7th ed confirmed

[MM3791]

This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible.

I've been playing for 10 years now and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I thought 5th ed was terrible and broken for 2 reasons.

1) Vehicles were too powerful, a lot of armies were Mech IG which was really stupid to play against
2) An overwhelming amount of the releases were for Space Marine armies, and out of half of those players were Grey Knights. It wasn't until the end of the edition were xenos like Dark Eldar & Necrons saw an update (after waiting 10+ years mind you)

Change for change sake is a very bad thing.  As the saying goes why change what isnt broken.  This may of been the case back in the day but not now.  Allot of changes need to happen to bring the community together again.  I have purposely not paid any attention to any rumors and plan on giving 7th the benefit of the doubt.

Change for change sake? Didn't you just say that you thought 6th was broken, and now your complaining about a new edition? Seems like a contradiction, man. There isn't any business in the world that goes into business to break even. GW's old business model was awful, 1-2 codices a year is very uncompetitive.. and that's why the edition releases back then were a whole 4 years. It wasn't that something was or wasn't broken, it's just that the releases were so slow.

Newer wargame companies are a good thing, because I think the competition gave GW a much needed fire lit under there asses. As a customer, I am very happy with the new release schedule.

I enjoyed 6th very much and I'm looking forward to 7th.

[Ian Mulligan]

This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible.

I've been playing for 10 years now and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I thought 5th ed was terrible and broken for 2 reasons.

1) Vehicles were too powerful, a lot of armies were Mech IG which was really stupid to play against
2) An overwhelming amount of the releases were for Space Marine armies, and out of half of those players were Grey Knights. It wasn't until the end of the edition were xenos like Dark Eldar & Necrons saw an update (after waiting 10+ years mind you)

I have been playing since late 2nd edition and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I think 6th ed is terrible and broken for 2 (among many other) reasons.

1) Dataslates/flyers/newer codexes/super heavies/psychic powers are too powerful. A lot of armies are one dimensional and exploitative with allies to mindlessly cover their weaknesses which is really stupid to play against.
2) An overwhelming amount of releases are sloppy, lazy, poorly edited, untested piles of garbage.

Its clear you enjoyed 6th edition. That's great. I'm glad you had fun. However, its very apparent that you are in the minority.

[Grimwulfe]

I think Ian summed it up nicely.  Didn't think I was complaining about anything but its all good.  I hope 7th makes the right changes and brings back the fire in this game for me and the people who think as I do.

[Typhus]

I miss 2nd Ed.

[AstartesXXVI]

This last edition I can honestly say was the first that has truly felt broken to me and GW new plan or way of doing things is horrible.

I've been playing for 10 years now and I have to strongly disagree with you here. I thought 5th ed was terrible and broken for 2 reasons.

1) Vehicles were too powerful, a lot of armies were Mech IG which was really stupid to play against
2) An overwhelming amount of the releases were for Space Marine armies, and out of half of those players were Grey Knights. It wasn't until the end of the edition were xenos like Dark Eldar & Necrons saw an update (after waiting 10+ years mind you)

Change for change sake is a very bad thing.  As the saying goes why change what isnt broken.  This may of been the case back in the day but not now.  Allot of changes need to happen to bring the community together again.  I have purposely not paid any attention to any rumors and plan on giving 7th the benefit of the doubt.

Change for change sake? Didn't you just say that you thought 6th was broken, and now your complaining about a new edition? Seems like a contradiction, man. There isn't any business in the world that goes into business to break even. GW's old business model was awful, 1-2 codices a year is very uncompetitive.. and that's why the edition releases back then were a whole 4 years. It wasn't that something was or wasn't broken, it's just that the releases were so slow.

Newer wargame companies are a good thing, because I think the competition gave GW a much needed fire lit under there asses. As a customer, I am very happy with the new release schedule.

I enjoyed 6th very much and I'm looking forward to 7th.

Good attitude. The right attitude, I would say. The changes are constant, and the game is a living thing that gets updated or changed every single month at this point...to claim it is broken when the next month could lead to some sudden huge change is a bit of a miss, being that the game's actual balance month to month is a moving target at best.

The complaints about 6th are -- and always have been -- massively overhyped.

[andalucien]

The changes are constant, and the game is a living thing that gets updated or changed every single month at this point...to claim it is broken when the next month could lead to some sudden huge change is a bit of a miss, being that the game's actual balance month to month is a moving target at best.

Let me paraphrase that:  so the interns at GW HQ pump out new stuff once every couple weeks or so, without any playtesting at all or even proofreading of any kind.  And although right now at this exact moment (just due to random chance of monkeys typing on 10000 keyboards) something might be overpowered and something else might be underpowered, and something else might not even be playable using the rules (see Codex: Legion of the Damned), they release SO MUCH STUFF that in a month or so, something ELSE will be underpowered and something ELSE will be overpowered and maybe some of the new random rules will cancel out the old random rules.  Who knows?  It's great!

[AstartesXXVI]

Hardly.

For one, people talk a lot of trash about playtesting and balance, like it's a known commodity. Do you have any kind of concrete understanding of how they produce these rules? No, you don't.

