How is 40k 7th edition "less competitive" than 40k 5th edition

A topic that is brought up often, but one that rarely has any real insightful answers:

5th edition is considered the paramount of "competitive" editions... and 7th edition is "not competitive" and for RPG gamers that want to forge a narrative.

So how exactly is 5th edition more competitive than 7th?

Some cite game balance, however that is a very large laugh. Game balance was shoddy in 3rd, shoddy in 4th, shoddy in 5th, shoddy in 6th, and shoddy today. Every edition has had reams of topics on how the game is not balanced yet people tried tournament gaming them anyway.

However with 6th suddenly you just couldn't do that anymore, people claimed.

No - game balance definitely is not the real answer to me. No one can say that if they had lived through the eldar starcannon spam days, or the blood angels rhino rush days, or the chaos 3.5 codex days, or the leaf blower guard days, or the draigo and his buddy paladins days that nearly 4 out of 5 gamers around my parts pushed.

Balance - lol that one is a red herring. Most guys that want competitive tournaments actively try to break the game in the list building phase. The list building phase is the biggest factor in tournament gaming if you are playing to win - show up with a weak list and no matter how good you are you are going to be at a severe handicap.

Also things like super heavies being in normal games is also a red herring because most tournaments don't allow those or seriously restrict them in some ways.

Still others cite shoddy rules - but again the rules have always been complained about. Every edition there have been reams of threads about how crappy the rules are, but still tournament players were content with rolling until 6th.

So what were the biggest changes? What happened in 6th? Balance and shoddy rules are often cited but those existed in every edition and were complained about in every edition LOUDLY.

Wound allocation? That certainly shouldn't cause the game to be less competitive. Some may find it more annoying because you have to remove closest models but that doesn't really cause a game to be less competitive. It killed off the favored power build of the day (draigo and his paladins) but that is true with any edition change as one powerlist gives way to the other.

I think the biggest change that is commonly griped about are two fold:
1) allies
2) forge world

How so?

In 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition there were usually three power builds that the vast majority of players took (i am speaking from heavy 3rd and 4th tournament experience and saw it in 5th after i had gotten out of tournament play). You went in with one of the power lists, hoping to play the list you hard countered, and praying you didn't meet your hard counter that could beat you.

In 6th and 7th with allies and forge world present, there are many more combinations that result in having six or seven power builds present... which can hard counter a number of extreme lists themselves.

This makes it more difficult to list build against. (the misnomer "Take All Comers" list that people want is not really a "Take All Comers" list, it is a "Take on the Other Power Build I expect to face and Min/Max the Meta")

I think that this is the biggest gripe at the root.

Forge World was lobbied against for pretty much a decade because gamers:
1) didn't want to have to buy those books to memorize the rules too (or be at a disadvantage - something seen as heresy if you are a serious tournament player)

2) cited how "imbalanced" they were (with a straight face, while pushing the latest power build that broke the game)

When you get down to its base - I feel strongly that its not really about balance or shoddy rules or any of that - but more about you can't list build as effectively as you could in the past because the diversity is a lot greater today on what you can face that is still effective whereas in the past you had to worry about three on average powerlists (and you were bringing one so you had to know how to fight the other two)

Today you can face six or seven power lists and the listbuilding phase is much harder to win in.

Honestly, it sounds like your own personal bias is in the way. Any time you discount a legitimate complaint with "its a laugh" as you have here you pretty much invalidate your claims.

I wish someone could quantify that legitimate complaint.

Eh... I don't know what the deal is. I do know there are days when I play a game or two of 40K and then feel so disheartened that I just want to go home right then and forget the game exists. Last weekend was yet another day like that, I first faced off against the new Necrons, where Nightbringer was absolutely ridiculous (granted, this was a 1000 point game). Sure, some of that game was down to meh dice rolls, but it just felt like I could throw everything at one model and it'd soak it up and not care, and dish out a lot more damage in return. The next game was Grey Knights... three Dreadknights in a 1000 point army. They mauled my army. On Saturday I'll likely be facing the infamous Space Wolf/IG hybrid with Endurance and Telepathy and a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry that at best I might be able to fling something in front of to slow them down, so that probably won't help.

Maybe I'm just getting old or something, but I never felt this bad this often. I build armies that are designed to be balanced and fit the fluff... and they end up getting destroyed easily. For me to match these other armies, I'd have to go find the really hard stuff, and build a list around that.

I know balance has been crazy at times in the past. I haven't played Blood Angels since 3rd edition because I felt so dirty playing them at the time. Then there were the Iron Warriors armies, which I found out you could beat by just being a complete lunatic and confusing your opponents by doing things no sane person would do. And the 4th edition Space Marine codex could allow for some fluffy builds (and I'm really annoyed I can't do the one I wanted any more)... but then you had things like my dad's gun line army with multiple Devastator squads with Tank Hunters or Infiltrators, an army I borrowed once and snoozed through a tournament with. So yeah, not going to claim there was ever a magical perfect time.

I think part of it, for me, is the lack of viable assault without those killer units. Part of the fun of the game has disappeared because it seems to come down to uber-units either shooting or assaulting each other. But that's not so much an issue of "competitive," except I guess that you can't do the kind of list I consider fun and still be competitive.

I do believe that 7th edition gets its reputation mostly from Unbound and Tactical Objectives. Unbound removes all restrictions and lets you take the cheesiest buggery you want, and Tactical Objectives are incredibly random and bad luck on the draw could lose you a game before it's really started. Now, sure, you don't have to go crazy with Unbound, and Tactical Objectives should mostly be for fun games, but the perception of them remains at all times.

