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.

First off, I'm going to say something that will suprise some. I actually like 5th edition 40k. It's not going to replace pride of place with me as my favorite edition of the game. That has to be Rogue Trader (for it's background and flexibility) with 2nd edition (for it's detail) running a close second. When you get right down to it, 3rd-5th editions are not REALLY 40k at all. I like to compare them to my opinion in regards to the recent change from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition to 4th edition. While I may like many of the changes, it's not really D&D at all. In reality it's a completely different game that happens to share the name of the older system. That being said, I've been playing 5th ed quite a bit. In fact a number of us older gamers have been having a weekly "old fart 40k night" every Friday at the local store.

I've also been a very vocal critic of GW in the past. One of the things that I have spoken out against is the seeming lack of respect for the traditions and history of the game. This has been a running theme in 40k for ten years now and is unfortunately been emulated by the younger players and the rabid fanboys who will latch onto whatever the current company line is without really thinking it through for themselves.

But is GW changing direction? One positive step that I greatly aplaud is their decision to include units and troop choices in recent codexes that were previously removed from the game. Consider the reapearance of the following:
From Codex Eldar:
Harlequins. (yes, yes, they have had some cameos in WD and the defunct Citadel Journal but this is their first official codex option since 2nd ed)

From Codex Space Orks:
The shock attack gun
Weirdboyz (see my note for the harlequins above)

From both Chaos Codexes:
The palaquin of Nurgle (an old favorite of mine...my first Nurgle army back in the day was built around a character riding one of these)
Fiends of Slaanesh

From Codex Space Marines:
The conversion beamer
The thunderfire cannon (ok, so it's a new piece of kit. But it is basicly a thudd gun and mole mortar combined)

What am I leaving out?

Like I said, this apears to be indicative of a new trend in game design with GW...and it's something I wholeheartedly aprove of.

Or am I off base here? Thoughts? Comments? Flames?

"Trench Raider"

I cut my teeth in 2nd Edition, and I look at things somewhat similarly to you.

I absolutely love that GW is finding ways to bring back selected pieces of old stuff from RT / 2E / Epic without feeling slavish to the whole thing.

I've played all editions and the first 3 years or so of third were far and away my favorite.

Didn't have the ridiculous complexity of RT.
Didn't have single models or special equipment that could take out an enemy on their own, or the death trap vehicles of 2nd ed.
Didn't have the lame vehicle rules of 4th ed.
Didn't have kill points of 5th ed.

The game was balanced, rules on the whole made sense, and we weren't bogged down with detail of a 3-5 unit game as it had grown to 8-10 units minimum and had to be streamlined to allow for the increased size.

It is however good that they are mining the old army lists for OOP units.

It is indeed very pleasent to see older pieces coming back into the game, I would like to put forward a theory as to the whys and wherefores.

2nd Edition, like Rogue Trader, were victims of GW's success. As more resources came in from the solid sales, more stuff was written. Certainly for a fair part of Rogue Trader GW was still very much 'Cottage Industry' (no, not cottaging. Thats something utterly different) in both outlook and facilities. The mentality of the Cottage Industry also continued into 2nd Edition somewhat.

Then eventually, GW hit the growing pains. Due to their success with the games, people wanted to play bigger and bigger battles, so they streamlined the rules a lot and came up with 3rd. Now, in it's defence, I feel a lot of the antipathy towards this Edition stems from a kind of culture shock, and I would agree with Trenchie that at this point, it was 'same name, different game'. Overall the system did work, but it was such a radical change in pace from it's predecessors that many were turned off. Over the folllowing editions, things have been added which add additional realism to the games. Well, I say realism, I suppose one should say 'tactical options' like going to ground etc.

But of course, GW publish rules to sell the models. This is something they freely admit to. So why drop all that stuff? Again, it's down to a change in philosophy. I think it's actually covered by Jervis in a Stand Bearer, so I'll give a very potted version here. Essentially, a decision was made to only do rules for the models being actively produced. Thusly, the more esoteric units like the aforementioned Harlequins and Field Artillery were dropped as they were less central to the theme of the army. Add in that the kits being produced were of better design (the current Space Marines are what, 10 years old now?) this meant the range was completed faster, and by keeping the kits somewhat modular, you could expand them with relatively minimal fuss.

So, how to tempt people into buying more? Replace the basic plastic Marines, and you need to resculpt the Assault and Dev squads. But, bring in new units altogether...thats fun, and damned tempting (after all, I have a company of Dark Angels. Would I *really* bother with replacing old for new. But give me a new unit and damn right it's getting added!)

