's probably only the Serpent..  

 

 

The serpent gets the most attention because it's the worst offender, but if you look closer at the codex it only has two bad units; Harlequins and Banshees. Everything else is on par or better than most things you find in other books. A codex almost devoid of bad units is something unique, can't remember the last time that happened.

This is painfully evident when looking at something like the highlander format.

 

Sure, with unrestricted detachments and forgeworld we have a fighting chance. The problem is more how even a casual eldar list will just stomp on anything not tailored to deal with it. When even the old time eldar players that were excited about their new book stop playing you know it's bad. ;) The only one left is the guy that plays  all foot slogging wraith guard.... 

[Ushtarador]

Thats exactly what I always say^^ its ridiculous that in a codex full of strong units the only thing you ever see is serpentspam and wraithlords... I'm sure that if serpents were on a normal level, the codex would still be on the top, but on a much more enjoyable level :/ I am quite confident against them fielding an army with only 1 allied detachment (6th edition style you might say). I will admit though that with BA I dont see it working.

But we're getting a bit off track here. If you are not a very competitive player, with most codices 7th edition is still a lot of fun nowadays :)

[Angelus Mortifer]

For my club we had the problem of some of our senior members hating 6th to the point where every week there was a rant about how bad the game was becoming (broken Tau, broken Eldar, clumsy mechanics etc). Some of it was fair to a certain extent, but other points they raised were similar to the ranting and vitriol you see on other forums and blogs whereby there were suppositions and guess-work, often taken in a vaccum, without having actually played the game where those supposed issues could be properly realised and proved to be true or not.

 

Another part of their ill-feeling was that they also ran a webstore (no bricks and mortar), and GW basically forced them away from selling their product (thereby supporting what was quite a large and regular 40k contingent at the time) through their recent policy of, to be honest, shafting online only retailers.

 

The two basically combined into a mini-maelstrom of hate, which basically forced people away from the game. It wasn't much fun to come down to the club each week to know you might have to endure another demagogue-esque public speech.

 

We've since had a change to the structure of the club, and things have calmed down a lot, and when 7th dropped it was fairly well-received. The problem we face at the moment is that GW have really injected some much-needed insulin straight into the heart of Warhammer Fantasy, what with End Times and the amazing new kits (Nagash, Glottkin etc), that there is a real buzz about Fantasy at the moment (to the detriment of 40k). That's not to say that people don't like 7th, and I for one really enjoy these current rules, particularly with the new Maelstrom missions, but I think for many time is a limited commodity and Fantasy is the current go-to system.

 

I think that will change, as several of the Fantasy players have 40k armies, and they experienced 7th at the very early stages and many were very positive about it. I think we'll see a resurgence at some point though.

 

As to 7th itself, I personally think this is probably the best iteration of the game so far. We have our own self-imposed comp which removes a lot of the bad builds, and we're fortunate that we don't have any power gaming idiots whose only goal is to suck the enjoyment out of other peoples' playing. I've played about 7 or so games in 7th now, all Maelstrom missions and they have all been very enjoyable and very close games, often being decided on the last turn. I currently have 5 wins, a draw and a loss, and whilst they were all tense and fun battles, my loss was probably one of the most enjoyable.

 

I personally feel if GW do in fact get to the point where all Codices are updated for this edition (which does mean revisiting DA, Tau, Eldar, Daemons etc), then we'll all have a more level bedrock with which to build our games from. If you take the base books as they are, there is so much variation to add now that there should really be something for everyone (Escalation, LoW, Formations and Dataslates, Unbound and so on) - and let's face it, this approach is something that GW has always pushed but it's only now that they have been able to articulate the game to the same vision.

 

There will still be tournaments obviously (and I'd like to get back to doing more of those again after a year's hiatus), and that should also be a source for variation too.

 

7th isn't perfect but I think it's pretty good and I'm confident I'll start to see more 40k tables again at my club. Equally, I don't always agree with some of the things that GW do, whether it's physically with their game systems, or culturally with their customers, but I do think they are trying. I also appreciate that until there is a significant change in the upper echelons, the changes many more would like to see are probably still a ways off.

 

My 2p's worth.

[Bukimimaru]

When I was a wee teenage lad, staring through the window of my local GW whilst digging through my empty pockets for enough change to get those little blister packs of 3 space marines, I would dream of the day I could afford to play a proper, full blown game of 40k.

 

 

 

I would have never believed that now, with the advent of 7th edition, I would have a room in my own house with a fully painted game board, complete with scenery and fortifications. I would never have believed that I would have 5-6 close friends, each with an army or two of their own. I would never have believed that a local (non-GW) game store would open up within 30 minutes of my home and be full of friendly, eager gamers.

 

 

 

Whether I'm spending my weekends chatting with fellow hobbyists at my FLGS, a few hours before work painting up my fortress of redemption, spending my lunch break browsing forums like this one, or spending my evenings playing casual games with my buddies, I've never felt so much a part of this hobby.

 

 

 

7th edition may have been the death toll for some gaming communities, but right now I feel that my personal gaming story is at it's peak. For the first time I have the money, time and social group to play the game in the way that I've always wanted to. 

 

 

 

In the future, I think this will be the time I will look back to and think "frack yeah, we really got it right back then.".