Secondly, you can't make a blanket statement about the game's balance because it is not etched in stone and changes all the time. The classic is "flyers are broken" -- really? The DA and Tau flyers are broken? -_-

As for "unplayable"...please. GW future-proofs its materials all the time in the sense that a book might make no sense until an edition update. It's been done for years and years now, my go-to example is the Grey Knights and how they were obviously written with the future 6E rules for power weapons in mind, but for the end of 5th they were a powerhouse army because the whole list was toting AP2 (Legion of the Damned is probably another example of that, I will not be surprised if it changes once the new rulebook drops).

"Underpowered" "overpowered" are unquantifiable internet buzzwords without any real context other than blind rage.

[andalucien]

Your own example, Grey Knights release near the end of 5th edition, is something that actually did bug me a lot, and it was something that when it happened, I HOPED would not be the norm.  I think that in the first Adepticon after that release, it was something like 40% of the field played Grey Knights.  It was sort of a drag on the fun of the game for months, IMHO.  I don't like the idea that a company will knowingly throw things out of whack for so long, under the hope that things will "eventually even out" when other stuff gets released later.  It's just not managing your game well.  Wizards of the Coast does NOT do things like that (on purpose).  My "new relationship", Privateer Press, doesn't do that either.  I hope eventually (if you are right that GW actually knows what it is doing, which I don't personally believe), GW will also stop doing it and will release updates that have a good effect on the game ON RELEASE.

[Ian Mulligan]

GW has confirmed they have not been playtesting. There's a post from Chase somewhere on the forums that cites a conversation with representatives. There are also a number of anecdotal accounts involving members of their design team.

These arguments are ultimately useless as they always seem to include those who have unconditional love for Games Workshop and those who are looking for more than rolling dice. These views are fundamentally opposed. No one is going to convince either side to abandon their stance in favor of the other.

However, as I stated earlier, it is fairly insane to dismiss the evidence that 6th is unpopular and has kept players from coming to the table. Whether people are just "whiners" or have legitimate reasons.

So, seriously, stop the arrogant proclamations that people are doing it wrong. Stop dismissing a fairly large percentage of players. Stop using your personal experience with a specific group of people to point out how individuals are attempting to have fun incorrectly.

Additionally, people should really stop telling people reasons why they are wrong for enjoying the current ruleset. They should stop channeling their discontent towards those who have none.

Finally, be aware that every possible thing you could say about 6th edition, GW's outlook, and basically any pro or con about the hobby has been argued endlessly on the intertubes. Nothing anyone is saying is new or insightful. This bullshit is everywhere. Its tired, old, and serves no purpose other than to fuel epeen growth.

[AstartesXXVI]

These arguments are ultimately useless as they always seem to include those who have unconditional love for Games Workshop and those who are looking for more than rolling dice. These views are fundamentally opposed. No one is going to convince either side to abandon their stance in favor of the other.

There's only those two extremes and no one in between, then?

However, as I stated earlier, it is fairly insane to dismiss the evidence that 6th is unpopular and has kept players from coming to the table. Whether people are just "whiners" or have legitimate reasons.

Stop using your personal experience with a specific group of people to point out how individuals are attempting to have fun incorrectly.

I get what you are trying to say here, but I don't follow -- how can you cite evidence that the edition is unpopular and people are leaving the table in droves? That doesn't even make any sense, we have one of the most strategically deep versions of the game we've ever had.

And as far as keeping people away, that is a local issue. Up here in the north we're all doing fine, if anything interest has gone up in my case (more new people, more new faces). Why is one "personal experience with a specific group of people" indicative of the entire length and breadth of 40k players, while another isn't? Why does it have to be due to a bad edition, and not say the numerous other games around now that are vying for the same demographics -- I mean, there wasn't an X-Wing or Bolt Action during the last edition, either. I know the stock is down but that doesn't mean the game is any more or less popular, necessarily.

I mean, try to understand my perspective. I don't think GW is without fault, but I just don't see how it can realistically be believed that this edition and its ramped up releases and rules have players running for the hills. I mean...I have a club and weekly game time devoted entirely and solely to this single game. How could we realistically accomplish that if the game is a broken mess of unplayable garbage, everyone hates this edition, and that I "don't even community, bro"...you know?

If you're talking about attendance problems at BG, well...that is their own issue.

[Ian Mulligan]

I'm not interested in arguing with you, especially when you've taken a statement of mine and twisted it so blatantly right off the bat.

There's no discussion worth having here. You're obviously not interested in anything other than being right.

[Benjamin]

If you're talking about attendance problems at BG, well...that is their own issue.

Well, there it is, isn't it?

Around BG, and on their own forum no less, people like to say it is "our" issue, because we're invested. It's a community thing.

[AstartesXXVI]

@Ian Mulligan: I don't see how I twisted anyone's words. But you made a relevant point: what exactly makes one person's observation more definitive than another's?

@Benjamin: Sorry, but the blame was squarely placed on the game and GW. It is pretty apparent the negative stigma toward the game is not made in specific context of Battleground.

[MM3791]

This subject has been beaten to death I think. Was 6th ed Tau & Eldar worse then 5th ed Grey Knight & Mech IG? Was either worse then the 3.5 Chaos Marine codex?  Opinions will vary depending on who you talk to, and player demographics vary in different locations.

As with any competitive game, people get passionate.. I get that. The new edition is a few weeks away so its probably best to just wait until the new release. 

[Typhus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JnMByJVUow

If you catch them, there are a few pages from the book with rules.  Looks like some of the benefits to playing a regular FOC army is that you can reroll warlord traits, and your primary detachment has the Objective Secured (like the tyranid skyblight formation) in which objectives cannot be contested.