Should I come back?

[chuckles]

So when 7th ed dropped I looked through the stuff carefully, and found that my interest in playing 40K had evaporated. The game struck me as a poorly-thought-out mess with GW's attitude being "Here's a load of stuff! Some of it might be good! Over to you" which is very much not my idea of good game design. Now it's a couple of months later, and while the Space Wolves stuff is about to come along and, to all appearances, continue their grand tradition of being unnecessarily superior to all other forms of marines, I still find myself missing tabletop wargaming a bit. My question is whether that will be 40K, or if I should just quit while I'm ahead (if you can call having sunk thousands of £s into a hobby I am no longer interested in "ahead" anyway) and decamp to other, better designed systems like DZC, Infinity or Warmahordes? What are your thoughts on 7th Ed 40k? Good, bad, indifferent, crime against humanity? Or something else?

[glassiya]

Maelstrom saved the day.

[vandalex]

Look, I think 7th edition is better than 6th, and has reached some level of balance. It is not without its flaws, but I think the main balance struggle lies in the codices now than in the core rules.

It is sad to hear such a investment in models that are gathering dust on a shelf. I would reccomend coming back in and playing, you may find your interests spark back up. It is ultimately your opinion on what 7th edition will be like for you.

Vandalex

[milkybarnid]

Chuckles, IMHO i think you have gotten caught up in the negativity that goes through this forum every now and then. I do not blame you. 40K has its flaws but when it comes down to the grain its the people that hold the hobby and community together. If that is what you are missing then come back.

If i were you (having invested thousands of dollars in the hobby) I wouldn't give up on 40k. You have put far to much effort into it to just throw it away. If you are not using your 40k army, you will eventually come to the decision to sell/swap your army for another another game system and all the effort for 40k will be gone. then if you want to come back, you will have gotten rid of your army and will start all over again. (though i reckon if you did get rid of your army i don't think one could come back from that without severe frustration)

TL:DR Go with what you want to do, if you still have the spark to play then, give it a few games before you make a final decision

[chuckles]

I was a pretty significant source of the negativity going through the forum, and it wasn't confined to here in any case.

I'm kind of interested in what other people's experiences of 7th have been. I'm hearing a lot of people saying it's great for getting lots of bits of plastic together and rolling dice for a couple of hours, but it seems a ridiculously expensive way of doing that, and I'm wondering if some of the structure GW have imposed on that (through the rules) makes a significant improvement to the experience.

Oh, and are Tau and Eldar still the undisputed cream of the crop?

[seethe]

Short answer - yes.

6th was a big change from 5th for me, and I think we all had to make such drastic adjustments that it drove us to thinking outside of what we were comfortable with or wanted to do with our armies. With 7th and how it opens up more customization I am actually excited to play again. Im not too happy to have to deal with LoW in regular 40k now, but at the same time now I can somewhat justify (probably not to my wife...) adding some of the fancy FW big boys to my collection.

I think 7th is a step in the right direction and agree that it will just take some careful reigning in of certain codexes...maybe I've got too much faith in Gee Dub to care about the nids, but it seems like they are attempting to give each army a fighting chance now with the new ally matrix.

Of course they just want to sell models and overpriced books, but its still thw game and the players that make it fun. A game would do you some good I think, and certainly can't hurt since you have the models hanging around.

[daboarder]

7th is Meh for me, I still play but I neither think its an improvement or a step backwards.

Oh and if your looking for more than candy land you shouldn't play maelstrom. Use them as random secondaries, but they are horrible as the core of the mission

[Silegy]

Idk.. I feel like some stuff is better, some stuff is worse than in 6th. Cant really say which one I prefer. Still, I liked 5th much more.

[milkybarnid]

I like maelstrom missions to an extent, it forces change in the game in order to achieve victory. That said i have lost games where i drew cards that i had no chance at achieving. But i've had the same for my opponent where they drew something impossible. (I really think being able to discard more than 1 card should be in the rule book, not a warlord trait)

Its swings and roundabouts really, but getting through the tough times is nothing new for us.

Seriously, just try a few maelstrom games, no harm done if you try and still don't like it.

EDIT: Didn't finish a setence

[daboarder]

I have, spent the last 2-3 month playing them and everyone I play with agrees that if we wanted to play "who can chase the shiny" more we'd all just go Eldar/Dark Eldar and call it a day. Its candy land with cards. You literally only win or loose based upon which cards you draw.

