Why I think 7th is the best yet; and what it gives (a positive view of 7th ed 40k)

[Caitsidhe]

It should only take a few minutes to agree on what is allowed. if it's taking an hour or more that's because you're both too stubborn to give and take a little.

You say that but that simply isn't the case. Consider the following:

1. Both parties must agree upon points, and if either player (or both) doesn't have a list already at that level it must be created on the fly.
2. Both parties must agree to allow or not allow Unbound.
3. Then they have to discuss their armies, i.e. tell each other about their respective forces so one side or the other can say whether they think it is hinky.
4. If one side or the other (or both) have Dataslates, Formations, or Books the other doesn't, it often necessitates explaining the special rules.
5. If either side is fielding a Lord of War (or anything huge) you have to see if either side thinks they can handle it.
6. Then there is the chance one side or the other wants you to cut something or says politely they prefer not to play against Knights or something like that.
7. The game might fall apart on ANY of the things above, or you go into negotiation.
8. If both parties are easy going, they might start changing their lists as a result of requests and that takes TIME.
9. Once all parties are content with the opposing lists you still have to generate all the random, variable stuff.
10. And don't forget there is still deployment and terrain setup.

The problem with your "give and take a little" notion is that it assumes that everyone has the ability to quickly alter their lists and just add something. Remember that games played as "pick up game" at an LGS aren't generally arranged in advance. I agree, it should only take a few minutes if either these two things happen:

1. I don't want to play against that.
2. Sure, I'll play against whatever.

*Unfortunately, #1 means no game.. and #2 is becoming rarer and rarer as the balance fades out existence entirely. I miss the days when I could walk into the LGS and say who wants to play 2500 (or whatever level) and in short order someone would be setting up across from me. That was it.

[Power Klawz]

Words

Play smaller games then if you're having such an issue, or set it up before hand. Otherwise just play by the rules and take on all comers. I don't see the issue here. If you're so worried about losing that's probably your central issue. Be upfront about your lists and if you or your opponent is bringing something scary then countermeasures should be allotted. Can't take down superheavies without stacking a bit of anti-armour, can't take on flying circus without a bit more anti-air than usual. If you're just playing pick up games then tailoring your list to take on an unbalanced opponent is perfectly reasonable.

The point is that by eliminating options that exist within the context of the written rules you're focusing more on win/loss than having any fun. If you care more about which army of plastic soldiers wins the day than having fun with a fellow human being then you're doing it wrong.

[Andrew Thomas]

I had an autarch, farseer (and a warlock for a guardian squad), and wanted to use a spiritseer to babysit some wraithblades with Runes of Battle psychic powers.

I can see the argument, and don't disagree.

I don't use the Iyanden supplement - its too cheesey for me.

Your choice.

Over-extending my army? Ok man.

I meant nothing by that, I was just trying to figure out how your psychic phase tanked so bad.

I've never been more frustrated by a game as I am with the psychic phase. Looking at what my farseers used to be, and the pathetic shells they are now makes me a sad wargamer.

Definitely sounds like a run of bad luck, considering how good Eldar's Psychic phase is supposed to be, not to invalidate your frustration. And as the most random part of a randomness-averse edition, it stands to reason that it will be a very short-lived game change.

[40kGamer]

Play smaller games then if you're having such an issue, or set it up before hand. Otherwise just play by the rules and take on all comers. I don't see the issue here. If you're so worried about losing that's probably your central issue. Be upfront about your lists and if you or your opponent is bringing something scary then countermeasures should be allotted. Can't take down superheavies without stacking a bit of anti-armour, can't take on flying circus without a bit more anti-air than usual. If you're just playing pick up games then tailoring your list to take on an unbalanced opponent is perfectly reasonable.

The point is that by eliminating options that exist within the context of the written rules you're focusing more on win/loss than having any fun. If you care more about which army of plastic soldiers wins the day than having fun with a fellow human being then you're doing it wrong.

I don't know if its cultural, regional or something more but the transition to 6th-7th has depleted the player base for 40k in my area. Local events went from almost full to under 50% capacity and pick up games have became difficult to find.

People in my area are just having a hard time fitting the new 40k game format into the lifestyle here. So the new direction they have taken with the rules has proven to be an obstacle to casual play. Less casual play = less interest and this is leading to people branching out. Even I've moved into other games and I've always been a serious GW fanboy.

[Gleipnir]

Everything I am seeing here about complaints boils down to people complaining about having to play against "that guy" or who want to be "that guy" themselves and don't appreciate an option they had previously being taken away in the newest edition. Simplest solution to this is not GW doing something about it, its the players themselves, start forming game communities and stop relying on pick-up games against "that guy" or where you are "that guy". Bring a 3rd player, take turns playing where the 3rd player can referee the match, mange random tables, setup terrain, objectives etc.. to speed up play.

Yes the rules could be tighter and better written, yes most of them can be house-ruled for an improvement with very little fuss approached from the standpoint "less is more" in terms of making said changes, ultimately the flexibility is about allowing the hobbyist to use all his toys and the narrative player to form any list he wants to fit said narrative and yes sell more models for GW.

[Charon]

Yes the rules could be tighter and better written, yes most of them can be house-ruled for an improvement with very little fuss approached from the standpoint "less is more" in terms of making said changes, ultimately the flexibility is about allowing the hobbyist to use all his toys and the narrative player to form any list he wants to fit said narrative and yes sell more models for GW.