So, yeah. I do like 5th Edition. I made my first 40k purchase since the plastic Skyray came out yesterday in fact. Plastic Ork Nobs. £15 for 5, with more options than I can shake a stick at, and I reckon, enough armour plates to make my normal Boyz (once I've bought them) into 'Ard Boyz. Which is always nice.

I dunno what changed at GW. Perhaps with their falling revenues (now apparently a thing of the past. For the minute at least) they looked around and saw they had to now fight to maintain their place as the best Fantasy/SciFi Wargames company. Or if not fight for it, at least bother to defend it. Tom Kirby almost said as much in a Shareholder Report (fat and lazy I think was the phrase used, but don't quote me on that). But whatever it was, I'm glad it did!

Trench-Raider wrote:But is GW changing direction?

I don't really think so.

I beleive that GW (or rather 40K) is old enough to learn from past successes and failures. We still essentially have third edition (large squad based TTG), but it is modified with many rules you find in second edition (a more complicated set of rules for a smaller squad based, not quite skirmish scale TTG).

While a lot of people enjoy differing editions of 40K for a variety of reasons (rules, models, art, etc.), GW is attempting to find a middle ground. Or it could be that they are creatively bankrupt and going backwards instead of forwards in many instances. Either option is just as likely in my eyes at this point.

Possibly one factor is that folk who have been playing 40K since the RT days, myself included, now have the earning & spending power to buy the things we always wanted.


For exsample I'm currently trying to put a platoon of 50 Valhallans together and later this year I want to get three Thudd guns from FW.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno what changed at GW. Perhaps with their falling revenues (now apparently a thing of the past. For the minute at least) they looked around and saw they had to now fight to maintain their place as the best Fantasy/SciFi Wargames company. Or if not fight for it, at least bother to defend it. Tom Kirby almost said as much in a Shareholder Report (fat and lazy I think was the phrase used, but don't quote me on that). But whatever it was, I'm glad it did!

I woudl agree with you there. It definitely feel slike some of the "personality"was coming back into the game that had been stripped out with 3rd and 4th edition, but without the completely imractical anarchy of the madness that 2nd edition became with its multiple and contradictory supplementsand so forth.

Couple that with improved miniature manufacturing processes which enable inspiring kits to be produced and and it definitely feels like a more attractive environmentthan it used to.

I wouldn't go so far as to say GW have learned to truly listen to their customers, but they have made several changes that say to me that they are attempting to produce stuff that their customers want, rather than what the Design Studio think their customers *should* want. Altogether less paternalistic.

Indeed "Fat and Lazy" was the phrase used. I have reason to remember that phrase well...

Certainly it feels like the 40k customer is being taken less for granted than they were a few years back.

They still perhaps are pricing themselves a bit higher than I would think the market can justify, and I certainly think they could make much better use of WD and of their website, and of course many sadly miss the old "bitz" service (or at least say they do) and GW have not found an entirely satisfactory alternative yet that they are letting on about, and of course they still can't FAQ worth a hoot. But all that said, gaming 40k under 5th edition no longer looks quite so stupid a decision as it did only a year ago. For more of us the game is once again "good enough". Just.

But price wise, the shift from Metal to Plastic is keeping the overall cost of an army relatively static, and in certain combinations a helluva lot cheaper. I think this is particularly good for the Games as a whole.

Lets take Empire Flagellants. Used to be £2.50 each, meaning a unit of 30 would set you back £75. But now they are in plastic, I can raise said regiment for nearly half the price at £36. And then we have the Golden Boyz of the moment, the Orks. Nobz in plastic are £10 cheaper, with plenty of spares for converting. Boyz..sure, you get fewer for slightly more money than before, but when you consider that includes a Nob (£7 seperately before) AND an 'Eavy Weapon (which was what, £6 for 2, so previously £3ish each) the boxed set is deceptively good value. Grots. £8 for 10 with a Herder. Thats a bargain compared to the metal. Burnas were £4ish each in metal, or £12 for 4 with a Mek? Another saving.

The more units in plastic, means more units become affordable to more gamers. This encourages variety. Before this, variety was stymied somewhat simply by peoples budgets. No matter how good a unit might be, if it was all metal, fewer gamers could afford it, and even fewer gamers would be prepared to pay for it. Once it's in plastic, the demograph changes significantly. Add in that GW are trying to offer full units in the box, as illustrated above with the Ork range, and I think we are seeing them trying to make the most of our wallets, rather than just assuming that because we have to have a certain model in a given unit, we'll pay extra for it.

And I've always found the more varied my opponents armies, the more I'm inclined to pay. Other peoples experiences may differ of course, but I can't see anyone claiming variety in others armies could possibly be a bad thing!