Using them as hidden secondaries however (with re-draws for the impossibles) adds a really cool and fun element to the standard missions.

[atrocity]

7th edition is a huge leap forwards.

Maelstrom of War is brilliant, the armies balance themselves out when playing these missions. In our club when we organize tournaments we usually run a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom. So there are 6 objectives, all of them worth 1-2p at the end of the game, then secondary objectives is Maelstrom, you get 2 tactical objectives each turn (you can never have more than 2) and if they are impossible (e.g. kill a flyer, your opponent has none) you get to re-roll. At the end of the game you can collect a maximum 5 more VP from tactical objectives than your opponent (e.g. you have 15, he has 8, you get 5p).
Then of course first blood, linebreaker and warlord as well. So far these kind of missions work very well.

Overall, Eldar/Tau is not what it used to be. Tau got nerfed in 7th, still one of the most powerful armies though (because you know..the codex). Nids on the other hand got a huge bone tossed at us by GW and we do better in 7th than in 6th (IMO of course).

Eldar/DE are still ace, but hopefully that'll change a little with the new DE codex.

GK are insane and probably got the biggest bone of all, awesome army now.

Daemons are about the same, Daemon princes got a boon and a nerf so not that big diff, Be'Lakor is still the ultimate cheese, love that guy.

The rest of us mid-tier armies, nids, csm, orks and such are having more fun than before.


All IMHO of course.

[tylertt]

Maelstrom is actually extremely fun to play IMO. The thing I have found that fixes it up, is just house ruling that you get to discard impossible objectives when drawn.

I'm not sure of the competitive scene, but I know Tau are not quite always on top anymore, especially if Maelstrom is accepted in your group/area. Maelstrom forces you to move around and not just sit in a boring gun line for 5-7 turns in a row. Makes for some exciting games. Eldar kind of suffered slightly with the new rules for jinking. At least in my experiences thus far, it tends to throw them off a bit more.

Overall though, I am enjoying 7th, which simply was due to me hitting the point where I just accepted 40k for what it is, and decided to do what this game was made to do. To just have fun and enjoy playing the game with my favorite army. I hope you can find something still in 40k as it sucks to have spent all that money on your models.

[daboarder]

maelstrom doesnt force you to "maneuver" it just means you chase the shiney. your choices aren't tactical they are literally what cards I draw dictate entirely how I act this turn

[atrocity]

How is it less tactical than claiming objectives in the end?

[daboarder]

Jul 31, 2014 10:59:40 GMT atrocity said:

How is it less tactical than claiming objectives in the end?

sigh....ill see if I can find my original rant about Maelstrom.

So I've had a handful of games of 7th now and I must say, wow, the execution of the maelstrom games is terrible.

They aren't "forging a narrative", they aren't allowing you to enact a story of epic clashes between opposing armies with no compromise, they are an exercise in making an army behave like a schizophrenic rat on crack!

Narrative games are games where the story develops as the mission is played, not ones that actively encourage you to act out of character to obtain victory of some sort.
Missions with asymmetrical but defined roles forge a narrative ie: One army must take and hold objectives the other defend them by eliminating the opposing warlord.

Missions that force you to back up your entire army to cap the objectives in your back half, or to ignore opponents in the shooting phase so that you can kill them in the assault phase are jarring.

For example, my last game, I had an opponent drive his land raider next to a pair of obliterators, and iron stave sorcerer and a defiler, just to cap a point for a turn. Then in my turn I proceeded to kill it in combat, not shooting at it for no other reason than to obtain my own point.....thats just dumb, as dumb as pacing a heldrake in hover and reversing it haflway up the field to cap an objective for a single turn. Or grey knights forgoing shooting at chaos terminators just to run onto an objective before attempting to shoot a flier half way across the field all the while ignoring the mass of terminators bearing down on them. Or having entire armies play keep away while rotating around the table, in a race for the next point until some shmuck pulls the "kill a unit card"

Basically if you want to actually play a game with any form of story, play the echoes and altar missions, cities of death or planet strike, they are all better balanced, have a better narrative and actually encourage you to create a story as opposed to rewarding stupid and short term payoffs

as to tactical, they aren't tactical becuase the cards determine who wins....how do you not see that? I mean when you can draw cards like kill psyker/flyer/score objective on the otherside of the table (and your opponent doesnt have fliers of psykers), and your opponent can draw "score objectice on his side/Score objective on his side/Kill a unit, The guy with the shite hand is up the creak based upon the draw of the cards