PDA

View Full Version : 7th edition, more complicated than ever?!



TheWarSmith
12-03-2007, 21:53
It seems like reading through the rules forum now involves a LOT more debate and nitpicking over specific wording and interpretations.

7th edition was more like 6.5, where they took 6th and tweaked/adapted it, but they appear to have made huge mistakes in some wording that leave lots of big areas unclear.

Do you find 6th edition clearer and easier to interpret? Note I'm not asking if you think 6th ed's rules are BETTER, but just easier to interpret and figure out without contant rulebook reference.

mattjgilbert
12-03-2007, 22:13
I never played 6th so it's hard for me to say. I last played with 4th. I haven't played many games yet but the book seems less prone to loop holes than 40K.

Caern
12-03-2007, 22:14
As a game, I prefer 7th, a lot.

I have made some rules mistakes though due to bad wording which caused me to play the game incorrectly, so as far as the actual writing is concerned, well, I'm not sure if 6th is better than 7th, but it's certainly not worse. It could certainly have been more clearly written.

pcgamer72
12-03-2007, 22:14
I actually think that they addressed a lot of situations that they didn't in 6th. Sometimes an odd situation will come up that makes up look up something in the ruelbook and quite a few times those situations have been at least somewhat addressed.

Sure there are some areas that are a tad confusing, but I believe there were just as many in 6th.

NakedFisherman
12-03-2007, 23:19
What a terrible poll! The options included all have needless riders attached.

TheWarSmith
13-03-2007, 02:14
and what a horrible flame to go with it.

the answers have slight attachments, but that's the way i wanted it to be constructed.

Ravik
13-03-2007, 02:34
I'm finding 7th easier to get to grips with, not sure whether that's just because of some rule changes or the wording to the rules though.

It's certainly made things easier for my beastmen (MoN in a beastherd for example) but that's not the point of this thread anyhoo.

Can I have an example of where the rules have been made unclear since 6th? I've not noticed anything unclear so far when reading the book.

RavenBloodwind
13-03-2007, 02:52
WARNING! Greybeard grumbling coming...

Okay, to the meat of your question. 7th edition made a good effort to clear up some flagrantly ambiguous issues with 6th ed. Unfortunately, as they were scurrying to address said issues, they rushed through some previously adequately addressed things, thereby making them subject to interpretation (argument).

Now, to the greybearded grumbling...remember 3rd edition with magic points for spell casters, wheeling from the center, the reserve movement phase, spells which could summon the equivalent of 4 blood thirsters?

While eds. 5, 6 and 7 have sequentially dumbed down the game, they have done so in the interest of fluidity of play. In an effort to have faster play they changed the 'to hit' charts. A change I still **** and moan about when my WS6 troop is hit on 4's by some pissant WS3 trooper. That said, it really speeds up the flow of the game. More dead means faster combats.

My fear is that with the death of the english language and the steady dive of the average intellect, catering to the least common denominator makes for a less rich (challenging) game.

Regarding the vaguely worded rules, I think the quote credited to Shakespeare regarding lawyers applies to rules lawyers. To paraphrase: The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.

explorator
13-03-2007, 03:40
and what a horrible flame to go with it.

the answers have slight attachments, but that's the way i wanted it to be constructed.

I likey this poll!

sulla
13-03-2007, 04:49
One of the best things about 7th is that they simplified the old panic rules which were a little clunky. Now they all measure from a standard range and a standard US. Much better and more efficient.

The Spell lists are a lot better balanced now too... and psychology rules work better with one another too...

Hmm, I think I'm a big fan.

Alathir
13-03-2007, 04:59
I am a big fan of 7th edition and havent found there to be too many issues... magic is exponentially better for one.

Gorbad Ironclaw
13-03-2007, 09:40
Do you find 6th edition clearer and easier to interpret? Note I'm not asking if you think 6th ed's rules are BETTER, but just easier to interpret and figure out without contant rulebook reference.


We had been playing 6th for what, 6 years? Of course it was easier to interpret than a new spin on the rules, even if most are the same.

Not to mention the silly remarks on RAW that spawned a whole new level of idiocy in rules debates.

So give it a few years for a consensus to be build and stability reached and it will essentially be the same. Some things I think are good, some are bad and there were a number of huge disapointments.

