Why I think 7th is the worst yet; and what it forgot (a negative view of 7th ed 40k)

[daboarder]

to be fair, 3.5 onward (so the second round of books) had HEAPS of flavour. In fact I'd say 3.5-early 4th codexes were the best GW has written.

[John Bower]

And this list goes on and on... we all know this. So why is this happening? 7th edition came out really fast after the 6th and it had all the necessery data and test play to fix all these problems but instead they decided not to do it. Sure, they added missions and fancy card game that needs so much house rules and modifications to make it work that its nothing like the missions they wrote on the BRB. I had played only 2-3 of the maelstrom missions when I allready noted that it was just a fancy add on to sell some card decks to us and really did not add anything good to this game without us fixing it a lot.

Got to say first off you don't need the cards; the objectives are in the book which yes I grant you is a bit of a pain to keep track of. But what house rules do you need to make it work? I've played a lot of MoW and 1 CoD mission since the Leviathan books dropped. And honestly love that. Yes I know 7th has it's issues; I certainly don't like what they did with buildings (Glances should not have any effect at least), and ruins were a mish mash that they didn't give us half the rules for.


But I still don't see the issue with Maelstrom; what needs house ruling? If you mean what do you do with a card you can't get; well that's just common sense surely? You dump it; no house rule and unless an opponent is a complete F***tard he's not going to argue the toss. In fact I'm pretty sure it's in the BRB somewhere what to do in that situation though could be wrong.

[Blood Shadow]

Personally I like 7th Ed, I think the rules are ok enough, as long as you don't try too hard to break them.

I've also been in the game a long time, I think the story (thanks to BL) has developed in depth and colour fantastically since 4th Ed. Yes we have ongoing balance issues but it's clear that they're trying to sort these out with vanilla codexes and limited rule books... Yes there's an amount of profit drive in what they do, but I support them in that they make cool models and rules, it's still my favourite SciFi universe and game.

If you don't want to pay, then fine... Buy a PS4

[Mike X]

My gripes with 7th edition:

-Hull points.
-Challenges.
-Invulnerable saves against D-weapons.
-Rending occurs on a to-wound of 6 (instead of to-hit).
-Unbound armies aren't disadvantaged enough.
-Psychic phase (I still don't understand it).

[World Of Pain]

Try this: First set up your average terrain, objectives and deploy your armies with your friend who has about the same skill level to play this game as you do. Then deal about average number of MoW cards that you estimate you would draw during 6 game turns (lets keep that in average too). I´ll bet that 3/4 times you can tell who is going to win this game from looking those cards. Here is the problem - card game is random thing that has way too little variables to make MoW games balanced. Dice does this too - I know - but you throw hundreds and hundreds of rolls during a single game so makeing 20 bad rolls has not so much impact on the game. Dice god is tricky but fair. So if you agree with me then you notice that about 75% of the games are allready lost or won because of the cards and not so much of your tactics and gameplay. We have some GREAT house rules to actually make this work. I can have my friend "Lost Vyper" to post more about them or you can go to check his YouTube chanel to see them your self. Here are some of them:

1: Drop that d3 rule to just 2.
2: MoW points from the objectives are counted at the end of the opponents turn. This makes it impossible to just "fly and grap" objectives. You actually have to hold them for a turn to get points.
3: MoW points are only PRIMARY or SECONDARY in games. So if you win MoW score you get fixed amount of victory points in the end. If you win or lose it 20 - 1 its still only 3 or 2 points in the end. There are allways other objectives too - like the Relic, Kill Points, Main Objectives and so on.
4: Use fixed card deck that you both agree.
5: And keep those other victory points in the game too: First Blood, Slay the War Lord, Line Breaker and add that Last Laugh (its really fun and balances that First Blood nicely!)

With these house rules you actually balance MoW games really well.

[daboarder]

even when balanced the game is still a glorified "chase the shiny"

I like using maelstrom to generate random hidden secondary missions (as opposed to first blood, warlord and linebreaker) but its a terrible primary game

[Denzark]

Have you ever spent about an hour setting up an ork army in Rogue Trader (note: not 'Rouge Trader'). Then 30 minutes in your first turn rolling on the madboyz tables for a mood? Then in marine turn 1 losing 75% of your army to a virus missile?

And 7th is the worst edition?

[daboarder]

Have you ever spent about an hour setting up an ork army in Rogue Trader (note: not 'Rouge Trader'). Then 30 minutes in your first turn rolling on the madboyz tables for a mood? Then in marine turn 1 losing 75% of your army to a virus missile?

And 7th is the worst edition?

To be fair when most people are comparing editions they accept that RT and 2nd are very different beasts to 3,4,5,6,7

[Charon]

I dont think that 7th is the worst, but it has glaring issues resulting from copy&paste lazyness.

[World Of Pain]

I dont think that 7th is the worst, but it has glaring issues resulting from copy&paste lazyness.

Remember my origina post here. On this I don´t want to give credit for this editon from all those things that were allready invented in the last ones. Reason why I call this one the worst is simply because it had the best resourse, material, test play, feed back and everything else that could and SHOULD have made it much, much better than it is right now. Also it was published much sooner from the last edition than other editions and we know that this was done to fix mistakes and problems that appeared in the 6th. For some reason they only fixed marginal amount of those problems and also because of their decison to leave many sections of the rules out they actually created more problems and confusion than they fixed. This has (in my opinion) never happened before in the last editions - at least not in this scale. This is why I call GW out and I want them really understand they need to TEST PLAY THEIR RULES before they publish them out.

We often talk within our club that how easy it should be for GW to set up a large scale test play weekends. People would be ready to do this for small gifts or even free to just be part of the next edition development. I know I would. And computer games are and have been doing this for a long time now.