You should not HAVE to house rule them to make them WORK.
Its one thing to do thematic, flavorful or personal house rules to change sections your group doesnt like. Its a completely different animal to housrule basic rules because they dont work "as written".
Add in the problems you face when people from different gaming groups meet and play in a bigger club/event.
With DE i can see around 20 issues I have to discuss BEFORE the game because if they happen WHILE playing and we did not discuss it one of us will have to revert whole turns or have a big disadvantage because his ouse rules work different to mine.

[Eldar_Atog]

I don't know if its cultural, regional or something more but the transition to 6th-7th has depleted the player base for 40k in my area. Local events went from almost full to under 50% capacity and pick up games have became difficult to find.

People in my area are just having a hard time fitting the new 40k game format into the lifestyle here. So the new direction they have taken with the rules has proven to be an obstacle to casual play. Less casual play = less interest and this is leading to people branching out. Even I've moved into other games and I've always been a serious GW fanboy.

That is my experience. A few months before 7th came out, we had a very healthy gaming group. There were issues.. but on the whole, you could always find a game. Now, just a year later, most people don't even bother to bring 40k to the shop. They'll have board games or warmahordes/x wing.

What I wonder about is how much of this was caused by GW's almost complete withdrawl from the community and how much was caused by the free form rules. People need structure and there is almost no structure to 7th. Think about Magic the Gathering for a sec. It is a very structured game. Sure.. it has Type 1(been awhile since I played) but the most popular variants are the restricted variants. I would suggest that the only reason Magic is still popular was the push for Type 2 and the other restricted card bases. Type 1 is a toxic environment for a new player... or someone with limited funds.

I've seen mention on here about just avoiding pickup games and pushing house rules. That is not a solution either. Gaming groups grow from pickup games. It's how you keep your community from stagnating. A group that walls itself off like this will eventually die. Think of it kind of like genetic diversity in nature. Gaming communities need fresh blood or they will die.

[Power Klawz]

I am also at a loss as to where all these playability issues arise from. The game is mechanically functional, "sound" might be taking things too far however. Balanced is right out the window, of course.

But the game is playable, even the silliest and ostensibly most confusing of rules are simple to figure out when viewed with an eye towards the obvious intent. Yes, certain exotic rule interactions can get hairy but the ol' d6 off can be employed to speed things along. The mechanics, while by no stretch of the imagination being "good" are also not inherently broken, what is broken is the player base's interpretations of them. Never has GW ever had complex, litigious errata and never shall it. As someone who played a fair amount of MtG back in the day (and occassionally still dabbles) the distinction between a complex, mechanically absolute system like Magic and an open ended, subjective game like the various Warhammers is obvious. There is no absolute resolution system, no action stack with particular resolution paths and mechanisms, no real categorization of actions beyond the most basic. Armies run at each other, things blow up and sometimes people get stabbed.

The flaw, then, if one claims unplayability is not with the system but with the inappropriate burdens placed upon it by misdirected players. The game at its heart is rolling a bunch of six-sided dice and consulting tables. It does venture into slightly more complicated territory from time to time but nothing so complicated that it would promulgate a system crashing bug, unless the players want it to.

A prime example: in the current Ork codex deff are able to take a bomb type weapon, however bomb weapons are specifically described in the main rulebook as being employable only by flyers, so what to do?

If this were an absolute system then the very existence of the option would be nonsensical. It is cearly stated that bombs are used by flyers and deff koptas are not flyers, therefore they cannot use them despite being able to purchase them. However, given the absurdity of that outcome we can easily come to a basic conclusion on how they are to be employed. (namely, in an identical fashion to the way flyers would employ them, with the only difference being the reduced movement range of the kopta.) To argue against this point is to fly in the face of both common reason and sportsmanship, despite being logically consistent with the rules as written. And therein lies the crux of the issue, not that the system is broken on its face, but that it is easily broken by those with an agenda to do so.

So the question, then, becomes a philosophical one. Does the system need to be robust enough to not only provide an entertaining experience for those who would employ it responsibly, but also to provide the resilience necessary to resist the efforts of those who actively seek to undermine it?

[spaceman91]

People keep talking about problems with the rules, can I get a quick ( read as light reading ) summary of what people consider the main problems?

I only have one real compliant and thats maelstrom. The cards hate me, no matter where I am on the board or where Im heading the cards will always come up "wrong". I hate it and it drives me nuts!

[Charistoph]

People keep talking about problems with the rules, can I get a quick ( read as light reading ) summary of what people consider the main problems?

I won't get in to codex issues like the Deffkopta bomb, partly because codex beats rulebook, but more due to this being about the Edition of the rules, not necessarily about the armies.

Example 1:
Shooting at multiple targets
Choose a Target: "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at."

Super-Heavy Vehicles > Shooting: "When a Super-heavy vehicle makes a shooting attack, it is always treated as if it had remained stationary in the Movement phase (even if it actually moved), and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired." (no process mentioned to determine timing of targets)

Special Rules > Power of the Machine Spirit: "In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for shooting.[/i]" (no process mentioned to determine timing of targets)

So two rules that allow units to shoot at more than one target, but no process on how this is to be done. Why is this important? Two reasons: 1) It opens the door to shooting a unit that was Embarked when the unit's shooting phase began; or 2) One can possibly shoot a unit that was hidden by another target when the shooting began. This assumes that the targets can be chosen one at a time instead of declared all at once.