Tuesday, September 8, 2015

How to fix 7th edition 40k

This post is about the latest edition of the game we've all learned to love.

The main question being whether or not this is a good edition and also how it fairs with previous iterations and why the comparison is inevitable...So how do you think it fairs?
Most people would agree that 7th is a good game, that is, putting aside one very important thing: game balance.

My opinion on 7th is best summed up by esteemed Reece over at FrontLineGaming's statement:

" If you were to play 40K 7th ed right out of the box with no modifications at all, the game would be absurdity."

This only meaning that the conversation you need to have with your opponent(or should I say in this case "collaborator") before hand needs to be an extensive one to achieve best possible balance.
More then it has been in the past?
The jury is still out...especially since rogue trader required a GM.
But I do believe it is more the case then it has ever been in previous editions because of the frantic release schedule of past years.
Then why should I buy into a game that has this kind of flaw?
Well the answer is simple: the people who continue to support it and continue to play without looking at it as a competitive game but more as a fun narrative game.

GW is known for releasing rules that are easily exploited and quickly turn their games into a "pay to win" one cant just start playing each other out of the blue without fear of glaring balancing issues.
Hard not to start and rant based on that statement.

Because if I'm not mistaken it's never been other people's jobs to balance a game...well I guess it somewhat has been for the past editions, so what am I even talking about?(AoS cough*) :p

Here's another one from someone's opinion I value(checkout his AoS review its pretty hilarious and not for the reasons one might think):

To each to his own, and as always happy wargaming!


  1. As someone who is running a 64 player GT with your so-called "absurdity" I feel that you are applying a rose-tinted perspective about previous editions to your criticism of this edition. Let's throw out the notion that somehow 7th edition is supposed to be played the same way as 6th edition. If we look at 7th edition as a current ruleset with no preconceived notions about how it is supposed to be played, what we find is that GW has 1) continued to do a poor job of balancing the game inter and intra codex (I won't even try to defend them; although this isn't a new phenomenon) and 2) given us an amazingly simple way of making this lack of balance not matter - "battle-forged."

    Battle-forged list construction means that every army can take whatever models they want, as long as they follow some simple list building constraints - detachment requirements. I argue that the ITC errata - or changing the base 7the edition ruleset (especially banning CTA allies) and the ITC mission scenario scoring (multiple mission scoring that limits maelstrom impact and devalues Kill Points) together have changed the meta substantially. I will support my assertion with evidence:

    1. CTA - while fluffy players may cringe at this notion, tournaments are about competitive play. Allowing all players access to the same detachments naturally levels the playing field, by making no one army build immune to external meta unbalancing acts. If your army can handle everything but a wraithknight, then take the appropriate detachment and add a wraithknight. ITC allows imperial armies to summon daemons, but a daemon army cannot take Legion of the Dammed. This restriction effectively decreases parity by significant margins for about half of the armies in the game.

    2. Current 7th edition missions have a very wide variety of victory conditions. Armies like the Battle Company excel at ITC 40K because they do not have to play core 7th edition missions. If every event placed at least a 1/6th emphasis on Kill Points, then Battle Company (the welfare queens of 40K) would not be SUCH a dominant force.

    While I partially agree with your statement, that this has made 40K a "pay to win" game - in the competitive environment, it was already such. It used to be the codex of the quarter that dominated events. Remember Grey Knights? I recall 40% GK attendance rates at some events, and I'm sure that people didn't have those armies sitting around on their shelves.

    So, in summary, 7E is not 6E. Balance is important, in both friendly and competitive games, but can be achieved different ways. Competitive 40K is actually on the rise. I can play in 1-2 tournaments a month within a 2 hour drive of my house. The largest 40K singles GT event in known history (not fact checked) is occurring in Las Vegas next February and sold 284 tickets in a week. We all must adapt.

    1. Wow, your comment is actually longer then my article.
      I must of really struck a chord! XD

      1. I'm not criticizing 40k 7th I'm just trying to objectively point out its flaws...and even if I was, what's so bad about that? 40k isn't and never has been a perfect game in any way.
      2. You're right they're are plenty of tools for us players to try and balance the game...most of them are lacking and the most balanced ones being in fact homebrew (like tournament missions). I'm sorry but the units(or should I say formations) and the game itself are nowhere close from balance.

      "So, in summary, 7E is not 6E"
      That made me chuckle because 7th is basically 6.5.
      Though some of the glaring flaws of 6th were corrected the ones that are built in-game are still present(OP shooting with overwatch) as well as new ones(psychic phase).

      And just because you organize large tournaments that people attend doesn't mean everyone is having fun. ;)

      Anyways we have different opinions on the current state of 40k and nothing either one of us is gonna say is going to change anything about that.

      Peace out and thank you for your long yet instructive comment.

    2. "If your army can handle everything but a wraithknight then take the appropriate detachment and add a wraithknight"

      That pretty much sums it up: "If you can't beat em, join em!"
      And be sure to buy lots of that super OP kit that just came out on your way. ;)

    3. I fail to see how this is new to 7E? Pick an edition and we can go find the 2-3 codexes that were best at that time and 1-2 codexes that flat out sucked. At least with the current game system, if your codex sucks you can ally in something that doesn't. And, if you want to be a creative hobbyist, you can make a counts-as custom modeled [insert cool unitname here] so as to keep your fluffy dignity somewhat in tact. But, hey, your alternative is cool too... ;)


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...