Members
Review of Warhammer 40,000 mk.4
You know something amazing? For once GW told the truth about something: They said that the new edition of 40k wouldn't be a new game, just an improvement, or a patch, if you will, for the third edition, and by god they were right on the money with that.

Of course, they then very quietly charged their gaming public for it just like it was a whole new game......

Basically, the new edition of 40K is just a patch to correct some of the bugs in third ed 40K and make things a bit more streamlines and consistent. Few things have changed, actually. There are a few new rules like, for example, assaut weapon armed troops can now move, fire and assault, a rule I'd sugested long ago. Certain troops are now known as 'beasts', these include some cavalry models and things like hormagaunts from the tyranid line.

The rules are mostly cleaned up and made consistent, with a lot of loopholes and questions cleared up.

Not all the new rules are very good tho. The new rules for bunkers make my head spin with their sheer implausibility. Now a model in a bunker, an enclosed bunker with just firing slits, can be targeted and shot from outside, tho he gets a 3+ cover save, and apparently snipers like the dreaded vindicare assassin can target specific models inside a bunker. I gues sif you beging the game with a squad in a bunker you have to tell the player with the sniper what's in it so he can choose a target model. Holy Baloney, Batman!

As if that wans't bad enough, a bunker can no longer just be blown to fragments, it can only be breached. Sigh....

A plus is setting size classes for everything, including terrain, and clarifying the rules on cover saves anf what can claim a cove save from verious sized terrain.

A couple of things are deliberately wiped out in the new rules, including the unstoppable marine 'rhino rush" and the practice of screening good troops with cannon fodder. You can't assault out of a rushing vehicle anymore, and you can still try to screen your elite troops with redshirts, but if the enemy passes a Ld test he can ignore your screen and pepper the unit cowering.. er, I meant advancing, behind it.

Also units in vehicles that have been penetrated must now evacuate it at once. Altho if the vehicle survives the hit I guess they can re board it.....

All in all, the rules in the new ed are a slightly mixed bag that needed just a bit more detail and playtesting to make them much better. A few pages kore detailed rules and less modeling tips would have made it several times better. Sigh.

But the rules are only a small part of the new edition, and therein hangs a big problem. Well over half the new, hardcover only book (Where's the 30$ softback we were told would be an option, GW?!?!?!?!)is fluff, pretty pictures, modeling and painting tips, etc. In other words the same stuff we get in white dwarf, the codexes, ad infinitum.

I'm sick of buying the same background with new pictures in it at ever higher prices just to get some new rules.

All in all, 40K mk.4 is just a patch for 40k mk.3, and how would you like buying a computer game that was Ok but had some bugs and rough edges, then having the company that made it tell you the patch will cost as much as a whole new game on top of what you've already paid for the game?

Well, that's exactly what uncle GW is doing to 40k players now.

If this update had been done as a book and sold for 20 or so $ I would say it was worth it. As is I say having to pay 50$ to get the pretty book all loaded with junk you don't need and have mostly read before, or buying the new box set for 45$ and getting some new, cheaper made miniatures and a stripped down rules book is a ripoff.

In fact, the new edition of 40K may be the bbiggest ripoff GW has ever foisted onto it's gaming public.

Please don't buy the new rulebook. Maybe if enough gamers refuse to bend over for this it'll teach Uncle GW a lesson about screwing it's gamers.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Recent Forum Posts
Post TitleAuthorDate
RE: I disagree...RPGnet ReviewsDecember 14, 2004 [ 07:29 pm ]
RE: worst review ever?RPGnet ReviewsDecember 14, 2004 [ 07:28 pm ]
Clarifying a bit on the hardcover...RPGnet ReviewsNovember 15, 2004 [ 03:48 pm ]
RE: Packaging Issues with GWRPGnet ReviewsNovember 13, 2004 [ 07:30 pm ]
RE: Solution to your problemRPGnet ReviewsNovember 12, 2004 [ 06:18 pm ]
RE: Questions unanswered...RPGnet ReviewsNovember 12, 2004 [ 03:03 pm ]
RE: I disagree...RPGnet ReviewsNovember 12, 2004 [ 11:36 am ]
RE: Packaging Issues with GWRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 11:23 am ]
RE: Packaging Issues with GWRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 10:17 am ]
RE: Solution to your problemRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 09:37 am ]
worst review ever?RPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 09:30 am ]
Packaging Issues with GWRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 08:21 am ]
RE: A little supportRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 06:56 am ]
RE: worst review everRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 06:02 am ]
Solution to your problemRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 03:43 am ]
RE: A little supportRPGnet ReviewsNovember 11, 2004 [ 01:25 am ]
RE: A little supportRPGnet ReviewsNovember 10, 2004 [ 11:37 pm ]
RE: er uh actuallyRPGnet ReviewsNovember 10, 2004 [ 10:58 pm ]
RE: worst review everRPGnet ReviewsNovember 10, 2004 [ 09:18 pm ]

Copyright © 1996-2013 Skotos Tech, Inc. & individual authors, All Rights Reserved
Compilation copyright © 1996-2013 Skotos Tech, Inc.
RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech, Inc., all rights reserved.