The real change could be in the army books, but I don't expect too much.

DeathlessDraich
13-03-2007, 10:04
I voted with the majority. Overall 7th is an improvement:

Improvements:
1) Fleeing, pursuits, overrun, EITW - clearer than redirect.
2) Multiple chargers/multiple targets - in the main section now.
3) Psychology has been clarified in some areas - mount psychology
4) Panic tests are simplified and easier to remember - 6" throughout and fleers only cause panic when they come into contact with friendly units.
5) Diagrams - more usage
6) Regeneration rules

Changes that have caused problems:
1) Table edge is impenetrable
2) Terrain placement - rejected by too many players
3) Free manoeuvres
4) Exact meaning of pivot
5) Great weapons (mounted)
6) Impact hits chariots
7) Daemon Prince and Monster
8) Infantry and Building rules

Problems that should have been addressed:
1) Clipping, Maximisation
2) Formal Definitions of important terms - models, units, move and charge, wheel, hard and soft cover
3) Redressing for models disengaged in combat
4) Some magic rules - e.g. Remains in Play, Pit of Shades

Tutore
13-03-2007, 13:00
There are a few things to clear up, but I voted for the second choice. I find myself more comfortable with this rules than those of the 6th edition. Expecially the fleeing maneuvers have been cleared up.

Chicago Slim
13-03-2007, 14:56
As has been noted, 6th ed was out for lots of years. I mostly play with the same group of 4-6 people, all of whom started playing under 5th ed or earlier, so we all were active players when 6th ed came out.

Within this rather small group of experienced players, there were rules questions that continued to come up, after years and years of playing 6th ed. When that happened, we'd fumble around in the rulebook for a while, until someone found a passage of text that, as often as not, did little to resolve the question.

6th ed suffered significantly from being ambiguous, poorly organized, and unindexed. 7th ed, while not perfect, provides significant improvements in each of these categories.

Also, by the time 6th ed was retired, there existed a set of rules patches, both optional and mandatory, that filled about as much paper as the basic rulebook, but was distributed over three different books. Me, I'm all for RAW, inasmuch as it suggests that GW is moving away from this patchwork mentality. I was really tired of going to one or two tournaments each year, to invariably discover that there was some rule in the Annual 200x that I didn't know about, which had a significant impact on some unit I or my opponent had brought. Nothing annoys me more than being surprised by rules...

peteratwar
13-03-2007, 15:03
Well due to various circumstances I have played very little as yet under 7th ED. However it seems to me that the HtH combat has slipped to being very unrealistic.

If I understand it correctly you complete each combat in charge order including pursuit etc. This gives the highly unrealistic situation of other combat standing around until the previous one has completed. As if.

If I've misunderstood then fair enough. Perhaps someone will clarify this.

Avian
13-03-2007, 15:05
I would not say that 7th edition is more complicated, on the contrary, they have removed a lot of complicated rules that I liked (lapping around, for example) to make a simpler game. Similarly, the fleeing rules are now a lot simpler, but has some pretty silly consequences (a week ago I paniced an enemy unit of Hobgoblins who then ran through three friendly units before coming in contact with some night goblins and dieing).

A lot of other rules have been improved, but that is mostly due to better wording (you MUST use the General's Ld if you can, rather than you MAY use his Ld) and not making rules more or less complicated.

I would say that 7th edition is clearer and simpler. I approve of the former, but not of the latter.



1) Fleeing, pursuits, overrun, EITW - clearer than redirect.
Now, now, remember that EitW was one of the things that needed an FAQ immediately after the book was released, because it was not clear how it worked at all. ;)

ZeroTwentythree
13-03-2007, 16:11
I would not say that 7th edition is more complicated, on the contrary, they have removed a lot of complicated rules that I liked (lapping around, for example) to make a simpler game. Similarly, the fleeing rules are now a lot simpler, but has some pretty silly consequences (a week ago I paniced an enemy unit of Hobgoblins who then ran through three friendly units before coming in contact with some night goblins and dieing).

A lot of other rules have been improved, but that is mostly due to better wording (you MUST use the General's Ld if you can, rather than you MAY use his Ld) and not making rules more or less complicated.

I would say that 7th edition is clearer and simpler. I approve of the former, but not of the latter.