I haven't personally seen any tournaments in 7th yet, outside of Unbound tournaments, which went all kinds of silly. I've seen the results of tourneys at stores around town, and it seems the Eldar tend to grab the top spot most of the time, but that's not really new.

Thanks for the reply Erik.

When I first started in 3rd my first army was Dark Angels and I was owned quite a bit because my army just wasn't up to snuff against what was the common builds of the day (mostly space wolves and blood angels rhino rush with a smattering of star cannon spam)

The day I picked up eldar star cannon spam, I went on a year and a half mauling of everyone I played. I lost two games (both in tournaments) - one to an ork player the other to a nid player. I went from losing every game to winning every game because of my army choice. That was 1998 - 2000.

When I tried playing a fluffy army in 4th, I went back to being owned half the time. When I switched to leaf blower - same thing. Won most of my games. My first chaos army was thousand sons. Owned most of the time. Switched to power list 3.5 dex - won most of the time.

I do think you hit the nail on the head though - its the perception that unbound can exist that has people steamed. Most of the big tournaments I've seen don't allow unbound and don't allow super heavies or heavily restrict them, so when I see 7th edition tournaments I note that they play out a lot like 5th edition. There are two or so builds that usually dominate and the rest fall where they may.

This is where I don't see how 7th is less competitive than 3, 4, or 5th.

I think you've hit near the heart of the current competitive complaints quite nicely. The game has progressed from a few spammed power builds that everyone could anticipate to a limitless supply of stinky cheese lists. This state of complete imbalance has now created a weird pseudo balance in and of itself. Such as you may as well take what you like cause there are a bazillion different lists that can wipe the table with whatever you choose anywho.

My biggest complaint at the moment is the plethora of rapid fire rules changes that have lead created an environment where rules errors are the norm rather than the exception. It is also essentially impossible to 'know' everything, so as a player you're not going to realize that things were played wrong until long after an event has closed. Either that or you burn a lot of game time clarifying and researching rules.

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

Quote:

---

My biggest complaint at the moment is the plethora of rapid fire rules changes that have lead created an environment where rules errors are the norm rather than the exception.

---

This is true and something that my own group has to deal with on a constant basis. This is where I think the ruleset should really be pared down to its core and the excess special rules be hemmed out.

Quote:

---

The game has progressed from a few spammed power builds that everyone could anticipate to a limitless supply of stinky cheese lists. This state of complete imbalance has now created a weird pseudo balance in and of itself.

---

This is how I see it as well - and the diversity actually makes me happy because I got really burnt out on the same 2-3 builds always showing up. I haven't seen this much diversity in list building in pretty much forever (though the imbalance itself has not changed its just that you can't rock in to an event with a powerlist and expect to know your meta any longer, the list building phase to me stepped up in terms of knowing what combinations you can build, but on the table stepped down because of the diversity present)

My favorite that would bring me back to tournaments would be an environment where list building didn't even exist as a "phase" of the game and where how you played on the table was the most important aspect.

Granted there are players with actual skill that do well at tournaments but I find that most people (myself included) relied on their gimp crutch to get them through and I'd rather a competition be about skill as opposed to rocking into a gladiator arena and your opponent chooses his gladius and you pull out your grenade launcher.

Quote:

---

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

---

For the most part I agree, however it is a common topic and in this particular scenario (where current edition is less competitive) I feel full of holes so wanted to discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Defenestratus

Talking about a game of dice and plastic dolls in any sense that its a competitive endeavor is silly at the onset.

---

Yup.

And can someone please quantify the term 'viable', because to me, with Unbound on offer, anything is viable within your points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auticus

This is true and something that my own group has to deal with on a constant basis. This is where I think the ruleset should really be pared down to its core and the excess special rules be hemmed out.

---

For me the complexity comes from the rise of the formation. The fact that the rules change depending upon how you assemble your force is maddening. Especially when you mix formations into normal lists and create situations where some models now have a special rule and some of the same models on the table do not.... and then we have the formations where the special rules go away if you kill a specific model out of the formation. While I love it from a fluffy bunny standpoint and it works fine with buddies playing in the basement, this makes random match ups at events annoying as hell!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auticus

This is how I see it as well - and the diversity actually makes me happy because I got really burnt out on the same 2-3 builds always showing up. I haven't seen this much diversity in list building in pretty much forever (though the imbalance itself has not changed its just that you can't rock in to an event with a powerlist and expect to know your meta any longer, the list building phase to me stepped up in terms of knowing what combinations you can build, but on the table stepped down because of the diversity present)

My favorite that would bring me back to tournaments would be an environment where list building didn't even exist as a "phase" of the game and where how you played on the table was the most important aspect.

---

The diversity in current 40k is wild. You now see anything and everything on the table which is fun! I don't think it's possible to weed out the list lawyer phase of an event unless the lists are predetermined... completely impractical but it would be kind of awesome to have an event where you picked the army you wanted to play and someone else built the list taking care to make all the various armies have a fair shot at beating each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auticus

Granted there are players with actual skill that do well at tournaments but I find that most people (myself included) relied on their gimp crutch to get them through and I'd rather a competition be about skill as opposed to rocking into a gladiator arena and your opponent chooses his gladius and you pull out your grenade launcher.

---

And some of us can 'get by' with win loss but earn the bulk of our points through paint and sports. Ale anyone? :p

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

Yup.

And can someone please quantify the term 'viable', because to me, with Unbound on offer, anything is viable within your points.

---

Which viable are we talking about? Viable to me is anything I can put on the table that doesn't cause people to fall down laughing. For example a completely nonviable unit is the much maligned Howling Banshees. Having them in an event list grants you bunny status.