Galactic Conflicts > Warhammer 40k Discussion

New 40K?

(1/7) > >>

offroadfury88:
So here I am, just finished acing and Art History final and I click on the GW main page, only to find that Warhammer 40k has a new set of rules. What? When did this happen? Is it a complete re-hall of the old system or just a fix to the 4th edition? Has GW even said anything about this? Has anybody played with this new set of rules?

If I were a 40k player (which I thankfully am not) I would be really pissed at this, new rules coming out all the time. Its probably just another excuse to release a new Space Marine Codex.

neverness:
Probably so.

However, I know a lot* of 'bored' 40k players who felt that game needed an injection of some sort. 4th edition was just a clean up of 3rd, and was sort of "mheh" that with the exception of a tidy assault phase and, argueably, better vehicle rules. They probably shouldn't have even called it 4th ed, but a redux of 3rd. What 5th is offering is quite a radical change in the way of tactics regarding targeting and movement. A slight throw back to Rogue Trader and 2nd edition. Interest in this edition seems very keen with that group of 'bored' 40k players.

There will always be those who refuse to move on to the next edition of any game for a bunch of different reasons. Like why I'm not moving onto 4th ed D&D but that's an entirely different thread...


(Ok, a majority of a those in my, somewhat small, gaming community)

Syn Ace:
Yeah, 40K has never been as stable rules-wise as Fantasy (and I'm saying that with a straight face). I play it and they're always overhauling something or trying to fix something they totally screwed up. Too much fiddling.

I was thumbing through a store copy of the new 5th edition. I agree that it looks like variations of some older rules are creeping back in. Don't know if it'll be successful or not. One thing I noticed was when they were discussing how to figure out cover saves for squads caught in two different covers--of course it wasn't a hard and fast rule, it was kind of "well, this is one way how to handle it, or you could do it this way". Arrrggggh typical Jervis wishy-washiness-- just pick one fkn way to do it and set it in stone--I don't want to negotiate the Geneva Convention every time I want to play a game.

M. Armand:
I agree, when it comes to 40k rules/army books, GW is like someone with extreme ADD who hasn't taken their pills for a couple years. 

I had a friend who was going to join me in playing 40k, he bought a bunch of miniatures, the army and the rules, then like 2 1/2 months later a new army book AND a new rule book come out.  He was like, "Yeah, not gonna take that crap."  He never picked up 40k again, and he had just gotten his small army painted, so I never got to play him either.  That's basically when I guite 40k as well.  Just too much changing, ALL THE TIME. 

Soju:
Yeah the main reason I got interested in Fantasy was that 40k tended to change so many times. Couldn't keep up with it.

sj

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version