I pretty much agree with everything you've said above, especially regarding lapping, fleeing, etc. And I also agree that generally I like the generally cleaner 7th over 6th.


Here's one I'm still not sure I understand. In the diagram below, the brave unit of clanrats (B) stalwartly defend their land from the evil and cowardly high elves (A) who flee from combat in the skaven player's turn, to the dashed position. On their turn, they fail to rally, like the cowards they are. The entire battlefield is open. Where do they flee? If I understand correctly, they will run directly AT the unit that they just ran away FROM and be destroyed, rather than run for the safty of... well, pretty much anywhere else.

Avian
13-03-2007, 16:12
That is correct and a consequence of the overly simple fleeing rules.

TheWarSmith
13-03-2007, 17:47
They run directly towards the closest board edge, right?

I see the simplicity of this rule, but I dont' think it lends to the game. I think that units that no longer have a direct source of their flight(terror/combat, etc.) should run as fast as they can towards their deployment zone.

I know fleeing troops are disorganized and panicked, but i think they'd know that fleeing towards their friendly side would be smart. That's just a gripe at the logic though. I also think that the current method can make things more confusing at times(when 2 board edges are equidistant.

In the above example, it makes NO sense why the elves would run straight away from the clanrats, then decide to turn 180 degrees and run themselves onto the clanrats spears.

ZeroTwentythree
13-03-2007, 17:50
In the above example, it makes NO sense why the elves would run straight away from the clanrats, then decide to turn 180 degrees and run themselves onto the clanrats spears.


Yet it happens a lot, but only if you are an aggressive player.

The rule encourages you to stay on your own side of the table in hopes of rallying your own troops.

Arnizipal
13-03-2007, 21:37
Improvements:
[snip]
3) Psychology has been clarified in some areas - mount psychology

Personally I think the mount psychology rules make little sense. I just can't imagine horse hating its enemy.
It isn't logical and it wasn't needed.

I see the simplicity of this rule, but I dont' think it lends to the game. I think that units that no longer have a direct source of their flight(terror/combat, etc.) should run as fast as they can towards their deployment zone.

[snip]

In the above example, it makes NO sense why the elves would run straight away from the clanrats, then decide to turn 180 degrees and run themselves onto the clanrats spears.
That won't solve much. Imagine the Elves where rear charged after moving directly away from their deploment zone. Same situation.

The only way to avoid this is adding the "while avoiding troops along the way", but that clunks up the rules again.

T10
13-03-2007, 23:12
Personally I think the mount psychology rules make little sense. I just can't imagine horse hating its enemy.
It isn't logical and it wasn't needed.


Oh, but it was. I agree it is odd when it comes to the beneficial effects on mounts/riders that would otherwise not be affected. But this resolves so many ambiguities.

6th ed. was completely incapable of dealing with situations where the mount's psychology said one thing and the rider's another.

E.g.: Cold One Knights go stupid. Do they take Panic tests? The mount is immune to psychology but the rider isn't!

-T10

Avian
14-03-2007, 14:31
The only way to avoid this is adding the "while avoiding troops along the way", but that clunks up the rules again.
Which is what the 6th edition rule said and that worked fine by me, after they did an FAQ on the terrible wording.

I really hate the 7th edition fleeing rules. They just open up for too many silly consequences (such as fleeing into a wall and dieing) due to their extreme simplicity.

Kadrium
14-03-2007, 15:26
They run directly towards the closest board edge, right?

I see the simplicity of this rule, but I dont' think it lends to the game. I think that units that no longer have a direct source of their flight(terror/combat, etc.) should run as fast as they can towards their deployment zone.

We houserule that so while our units still flee toward the closest table edge, they will avoid enemy units if they are fleeing in consecutive turns, if they have no direct source of panic.

On the turn you break and flee, it's a mad rush to "OMG GET AWAY" from whatever broke you, but on following turns, they will at least not flee into certain death.

Thats how we play it, anyway.

Also:


5) Great weapons (mounted)

I would have to argue that this is not some sort of confusing rule or a "problem" so much as it's just a change people don't like. The fact that great weapons only give 1 strength when you're mounted is very clear, concise, and easy to understand, it just pisses some people off.

