Quote Originally Posted by Retrogamer View Post
As far as the consensus of how it's doing? I'm hearing of quite a few 2nd Edition players who were brought back by this edition. Not bad, I guess. I've also heard of even more post 3rd players quitting because of this one. The online communities have had an uptick in Oldhammer/Classichammer/Retrogaming clubs and groups, I'd say that is more than coincidental.
This is the problem with anecdotal data. The guy that you never met because he stopped playing in 1999 goes unseen, whereas the guy who played right up until the newest version came out draws your attention.

I'm of course one of those 2nd ed. guys whose curious about the game and would get "current" if the game was the breakthrough product I've been waiting for, but it sounds like once again GW failed to stick the landing. Giving the choice between using the flawed game I already own and buying another flawed game, I'll stick with what I have.

I have to say the terrain discussion is really concerning to me. At this scale, terrain should be the first thing you get right. The terrain rules in 2nd were pretty simple: Stand out in the open and expect to die. LOS was easy to achieve and ability to have units duck down ("hide") gave the feeling that you were dealing with actual troops, not just mobile statues.

Yes, it was difficult for low BS troops like Orks and IG to dislodge armored troops in cover - which is a real problem. The solution is either to shell them into oblivion or dig them out.

GW seems to have rejected yet again the idea that tactical puzzles should require a little more thought than "get em!" and power armor to solve.

More's the pity.