 

 

 

Although I appreciate that this is largely due to my friends and gaming community rather than anything that GW has done directly, but this hobby has never felt more alive and exiting to me than it does right now, and I've been playing off-and-on for about 10 years.

 

 

 

The short answer is; No. I don’t feel this edition has done any harm to the 40k community... or at least, not done any harm to MY 40k community.

 

 

 

Maru.

 

[Nemisor]

I barely played at all in 6th, it was too much of a jump from a ( comparatively ) balanced 5th. when 7th came along I had hope that it would return to something like 5th but it didn't. but I still love the game damit so im struggling through.

the biggest thing for me is as has been mentioned the fact that in 5th you could build a force that could deal with anything in 1500 pts. now even with 2000 pts I struggle with that due to all the extra dimensions in the game now.

its not really about tactics and the skill of the general anymore. its about how much money you spend on the biggest newest toys.

and I miss assault actually being a viable tactic........sigh*......flesh tearers don't do gun lines

[Chaplain Gunzhard]

We're loving 7th edition over here... my group has really built up some momentum lately too.  We are about to kick off an enormous Apocalypse with Imperial (including BA) versus Eldar and Dark Eldar... it will be an uphill battle for the Imperium, but we like it that way!

[SamaNagol]

Scatter Lasers shouldnt make things twin linked and Serpent Shields shouldnt ignore cover.

[Ushtarador]

I'm fine with scatter lasers twin-linking things if they weren't also the cheapest weapon option :/ my main problem with the shield is its strength, I don't mind the ignores cover that much if the strength would be tuned down to 4 or 5. What the shield currently does is it gives an eldar both anti-infantry and anti-tank capabilities in a single unit (which is also highly mobile and hard to destroy). The serpent covers all your needs against almost every target except leman russ tanklines and land raiders. 

 

It's actually a prime example for capital mistakes in codex design - a unit that does everything very well makes every other unit that does only one or two things very well totally useless, I will never understand why they wrote the rules like this :/

[Red-beard]

To be honest, most of the negativity I see about 40k and 7E comes from the online community. In real life games, I just don't see it. People are having tons of fun with the game. My only complaint is that I'm very busy and don't have the time available to play more games =p.

 

I think there is a very vocal minority within the online community that is extremely negative with respect to GW and 40k. That negativity can scare aware would-be or former players that are considering getting into (or back into) 40k. That being said, this BA forum is one of the more positive, nicer communities I've been a part of. 

[j-smuv]

I have no problem with 7E.  I think it's super fun, and it incorporates a lot of the goofy and random rules I enjoy.  Sure, these "weigh the game down", but not as much as people tend to think.  The problem with the Eldar codex isn't even a 7E ruleset problem, it's a player problem.  The 7E ruleset is fine.

 

Still, I have seen a drop in players at some of the local stores, and I've seen a drop in attendance at our club's events.  I think this is more frustration with GW than the ruleset itself.  More than one player I've talked to about it has said something to the effect of "I was turned off by the release of 7th edition so close to the release of 6th edition.  I'm a casual player, and hadn't played a lot of games in 6th yet.  So the edition wasn't perfect. ..  I don't care, none of the editions are perfect.  But from what I understand, they didn't use 7th solve a lot of the existing problems in 6th (Tau and Eldar) anyway.  So why release a new edition?  Cash grab?  I just want to get a chance to know the rules before they change them, and what's to say as soon as I buy these rules they won't change them.  "  I'm summarizing/simplifying, but I think it came down to a basic leadership tenant: consistency.  In releasing a new edition, GW may have painted themselves as unreliable, fickle and irresponsible.  This compromised player trust, and players went on to play Malifaux, Flames of War, or simply just paint their GW models and hang up playing for a while.  Which stinks, because 7E is a good system, and the game is still fun.  So I've been out there advocating as much as I can.  But GW has a terrible reputation, and that's hard to defend even if the ruleset is good.     

[sockwithaticket]

 

*snip*

Well, there we go, like I said, maybe I'm just too far removed from it all to actually know what I'm talking about.

 

 

The other big barrier to me playing games is none of my friends are into the hobby, a handful used to be, but were pretty much all gone by 14/15, and I don't live anywhere near a GW store, still less an FLGS. So even if I do develop the desire to dive back in the logistics of getting a game are tricky to say the least.

 

Thank you for taking the time to address the concerns I listed.

[walpurgisnacht]

^ Ushtador: to sell more models, maybe? Perhaps an inventory inquiry is sent previous to a codex update and whatever kit is in excess is given better rules.-supposition.

[Ushtarador]

Well that's certainly a thing, and totally understandable for me. I don't mind buying and painting new stuff, and most people I know will buy one or two of everything anyway, so it's nice to rotate units between codices. However, the serpent doesn't even encourage the sale of new models. Eldar players already owned enough tanks to play 4-5 serpents, and by making it so overpowered, people never needed to buy anything else to adapt to a shifting meta (because serpents will always be good) or to try out other, similarly competitive builds (because there are none).

 

So even from the sales point of view the serpent was a stupid decision, and considering that it went on Mailorder in our FLGS a long time ago, they didn't plan for it to be that good either.. ^^