DeathlessDraich
14-03-2007, 16:39
[Graet Weapon mounted]
I would have to argue that this is not some sort of confusing rule or a "problem" so much as it's just a change people don't like. The fact that great weapons only give 1 strength when you're mounted is very clear, concise, and easy to understand, it just pisses some people off.

It's the 'mounted' bit I was referring to which sparked off an inconclusive debate here.

Joeslop
14-03-2007, 16:54
Well due to various circumstances I have played very little as yet under 7th ED. However it seems to me that the HtH combat has slipped to being very unrealistic.

If I understand it correctly you complete each combat in charge order including pursuit etc. This gives the highly unrealistic situation of other combat standing around until the previous one has completed. As if.

If I've misunderstood then fair enough. Perhaps someone will clarify this.

In order for HtH battles in Warhammer to make sense, there has to be a little abstraction regarding time spent. Ideally, all the battles would be done at once, but since humans aren't quite that capable, the battles have to be done one at a time. If you were to witness a Warhammer battle in real time, it would all be happening at once.

Basically, "turns" are a game concept, not a war concept.

ZeroTwentythree
14-03-2007, 18:48
We houserule that so while our units still flee toward the closest table edge, they will avoid enemy units if they are fleeing in consecutive turns, if they have no direct source of panic.

On the turn you break and flee, it's a mad rush to "OMG GET AWAY" from whatever broke you, but on following turns, they will at least not flee into certain death.




This pretty much makes sense to me as well, and seems like it would be reasonable to work out.

I think the problem is that as the game gets less "friendly" and more "competitive" they are trying to tie every little detail of the game down. Thus we have really dumb fleeing rules to solve a problem that generally reasonable people never had in the first place.

Chicago Slim
14-03-2007, 21:23
Well due to various circumstances I have played very little as yet under 7th ED. However it seems to me that the HtH combat has slipped to being very unrealistic.

If I understand it correctly you complete each combat in charge order including pursuit etc. This gives the highly unrealistic situation of other combat standing around until the previous one has completed. As if.

If I've misunderstood then fair enough. Perhaps someone will clarify this.

Okay. Here's what you've misunderstood: movement relating to charges (including fleeing from charges and movement of chargers) happens in charge order, though all fleeing happens (in the order in which charges were declared) and then all chargers are moved (in the order in which charges were declared).

Once movement is done, then combats happen in whatever order the active player chooses. Generally, this makes little difference, but it can be significant if pursuit takes troops into another combat.

In the case where it DOES take troops into another combat, there's some opportunity for a victorious unit to get a second round of combat that turn (but NEVER a third round of combat!) This ONLY happens if the pursuers run into a unit that was ALREADY stuck in, and still had a fight to resovle that turn.

So, it's a substantial reward for careful play (ie lining up situations that will allow it, and choosing the combats in the correct order), which is good. It's not particularly easy to accomplish, which is good. And, in terms of "real-world" modelling, it is justifiable: the pursuers are presumed to have broken their first opponent early in the round, in time to "get in on the action" of another fight already in progress.

Chicago Slim
14-03-2007, 21:35
On the turn you break and flee, it's a mad rush to "OMG GET AWAY" from whatever broke you, but on following turns, they will at least not flee into certain death.

Any of you guys ever been a fleeing troop? It's a terrible, terrible experience, and until your unit regains cohesion, you really have very little control over where your unit goes, and you're very likely to end up running right into the jaws of an enemy unit, or an obstacle (which may not kill you, but will break your unit up so widespread that you'll never regain cohesion).

This is my personal experience based on being one infantryman in a recreated melee with about 2000 fighters per side.

And remember: a destroyed unit does NOT mean that everyone in the unit is dead. It means that the unit has irrepairably lost cohesion. Sometimes I've survived the destruction of my unit, but as a lone grunt, I've never had any impact on the battle. Grunts are only effective in well-ordered units.

peteratwar
15-03-2007, 08:16
In order for HtH battles in Warhammer to make sense, there has to be a little abstraction regarding time spent. Ideally, all the battles would be done at once, but since humans aren't quite that capable, the battles have to be done one at a time. If you were to witness a Warhammer battle in real time, it would all be happening at once.

Basically, "turns" are a game concept, not a war concept.

I understand it is a game concept. However,, I believe that the previous method of resolving combat was a much better one and more realistic and cannot see there is any improvement here rather more of a unrealistic move (if that can be said!!!)