Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok so before I begin, this is not meant to be a negative thread or a thread meant to witch hunt GW, just observations and I was wondering if people have the same thoughts?

I find since 6th ed. that GW were starting to pick up elements or aspects from other games, such as they started with mastery levels in the BRB and to me this seemed similar to focus in WM/H, because of the use of having "levels" or "counters" alongside a warp charge that meets a requirement to cast, just like how focus is needed to be spent for a requirement to cast a spell from a Warcaster. I then noticed they took similar mechanics from fantasy such as dispelling and the charge distance.

Then they released the Expansion of "Escalation" which was after the release of Colossals IIRC, which seemed like an attempt to bring big things into 40k.

Now In 7th ed. I noticed that LoW are now a standard in the BRB for 40k, which looks like its trying to enforce bringing big things to standard games after the reaction from the internet at the release of Escalation. I also noticed about multiple types of FoC's Such as Unbound, Formations and the classic now named CAD. This to me looks like they took the platoon force composition idea from historical games and put it in 40k. We have now a psychic phase which looks like they put the Magic phase in 40k, tactical objectives and Malestorm of War missions look like an attempt of creating some sort of steamroller scenarios for 40k due to the VP gained at the end of every turn.

I will not add personal opinion to this as this is just meant to be an observational thread, and I was only wondering if I was the only one who was thinking along these lines? Similarly is there anyone out there who has noticed other mechanics from other games that 40k 7th ed. appears to have now that I may have missed?

Cheers to all comments

*shrugs* A company is copying what another company has already done. I'm sure someone will find some irony here.

Though honestly, it just looks like pretty standard miniature wargaming stuff.

Yes to just about everything you said, but it has been heading this way for a long time. Most of these discussions happened when the 7th rule set dropped.

No disrespect, but all this is kinda old hat now.

 happygolucky wrote:
I find since 6th ed. that GW were starting to pick up elements or aspects from other games, such as they started with mastery levels in the BRB and to me this seemed similar to focus in WM/H, because of the use of having "levels" or "counters" alongside a warp charge that meets a requirement to cast, just like how focus is needed to be spent for a requirement to cast a spell from a Warcaster. I then noticed they took similar mechanics from fantasy such as dispelling and the charge distance.

These ideas didn't come from Warmachine. They came from 2nd ed 40K/5th ed WHFB, which predates Warmahordes by a considerable margin.

Then they released the Expansion of "Escalation" which was after the release of Colossals IIRC, which seemed like an attempt to bring big things into 40k.

Apocalypse already did that. Escalation just rolled it all in together, rather than having Apocalypse as a separate game form where most players just ignored it. And, again, the 'big stuff' has been there in 40K since well before Warmahordes came along.

I agree with Insaniak. 7th Edition 40K is the new 2nd Edition 40K.

 happygolucky wrote:
I find since 6th ed. that GW were starting to pick up elements or aspects from other games, such as they started with mastery levels in the BRB and to me this seemed similar to focus in WM/H, because of the use of having "levels" or "counters" alongside a warp charge that meets a requirement to cast, just like how focus is needed to be spent for a requirement to cast a spell from a Warcaster. I then noticed they took similar mechanics from fantasy such as dispelling and the charge distance.

Mastery levels already existed before 6th edition, they just weren't standardized. For example, in 5th edition a C:SM librarian could buy an upgrade to cast two powers per turn. Similarly, the concept of warp charge already existed in the limit on how many powers you could cast, all 6th edition did was standardize it and introduce the concept of multi-charge powers (which hardly mattered since there were so few of them and all of the good ones only cost one warp charge). Really, as long as you still had non-random powers in your codex the 6th edition system wasn't a major change from 5th in actual gameplay. And the biggest change came from having random powers instead of buying them as part of your army.

Then they released the Expansion of "Escalation" which was after the release of Colossals IIRC, which seemed like an attempt to bring big things into 40k.

But they already had Apocalypse, which was just Escalation with fewer restrictions. All of the units already existed and people already used them in normal games. Escalation just said "using your Baneblade in a 2000 point game is now called 'Escalation', so give us $50 for the book that approves of what you're already doing". If you want a reason for this other than "big tanks are cool" the most likely one is that it's an attempt to boost sales of those big models, with the nice bonus of selling a rulebook of nothing but stuff copy/pasted from the previous $50 book.

I also noticed about multiple types of FoC's Such as Unbound, Formations and the classic now named CAD. This to me looks like they took the platoon force composition idea from historical games and put it in 40k.

I don't think so. 40k already had Apocalypse formations that worked exactly like 7th edition formations. The only change with 7th edition is that those formations are now part of the "normal" game, which is in line with GW's trend of removing the idea of separate expansions and letting you play everything in "normal" games. Similarly, unbound has nothing to do with historical games, it's just a blatant attempt to say "even if you don't play {newest codex} you can still buy the new releases and use them in your army".

tactical objectives and Malestorm of War missions look like an attempt of creating some sort of steamroller scenarios for 40k due to the VP gained at the end of every turn.

That's an incredibly superficial similarity, and "score objectives at the end of each turn" already existed in third-party missions (and maybe even GW's own tournaments?). Meanwhile maelstrom missions introduce the (incredibly stupid) random element, which is the only real "innovation" they have.

 adamsouza wrote:
I agree with Insaniak. 7th Edition 40K is the new 2nd Edition 40K.

To a degree. Both are on the complex side, take a long time to play, and love lots of random cards, counters, bits and bobs to play. But 2nd was quirky with its own personality, where as I find 7th to be soulless.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I agree with Insaniak. 7th Edition 40K is the new 2nd Edition 40K.

To a degree. Both are on the complex side, take a long time to play, and love lots of random cards, counters, bits and bobs to play. But 2nd was quirky with its own personality, where as I find 7th to be soulless.

a corperate attempt to return to 2nd edition?

oddly eneugh I think 7th suggests GW is realizing the greatest value of 40k, the background and stories you can tell, but they seem to be providing less of it in codexes. which really read as more lose summeries then anything these days.