Recently, I've been thinking quite a bit about how 4th Ed differs from 3rd, and I'm beginning to realize we're seeing in some respects a return to 2nd.

Anyone else notice that this edition, and its codices, are "annihilation 40K?"

Where're the protacted firefights, the locked close combats? This edition really reminds me of 2nd in that units either demolish or are demolished, and that's why so much of the game is about list, and the rest is terrain/deployment.

Instead of units fighting, which is what 3rd was about, the return of units to the game, instead of devastating special characters and heroes, units either chomp another unit, or get chomped.

It reminds me of chess, in that the game now seems to work that you straightup capture a unit or don't. if you rolled a die when you captured in chess- say, a pawn destroyed the unit capturing it on a 6, but a queen did on a 2+- that would be very much the game today. (Queen captures pawn, pawn rolls a 6, Queen is destroyed instead).

Anyone else notice this? I think this is where the list-emphasis comes from. You want to put in the maximum numbers of units that will totally overwhelm an opposing unit with low risk of dying themselves, rather than units that can absorb damage, etc.

I don't think I expressed the concept well, but it used to be viable to have units get "Stuck in," to grind down, making it to me a better, more realistic game. Now, if a unit's not wiping out other units outright, through shooting or sweeps, it's just not good enough at what it does. The new codices seem to support this.

I know force concentration is a tactical goal, I'm talking about the emphasis of the game mechanics and what emphasis they give the game.